Mountain Home maverick. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1906-1911, 1910-09-01

''"IN' HRA'tNn NNI N'NNlANtI
in the land contest case of w. B.
Hyatt against Marcus A. Lamb. in
Volying homestead application for
the east half of the northwest quar-
ter and the west half Of the north
east quarter of section o. township
north, range5 west of the Boise
Meridian, i'm which decision was rem
dered Monday afternoon by the reg
ister and receiver Of the United Sta--s
land Office, holding that the contest
should be dismissed
The decision is in part as follows:
The land involved in the proceed
ings was formerly held 10y William w.
White under homestead entry That
entry was contested by Marcus A.
/ Lamb, the contestee. Lamb secured
a REIMBURSEMENT from White, and on
January 2S, 1909. he fled his ap-
plication for homestead on the land
the application being allowed the
same date
"On March ., 1910, Lamb made ape
rlication TO offer communication proof.
The application was denied for the
reason that the land Is covered by a
reclamation withdrawal and the en-
IliN ~ iAA|A'i'Ai I'' |N|I|I' ~ 'RAAi-
mutation
"On February 10. 1909. Hyatt nl-
ed his affidavit of contest. alleging
that the entry had been made for
speculttion purposes, and that the en-
tryman hae mortgaged the land be-
fore making the entry.
5 "lt is shown by the record that
Lamb on January 23, 1909. five days
before he made entry executed "a
p note for 5000 payable 90 Charles w.
: White, ! s months after date. this
note being secured by a mortgage exc
& ecuted on the same day. such mort
gage covering the west half north
I west quarter section .. said township
portion OF the land embraced IN
e this entry
{ william w. White. brother Of
e Charles W. White. testified this note
s was given as consideration for this
e witness refraining from defending
S the contest brought against Witness
r entry on this land by Lamb. Lamb
s testified the note and mortgage We're
q given as security for payment for the
e. improvements on the land at tlte
}. time White relinquished
n "It is quite evident to MS that
e. White. in his testimony on this point.
g. ondeavored TO make II appear that
j. he had not sold the relinQuishmcnt,
}. and that be had not sold the improve
d ments.
e "The rule of law. as we understand
s. II Is that if am entryman mortgage the
y land embraced i'm an entry for the
purpose of improving the land the
mortgage win hold good as against
him but not against the government
+. q "A. aIftI fU
" cure payment for the improvements
we think IL may properly be held that
it was given for the purpose Of im
t.. lproving the property We do not know
II why the mortgage was not given COW
.e ering that portion of the entry on
Ie which the Improvements are situated
'e but we are well satisfied IL was eiFci
re- for the improvements. or for the rc
d. linouishmont and the Improvements
Tx 1.-THE fact that Lamb gave thi
* mortgage before he made che entr'
10 does not. we think. indicate dab iaitl
le or an intention on his part 20 take th'
20 land for speculative purposes. thouel
the whole circumstances are such "a
id to leave these questions somewhat "a
ie doubt. We cannot find that the giv
er ing of the mortgage can be REGARDED
n as evidence that the land was takel
for speculative purposes. The testi
mony I'm connection with This mort
gage indicates that White was large
lg lv responsible for IT'S execution. as h
H. seems to have urged the mater upo
al Lamb.
r. Moreover White shows I'm his ov'
a- testimony that ne made use of thi
OF technical irregularity for the pui
n- pose of persuading Lamb not to max
I'm the entry. He does not go further tha
tv that but there are suggestions thru
ia Iout the case indicating that White. 4
ne some degree. held this technical ~
Sc regularity over Lambs head.
lc- Sit appears the mortgage was take
en- to Hyatt. an attorney, in order ina
no the later might collect the interes
lrt That is at least the way u is sen tort
en- in the testimony Hyatt investigate
1.-THE conditions, and determined 90 COZ
test the entry absorbing 70 the te'
ir- timony He secured notice nnt ialie
mn to serve IT, setting forth later he ha
err not been able 10 fnd his entryma'
M When notice was again issued,
av secured service. We would not be ju
tilted I'm basing our action on TIA
failure of Hyatt to secure service M
der first notice. but since It is show
ace THAT Lamb was I'm the neighborhoo
j. Iand could easily have been found, Cd
ON fact is very suggestive TO our mine
he that there may have been some pu
pose IN delaying the service.
esi "If this entryman had offered con
ing mutation proof, and II tne lac
er- brought out at this hearing had con
nd to the knowledge of the governme'
as then the government would have r
ior iected proof ana cancelled 'he emu
on such showing