Mountain Democrat., 1857-05-16
STATE OF CALIFoRSiA,
County Of Ell Dorado.

W. II. Mansfield and 1lth Judi
Thomas W. Janes. - ciAl District
This case was tried by the Court with
out the Intervention of Jury, and from
the evidence the following appear to be
the facts, viz:
First: In the month Of juno, 1862,
Jane A. Shurr was in the possession of q
certain townlotin Placerville in said coun-
ty, and at that time sold the same to
Plaintiff, who entered into and Aeld pos
session of the same under decd from the
said Jane A. Shurr, until some me in the
fall OF 1852, say about the north Of No
vembcr or December, when he sold part
Of said lot to some person not party to
this suit, and the other part of this lot,
which is the subject matter Of this suit,
he sold to Alexander Hunter, by verbal
contract only, and placed him in possess
ion.
Second: The deed from Jane \. Shurr
to Plaintiff was duly recorded in the Re-
corder's office Of said county, on the 23d
day Of June, 1852, in the books kept in
said office for the record of deeds.
Third: Hunter, whilst he occupied the
lot, put valuable Improvements thereon at
a cost of six or seven thousand dollars,
which wcrc partially destroyed -by- fire
carly in July, 1856. The Improvements
after this partial destruction were worth
$1,000. -.
Fourth: After the fire, Hunter sold the
lot and the improvements thereon to
Thomas y. James, Defendant and inter
vcner, and executed to him a deed there
for in trust for Wells, Fargo & Co., who
subsequently repaired the improvements
at an additional cost of $1,000.
Fifth: The value of the improvements
after the repairs was about $1,000.
Sixth The valuA Of the naked lot is
about $500. The rent Of the naked lot
is worth twenty dollars per month, and
the rent Of the lot with the improvements
thereon is worth scvcnty-flvc dollars per
month.
Seventh: The defendants entered into
possession Of the premises on tho 21st
day of July, 1856, under the deed from
Hunter to James, and have since held the
same, claiming it as the property of Wells,
Fargo q Co.. in trust as aforesaid. 1t
does not appear that defendants or Wells,
Fargo & Co., had any notice of plaintiff :
claim to the property other than such as
is imported by the rccordation ofthe deed
from Shurr to plaintiff, either at the time
Of the purchase from Hunter or at the
time of making said repairs after the fire
Eighth: ltappears that plaintiff had
notice that Hunter was putting the i'm.
provcmcnts on the lot above mentioned
and that from the time of his verbal sale
to Hunter until Hunter sold to James, hC
never made any demand of the pOsscssor,
or claimed to be owner; and that during
this period, Hunter waS in possession,
claiming it rs his own, and regularly had
it assessed in his own name and paid the
taxes thereon Whether plaintiff knew
Of the repairs put there by Wells, Fargo
& Co., docs not appear.
Ninth FtappeaFs that Hunter blythe
terms of the verbal sale, was to pay plain
tiff the sum Of six hundred dollars for
said lot, and interest thereon till paid,
which was understood to be two or three
per cent per month-only three hundred
Of which was paid. This sum was paid
by Hunter in July, 1853.
The first question that propose exam
ining in this case is, whether the plaintiff
has shown that he ever had any higher
or better title than that which is prcsum-
cd from the possession ofpublic lands, or,
to state the question differently, am I tO
treat the lot in controversy as public land
in the possession of private individual
by the permission of the Government?
The lot is located in the city Of Placer.
vile, in the county Of FL Dorado. In
Congcr ct al VS. Weaver ct al, Cal. Rep,
October term, 1885, it is said that 'evcry
Judge is bound to know the history OF
the country where he presidcs. This VIC
have held before, and it is also an admit
ted doctrine Of common law. We must,
therefore, know that this State has large
territory; that upon its Sacquisition by tho
United States, from the sparsencss of its
population, bat q comparatively small
proportion Of it's land had been granted to
private Individuals that the great bulk
of it was land belonging to the Govern.
ment; but that little as yet has been ac-
quired by individuals by purchase that
Our citizens have gone upon the public
lands continuously from period anterior
to the organization Of the State govern
ment to the present time"
Ifit is made the duty of the Courts to
60 to this extent in their judicial knowl-
edge ofthe countries in which they preside
then II is matter Of open, public notori-
ETY., and universally admitted fact, that
the district Of country embracing the lot
in controversy is public domain, and that
tho only title Of those who have made set
tlemcntS in this PORTION of the State, is
that which grows out of the occupation oi
public lands, with the consent or appro-
baton Of the Government.
Admitting, however, that this is q
greater stretch ofjudiCial information than
sound reason and the rules Of law will per:
init, the first section of The act for the ''pro.
lection Of settlers, &C.," Statutes of 80, D.
"a, declares that Hall lands in this STATE
shall be deemed and regarded as public
lands until the legal title is shown to
have passed from the Government to pri.
vatc individuals" am aware that Ger.
tain provisions Of this act have recently
received judicial construction at the
hands Of the Supreme Court, and been
pronounced unconstitutional, but this il
not one of them, nor do suppose it to be
liable to such an objection. 1t merely
raises . presumption against . party
which he is at liberty to overcome BY
proof If he prove that he or bis grantort
were the first possessors in good faith, Il
is sufficient to sustain ejectment agains
. mere intruder, or enc who cannot show
q better right. Where possession Of thi.
| character Is shown. the1aw nresumes III,