The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1910-01-01
IMPORTANT DECISION BY
The BOISE LAND OFFICF

from II, date OF entry until the date
OF proof.
But this is not ali that is disclosed
IN tins second. The cntryman was
asked relative to statements he made
on ilnaI PROOF as to absences from tho
entry. IIc parried these questions ur-
III ne was pinned down in such man
neI that he was obliged to make .
statement. He then explained tb,r
,hc absences as to which he made h.
sworn statement at th1 time of prn,f
were Essences from tho state. He v,.
asked at the time Of making proof how
long he was absent from the entry
lie gave thos answers in responsr f.,
that question, and now ne goes uuoo
he stand and in the face Of cross-cx-
ANIMATION he explains that his tcsti
mony on final proof was as to all
'ences from the state. No comment is
needed upon this feature of this case
1t shows this entryman has not acted
IN good faith in making final proof.
and it discredits every claim that he
makes in connection with this entry.
4
A feature brought out in the testi-
mony is that this entryman, "a days
before filing his homestead application,
decided 800 acres OF land to his wife.
consideration, love and affection.
While that transaction was technically
legal, it nevertheless was Of such
character that it must put US on guard
in examining the testimony in this
case, as it reflects a spirit of bad faith
in some degree.
Nh. Huntley states he had his In
| dian Greek ranch rented from Octob-
er l6, 1906, until the time he offered
final proof. We do not believe he had
his Indian Greek ranch rented. To be
sure, one, or perhaps two, of these
witnesses speak of it's having been
rented. One of these witnesses on
cross-examination stated very frank
ly that the man purporting to be the
tenant was Mr. Huntley's foreman,
and did things as Mr.. Huntley direct
ed. If Mr.. Hun1ey had this place
rented he should have introduced
some more definite testimony on the
subject. We believe the leasing Of the
property was like his absences from
I thc homestead, as stated on final
proof. We do not believe the claim OF
having put the home on that land out
of his own hands is now made in gooo
faith.
Counsel for the contestee has pre-
sented one of the strongest briefs II
support of his clients interests tina
has come under our observation II
this office. In this grief he quotes
from the case of Higgins VS.. Wells
3, L. D., 81, in which the secretar!
states. The homestead law is prac
teal law and is so devised that l
NAV have a practical enforcement.
THAT is perfectly true. In ever,
case the government seeks to ind
! way to make a practical and equlta
BILE application of the provisions 0
, the law. This rule, announced by IN
4 secretary, does not, however, lmpl
that the law can be twisted in such
manner as to enable a mans llVlh
upon and carrying on business
one nlace to secure additional land b
pretending residence thereon. On II
contrary. the law and all the deel
4 ions under it, aim to contlne u
= granting of title under the act
= those who, in entire good faith el
; deayor to comply with its provision
: In this case the entryman has mae
/ improvements on the entry and
has cultivated the entry, but ne III
8 M. maintained such home there
. the exclusion of home elsewhere,
: Is contemplated by the homestead lie
= islation. He has endeavored TO MAJ
:, tain two homes; that was impoSs'o
=, II, has necessarily failed, and II
: our Judgment that his final pro
:, should he rejected and his entry ca
II ccllcd.