Los Angeles daily herald., 1874-12-01
SANDER.

lie COOl OF the CaS ana water COM
pany of Saturday last contained the
following: "We have shown, by the
records of the District Court in the
case of Des Autels VS.. Amat, that one
of the candidates for Mayor deliber-
ately procured by fraud and misrepre-
sentation n lot of land the fee to which
was in the city" No such showing
has ever been made by the Express
nor by the lawyer who wrote the first
editorial which appeared in the Er-
press upon this subject, nor is it in the
power of the Express to make any
such showing from the records of the
Distract Court or any other records
except from its own subsidized col
umns.
The constant harping of the E,rpress
upon this matter shows the impregna-
BILE character of Mr.. Beaudry. If there
was one public or personal act disrep-
utable to him as a citizen or as munic-
ipal officer which this soulless and
senseless scavenger of q heartless cor
poration could exhume and expose to
public gaze it would not boil, bake,
stew, fry, hash and rehash for it's read
ers this unfounded calumny against
Mr.. Beaudry. Whether the Express
has fallen SO low as to believe its own
misstatements, or has so low an opin-
ion of the intelligence of it's readers as
to suppose that it's oft-repeated and
stale ISLANDERS will have any influence
over the judgment of the independent
voters of Los Angeles, is unimportant.
To those of the citizens of Los Angeles
who have daily read the libelous ema-
nations from this hired gladiator but
who have not known Mr. Beaudry
during his long residence in Los An
geles nor have had the opportunity to
become personally acquainted with
him, it may not be amiss to give the
facts and let them judge OF the credi-
bility which should attach to this per-
sistent libeler who so constantly pro-
trudes in his columns this charge
against Mr.. Beaudry, that he deliber-
ately procured by fraud lot of land
the fee to which was in the city.
In May, 1862, the city of Los Angeles
decided to Bishop Amat a GER
tain described parcel of land
containing twenty acres, excepting
therefrom the rights of Claude and
Bernard. There was no reservation
of any particular part of the twenty
acres. The reservation was only the
right which these two persons then
had to some part of the land. 1t is a
plain proposition, which even the
wounded brain of the Express would
have seen, if his head had not over
ruled by the elements Of the gas and
water monOpolists, that upon the exc
cution of this deed to the Bishop by
the city, there was no land within the
described parcel the fee to which re-
manned in the city. Nor does it re-
quire much legal lore to know that if
at the time this deed of the city to
Bishop Amat was executed, Mr.. Ber-
nard did not have alegal or equitable
title to some portion of that parcel of
land, subsequent deed from the city,
whether he got that deed " through
deliberate fraud" or by any other
other means, could vest no color of
title in him, because the fee of the
land had passed from the city to the
Bishop.
The editor of the Express and the
lawyer who possibly may have been
refused loan of money by brother
of Mr.. Beaudry and who may from
this cause put the editor on the scent
of this transaction, may not have in
tended to libel the Court that deter
mined the action of Des Autels VS..
Amat, but yet such is the fact. For
the Court could not legally or equita-
bly, have determined that the fee of
the lot claimed as the Bernard lot
could have passed by the subsequent
deed to Bernard. The lot in question
belonged to the Bishop or to Bernard
upon the execution of the deed by the
city to Amat. From that moment the
city had no right or title in or to the
lot in question, and more baseless
and bald-faced assertion was never
penned than that which is quoted at
the commencement of this article from
the Express, and it shows more con-
clusively than n volume of panegyric
the irreprOachable chacacter of an ac-
| tive and successful business man, who
| has for half lifetime resided in this
city and among this people, when
such gross Misrepresentation must be
resorted to for the purpose of preju-
| dicing those who have lacked oppor-
tunity to become personally acQuaint-
ed with him.
OLD RESIDENT.