Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1912-08-03
ENTRYMAN FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH DESERT LAND LAW
Register and Receiver Of the Boise
Land Office Hold Entry Of
Roy Bowman for
Cancellation

The construction of a fence around
desert land entry does not consti.
tute sufficient expenditure to cover
the first and second year proof of
the entry when no other improve
ments are made and especially when
the fence itself was not entirely com.
pleted. This is the ruling laid down
by the register and receiver of the
Boise land office in the contest case
of David d. Anderson versus Roy A.
Bowman and they therefore hold the
entry made by Bowman for cancella-
tion, sustaining the contest.
The land involved in the entry is
valuable. 1t is described as the s
VIZ of the SEN, E1a of the SWA
SEW OF theNWA, section g., twp IL
north. range west. Bowman made
the entry on January IS, 1910 and
application to contest was filed on
January %, 1912. The allegations of
contest were that the entryman had
not expended the sum Of 81 per acre
towards the reclamation of the land
during the first and second year.
A Mass Of Testimony
In their opinion the Register and re-
ceiyer say:
The sole question to be deter
mined is whether the reasonable cost
OF certain fence constructed on this
entry was sufficient expenditure to
cover the first and second years of
the entry. Nothing was done on the
entry beyond building this fence.
The fence was partially constructed
the first year and partially during
the second year 1t is claimed, how
ever. that the second years work
had not been finished at the expir-
alton Of that year.
There Is mass of testimony by
persons who qualify as being COM
petent to pass upon such questions,
this testimony relating to the reason
able cost OF construction of a fence
OF this character. We do not deem
1t necessary to go into this evidence
In detail. Some of the witnesses tes-
tify as their Impressions that a
reasonable cost Of this fence was
about $3.50. Others went into some de
tail. Some of the latter gave their
at about $3.50 or $40 Many
OF the witnesses testifying to the cost
OF such work were some who had re-
Gently fenced In that vicinity. One
Of these, E. d. Ford, testified to be-
Ing the owner of rs miles of fencing.
He testified that fence on this entry
the cost OF which is now under exam
nation, would not exceed rs cents
q rod.
"We have gone over this testimony
very carefully and have made an es-
Innate Of our own based on what seems
TO be the material facts In the case,
and find that a reasonable cost Of
the fence was considerably lessthan
5000.
Fence Not Sufficient
Another feature Of this case is that
the fencing on this land does not con-
stitute an enclosure. There Is 100
rods of fencing, one side OF one 40
being unfenced. There is nothing on
his land that needs protection by fenc-
ng. Nothing, however, has been done
toward constructing ditch or cult
waiting the land. 1t Is we'll establish
I'd rule that fencing to be applicable
IN annual proof of expenditure must
Dc for the purpose of protecting some
hing on the land. 1t is also a rule
hat is necessarily incident to the
,ther that fencing must constitute an
enclosure, enclosing the land on
which the thing or things to be pro-
ected are found. On this land there
vas nothing whatever to be protect
I'd, so far as We can discover from
his testimony, and II there had been
his fence could not have protected
t since dt did not constitute an en-
closure.
For the reasons We have herein
let forth, We find the allegations of
contest have been sustained, and that
he entry should be cancelled. -
,apital News.