Los Angeles daily herald., 1874-08-08
II g IlANn OFFIcE,
Los Angeles. July %, 1874.

Hon. S. S. Burdett, Commissioner
General, Land Office, Washington,
d. c.:
SIR-We herewith transmit the tes-
timony, with our joint opinion there
on, in the matter Of the application of
Easton and Davis under the provis-
ions Of the Act Of July %, 1856 to pnr-
chase certain Lands rejected from the
final survey Of the Pueblo de Los An
geles.
The application was filed in this
office on the 18th day of January, 1872,
and the trial of the case commenced
on the Sth day of May, 1874, and con-
cludcd on the 18th day of the same
month.
1t is stipulated by counsel in the
case of Bertrand Rivicre, applicant to
purchase under Act of 1856 certain
city donation lots of the city of Los
Angeles, that the tract of land Of which
the said tract applied for forms a part,
was rejected by the Board of L. S.
Land Commissioners on the 5th day
Of February, 1851; and that said stip-
ulatiOn shall be regarded as evidence
in this case.
The survey OF the southern bound
ary of the city lands Of the city of Los
Angeles was made in 1868, and the
plat OF township 2 s., r. I3 west, S. b.
NJ, was liIcd on the 22d day Of April,
1868.
1t tappears from diagram attached
to and forming q part of the said APP
piication, that the tract applied for is
located in the w. OF section Is,
township s., range l3 w, San Ber-
nardino Meridian. 1t also appears
from said diagram and from the testi-
n0uy that the house and much CT the
improvements Of said applicants were
on the NV. of said section, which
Henry Hancock, as counsel for said
applicants, abandoned at the COM
mencemeNt of said hearing, and the
testimony Of George Hansen shows
that he made q survey of the
said lois, and that all Of lot
and more than half of lot S, is
in the n. w. /, abandoned as afore-
said, leaving only about thirteen or
fourteen acres rs the claim Of the ap-
plicant.
The testimony shows that Easton
and Davis, rs partners and tenants in
common, occupied and resided on the
said lots from the date of their pur-
chase up to 1857, when they leased the
y
when it WAS wholly abandoned.
1t therefore appears that from about
the year 1860 up to the date of the pas
sage OF said Act, and even up to the
present time, the said applicants have
not been in the possession of said
tract, nor have they cultivated or inn
proved the same.
It is shown by the records of this
office that Andres Reyes filed his j..
| s. No. 352 Nov. u, 1871, for the $. w.
! of said See. i5--alleging settlement
Dec. /, 1866, and that on the Goth Oct.
1872, he made cash entry No. 81 of
said tract. There is no evidence show
ing that applicants ever objected to
| the adverse occupation of said tract,
by the said Reyes, or to his final entry
thereof; wherefore applicants are now
estopped from setting up a legal right
| thereto.
Actual possession, cultivation and
| improvement are among the condi-
! tiOns imposed by the 7th Section of
| said Act OF July %, 1866, and it Is in
cumbent upon persons seeking relief
| hereunder 10 show aillrmativeiy that
! they or their grantOrs have remained
| in the actual possession of the tract
applied for, from the date of the Origi-
nal purchase thereof at least up to the
date of the passage of the Act, and as
we heleN from the date Of purchase up
to the determination Of the matter OF
the application.
Applicants have failed to show that
they so remained in the actual posses
! sion of the said tract up to the date of
/ the passage of said Act-having been
ont Of possession thereof, and not hav-
! ing used or improved the same for at
least six years previous thereto, as APP
pears by the testimony OF one Of the
! applicants. Said application should
/ therefore bedenied.
Very Respectfully,
ALFRED JAMES, Register.
]. w. HAvERsTICK, Recelver.