The DeFuuiak Springe Breeze calls attention to an important court de cision in the following article: “The decision of Judge Swayne in the case of the LA’. 8. ve. the J. J. Mc. Caekill Co, recently, was one of far reaching import, and one that is likely to being about considerable trouble in land matters. The case, as we under stand it, is about as follows: W. J. Ward entered the land in question as a homestead, and in due course of time made his final proof thereon, after ward selling the land to McCaskill. An investigation by an agent of the de partment made it appear that Ward had not complied with the law ae to improvement and residence thereon, and the government brought suit to cancel the patent, alleging fraud on the part of Ward. As Ward was no longer the owner, suit was brought against McCaskill as the then owner of the land. (ordinarily it would seem that McCaskill, as an imnogient pur chaser, should not have been molested, but the election of the court would seem to hold that the purchaser of land must know that the title of the greator was good and that if McCas kill bought the land without seeing it, and so did not know that Ward had complied with the law, or having seen it and in eodeling became aware of the fact that the law had not been com plied with, did so at his own risk Heretofore a government patent has been taken to be the best possible tithe, but under the construction of the law there is a broad chance for a real many presumably good titles to be set aside and innocent purchasers even to the fourth, fifth or even tenth transfer be the oictim. The case, aside from this feature, is in line with the fact that we have called attention to so many times within the last twelve months; that ie, that the government is going to insist an absolute com pliance with the lecter and spirit of the homestead laws. If you have not complied with the law you had best either get very busy along that line, OF Hot Attempt to make the proof