The Placer herald., 1867-01-05
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE SU-
PREME COURT.
A CERTIFICATE FROM THE LAND OFFICE PRIMA
FACIA EVIDENCE OF LEGAL TITLE.

Brt!er6eM ys. The Central Pacific Rail-
road Company Of California No. SAT -
The plaintiff brought his action against the
defendant for damages for an alleged tres
pass upon the northeast quarter Of section
eleven, north Of range SIX. east of Mount
Diablo meridian, of which he alleges he was
the owner in the possession thereof. The
alleged ,respass consisted of the defendants
entry upon the land mentioned and the 10
cation of the Central Pacific Railroad there.
on. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint
that the defendant 10y laying the railroad
across said land has deprived him Of the use
of five acres of it, besides destroying the
fences so as expose the balance Of it to the
irespassers Of cattle, sheep and swine, and
that defendant threatens TO continue from
day to day the | Ike acts Of trespass; and
herefore, 10 addition to claim for damages,
the plaintiff asks that the Defendants and its
agents, servants and employees may be per-
petually restrained from a continuance OF
the wrongs and it, juries threatened.
The material allegations Of the complaint
are controverted by The answer; and for fur
ther answer the defendant AYERS that said
| the U.tted States, and that by act Of the
Congress Of the United States grant had
before the time Of the commission of the
alleged trespass been made to the defendant
Of the ight to construct the Central Pacific
Railroad upon and over the particular piece
| of land in question, aud that the entry Of
the defendant thereon and the appropriation
of The land taken for such road was under
and by authority Of The Act Of Congress.
To maintain the issue on his part the
plaintiff offered in evidence at the trial
certificate which reads as follows:
military Bounty Land Act Of March 5, 1855
"EEGlsrEK's OFFICE MARYsvILLE,
"Sep'etAber 90, 1850.
military Land Warrant No. 79sOi, in
the Lame OF Allen }. Tackett, has this dav
been located by Allen j. 1atkett upon the
northeast quarter Of Section No. 50, in
township eleven north, Of range six east,
Mount Diabo meridian.
VContents of tract located, l6O acres.)
"E. 0. +. HASTINGS, Register"
In connection with this certificate the
plaintiff proved tie signature thereto to he
that OF E. O. F. Hastings and 'h"' L~
the officer indicated thereby; and then fur
ther offered in evidence deeds of convey
ancs showing that whatever Gte accrued TO
said Tackett, bad been conveyed 10 the
| plaintiff before the commission of the tres.
passes complained Of To the certificate
the defendants counsel objected On the
ground that it was irrevelant and incompe
tent evidence, that the same was not author
ized by law, nor did ii show that plaintiff
had such title and interest in the premises
as 10 entitle him TO maintain bis acliol.
against the defendant; that the same did not
show the land to have ceased to be public
| land at the time the alleged trespass was
committed. At this stage OF the trial the
parties admitted in open Court that de-
tendant was the corporation mentioned in
the Act Of Congress entitled, "An Act to aid
the constru,tio of a railroad and teIe.
graph line from the Missouri river to the
Pacific ocean, and TO secure 10 the Govern
ment the use Of the same for postal, military
and other purposes" approved July l, 1862,
and that the acts alleged Of the railroad of
said company over said premises, and that no
unnecessary damage was done thereby
Ihereupon the Court sustained the objection
not show that plaintiff had such title from
the United States as would enable him to
sustain the action. To this ruling tie plain
tiff excepted.
The plaintiff then offered TO prove that he
was in possession of Tue land at the time OF
the commission Of the alleged lrespass. To
this the defendant objected on the ground
that that mere possession did not give the
plaintiff right Of damage, when they
were not malicious or unnecessary. The
Court sustained the objection and the plain
tiff excepted.
The defeudent applied to the Court to
grant nonsuit, which was done, and the
plaintiff excepted, and thereupon judgment
was entered for defendant against plaintiff.
On appeal the plaintiff assigns the above
rulings Of the Court as errors
1t was stated by the plaintiff at the time the
Registers certificate was offered in evidence
that it was for the purpose of sustaining the
allegations Of the complaint that plaintiff was
the owner Of the premises. No additional
evidence was offered or proposed to be intro
duced TO show that the plaintiff had obtained
any other title from the Government than
the certificate.
The question to be considered is, whether
the plaintiff had such right, title or interest
in the land as entitled him to an action
against the defendant for damages for the
acts done.
The quarter section of land described in
the complaint was part Of the Government
domain at The date of the certificate which
the plaintiff offered in evidence, and we are
to presume from the action Of the officers Of
the Government having charge ofthe dispo>
sition Of the public lands in the district where
this quarter section was situated that the
same was then subject to sale at the mini
mum or lower graduated price. )lo Stat at
Large, 7O2, Sec. 5.) From the.certi6cate it
appears that the warrant in question was 10.
Gated by the original holder Of it. Before
the certificate was issued to him, he must
havo dol;vorad to tho Rao;ster and Racaver