Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-08-15

land She had an absolute title In fee to the
| entire tract described and measured off in the
| the property. Her interest in one undivided
half of the premises having afterwards pass ed
to rorba and others, and In the other undivided
half OF the Murillos, and their claims hav ng
been presented to and confirmed by the Board
of Land Commissioners appointed by the
United states to ascertain aud settle private
land claims In California; and those DEGREES OF
con ufrmatiou having become final by the dismis
| sails of the appeals from the Attorney General
and the surveys of lands confirmed having been
approved all controversy between those
claimants and the United States respecting
i their title to those lands, and the ex-
tent and boundaries thereof, was closed
| the character of the title, not only
against the United States, but also against all
persons claiming under them by proceedings
subse quent, and the subsequent patents of the
| United States were REIMBURSEMENT of all
| claims or right in the lands or power over them,
II any then existed. Only prior and superior
| therefore, the defendants can show that by
virtue of the concession made to the parties
throush whom they claim i, under ISa the former @
before the Land Com mmissi and of the patents
OF the United States issued upon its decree,
they acquired a right and title to the demanded
prem ises prior and superior to that conferred
by the grant of Figueroa to Ruiz on the 22d day
OF May, 1884, the plaintiff must be adjudged
to recover What then was the right or title, If
any, acquired by those defendants uno er tbe
former q overnment' To answer this question
we turn to the documents produced by them.
RodrigueS, dated s, ptember is, 1901, to Arri-
larga, then Governor of the Territory, stating,
in view Of the repeated petitions through him
to that officer, in behalf of Lieutenant Don
Pablo Grialva for a place upon which to put
his stock and build house and corral, and in
view of the power by the Governor con-
petitions, he had pointed out to Grijalva the
place Arroyo de Santiago. lying midway be-
tween the Missions San Juan Capistrsno and
San Gabriel, about nine leagaes from each,
stating that there was not within great dis
tsnce any rancheria of natives, and that nei-
ther of the Missions claimed any right to l..
The petitioners added that, should the Cover
nor make the concession desired, Grijalva
might put upon the place great number Of
cattle which he had in the immediate neigh
| borhood Of Manuel NietO and concluded with
the expression of hope thst the Governor
| would order title 10 issue to Griialva for the
possession OF the place within certain distances
% the 18th of october, 1soi, replica stating that H
Grijava should apply to him (Rodriguez) for
the place, setting forth its actual condition and
upon notice should be given to the adjoining
proprietor to ascertain whether any damage
would result to them by the concession asked;
and that, this being done land no objection to
the concession beins), he could issue a
decree setting forth the facE that there
was no objection. and order him to
| be placed In possession, he forwaI ding
everything to the Government for its approval
and the ss6Ie of title; adding that this was the
way business was done for those to whom royal
lands were given. though he did not know
whether the Government had made any new
provision on this subject Grijalva. accord
ingly. on the Sth day of December, 1901, made
\ application to Rodriguez for the place Arroyo
| de Santiago In order to put his cattle aud
horses thereon, stating that the place was stu
ated eight leagues from the Mission San Juan
| Capistrano, and from nine to ten from the Mis-
sion of San Gabriel He also stated the extent
| of the land he desired. On the 14th of Decem-
Der following Rodriguez directed that notice
of Griia1va oivan to he
| fathers of the Missions San Juan Capistrano
and San Gabriel, and to Manuel Nieto, in order
to ascertain whe her they wou d be prejudiced
by granting his decision. The priest of the
Mission of San Juan Capietrano returned that
| SO long the applicant did not go beyond the
boundaries OF the land he asked the concession
| appear that any response was obtained from
the pri SITS of the Mission of San Gabriel or
that any grant was made upon the decision, or
1t appears, however, that In 1909 one Antonio
Yorba claimed that he had been partner with
Grijalva and was interested with him in his
application for the place upon which to put
| stock and build a house. In November of that
| year he accordingly presented. through his
son. petition y, to the Govefnor OF the Territory
| ing that he had heard that Grijalvs, who had
since died, had not inserted his name in the
application, Notwithstanding their partnership:
| with one Juan Peralta to live upon the place.
and, with one of the sons of the petitioner,
L take CAIe OF bu6 Cdtble anu uOIb65 tQhb were
upon it. being about three hundred head Of
each hind. In consideration of these facts,
ana the family he had, he requested the Gov
ernor to make 2 eoncession OF the pace p Of
and himself might be profitable to both, This
| petition the Governor forwarded to Lieutenant
bon Francisco Maria Ruiz at San Diego, who,
that The petition Of Grijaiva could not be
found in the archive of the Presidio there and
that he had inquired ior it without success
1 "a H. mid nF q hat ehn otatod
| that she had heard her deceased husband say
| he had presented 1t in hi own name; but, not
withktanding, 1t was her wish that Antonio
| Pablo Peralta, should remain on the ran cho in
| order that they might take care of the stock
and crops for the support of their families
| the 1st day of July, 1870 in which he stated
/ that there was no objection on his part to the
| concession solicited upon the terms EXPIRE sed
| by the petitioner, and for that purpose he
| directed that the Commaudant of the Presidio
| OF San Diego take the necessary steps to notify
/ the adjoining land owners to as ertain whether
| or not the concession would be detrimental to
them, and, in case no detriment would result
| to them, that the petitioner should be placed in
| possession. No further proceedings appear to
| have been had upon this application. II is not
/ shown that any otifcation to the adjoining
proprietory was made, or that any infOrma-
tion was obtained of their opinion whether
| such a concession would be detrimental to
| them or not. So far as the evidence before us
discloses, the efforts of the petitioner ended
with this report, and no further acti0n upon II
| was taken by the Governor of the Territory. 1t
| is too plain for argum ent that no title passed
| from the Governor by virtue of the documents
| produced 1t is true the petitioner was subse
| Quently in possession of the premises. but he
| does not produce, nor are found anywhere in
/ the archives, any documents showing that any
authority was given for him to occupy them.
/ But even if the possession was taken by per-
i mission of the Governor or other authorities,
| no inference of grant of title can be drawn
from it. Some formal proce edings were neces-
i SnQnikh in
pass title to sny portion of the pub
the subject. The population at this
/ time in the country was very sparse, and there
were vast quantities Of vacant land. When one
| occupied such land for his CATTLE very little
complaint was likely to be made touching his
authority. But be that as it may, nothing is
| shown by the documents comforting even
| an equitable right upon the petitioner Yorba.
| or upon Peralta. IL is plain. therefore, that
neither of those parties, or any pal ties claim
ing through. them, had any interest in the
government, which would have given them o
standing in a court of justice to call in ques-
tior the right OF Catarina Ruiz by her grant of
May %. 1884 Their interest was, at best,
only such an equity as arises in favor OF
parties who had long been in the occupation
Of public land with the silent acquiescence of
the Government from the possible improve
ment they may have made upon it TO such
parties the Government might well have ex
| tended a preference In the purchase or do.
natiun of the Ian when it concluded to dis
pose of them. But m mere possession OF any por-
| [ ion of public domain, under an instrument
which did not pui port to transfer the property,
| the possessor which would enable him to hold
/ the nropeIty against the Crown. nor did euoh