Mountain Home maverick. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1906-1911, 1910-03-10
lCapital Newsl

Bad faith on the part Of the entry
man cannot consistently cure their
laches and they should not be allowed
to retain their entry, according to a
decision handed down by the register
and receiver of the Boise land Office
in the contest case of Dan w.
Shelter against Laura ]. Beach in
which they hold the entry for can
collation. The land involved is To-
Gated in the vicinity of Mountain
Home and is a desert entry described
as Lots 2 and 3; Section %, Town
ship South, Range s East
This entry was made February IS,
1906. On November IS, 1909, this
contestant filed his affidavit of con-
test, alleging that Laura J. Beach had
not expended to exceed 500 in the
irrigation, reclamation and cultiva-
ton, or for the construction of canals
or bitches, or for the purchase Of
water rights for the irrigation Of, or
for permanent improvements on, or
for the benefit of said land
Testimony was taken in the case
before the United States commission
er at Mountain Home on January z,
1910.
AS originally made, this entry COW
cred Lots and 3, Section p, Town
ship 5, S. r. 5, E. embracing 1O1.10
acres. On March 13, 1909, an APP
plication was made to amend the
entry to its present description,
which embraces $3.50 acres. This
application being allowed on septem-
Der "a. 1903.
On February IS, 1907, the first an
nual proof was filed, showing an ex-
penditure Of $12O On January g.,
1909, the entrywoman was notified
that she was in default on her second
annual proof. She filed such proof
on January 20. 1909, showing an ex-
penditure of sos. On February 8,
1910, third annual proof was filed,
showing an expenditure of S160, and
on the same date an application was
filed for extension of time within
which to offer final proof
G. Vansittart. a civil engineer. Dan
w. Shelter, Joseph A. Mineau. JOIN
w. Caldwell, Arthur Williams, CLARK
Frampton. r. N. Wheeler and other.
testified in this case.
In their decision, the register anf
receiver say: I'VE are entirely sat
isfed that the testimony offered b,
the witnesses for the contestant fal
more nearly reflects the facts thar
that offered by the witnesses for thu
contestee. That is upon the face O
the testimony as it stands. Looking
deeper into the case, we find that II
the second annual proof offered b.
this entrywoman. John w. Caldwell
and Clark Frampton acted as wit
nesses. Attention should be agaii
called to the fact that this proc
was not offered until January %
1909. and then only after a delin
Quent notice had been issued froT
this Office. 1t is testified throughou
that no work was done in 1907 othe
than that which was performed earl
in the year for the purpose of frs
annual proof. In connection with TIL
second annual proof. John w. Cal,
wei and Clark Frampton, both {
whom served as witnesses in thes
contest proceedings. testified thi
sos had been expended on this Ian
during the second year.
The reading of the testimony o
fered by some Of the witnesses f,
the contestee suggests, as has bee
stated, that it was not candid. Tv
of these witnesses were Clark Fran
ton and John w. Caldwell. Whe
we find that in January. 1909. the
made affidavit that work was dol
on this land during the year betwe'
January 10, 1907, and February
1908, we are further satisfied tn
their testimony in the contest matt
is not to be fully accepted. These ty
men, employer and employe, testi
in the contest proceedings that wo
was done for Beach on this entry.
this proof they testify work was do
for Beach during the second year
the entry, whereas it is shown clear
and without contradiction. that
work was done during the period
to which they gave their testimo
in connection with such second q
nual proof They stand discredit'
Witness Beach never did know II
these people did the work that
claims they performed He says II
he saw a track plowed. He civ
the acreage. but though he clai
to have paced it. he would not W
ture to give the dimensions of eitl
tract His testimony is discredil