Answer.—1. The courts have repeatedly decided that “the sufficiency of residence and improvement is a question of fact to be decided from the circumstances of each case.” In the case of Copley versus Rell it was ruled that “where, from the nature of the land entered under the pre-emption law, it would appear that the claimant has selected it for speculative purposes rather than for purposes of improvement and cultivation, the evidences of good faith and occupation should be of the most satisfactory character.” And again, in the case of Porter versus Johnson, it was held that what constitutes residence within the meaning of the law “is simply a question of good faith, and each case must be considered upon its own merits.” In the case of Boyse versus Goss, it was held that “the statute requires inhabitancy on the land pre-empted and this means actual residence or a home.” In case of Southern Pacific Railroad versus Newton, it was held that “occupation and use of land for purposes other than cultivation, etc., do not constitute a pre-emption claim.” While the above rulings distinctly reveal the intent of the government to exact all that is essential to actual settlement and the maintenance of a home upon the land, there are other rulings which indicate that the law will be construed liberally so long as the above essentials are preserved. For example, it has been decided that “a party while having an actual residence on his claims, may work elsewhere for other people a few weeks at a time.” Again, “where a party is very poor, a dug-out in the side of a hill or a sod-house is a satisfactory residence, and four pre-emptors may combine to erect and occupy a house on the corner common to their claims, provided each pre-emptor resides in his own part of the house. Should one of them be unmarried he may board in the family of a married pre-emptor.” 2. The law makes no difference between married and unmarried pre-emptors. In construing it, as regards what constitutes residence, the last ruling above quoted indicates that the government is disposed to make some allowance for the unfortunate circumstances of a young man who has not found any girl willing to share his dug-out sod-house or tepee and cook his corn-dodgers and potatoes for the privileges of wifehood, including a dower interest in the estate. Married and unmarried pre-emptors must each make a final affidavit, declaring that they have complied with the law in every particular, are not disqualified by owning 320 acres of land elsewhere in any State or Territory of the United States, or by other reasons specified, and must file pre-emptor’s proofs in the form of sworn answers to questions furnished them on printed blanks, which must be accompanied by sworn testimony of two witnesses, taken separately, in the form of answers to questions stated in another set of printed blanks prepared by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, all designed to attest that the law as to continuous residence, cultivation, etc., has been complied with in good faith.
A FATAL FEINT.
Princeton, Ill.
Who was the young man who when walking on the brink of Niagara River, some years ago, in company with his intended bride and her little sister, accidentally tossed the latter into the rapids, and perished in the effort to save her? What was the child’s name, and how did it all happen?
James.
Answer.—It is related of a Mr. Addington, a son of Judge Addington, of Buffalo, that when standing on Luna Island, just above the Falls of Niagara, with a Miss De Forrest and her little sister, he seized the latter playfully, and, holding her over the brink, threatened to toss her into the river. The child, in a spasm of terror, sprang from his arms and fell into the edge of the fatal current. Instantly young Addington bounded after her, succeeded in seizing her, and caught a frail bush for support. Had this held they might both have been saved, but it gave way, and man and child were carried over the falls. The common traditions represent that Mr. Addington and Miss De Forrest, who was a very lovely young lady, were engaged to be married, and that in consequence of the terrible fate of her lover and sister she became insane. This was in 1844, or thereabouts.
TARANTULAS.
Kingman, Kan.