Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-07-28
Z. s. LAND COURT.
Motions in the POlvadera Case Disal.
lowed-Argument in the Case
Involving Mesilla Valley
Lands.

to-day, the court announced decision in
case No. 40, the Polvadera grant, on the i'm
portant points raised on demurrer and
two motions by the u s. attorney. The
decision, by Mr.. Justice Murray, is in
substance as follows:
In the motion to strike out intervening
petition it is said that, not being filed in
time, it is barred by the statute of limita-
tions and it is too late for them (the inter
venors) to set up their rights. The origi-
nal petition by Perew was in time. and is
filed for the purpose of having this court
confirm what is alleged to be perfect
grant, absolutely perfect and complete at
the time of change of sovereignty. Sec
ton -, of the act creating this court
confines the limitation to- claims arising
solely under section 6, and does not ap-
ply to complete and perfect grants. The
motion to strike out intervening petition
is therefore disallowed. n
The demurrer to the petition of Perew
is based upon the ground that it does not
state facts sufficient to constitute cause
of action and does not set up the extent
of his claim to the land. The allegations
of the petitions are in substances that the
petitioner is an owner of portion of the
lands granted without stating any par
ticular interest. How much interest he
may have in the grant is not jurisdic-
tional question, but may be shown by
proof. The demurrer therefore is dis
allowed.
The next motion of the U. s. attorney
is, to strike out that portion of Perew's
petition which sets up that he sues for
himself and the heirs and legal represen-
tatives, because no authority is shown by
him to do 80. We think, says the court,
that the fact that the petitioner states
that he is interested in the claim gives
this court jurisdiction to determine the
question as between Perew and the
that he represents other parties we do
not see, says the court, how it would affect
the petition. 1t may be necessary that
he prove that he was authorized to rep
resent these parties, but that would not
make the petition bad, as it is not ques-
toned by any of them, and if it is ma
terial it can be met by requiring proof
upon the trial. This motion is also dis
allowed.
The Juan Gid grant, involving title to
many thousand acres of land in the Me-
silla valley, between Dona Ana and
La Union, came before the court
on demurrer and was argued at length.
The petition of j. B. Cessna and others,
of Hastings, Neb., claiming to be owners
of the grant, was demurred to by Mr.. F.
W. Clancy, who disputes the existence Of
the grant in behalf of the Dona Ana Bend
Colony grant, and in this demurrer he is
Joined by the s.. attorney and by the
Rio Grande Land company, represented
by Hon. Henry L. Waldo.
The latter led off in the argument and
commended that tho petition of Cessna, ct
al, was defective in that it set forth that
the grantees had complied with all the
provisions of the Mexico colonization
law of 1928, under which the grant is
alleged to have been made by the ayunta-
miento of the town of Ell Paso, without
stating what the requirements of the law
were, and the facts in the premises, and
permitting the court to Judge whether or
not the law had been complied with by
the original grantees. He commended also
that there was no authority of law for
making such grant under the act of
1928; that that law authorized the making
of impressarlo grants to families not less
than 200 in number or grants might be
made under it to individual families, but
that this grant was of neither of this
kind.
Hon. T.. B. Catron, associated with
Judge Cessna i'll defending the grant title,
spoke at length and went into the historic
features of the case. He said it was not
necessary that the petition should set out
the evidence in the case showing oompli-
ance with the law by the grantee, but that
it was enough to state that the terms of
the law under which the grant was made
had been complied with.
Mr.. Clancy's principal point was that
the petition, instead of stating facts had
undertaken to present conclusions of law
and omits many material allegations nec-
essary to prove a grant under the law of
1928; also that the operation of this law
was suspended by the Mexican govern
ment on April II, 1923; that grants made
under it were subject to final determine
ton and action by the Mexican authori-
ties and that no such final action was
shown to have been taken in this case.
Judge Cessna has had printed brief in
the case covering 100 pages, and he is
this afternoon engaged in argument be.
fore the court.
Dnr