The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-11-13

aud produced deeds to show succession OF title
fallen to the latter as her, The defendant produced
certified copy OF the same patent from the United
Dayenport he paentee 10 one Dewitt traced the
title down TO Jones' father OF PLAINTIFFS testator,
and from Jones 10 himself producing deeds Of con-
ant. produced evidence to snow that the deed pur.
pornns TO be from Jones TO Others. through whom
color OF title passed 10 tho defendant, Were FORGE
rIes. The trial resulted In favor VI plaintiff aud
the defendant appeaei to this court. urging error
~ certain ruugs Of tue court below as To the adlns
sion q evidence as ground for reversal o. tho
Judgment there. fhe case was submitted on printed
bre.s A. Garrison Tor plaintiff III error; W, q.
No. 2t4. me Uatel States u.s. Aatonfo Roc1o es al.
AppsW nom ne District c1u7i Tor The southern
District o. Cat9ornia.-ln November, 1869, R0cho
Tor himself and others, died petition with tie Cow
erninent Land Commissioners Il board organized
under the OF ia5l, canning 10 be tue owner 81 il
tract az aaa--"Ls Brear-lyine in Los Angeles
county, California containing one square league.
The Laad Commissioners rejected the claim. and IN
1853 transcript oil the case was filed III the District
Court and a notice OF appeal given. There the
matter rested untl January, 1889, wncn the unlted
STATES District Attorney moved 10 dismiss the appeal
iof want OF pfosecution aaa III August, 1860, a de-
cree oil dismissal was entered. subsequently.
April 1866, motion was made 10 reinstate the case,
OIL the ground OF newly discovered evidence, sup
ported by a!hdavlt but the motion was overruled.
on the ground that proper notice had not been
given. In OCTOBER, 1862, The claimants asked leave
10 rie bhl oi REVIEW and the motion was argued
and granted on the same da7. rms proceeding
resulted. IN December. 1864, IN decree .acat-
ing Tue previous dismissal, u reversal OF the
decree Of the Board OF Land Commissioners,
ana an anrlnance OF the validity OF the claim.
From tnat decree the government appeals, contend
lug Llat the court beOw dd not have jurisdiction to
entertain the Dill OF review ard vacate lla own
Decree after the adjournment OF the term at winch
l. was rendered. aud It IS urged thar II the original
decree OF the court airmng the decree OF the Land
commissioners had been executed, then whatever
equities the claimants mad were vested IN the United
States under the decree and tho court was with
out Jurs Lotion To dvest the sovereign OF this newly
acquired right. But it contcnded that the alida-
Wis on which the case was reopened did not eslab-
lish the equity claimed: and The argument then
proceeds To The consideration Of the whole testl-
Eony IN The case on the question OF title. After an
examination OF the documentary and other sv
dence III the case the claimants MAINTAIN an actual
occupation OF the land as citizens OF Mexico Tor
over lorty years and insist upon Gear recognition
Of their title aud rights by the Mexican autnorites
and IL IL submitted mat by the treaty OF Guadalupe
Hidalgo, Mexican cilzeus Ia California should be
protected IN the property they possessed Il. r.
lloar, Attorney General, for government; r. j.
Brent for settlers; John A. Wells special counsel;
Tor tie claimants, Senator Cole. Of California.
me UJuted M0tes rs. L2ta7IeS Hare et al. In Error
10 ne Ct,cutc court for me district Of California;
This was ejectment brought By the United States
10 Try tic title 10 TWO lots IN san Francisco, the
block known as luncon Point Reservation. Argu-
ment Included.