El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-07-18
Las CRUCES LAND
CASE IS DECIDED
Van Patten Wins His Suit
For Dripping Springs
Resort.

Las Cruces, N. NJ, July 1S--The land
contest case of Nathan E Boyd VS..
Eugene Van Patten has been decided
by the commissioner of the general
land office on appeal The local Off
GERS are reversed, the commissioner
giving the land to Van Patten.
This contest is the most important
land litigation in this district, as it
involves title to a portion of what is
known as Dripping Springs Ranch"
The homestead entry of Van Patten
originally covered the west one-half
of the northwest one-quarter and east
one-half of the northwest e-quarter
of section z, T. % south, range east.
This entry was made on July "a, 1893.
by. Van Patten, and was admitted TO
final proof May %. 1896.
In October 1904, Nathan E. Boyd
made homestead entry for the south.
east one-quarter OF the northeast one
quarter and the northeast one-quarter
of the southeast one-quarter of sec
ton II, T. % south, range east,
which joins a portion of the land pat
ented to Van Patten.
Later Mr.. Boyd made application to
make additional homestead entry COW
ering lot 8 and the northeast one.
quarter of the southwest quarter
Of section 7. which joined Van Patten
on the south. Van -Patten likewise
filed an application to amend his
Homestead entry to include the above
tract as applied for by Boyd This
resulted in a hearing at which the
entry of Boyd was Cancelled as to the
north one-half of the southwest one
quarter of section Z, and Boyd accord
ingly filed contest against Van Pat
ten on August 10, 1909.
Boyd's Contest.
In the affidavit Of contest filed by
Boyd it was alleged that Van Patten
did not make his home on the tract
on which he made final proof, that in
stead of making his home on the land
the entryman resided in Las Cruces
and was a registers voter in Las
Cruces. This contest was rejected by
the general land office, but later the
department of the interior reversed the
commissioner and directed that a
hearing be held.
It was then decided by the depart
ment of the interior that it was within
the jurisdiction of the department to
inquire into the act of settlement and
residence. of the claimant in a case
where q patent has been granted and
the claimant desires TO amend the en-
try, and accordingly a hearing was
held. before the local. land office on
November %. 1910.
Settled in 1889.
At the hearing it developed that Van
Patten made settlement in 1889 or
1890 by placing a few tents on the
tract and later he built rock house
and the place was used as a resort by
residents Of Las Cruces from that time
on. that Van Patten continued to re-
side in Las Cruces. although he con-
tinued TO improve his homestead, and
that while, he registered and voted in
a different precinct from the one in
which his land was located, this in
itself did not make his home in Las
Cruces.
IT appeared from the testimony in
the case that Van Patten spent large
portion of his time on the homestead,
but this was made necessary by his
operating the place as resort, and
not because he made the same his
home.
The point at issue appeared to be as
to whether Van Patten wholly failed
To maintain a residence on the tract
involved, and on the above allegation
II was decided by the register and
receiver that Van Patten did not main
tain a residence on the land in ques-
ton and that he did reside in Las
Cruces. and the entry of Van Patten
for the land in controversy was there
fore rejected.
Final Decision.
On appeal the commissioner of the
general land office decided that Van
Patten was in business in Las Cruces.
had made a home there for upward
of 40 years That during the period
while Van Patten was acquiring title
70 his homestead he had a sleeping
room at the Alameda, where he trans
acted business at a distance about IL
miles from Las Cruces. But from the
testimony Of the witnesses for Van
Patten it appeared that he resided
greater portion of the time on his
homestead between 1890 and 1896
It is further decided by the commits
sioner of the general land office that
while the residence Of Van Patten was
undoubtedly on the land, still the mere
fact of his voting in another precinct
should not. constitute cause for &C
ton against Van Patten, and as he
testified that he believed he was living
in precinct No 20 while living on his
homestead, the decision of the local
office is reversed and the land given
TO Van Patten subject to the usual
RIGHT Of appea1 by BOYD