Los Angeles daily herald., 1874-11-21

slightest occasion for the virtuous in-
dignation excited inayour breastand
in that of the Star and or Citizen
and OF other disintercd parties on ae-
count of the injury supposed to have
been done to the city. The contro-
versy has been altogether private
one; and had not Mr.. Beaudry's
grantee, Mr.. Des Autels, recovered the
land, the Bishop would have held it rs
part of the College lots IN which it has
been enclosed for the last six or eight
years; and in no possible contingency,
even had Mr.. Beaudry never been born,
would the city have gotten a foot of
il. In order that this may be appar-
ent, / will give brief history of the
whole litigation in reference to the
matter. M sr4
In the year '62, Bishop Amat APP
piled to the Common Council for Il
tract of 20 acres of land lying in the
upper part of the city, for the purpose
of building college, being the same
tract of land now called (perhaps, IRON
ically) the" College" lot. The petit
tion was accompanied by u map of the
tract, on the corner of which were two
of Ord's lots marked, one Claude"
Illc QUIET III
with the petition and for the purpose
of building the college aforesaid, q
deed was ordered by the Council and
executed by the Mayor to the Bishop
for the said tract of land, but tex
Guiding the lots formerly granted to
Messrs. Claude and Bernard"
1t seems, therefore, that there can
be no doubt at all that the land had
been granted to Bernard prior to that
date, although Mr.. Bernard now says
it was not; and we can only account
for the apparent contradiction by sup
posing forgetfulness on his part in ref
erence to a matter of small pecuniary
Importance, or that he supposed the
deed to be for other land Such cases
are not at all unusual, and myself
know of cases of men who have APP
piled to the Council and received
deeds, as they supposed, for land on
which they were living, but which
turned out to be other lands, and have
only discovered the mistake after
many years of unsuspecting possess
ion.
Passing from this matter:-Several
years since Mr.. Beaudry purchased
from Mr.. Hansen q tract forming q
part of the Canal and Reservoir Com
pany's lands, and when engaged in
fencing the same, was stopped by the
agent of the Bishop, who claimed
that Mr.. Beaudry's tract included
about five acres of the college tract.
Not admitting the validity of the
Bishops title, Mr.. Beaudry determine
ed to litigate the matter, and his at
tention having been called to the pre-
vious grants to Claude and Bernard,
he acquired the titles of those gentle
men, with view of strengthening
himself in his controversy with the
Bishop. Those gentlemen were will
ling to make the transfers, and there
was certainly no violation of law or
propriety in Mr.. Beaudry's accepting
them. 1t turned out on the trial that
Mr.. Claude had many years ago made
a deed to the Bishop for his lot and
that the Bishop claimed that he had
enclosed the Bernard lot with his
fence under q parol license or grant
from Mr.. Bernard. The Bishop is
well known in this community and it
is perfectly clear that he never would
have enclosed the land had he suppos-
ed it belonged to the city, or that
there was any doubt as to Mr.. Ber-
0arU s IlCle. Inc laCC UnaU lie nclu III
for many years under Mr.. Bernard's
parol license or grant, shows conclus-
lively what his views of the matter
were.
1t is evident, therefore, that the alb
| surd charge that the city was in any
way defrauded, is entirely without
foundation; that the whole matter, in
effect, concerned only the private con-
troversy with Bishop Amat.
1t will be understood that / do not
write the above rs the advocate ofMr.
Beaudry in the election, but that |
would freely do as much for any of the
other candidates did the occasion de-
mand it; also, that the above facts are
based exclusively on the records of
the case, and came to my knowledge
on the trial; and any one can satisfy
himself of the correctness of the stare
ments here made by referring to the
papers in the Clerks office.
Respectfully, your ob't servant,
GEORGE H. SMITH.