OCR Text |
Show GENERAL LAND OFFICE The Case of Kennelly vs. The Territory of Utah and Others is Attracting At-tracting A GSEAT DEAL OF ATTENTION. A History of the Issue and Question! That are Involved in the Trial. There is very much more than ordinary ordin-ary interest manifested in the termination termina-tion of the trial between James Ken-nelly Ken-nelly vs. The Territory of Utah and other claimants which is now going on before the general commissioner of the land ofliee. On its decision will largely depend tho classification of other portions por-tions of the public domain which is now-designated now-designated as school land. The present pres-ent case iuvolves a value in money aggregating ag-gregating probably $300,000, certainly not an insignificant amount, and should it result favorably to the plaintiff. Ken-nelly, Ken-nelly, there are other lands which will probably be susceptible of location under tho mineral entry laws. The history of the present case runs like this: "The land was first located three years ago by William Sullivan and associates under the general placer mining laws; all of wliom sold their I claims amounting to4M acres, to James Kennellev, who lias worked it evet since for the clay as well as other minerals min-erals it contains, of which some very line pottery is made as well as a glazed brick, which brings a high prb.e on the market. From the clay a price is do-rived do-rived of 25 cents a ton, the purchaser mining in from the banks which are in some places ten feet thick. This clay has been opened up on each of the ten acre tracts. After Sullivan had gotten hold of the land, other parties including one Clark appreciating its value, tried to make a placer entry, but found that they been anticipated. When Kennelley had done the $500 worth of improvement and developments develop-ments necessary to secure a patent, pat-ent, Clark entered a protest in iu the land ofliee. claiming the land was . non-mineral in its character and was more valuable for agricultural purposes. pur-poses. The commissioner of the local land office, acting on this protest, ruled that the contestant had a right to the he'aring of tho issue before the application applica-tion for publication would be ullowciL The trial of the case now is for tho purpose of showing the nature of the land, the defendants claiming it is valuable val-uable for agriculture oniy, which the plaintiffs deny, as tho parties claiming it for farming have no water right and thatit is not susceptible of cultivation without irrigation, which is not possible possi-ble us there is no water in that section. I. . |