The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1909-10-02
IMPORTANT DECISION.

The register and receiver of the |
United States land office handed down
a decision in a contest case last week, |
holding that expenditures for improve
ments on desert claims after one year
from the date of entry had expired
do not constitute compliance with the
law and such expenditures can not be
considered as having been made dur
ing the year, and that where note
is given in payment for a water con-
tract such contract shall not be &C
cepted as a part of the expenditure
for improvements. The decision is in
the case of William L. Adcock VS..
Charles H. Skillins, the entry involved
being held for cancellation. SINH
lar order was made in the case of Will
liam l.. Adcock VS.. Claud A Skillings.
These contests involved adjoining 80
acre tracts in section 20, township 5
south, range east, and presenting
identical issues.
The decision is in part as follows:
when the delinquent notice was is
sued the first and second yearly
proofs were long overdue; they were
still overdue when the contest affi-
davit was filed. The law requires that
one dollar an acre shall be expended
| toward the reclamation of the land
during each of the first three years
| of the life of the entry. In this case
no work had been done on the land
during the first two years of the life
of the entry, nor until February 20,
| 1909. The contest was filed on Feb
ruary IL, 1909, and was held without
| issuance of notice, because of the is
suance of the delinquent notice. 1t
was apparent that entryman set about
| performing his work after receiving
| the delinquent notice. Had that no
tice not been issued, notice would have
been issued on the contest before the
time that work had begun. Since the
law requires that this annual work
shall be done during the year and
proof made before the end of the year
we are of the opinion that work thus
performed, long after the expiration
of the statutory time, will not defea
contest filed before any work wal
done and charging that the expendi
; ture required by law had not beel
made during the statutory period.
Payment by Notes.
There is evidence to the effect tina
: this entryman made contract Jul
%, 1906, with the Utility Powe
company ltd, to supply water TO
this land. certified copy of thi
contract or agreement is part of tn
record. This recites that the entry
man paid $4,000 in cash and gave hi
notes for deferred payments. The ties
timony in the case shows that moth
u ing whatever was paid. 1t is our opiT
ion that a contract of this kind, cal
ing solely for payments in the futur
entered into with promoters, cannot
1t pleaded as evidence of compliance wit
1t the desert land act.
N "A careful examination of the tel
timony will, in our judgment, satisi
and candid person that the statement
made by the contestant and his wi
lie nesses relative to the amount an
character of the work done on I'll
ct land constitute a fair presentation
n the facts. We do not think an anal!
to sis of the testimony is necessary
ar support that conclusion. AS mar
n points in the testimony offered by IL
contestee and his witnesses bear IL
y impress of exaggeration, it irresistab
suggests the theory construed as al
thorizing the filing of contest again
desert land for failure to offer annu
proof during the year.
u Proof Within Year.
al THE law on this point was mo
gu fully and completely construed in Il
IT. case of Stevenson VS.. Scharry, "a L.
eel 675. 1t was further held in the la
so ter case that even though annual pro
had not been offered within the ye
the entry would be protected fro
cancellation under contest If the r
C quisite annual expenditure had in ia
DIS been made. In that decision, the Il
he lowing language was employed:
he Contest for default of annual pro
tn may be defeated by proof subseque
ITS to its initiation, but prior to final a
set ton Hereunder, that the requisite a
nual expenditure was in fact made.
tie "It is reiterated over and over aga
en- in the decisions that the proof mt
Ter be made within the year. Failure
re- offer proof within the statutory til
I'D will subject the entry to cancellatiC
we