Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-09-22
N
/ DESERT ENTRIES
HELD ILLEGAL
Supreme Court Declares
That Congress Never In
tended Entries Should Be
Made Through Dummies.

It was not the intention Of congress
in enacting desert land laws to permit
desert entries to be made by persons
who were to be dummies for others or
by persons who had no intention to ie-
claim the land but relinquish 1t to 9TH
ers to be held temporarily merely for
the purpose Of speculation, according
to an opinion handed down late yes
terday In the case of Otto A. Altschul
versus Charles f. Rogers, an action to
recover on q prOmissory note In which
judgment was given for Rogers in the
Fourth judicial district court, Judge
Walters presiding. and Altschul APP
pealed. The supreme court afiirms The
judgment of the lower court John
Garrett, former manager of the de-
funct Great Western company, Is Sc
verely drilled. The opinion was writ
ten by Justice Sullivan and is con-
Cured in by Chief Justice Stewart and
Justice Ailshie.
Grew Out Of CARROTS Transactions.
The litigation grew out of the trouble
lat Mountain Home over the Great
Western Beet Sugar Irrigation
project. Action was brought to recover
apoit n iotC SNSSueSo w
Rogers. May II, 1908, In favor of the
Great Western Beet Sugar company.
for $780, with interest at the rate of
u per cent from that date. Upon the
note there was credit OF 500. Rogers
had bought a water right from the
company for 800 acres OF land, for
which he was to pay $4,000 or st the
rate of $50 per acre. He paid $1,000 in
cash and gave two notes for $1,000 each.
1t appears that he was to secure re-
!linquishment of former filing on the
land without cost to him and that ne
did pay 500 for the REIMBURSEMENT.
which was placed to his credit The
court states the record shows John
Garrett, former manager of the de-
funct company, entered into an agree
ment with Altschul by which he agreed
to pay him $3.50 for a certain desert
entry REIMBURSEMENT. The payments
were to be made as Garrett would need
the land for locating parties to whom
he had sold water rights As security
on his deal Altschul exacted from Gar
rett water right for 500 acres Of
land and in addition to that the note
in litigation. The entry, 100 acres, cost
Altschul about 500, and shortly after
he had made the deal Garrett took
over so acres of the entry and paid
Altschul $3.50 cash, leaving the other
so acres still in the control Of Altschul
Fraud and Misrepresentation.
The court takes occasion to score
Garrett in no uncertain terms. In his
opinion Justice Sullivan says in part:
1T appears that Garrett had sold
r,rtn IN
acres of land. part of which had gone
back to the company, leaving about
$4,000 acres for which water had been
sold. 1t further appears that the capa-
city of the entire water system belong
ing to said company was not sufficient
to irrigate more than four or five thou
sand acres of land.
| This history of. that company shows
| that Garrett, as manager. had, through
his false and fraudulent representa-
tons, sold water for $4,000 acres Of
land. when in fact they did not have
water for more than four or five thou
sand acres: that the appellant lived in
Mountain Home for many months and
had full information in regard to the
transactions of Garrett in selling water
rights. He had purchased eight Diff
ferent water rights from Garrett him
self and sold seven Of them to other
people. when there was no water back
Of such water rights whatever. He
was engaged in trafficking in fraudu-
lent, dry water rights. He was also
specializing in accomplishments of fill
ings on public land
Government Defrauded.
| He evidently procured persons to
make entries who were to be his dunn
mies-procured assignments of the en-
tries from them and held the assign
ment up until he could make transfer
to some other person.
Such practice, IL not criminal, is
clearly a fraud upon the government.
To permit such transaction as is shown
| to have occurred in this case. of get =
ting ACCOMPLISHMENTS and then holding
them UP for speculative purposes Is
clearly against the spirit and intent of
the law.
| The object of the homestead law
was to furnish homes to the citizens
OF the government and to encourage
the settlement Of Its public domain.
| and to make the accession of these
homes as easy and cheap as possible,
and not to wantonly and senselessly
place distractions In the way of such
acquisition. The same rule ought to
be applied to desert entries when II
clearly appears that the entry is made
by person who does not intend to
comply with the law, but makes II
for the purpose OF speculation in the
REIMBURSEMENT Of his filing and to
prevent others from entering the land
Fraud Psrpetratsd.
| "Altschul had received from Garrett
the promissory note as security on a
contract out Of which he. had already
retted $3.50 and still retained one-half
OF the land involved in the transaction
| He knew that the promissory note
was given for a water right that never
existed and that a fraud had been
perpetrnted upon the respondent In or
der to procure said note. and that no
consideration was given for said note
1.-THE evidence IL amply sufficient Ia
shift the burden Of proof upon Alt
schul to show that he acquired the