The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1910-01-01

home located in another locality, after
making a homestead entry and when |
the law requires constant residence. |
caused ,rthur o. Huntley to lose the
land he had filed on through a de
cision rendered by the register anG
receiver of the Boise land office Tues
day wherein it is held that his final
proof should be rejected and the entr,
cancelled. Contest was brought by In, |
Government. The land involved is for |
lot 2, section 80, west half OF the NV
quarter, northwest quarter Of the sw
quarter, section 20, twp. p, range 3
west.
The entry was made by Hdntley
June /, 1906, and on June 20, 1903,
the entryman offered final proof which
was protested by the chief of the field
division. who charged that the entry
man did not establish and maintain
residence on the land to the exclusion
of a homo elsewhere. This charge
was unusual and made more so by
the direct denial of the entryman
who demanded a hearing Yet it was
shown conclusively that the entryman
owned $500 ranch in the Indian
Creek country, Washington county,
near Cuprum. At the time he made
the homestead filing he was living on
the Indian Creek farm.
In their decision the register and
receiver say:
an our judgment, it is not neces-
sary to go far beyond the testimony
of the contestee himself in order TO
arrive at the proper solution of the
question presented Mr.. Huntley does
not in his own testimony claim to have
made such a residence on this home
stead entry as would entitle him to
patent under the homestead law. He
saws he considered it his residence to
the exclusion of a home elsewhere
but there is nothing in his testimony
to show that he maintained such resi-
dence on the land as is required BY
the law. On the contrary, his testi-
mony affirmatively shows, in our judg-
ment, that he did not maintain such a
residence to the exclusion of a home
stead elsewhere.
"The witness put on the stand by
the government testified that Mr..
Huntley spent some time each winter
feeding cattle on the homestead and
that he made visits to the place dur
ing the summer months. Not only
does this testimony stand mistaken,
but that introduced on behalf of the
contestant is actually corroborated by
the testimony offered on behalf of the
entryman.
Returning to the testimony of Mr.
Huntley we desire to call attention tc
some features as to which there is nc
possible explanation that would bene
fit the entryman's case. We have al
ready called attention to the fact thai
he built a fine home on his lndiar
Creek place furnished it elegantly ant
installed his family there. That is
strange thing for a man to do VIII
is holding a homestead entry ant
knows that before he can secure It'll
to it he must show that he has main
tanned home on the land to the ex
clusion of home elsewhere.
1--WE now come to a most remarka
BILE feature of this entryman's test
mony When he was cross-questione'
relative to his absences from IN
homestead, being asked how long n
was away from the place each yea
he declined to make any statemeh
whatsoever on the subject. As to eac
year he said he could not say. Home
stead entrymen, unless they be men
great ignorance, know they must b
able to make this showing, and ye
Mr.. Huntley, man who appears
be of superior intelligence, would no
venture when giving his testimony
in his case, to make any statement
to the aggregate time he was abser
from this land during any one S'"