The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-03-18

SUPREME CoURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Opini0ns-SpaniJh Titles on the Loioer MissiS-
sippi-D eeisioRy Of RsgistsrJ and Receivers Of the
Land QGees- The United SfatsS plaintiff IN error
pJ. James MeMaH0s-The facts in this case SUI.
oiently appear In the opinion Of the Court.
By the Court, mr. Justice Nelson delivering the
opinion.) This Is a writ Of error to the circuit
court Of the United States for the eastern district
Of Louisiana,
This suit was brought in the court below by the
United States to recover possession Of tract Of
land situate In the parish Of St. Bernard about ten
miles below the city Of New Orleans, on the east
side Of the river Mississippi, and between that
river and Lake BOrgne.
The defendants set up two grounds Of defence:
l. That the tract Of land In controversy had been
granted to Madame Le Compile by the Spanish
Government, November 3, 1884 and 2. That tho
grant was confirmed to F. and l. Phillipson by act
Of Congress March 8. 1885, from whom the defend
ants derive their titles.
l. The Spanish grant was produced on the trial
from the registers Office in New Orleans, where
these ancient titles are deposited, and Is found in
the record
The Governor, In making the grants, rscitcs:
Considering the foregoing proceedings, made by
the segundo aIjundante Of this place, Louis Andry,
who was appointed to make survey, We put Du
Marie Le Compile In possession Of the vacant land
which lies In at tho extremity Of the forty
arpents in depth Of the plantation belonging to
Baohemin, Corbin, VOison, and Portugais, and con-
fourteen hfpentb In front, composing tho
said plantations, until II reaches Lake BOrgne;
and, finding that said proceedings are made agree
ably to the order Of survey, and to tho grants Of
tho AbOvenamed parties, who are not ipjured-nay,
who have assented thereto" 30
Now, therefore, 40 We do, by these presents,
q" grant to the said Marie LIE Compile the above.
named fourteen arpents 'front.' from the forty arpsntS
in depth, owned by the said Bachemin, 30, to the
aforesaid lake, following the same directions which
the boundary lines Of the said Bachemin, 30, run,
in order that she may dispose Of and enjoy the
same, &o." There is some obscurity in the Ian.
gungs of the grant, and, If 1t was open for con.
struction, there Is ground Tor the Interpretation
oontendsd for by the Government, namely: that
the tract granted consisted Of area Of fourteen
Arpents front, and extending back within parallel
moved by the official Spanish survey referred to in
the grant, and which, as We have seen, was before
the Governor when the grant was made.
Phelps, United States deputy inspector, and who
has been In the service of the Government under the
Surveyor General since 1928. surveyed the side
lines Of this tract in 1881, nnd according to his
recollection and belief had before him at the time
the original Spanish survey Of Landry and followed
the side lines Of that survey which were not paral
lei, but diyerging side lines, corresponding with
those Of tho front grant to Bachemin and others.
That grant frOnted on bend In the river on the
CONVEX side or shore, and, according to the usage
OF Spanish locations on such bends, and which Is
the usage and practice Of locations under sys-
TEN Of survey, the side lines run at right angles
with the bend Of the river, and in the instance
before u.s. diyerge and widen the lines extend for
the entire depth Of the front lot II was these d.
vsrging lines terminating at the rear Of the Bach
emn lot, that were extended in the came direction
BY tho survey and location Of the back lot Of
MADAME Ls Compie, by Landry, to Lake Borgns
and which were afterwards adopted by Phelps.
This Spanish survey and location Of tho grant 70.
TGvss any doubt that may exist In the description.
The survey Of Landry was not produced, but its
existence and loss were sufficiently proved to lot in
the secondary evidence presented on the trial
The testimony Of Phelps was taken under a com.
mission and when produced at the trial several OBJ
jeetions were taken to its competency and Admissi-
bilty, on the part Of the Government. which were
oVsrruled.
The objections were very general and indefinite,
without pointing out the portions Of his answers to
the intsrTogatorsS which were inadmissibIe, e1.
ospt In gross, embracing matters clearly competent
and relevant to the tissues.
1t 10 the duty Of the party excepting to evidence
TO point out the part excepted to, SO that the at
tsntion Of the court may DO drawn to II. II the
exception covers any admissible evidence It IL
rightly ovsrrulsdi Us Peters, 3O2) This principle
aisPOssS Of ell the objections In which any doubt