Daily Los Angeles herald., 1879-08-15
OS ANGELES FRIDAY MORNING. AUG. l5. 1879

called people before us who have
been familiar with the territory
covered by the Ellis deeds, from
which it was made clearly to ap
pear to your committee that the.
claim of Ellis was a mere pretense
and never had any substantial
foundation in law or fact. AS to
Mission Creek, it was shown that
1t was a navigable stream in law
and fact, from its mouth up even
as high as Eighteenth street, and
80 remained until ut comparative
ley r.cent period.
Tt was further shown that there
were older claims than Ellis's,
conveying the whole of these lands,
and that the owners of such claims,
and those claiming under them,
had improved and built up the
country, while Ellis had done
comparatively nothing.
We procured copy Of the docu-
ment referred to in the resolution
as the Ellis pre-emption claim,
marked "Exhibit d." 1t was
dated August eighteen, eighteen
hundred and flfty-three, and pur-
ports to be made under an Act Of
the Legislature Of April twentieth,
eighteen hundred and flfty-two.
but Is In distinct violation of this
Act, is made in the names of three
different persons, has no intelli-
gent description, and was, in the
judgment Of your committee, utter
ly worthless. Another possessory
claim is in the names of Ellis &
Kleenskroth, dated July twenty
first, eighteen hundred aud fifty
three, which was in pretended
compliance with the same Act of
eighteen hundred and tifty-two,
and is equally worthless, in the
judgment of your committee, for
the reasons already given. A copy
of this instrument is herewith pre-
seuted, ard marked exhibit
DE-" 1t appears from the
testimony that Ellis, prior to
the Duane and Hearst deeds.
as we'll as prior to his own award,
had been often before the Board;
but the Board had considered his
claim of no value, as having neither
legal validity nor any local habita-
tion. No one was able to locate it.
1t appeared from the testimony OF
Charles p. Duane, and from docu-
ments, that there was an arrange.
ment entered into between Ellis
aud Duane, that Ellis was to with.
draw his claims to the lands claim
ed by Duane. Under this arrange
ment Ellis made q deed to Duane,
dated September 2lst, 1875, OF
blocks two hundred and seventy.
one, two hundred and seventy two,
two hundred and forty-two, and
two hundred and thirty five; that
in consideration of this deed, Duane
was to assist Ellis i'm getting the
balance of his claim through.
w. H. Patterson was the counsel
for Duane, and Duane advised Ell
lis, as his (Ellis's) lawyer was an
old man, that be had better get
Others to assist him; whereupOn
Duame advised Ellis to secure the
services of w. Fl. Patterson and
Creed Raymond, and it was finally
agreed to secure their services in
the matter, which was done. This
was accomplished by Ellis deciding
to Duane the One-half of his re-
naming claim. Duane paid no
money for either of these deeds.
Duane then completed his arrange.
ment with Patterson and Raymond
in behalf of Ellis, and IN pursuance
OF that agreement Duane decided to
Creed Raymond the one-half of his
interest in the Ellis claim, through
the deed of Ellis to him of the 2lst
of September, 1875, above referred
to; but in this deed the date of the
Ellis deed was enormously stated
to be October 21st, 1875, instead of
September 2lst, 1875.
The deed to Raymond was dated
the 18th of November, 1875. Duane
conveyed to Patterson bis other
half of the Ellis claim about the
same time, so that at the time OF
the award and deeds to Ellis he
had but one half interest in this
claim, and Raymond and Patterson
the other half.
There was evidence before the
committee of several consultations
between Duane, Haymond, and
Patterson as to the Ellis claim, but
we could not fiud that either of
these lawyers ever appeared before
the Board to urge said claim, or
did anything else in its behalf.
What service they rendered for
these deeds we have not ascertained.
From the testimony taken, it
seems that the people affected by
the Ellis deeds had no warning as
to approaching danger, as none OF
the lands conveyed to Ellis had
ever been offered for sale, or, If any
had been offered, they had been
withdrawn. True, some persons in
Block SO, out of excess of caution,
had gone to the Board and obtained
deeds of their lots for small con-
sideration. Some Of the members
of the BJard claim that reasonable
notice was given. We think not,
80 far as we could learn from pa
tient inquiry, taking into consider.
alton the lauds affected by these
| deeds
A specimen of the notice given
has been furnished us. 1t is as fol-
lows:
"The owners of lots south of Market
north of Nineteenth, and west of Third
sire ts, who have not acquired the State
title, are requested to bring their deeds
and obtain Information at the office of the
Tide ! and Commissioners, seven hundred
and fifteen Clay street"
Such notice is indefinite, and
signed by no one-a notice not
likely to attract attention.
1t further appears from the evi'
dence before US, that Ellis has OBJ
tained deeds to land of great value
upon which costly improvements
have been made by people in good
faith, for a mere nominal sum; and
that a great outrage has been per.
peyrated on an unsuspecting peo'
pie. We found much Of the prop
orty conveyed by the Ellis deeds
well improved and people living on