USA > California > Santa Clara County > History of Santa Clara County, California : including its geography, geology, topography, climatography and description > Part 22
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90
The District Attorney declined to argue the questions discussed by claim- ants, observing that the controversy was one in which the United States had not the slightest interest; the grant was unquestionably valid, and the land had already been confirmed to Martinez, the appeal in whose case had been dismissed by order of the Attorney General. He further observed, that no decision of this Court could in any way determine private rights in the parties to land admitted not to belong to the United States, and to which the full legal and equitable title was already vested in private individuals.
The District Attorney was understood to say that he interposed no objec- tion to a confirmation to the present claimant, if the Court was of opinion that such a decree should be entered.
It has heretofore been decided by the Board and this Court that third persons have no right to intervene in these proceedings to ascertain whether land claimed under titles derived from the former Government is public or private land. As the decree of this Court and the patent issued under it cannot effect the rights of any parties, except the United States and the claimants, it seemed manifestly improper to allow an inquiry, instituted to ascertain the rights of the United States, and to determine what was private and what public land, to be controverted into a complicated series of cross ejectments between various private claimants, and this, where the decision of the Court could not in any event decide the rights litigated before it. The only course, therefore, to be adopted was to confirm to the claimant whenever he, by a deraignment of title prima facie regular, showed himself to be the owner of a valid grant.
This mode of proceeding involved, it is true, the apparent anomaly of con- 13
194
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
firming in some cases the same land to different persons claiming under the same original grant. But as cach suit was separate, and as the Court could not enter into questions of adverse private rights, this anomaly was not to be avoided. Had the present claimant been permitted to intervene in the case of Martinez, he perhaps might have shown, as he claims to have done in this case, that the alleged conveyance to Martinez was fabricated or inoperative. As he was not permitted to do so, it seems equally improper to allow that conveyance to be introduced into this case, nominally on the part of the United States, but really on the part of Martinez, to defeat the claim of Peralta to a confirmation, which if it were not for that conveyance he would be clearly entitled to. Besides, if the validity of that conveyance is to be passed upon by this Court, Martinez should be heard, and allowed to intro- duce testimony. The District Attorney has neither any interest nor power to represent him. To the United States it is indifferent whether the land belongs to both the original grantees, or to Martinez alone.
To refuse to confirm this claim, is a recognition of the validity of a con_ veyance which may be liable to grave objections. But to confirm the claim, is merely to give to the claimant a right to a deed from the United States, relinquishing and quit-claiming any supposed title they might have been deemed to possess, and the reception of which merely puts the claimant on an equal footing with his adversary, and enables both to contest with equal evidence of title from the United States their adverse rights before the ordi- nary tribunals. I think that the only course to be adopted is to confirm this claim, and to leave the question of ownership inter partes to be litigated before the tribunals having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the con- troversy. A decree must be entered accordingly.
J. W. REDMAN et al., claiming part of the Orchard of Santa Clara, Appel- lants, vs. THE UNITED STATES.
The claim must be rejected, on the ground that the bona fides of the grant have not been sufficiently established by the evidence.
Claim for about ten acres of land in Santa Clara county, rejected by the Board, and appealed by the claimants.
The claimants have produced in evidence a grant purporting to have been made by Pio Pico, on June 30, 1846, conveying the orchard of Santa Clara to Castañeda, Arenas and Dias in consideration of twelve hundred dollars paid by them to the Government. Also, a memorandum or account, purporting to have been signed by Pico, of the articles furnished to the Government by the Señores Castañeda, Arenas and Dias, in payment of the purchase moncy of the gardens of Santa Clara and San José. This receipt or account is dated Los Angeles, July 2, 1846. The grant purports to be signed by Pio Pico, as Governor, and by José Matias Moreno, as Secretary. Appended to it is
195
MEXICAN GRANTS.
the usual certificate, signed by Moreno, stating that "a note of this superior decree has been taken in the corresponding book." No expediente from the archives has been produced, nor do those records contain any trace what- ever of the execution of this grant. No corresponding book has been exhibited, nor is any such found among the archives. No possession of the land was taken by the grantees during the existence of the former Govern- ment. It is stated by Jas. Alexander Forbes that the orchard remained in possession of the missionary priests up to the year 1849 or 1850. About that time, one Osio obtained the possession, but by what right or title does not appear. The claim thus rests entirely on the alleged grant produced by the parties, with the usual proof of signatures, and on the parol testimony offered by then.
It is contended on the part of the United States that the grant was made subsequently to the conquest of the country, and is antedated.
The grant, as we have seen, purports to have been made at Los Angeles, June 30, 1846.
It was proved before the Board that at that date Pio Pico was not at Los Angeles, but at Santa Barbara, with his secretary and suite. The claimants have taken, however, in this Court, the deposition of Cayetano Arenas, who testifies that the grant was made in Santa Barbara, and sent, by the Governor, to the witness at Los Angeles, where it was received by him July 4, 1846; and it is suggested that the grant was dated Los Angeles, the Capital of the Department, though actually signed at Santa Barbara, in accordance with the practice of the Governor. The explanation is plaus- ible, though it has somewhat the air of an afterthought to meet a difficulty that had unexpectedly arisen.
It is strange, however, that the receipt above referred to should particu- larly set forth that "it was given, for the security of those interested, in the City of Los Angeles on the second of July, 1846," when, in fact, if executed at all on that date, it must have been executed in Santa Barbara, or on the Governor's own rancho.
The grant, as has been stated, is to Juan Castañeda, Luis Arenas, and Benito Dias. Castañeda is dead. The other two have been examined as witnesses. It is clearly proven, and indeed, admitted by Cayetano Arenas, that the grant is in the handwriting of Castañeda.
It is also in proof that during the month of June, and during the first days of July, 1846, Castañeda was at the head-quarters of General Castro, at Santa Clara. That about the 10th of July, he was on the road to Los Angeles, at which place he arrived about the end of July. These facts are established by the testimony of General Castro himself, by that of Benito Dias, and Cayetano, and Luis Arenas. Dias states that he left Monterey for Los Angeles on the 10th, or 12th of July. That on his way down he met
196
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
Castañeda with General Castro; that they proceeded together to Los Angeles, where they arrived about July 20th; that they saw Pio Pico, on their jour- ney, at his rancho of San Marguerita.
Cayetano Arenas, the claimant's witness, states that at the time he received the grant from Pio Pico, viz., July 4th, Castañeda, Benito Dias, Luis Arenas, the father of the witness, were not in Los Angeles, but were in the upper country; and that the latter arrived a few days afterwards- Luis Arenas testifies that he first saw the grant in the hands of Castañeda, in his (Arenas') house, in Los Angeles; that he left San José for Los Angeles the day after he heard of the taking of Sonoma by the Americans. This event occurred in the middle of June. Supposing, then, the witness' mem- ory to be accurate, he must have lingered on the road, if his son is to be believed, a considerable time, for Cayetano Arenas swears, as we have seen, that he received the grant in Los Angeles, on July 4th, and his father did not arrive until some days afterwards. Luis Arenas further states that he " met Castañeda in Los Angeles a little while after his arrival." We have already seen, however, that Castañeda did not arrive in Los Angeles until about July 20th. And Luis Arenas admits that when Castañeda showed him the grant, Benito Dias and Governor Pico were in the place, and that he saw them every day.
Bearing these facts in mind we proceed to consider the testimony of Dias with respect to the execution of the grant. This witness swears that the grant was exccuted in Los Angeles about August 1st; that he saw Casta- neda write it, and that on the same day he brought it back to the house of Lnis Arenas, with the Governor's signature attached to it; that the receipt for money and articles furnished was written a few days after, but that he (the witness) never paid anything on account of purchase. If this testimony be true, there is an end of the case.
The fact that the grant is in the handwriting of Castañeda would seem of itself such a corroboration of Dias' testimony as to exclude much doubt as to its truth. Arenas himself does not pretend to have heard of the grant, or the agreement for the sale of the orchard, until after Castañeda's arrival in Los Angeles, and this notwithstanding that, if the receipt be genuine, he Castañeda, and Dias, had, on July 2d, furnished to the Governor cash and various supplies to the amount of three thousand two hundred dollars. He further states that he gave the Governor two hundred head of cattle; that he received back three hundred dollars in change, and that he deliv- ered to Pico a writing which showed that he made his part of the payment with the two hundred head of cattle, which were then on Pio Pico's rancho. He adds that Pio Pico has these same cattle to this day. Benito Dias states that he knows of the payment for the orchard of Santa Clara only from what Castañeda told him, viz., that he (Castañeda) had given a note to
197
MEXICAN GRANTS.
Pico, payable when the Mexican authority would be re-established, but that he, Dias, never paid any part of it.
The fact that the grant is in the handwriting of Castañeda might, per- haps, be accounted for, consistently with the good faith of the transaction, on the hypothesis, which, however, would be purely conjectural, that Cas- tañeda had written it out, and sent it to the Governor. But in such case he must have written it before it was signed, and how can we explain the cir- cumstance that the date (June 30, 1846) is in the handwriting, and evi- dently written at the same time with the rest of the document? But, sup- posing this difficulty surmounted, the receipt is evidently antedated, or a fabrication. Arenas could not have assigned the cattle spoken of by him, and the receipt for which is acknowledged, on July 2d, at Los Angeles. He did not arrive until a few days before Castañeda; and his son, the only important witness for the claimants, states that he arrived some days after July 4th. Castañeda could not have paid the cash, or delivered the other articles mentioned in the receipt, on the 2d of July, for at that time he was at the head-quarters of General Castro, at a distance of several hundred miles; and yet the receipt is in his handwriting. The account given by Dias seems the only mode of reconciling these discrepancies, and though I should hesitate to accept his unsupported statement, whether for or against a claimant in cases of this class, in this instance it is corroborated and con- firmed by other testimony, as to justify a belief in its truth. Cayetano Arenas is the only witness on the part of the claimants who pretends to have seen the grant before the end of July. If the claim is to be confirmed, it must be on his unsupported testimony. The account given by him bears strong marks of improbability. He states that the grant was sent to him, " as it related to his father's business," and that he was instructed to retain it until Castañeda came down from the upper country. His father arrived a few days after, but Castañeda did not'arrive, as we have seen, until about the 20th. The father of the witness was one of the original grantees. It is strange that he should not only have withheld, for nearly two weeks, his grant from his father, who was as much entitled to receive it as Castañeda, but should not at least have shown it to him, or, so far as appears, men- tioned its reception. That Luis Arenas saw it for the first time in Casta- ñeda's hands is positively stated by himself. The deposition of Cayetano Arenas was taken after the rejection of the claim by the Board. It is, per- haps, not unfair to say that testimony of so much importance, and intro- duced for the first time after the claim was rejected, is liable to much sus- picion. Luis Arenas was examined and cross-examined at length before the Commissioners.
The fact that Pio Pico was not in Los Angeles at the date of the grant had already been established. Had he known that thefgrant was in the pos-
198
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
session of his son from July 4th until he delivered it to Castañeda, he would naturally have stated it. He does not allude to the circumstance. It is difficult to imagine that Cayetano Arenas could have received this grant. made for the benefit of his father, amongst others, and retained it in his pos- session for nearly two weeks, without ever mentioning the fact, either at the time or even subsequently, up to the moment when his father testified before the Commission. There are the circumstances which tend still further to corroborate the statements of Dias. The alleged motive of mak- ing this sale was the exigency of public affairs, which compelled the Govern- ment to avail itself of all the resources at its disposal. It was dated within a few days of the capture of Monterey. The payment and support of the army must have been of the first necessity, and the use to which the money and other articles would most probably have been applied ; yet Castro, the commanding General states, that he never received any money arising from the sale of the orchards for the expense of the war, and that if money from that source had been so appropriated, he would certainly have known it. On his cross-examination he repeats that, though Pio Pico might have applied money or property arising from this sale to public uses without his (witness') knowledge, yet he could not have applied it to the use of the army.
But Luis Arenas negatives the idea that the cattle at least were applied to public uses, for he states (perhaps unguardedly) that the two hundred head given by him to Pico are still on Pico's rancho. This fact alone would be sufficient to raise a suspicion that the Governor did not, in a crisis in public affairs, in good faith, attempt to obtain supplies by a sale of public domain ; but rather that he has been induced at a subsequent day, for his individ- ual advantage, to sign an antedated title. But if there were less force in all these circumstances, one consideration seems to me decisive. Neither Pio Pico nor Moreno have been examined in the case.
The Governor, in the absence of all evidence from the archives, was the person who of all others could have explained when and why he made the grant; why it was dated at Los Angeles; from whom he received it for signature; to whom he sent it; to what use he applied the property, and how it happened that he signed a receipt for it at Los Angeles, on the. 2d of July, as received from Castañeda, Arenas, and Dias, when no one of them was at that place.
Moreno might have explained how it happened that the grant was in this case written by Castañeda, when the latter was at its date, and for some weeks subsequently, at a distance of several hundred miles. If the grant was written by Castañeda and transmitted to the Governor for signature, Moreno might perhaps have told us how it happened that Castañeda guessed so prophetically the day on which the Governor would sign it, and was able by anticipation to fill in the date at the time he drew the instrument. For
199
MEXICAN GRANTS.
that the date was written at the same time and in the same hand with the rest of the document is obvious on inspection.
In a case like this, surrounded by circumstances so suspicious, and depend- ing, on the part of the claimants, upon the testimony of Cayetano Arenas alone, the depositions of the Governor and his secretary ought not to have been withheld. If the decision of this cause depended upon weighing the unsupported testimony of Arenas against testimony equally unsupported of Dias, the duty of determining which had sworn falsely would be difficult as well as painful. But the testimony of Dias is corroborated by every fact in the case, while that of Arenas, if not inconsistent with them, is wholy unsup- ported, and explanation from the best if not the only source from which it could be furnished, is withheld. I think it clearly my duty to reject the claim.
Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to diseiss the question whether the Governor had authority to sell the lands of the Missions, or at least the orchards, vineyards and cultivated portions, which, under the decree of the Supreme Government and the proclamation of Micheltorena, had been restored to the missionary priests.
After the above opinion was read, it was suggested to the Court by the counsel for the claimants, that the deposition of José Matias Moreno, which was on file in the case of T. O. Larkin vs. The United States, had been by consent, admitted as evidence in this. The claim in the case of Larkin vs The United States is founded on the same grant as that exhibited in this case, and is for a part of the orchard.
In the opinion delivered in that case, the testimony of Moreno is adverted to, as follows :-
" Moreno testifies that the signatures of himself and Pico are genuine, and affixed at the time the documents bear date, and that Pico signed them in his presence. He also swears that the documents are in the handwriting of Castañeda, that he saw him write them, and that they were written under his (witness') directions, as he was much occupied with official duties.
" It is enough to say with respect to this statement, that it is abundantly proved by the testimony of General Castro, Benito Dias, Luis Arenas, and Cayetano Arenas, that Castañeda could not have been at Santa Barbara on either the 30th June or 2d July, the days on which the documents are dated.
" The statement of Cayetano Arenas, the chief witness for the claimants, is wholly incompatible with the idea that Castañeda could have been at Santa Barbara and written the grant by Moreno's directions.
" Arenas states that the Governor sent the grant to him ' with instructions to retain it until Castañeda came from the upper country.'
" It cannot surely be pretended that at the time Castañeda was with the
200
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
Governor, writing out the grant and receipt, and delivering the articles men- tioned in the latter."
The testimony of Moreno, therefore, entirely fails to afford that satisfactory explanation of the circumstances which the Court is entitled to expect. It has only served to confirm me in the opinion already expressed as to the merits of the claim.
THOMAS O. LARKIN, claiming part of the Orchard of Santa Clara, Appel- lants, vs. THE UNITED STATES.
The bona fides of the grant pro luced is not sufficiently established by the evidence.
But if the grant be genuine, the claim must be rejected, on the ground that the Governor had no power to grant in colonization, or sell for a money consideration, the orchards and like property of the missions.
The claim in this case is founded on the alleged grant to Castañeda, Arenas and Dias, the merits of which were considered in the case of J. W Redman vs. The United States.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. CHARLES FOSSAT, claiming the Rancho Capitancillos.
The southern, western, and eastern boundaries of the tract granted to Justo Larios declared, leaving the northern boundary to be determined by quantity. The former opinion (reported at page 184) with respect to the southern boundary, maintained.
When this case was first submitted to this Court on appeal from the Board of Land Commissioners, it was considered that the four boundaries of the tract were indicated with reasonable certainty by the grant and accom- panying diseño. It did not escape the observation of the Court that only three of those boundaries were designated in the grant, viz., the southern, the western, and the eastern; but it was thought that the description of the tract in the decree of concession as the " Cañada de los Capitancillos," and the delineation on the diseño of the two ranges of hills within which it was contained, sufficiently indicated the location of the northern boundary, the mention of which was omitted in the grant.
The Court was confirmed in this view by the representation of the petition, on the diseño, that the tract delineated upon it was of the extent of one league a little more or less, indicating, as it seemed, that he solicited not a specified quantity, but a particular tract, the estimated area of which he declared to the Governor. When, therefore, the Governor granted to him the tract solicited, and described it as " of the extent of one league, a little more or less, as explained by the map," it seemed to the Court necessary, to carry into effect the inten- tion of the grantor, to confirm to the claimant the tract delineated on the
201
MEXICAN GRANTS.
map, even though, as anticipated by the Governor, its extent might be "a little " more than one league; provided such excess did not exceed a fraction of the usual unit of measurement in colonization grants, viz., one league; or in other words, provided that the quantity over and above one league was such as might reasonably be deemed to have been asked for by the petitioner and granted by the Governor, under the description "a square league, a little more or less."
The clause in the third condition, by which the surplus was reserved to the nation, usually called the sobrante clause, was disregarded by the Court, that clause being a formula generally, and almost invariably inserted in all grants, without reference to their nature, and being not unfrequently found in grants where all the boundaries are distinctly defined, and even in grants where no boundaries are mentioned, but which are for tracts of a specified length and breadth, where obviously no sobrante can remain.
On the hearing, the location or existence of a northern boundary was not brought in question, but the discussion chiefly, if not exclusively, turned upon the location of the southern boundary-the right of the Court to locate which by its decree was denied by the attorney for the United States. In that view, however, the Court did not coincide; but by its decree it defined and located the southern boundary, and thereby decided the most important if not the only point discussed on the hearing.
The cause having been appealed to the Supreme Court, the views of this Court were in some particulars found to be erroneous.
By the judgment of that Court it is decided, not only that in the grant itself there is no call for a northern boundary, but that " there is no reference to the diseño for any natural object or other descriptive call to ascertain it; that the grant itself furnished no other criterion for ascertaining it than the limitation of quantity expressed in the third condition, which thus becomes a controlling condition in the grant." The mention of quantity as "a league, a little more or less," the Court regards (after rejecting the words "a little more or less," as having no meaning in a system of location and survey like that of the United States) as so explicit as to render improper any reference to the petition and the diseño, or any inquiry as to " whether the name Cap- itancillos had any significance as connected with the limits of the grant."
As to the propriety of the location of the southern boundary by this Court, the Supreme Court expresses no opinion, but the grant is confirmed for one league of land, to be taken within the southern, eastern and western boundaries mentioned therein, and the cause is remitted that this Court may declare those boundaries from the evidence on file and such other evi- dence as may be produced before it.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.