Los Angeles daily herald., 1874-12-04
The Legal Aspect Of the Question.

1t would seem that the gentlemen
who manage what is known as the
ring, realize that they cannot defeat
Mr.. BEAUDRY unless they are able
to induce the people, or at least por-
tion of them, to believe the BERNARD
slander-a fabrication which the card
of Colonel SMITH and the record in
the case of DEs AUTEL VS.. ANAT con-
clusively proves to be false from be-
ginning TO end. But this man BER-
NARD is large stockholder in the Los
Angeles Water Company, and his
hatred of Mr.. BEAUDRY is so great
that he will say anything and every
thing and perhaps, swear to it, in order
to injure him. The Star of yesterday
morning contains long string of
words which, but for the fact that we
are told in the caption is the legal as
pect of the question, no one would un-
derstand it to be anything but
chapter of Misrepresentation trans
ferred from the editorial rooms of the
Express to the columns Of it's CO.
worker in the cause of the ring. The
real legal aspect of the BERNARD lot
question has either been carefully
avoided or purposely overlooked by
the gentlemen who are laboring so
assiduously to blacken the character
of man who they in one column as
sert is the owner of many broad acres
and a very rich man, and in the next
accuse him of stealing, or attempting
to steal a lot which the alleged owner
admits was of such small value that
he never took the trouble to find out
whether he owned it or not. With all
thinking men this fact will at once
dispel the charge of unfair dealing
sought to be fastened upon Mr.. BEAU
DRY. But the main feature in the
case to which we call the attention of
this community, is the question of
veracity between Bishop AMAT and
this man BERNARD. The Star is our
authority for saying that BERNARD
asserts that until he was informed by
Mr.. BEAUDRY he was not aware that
he ever had any claim to the lot in
question. This it is worth while that
the candid reader should bear in mind.
BERNARD asserts that he did not
know he ever had q claim
to any part of the tract, while
the record shows that he had
years before given Bishop AMAT
parole title, which is a verbal promise
for deed, to his lot in the College
tract. The record is confirmed by the
Bishop. If any further proof is re-
quired to show that this man BER-
NARD has falsified himself in his
effort to slander Mr.. BEAUDRY, we
point to the map of the tract which it
was proposed the city should deed to
the Bishop, in which was marked
lot bearing the name of BERNARD.
We pass over the fact that the city
recognized BERNARD as the owner of
the lot, by marking it in the map OF
the tract she deeueu uo r,.o 1>,-i-r
We shall make no comment on the
action of BERNARD in first giving the
Bishop parole title to the lot, then
denying that he ever owned it and af-
terward selling it to Mr.. BEAUDRY.
The legal aspect of the question be-
gins and ends with these facts: First,
no matter whether BERNARD had ever
received deed to the lot, the city adj
mitted his right to such deed by mark
ing it as his property in the map of
the tract donated to the Bishop. Sec
ond, BERNARD did know he owned the
lot and he claimed it, or he would not
have given the Bishop parole title
to it; and, third, BERNARD knew that
the deed he gave Mr.. BEAUDRY was
for property for which he had prom
ised a deed to Bishop AMAT. The
Common Council could not have been
misled as to the validity of BER-
NARD's claim to the lot, because his
claim was clearly admitted in the
map of the College tract. The motive
of this man BERNARD in deciding
property to Mr.. BEAUDRY to which he
had long before given Bishop AMAT
parole title, is found in the statement
that he had had trouble with the
Bishop-it was spite work, and done
through desire to annoy and if pos
sible injure the Bishop. The motive
which prompts him to now deny that
he ever owned the lot, and assert that
Mr.. BEAUDRY induced him to make
application for deed under false rep
RESERVATIONS, is wish to defeat the
election of Mr.. BEAUDRY and thereby
defeat the wishes of the people in the
appointment of Board of Water
Commissioners and thus secure con-
tinuance of the extortionate rates
charged for water by the Los Angeles
Water Company, in which company
he (BERNARD) is a large stockholder.
This is the legal, and in fact the only
aspect in which right thinking men
can regard the BERNARD falsehood.
1T may be well to mention for the