An Important Land Office Decision.• : . ...‘ V. :WV1')IIOn the ?*eond day of July. 18114, Boaiiio Chaves filed !.«nie*tead No. 724, for the • | j111 M J. see. 2fi, Ip. llf south raogti w*#t alleging i«eMlement.On January 4. im, Obadiah C. Stiver flled an affidavit a tucking #akl homesteadMo. 724, alleging that Mid Basil io ChaveshnJ wholly ihimhutd arid tract* tod bad jl maorad hit residence for more than sis MI3Emonth# aft?r making raid entry, nor he* said Chaves cultivated or improved the land aa is required by law. Upon thia statement of fact* thia office ordered hearing, and notice was laauil Iwuty 7. 1384, Mid hearing Lad j February 15. 1M6.The taatimony on behalf of the plaintiffgpaa to aim* Mil the Improve mania of the land te question, a * aw a } ue |,wc. 96,11tp. II, south ranges west, con#;#;* of ah small “j*c*r mada of pole*, a •mall piec# of fanee, \alua about flO to $15. and that 11_ ABasilio Chaves has not reaided upon aaidpland nor cultivated estnt. Even this tcati-111 mony ia vague and unsatisfactory. On page ' tie J. OH* napt he cannot give any ideaof value of improvement#. On page .1 be ♦snoot Mf positively that the land was cultivated. In answer to whether or not there are any household p ; good* or aign of occupancy in the cabinf*|| M mtwm 1% “I mui laubad ha tha nUn,J and on paged teaiiflas that Its don't know BI wbar# dat endac i dam Is living,page 6 witness aimiu that defendant might lived there from June to November without111IIIhi* knowing it TU mxi ft mm toiboui th# MM ct», with perhaf* a littlw morf flrmniti1• •rx'O,ftiIlit »tinfIiff tlm defendant la clear, and is effected upon crum examination. Itis ccnelu*ively shows that Bas.lio C'bivrt^ * * *' fcL. ^ qWV*.p • , ^. J* W* “ *’ ’ . y ~ . *£• y v* 9 * * * V * / * '* s ‘ . * *- “V* I \ *.*•.* * *Vvhas lived upon thia land for seven yen*. and BiNMnWI the satr.e and raised ctope ' i thereon fur tour yeart. Has two house*, one * | adobe and one store, corral fences, ea, me. That theae improvement* are located upon different pcrtiona of the land. Th* plaintiff then introduces L. J.to show the! Chaves’ irapraatpwait are n« tupon tha land in question, hut are about 70 yard* from te* line of the land described, #| j nw |, a | ne |, sec, 26, tp. 11, south rang* S «eat. Thia feet is tat clearly established* and granting that such was th* case, “when a house waa built CO yards outside the line* of bit claim, but was occupied by him in good faith, it will be regarded as a constructive rts denc* upon the land.** .;vf|, * • : • Talking ton vs. ikmpfling, 2 L. D., 46*FbytaiPM H gpns. case Copp, public land,tal. 1,1 Letter, **$.1P(.* . viriitiIliIO.icd hHk being apparent from the value of the improvements and aafcafpraeuiptcr, hia temporary absence are held to be ex-caaad by tba exegenciea of business. • •Lauven Dunlap, IL. D. 615; Underwood va.Eves, 2 L. D., 601 Danger from boatil* Indiana, is a valid ti* cusa for tempi rary abaoncowhen naidcncebaa baa* actually e.ulUabad. Tbar* ,*y.\. ‘ ; y.‘.t ■‘iNi/'iwi.jIB 4 :i! ,** •• ••'•( M .*• •* lt;* * ■ * ••• . •, !* s ,.y.j 1 ? .’.*•to show ;he want of good faith on the part of Chares, while the flimsy evidence[ aflhrad by the plaintiff in support of bis} c aim. which is based sulely upon a poMible error in Chaws’ buiidinca, being 70 yarJsl tufl of laud described in bis homestead entry# give# it the appearance of k» attempt tlt;. defeat the right of a b r, a fid# settlar upun a mere technicality, Tins elate of litigation pipb*dfflfouraged. Tb* (omest is there-, at d Chares’ antry sustained. L ■musd G. Shields, Register, I fc