The record-union., 1893-05-10
THEY Die HARD.
The Land Ring Attorneys Becoming
Desperate.
Notice of an Appeal From Judge Cat
Inns Decision In the Lieu Land
Case-His Findings.

N"J AlSu lis peTelllpLOry VIII OF HAL
date and findings in accordance with the
order made from the bench on Saturday
In the case of L. B. Willis, Managing
Editor of the RECoRD-UNIoN, against
Surveyor General Reichert, to compel
the latter to expose to view the contents
OF certain sealed applications for lieu
lands locked up in his safe.
In the Superior Court of the State of Cali
iornia, in and for the County of Sacramento
The People of the State of California, by rela-
tion of l.. b. Willis, plaintiffs. VS.. Theodore
Reichert, Surveyor-General ana eX ofcio
Register of the State Land Office of the State
OF California, deiendant.-Peremptory writ OF
mandate.
The People of the State of California to Theo-
dore Reichert, ,Surveyor-Generdla and ex ofnclo
Register OF the State Land Office of the State
of California:
In accordance with the findings of fact and
conclusions OF law herein nled, copy of
which is hereto attached and made part
hereof you are hereby commanded that you
Immediately exhibit to the relator, f. b.
Willis, with his clerk or attorney, all applica-
tions, both original and amendatory, which
have been made to purchase other lands in
lieu Of sixteenth or irty-sixth sections, lying
within the limits OF the san Gabriel, san Ber-
nardino, Trabuco and Sierra Nevada forest
reservations, together with the envelopes
wiIich do, or at any time did, contain the
samei that, during Office hours, you permit
the SAID L. Is. Wills, wlth his clerk or attor-
ney, 10 commence Immediately and take notes
and abstracts of each and all OF the said ap-
plicatiOnS
That within reasonable time you indorse
upon each of the applications herein above
mentioned a Ming memorandum, showing
the true cate when the same was presented 10,
ana received by, you; excepting only such
thereof as the filing fee has not been paid for.
That you communicate with the proper
United States Land Offices, and ask that the
lands described in each OF the said applica-
tlons for which the filing fee has been paid, be
accepted in part satisfaction of the grant un-
der which II Is sought TO be made: and that
you make q record ofeach of said applications
for which the hling fee has been paid, show
ing the number OF each location, the name of
the applicant, the maine OF his attorney,if any
lie has, and Il description, by legal subdivi-
sions, OF tne lands located.
Dated and signed this Sth day of May, 1898.
Il. p. CATLIN, Superior Judge.
FINDINGS AND DECISION.
In the Superior Court of the State of Cali
fornia, in ana for the county of Sacramento
The People of the state of California. by re-
Iation OF E. B. Willis, plaintins, vs.. Theodore
Reichert, Surveyor General and eN oficio
Register OF the stand Land Office of the State
of California, defendant.
This cause came on regularly tor trial on the
9th day of May, 1898. The parties, by their
respective counsel, were present in open
court, and the cause was tried by the court
sitting without jury; and thereupon, after
hearing the evidence and arguments OF coun-
sci anG having fully considered the same the
court finds:
First-That Theodore Reichert is. and for
duly elected, qualified and acting SURVEYOR
General and eX oficIo Register of the State
Land Office OF the state of California.
Secondhand UEe relator, f. b. Willis, is.
and at all tie times mentioned in the afi-
davit was, citizen of this State; and the
Attorney-General OF the State consented that
the name OF the people of the State OF Califor-
MIA be used as plaintifis herein.
IhIrd-Ihat between the LIST day of Decem-
Der, 1892, and the lst day of April, 1898,
more than 200 applications TO purchase ofthe
state OF California lands in lieu Of certain six
teenth ana tuirty-SiXth sections situated WITH
III forest reservations heretofore established
by the President oftne United tales were pre-
sented TO tne defendant in the following man
ner: Each OF the SAID applications was de
Avered by the applicant, or his attorney TO
Inc defendant, at ms Office; that, at the time
OF such delivery, the said applications were
placed In separate envelopes and the date of
the presentation was marked upon each
envelope by the defendant, anu the defendant
lnereupon deposited each envelope in his
ONCE safe, and has ever since retained the
SAID applications locked IN his sale, and has
refused u permit all persons, and particularly
lhe relator, to inspect or examine the same;
ana has made no record whatever OF the said
applications, or any thereof; nor has he COM
municated with any United States Land
OILce or asked that any of the land de-
fcribed in the said applications be accented
IN part satisfaction OF the grant under which
II was sought 10 be located. That the filing
lee of So accom- Ianied each application so
presented and received, except in the instance
OF slNty-stx applications which were found
remaining in the safe at the time of the trial
without money or evidence that any had beed
rendered.
Fourth-That at the time the earliest of the
said applications were so presented and re-
ceived, the various applicants had different
and opposite apinions about the following
matters: First, as TO whether or not the de-
fendant should select any lands in lieu of the
unsurveyed sixteenth and thirty-sixth Sec
tions lying within forest reservations; sec
ond, as to whether the defendant should
amend certain defective lieu selections there
toiore made, before making new selections
for the same lieu bases, or should make new
selections applied for without considering the
detective selections; and such different and
opposite opinions were still entertlined, and
undetermined in any way when this suit was
commenced. That in each instance IL was
understood by and between the defendant
and the person who presented the application
that the application would be placed in an
envelope, that the envelope should be marked
with the date OF presentation. and then be de-
posted in the defendants office safe until the
disputes above stated were determined; and
that the de endant would then file each appli-
cation which he should have died, and upon
filing the same would give 1t the date of its
presentation for filing date; and would re-
luSe to file each application that he should
not have filed; and that thereupon all dissat-
ished persons might 90 to court for redress
Fiftn-Ihat at the time OF the tria! 1876 of
the applications that were in the sale when
the alternative writ issued were produced in
court, and 129 thereof were found to be ac-
comTauied BY the filing fee of 50 each. All
applications which We're in the safe when the
alternative writ issued other than the lg5
applications above mentioned were taken
from the sale by ID. NJ. Anglers, deputy of the
defendant, pending the proceedings, and re-
turned the same to the persons who presented
them and who asked for them.
As conclusions OF law, find: That each of
the several applications mentioned and de-
scribed in the foregoing findings OF fact. and
each envelope which contained any of the
same, is a public record, and became such i'm
mediatey upon its being presented to and re-
ceived by the defendant; and then became.
and ever since has remained. subject TO in
spection by the relator and all citizens of this
State during Office hours. That the defend
ant should have hled each application at the
time IL, with a filing fee OF So, was presented
to and received by him as aforesaid; and with
in reasonable time thereafter should have
communicated with the United States Land
Office and asked that the lands described in
the applications be accepted in part satisfac-
tion OF the grant under which IL was sought
To be located; and within reasonable time
should have made q record of each applica-
ton. showing the number of each location
the name Of the locator, and a description, by
legal subdivisions. OF the land located. That
he should have exhibited, and must at all
times during office hours exhibit, the said ap-
plications, and all records in his Office, TO the
relator ana all citizens of this State and per-
init him and them to take notes or mem
oranda Of the same.
That the ordinary course of law affords no
plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the
premises, and the relator is entitled that a
peremptory writ of mandate issue.
Dated and signed this oth day of May, 1898.
4. P. CArLIN, Superior Judge.
REICHERT APPEALS.
The findings, decision, Judgment and
peremptory writ were signed by the
court on Monday night, after argument,
by the respective counsel in cham bers,
When presented for filing in the Clerks
Office yesterday. Mr.. Willis attorney was
served by Reichert's attorneys with
notice of appeal: and the latter attorneys
Immediately asked Judge Catlin for
ctor- Of 1orDCaedlQgS.