The Rathdrum tribune. (Rathdrum, Idaho) 1903-1963, 1906-06-15
full TEXT Of DECISION.
By Land Dept. in Timber
and Stone Contest.
BAUDRY VERSUS DOWNS.
Downs Adjudged to Have Made
Entry in Good Faith.

Some interest having been aroused
by the recent decision Of the U. S.
land department in which Robert
Downs, by appeal from the land
Office of Occur d'Alene, won the case
entitled, "Hector Baudry VS.. Roht
Downs, involving the purchase by
Downs Of certain 40 acre tract nv
timber and stone entry, the TRiisUNH
has been requested to publish the de.
cision. Following is the decision In
full as addressed to the register and
receiver:
Register and Receiver,
Occur d'Alene, Idaho.
Sirs:
With your letter of December
6, 1905, you transmitted the record
of the contest of Hector Baudry VS..
Robert Downs, from which the fol-
lowing facts appear:
August Bird, 1904, Robert Downs
filed In your Office his sworn state
ment No. 1916 for the purchase Of
the Mel SCI, Sec. 81, +, SO NJ, II.
4 w., under the T. & S. Act. Proof
was set for October, 10Th, 1904, on
which date Downs appeared with his
witnesses and submitted proof.
On the same date Hector Baudry,
In behalf of himself and other set
tiers 10 the vicinity, appeared and
fled protest against said proof al
leging that said land Is not applied
for In good faith for either the stone
or timber thereon, for the same is a
steep piece Of mountain containing
no timber Of any value nor stone
valuable for any purpose; that affiant
verify believes the prostee has applied
for said land for the purpose OF con-
/ trolling certain springs of water 10
Gated thereon and depriving protest.
ant and many others Of the use of
the water or said springs for domestic
, and agricultural purposes. which they
have used and enjoyed for over ten
years.
Wherefore afiiant prays that a hear
ing be ordered; that said proof he re.
jected and that the water thereon be
reserved for aiiiant and others, who
have appropriated the same for do.
nestle and agricultural purpose, aud
that the same be reserved by the
government of the United States.
Hearing of said protest was ordered
i to be had before you on Dec. 5th 1904
notice of which you gave by registered
letter addressed to the attorney whit
appeared FOR Downs at the taking O.
the proof.
On the date named all parties ap
peared and the attorney for prOteste'
filed special appearance for the pur
pose Of objecting to your jurisdiction
upon the ground that notice had no
been served In accordance with tn
rules of practice and the service b.
registered letter upon the attorne
who appeared in the matter of tn
proof, was not sufficient to confe
Jurisdiction.
You denied the motion and test
mony was submitted by both parties
1t is held that tie service wa
sufficient; Jurisdiction was acquire
over the II. & S. applicant, by hi
application and proof and a protes
having been filed on the date set fo
the proof, notification to the appl
can't Of the date set for hearin
upon that protest by registered lette
addressed to his attorney, and
having received the same, was SUI
fcient to call him into court on th
matters alleged in the protest.
The testimony submitted by pre-
testant shows that 1t was not tt
purpose to attack the character
the land, or to show that it was mol
valuable for agricultural purpose
The sole purpose of the protest W;
, for the purpose of preventing prostt
from making the entry for the SO
reason that there was a spring ,
water on this forty acres that the al
joining settlers had been using f,
domestic purposes and they we
afraid that this water would be d