Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1893-08-05

The Jrmr- not ~prisH- Sand .ras,
ease as nrariaE


Ia the L = court ~ pfiNal" lHId
cla,mH yesterday afternoon, ~ the mait-t
Of thu Canada de Loa Alamos grant, NJ.
~, Mr. Justice Murray delivered tho
opinion ~ tue court confirming thes grant,
= Vnluabl. tract ~ rpnr lh,OO acres, 81,
uated In Santa he county, north aud east
10 the Lamy grant, aud on which IL 10.
Gated the Desado ranch.
The petition was HE'D 10y Frank A.
Manlauarea On Decembef :, lSS2 Hon
NJ q. Reynolds, L y. Attorney, made the
point that grants Uefufr the inDu court
Tor CunaIderAtiuu eau Only be continued
10 the extent uf the interest shown 10y
the parties linns I"'iitionS p'luf w March
| |, lSri. Nirsrtr lluwHtd, J"irl-s aud
| Earle had at, fNrLrd ~ the CN-- unu"r
| Nr. MHulAuHfrt v"'ltiun, aud THIS inter
/ vrupr Mr. ley mods moved to s,ttAr uu
/ lac court held that when parties SHOW
they have al iut, rect ~ n grant aud n
petition has bcen hled Tor the contirmg.
ton ptiut to March I, 1879, they may
com. Ia by iuterNeuur filed since that
date. aud by showing an INTEREST III the
grnut may b- heard 10y their own counsel
Na parties 10 the RECORD. III. court then
the intervention out.
Ia the same grant the county Glso
found As n fact that there was valid
grant at tie time Of the treaty u Feb.
ruaty Il, lsis; that II was "a Spanish
grant and valid before Mexico achieved
its Independence, and that the land wac
sagratrd from the public domain Oi
Spain, and had never passed to Mexico
or the United States, and ~ u ihHtter ~
lNw the petitioner WAS entitled To con.
lirmatiun which was granted 90 the
heirs, assigns aud personal Representa-.
tive u the ORIGINAL grantee. Thla leaves
. All questions ~ conflicting interests to.
tween rival claimants to grant 10 he
settled IN the territorial cOurtp, the land
court only passing on the question "
. validity u the original grant
. Ia this we'll cuuslIcred opinion the
a court very carefully reviewed the estaO
hshlug " the court 10 connection with
the terms u the treaty; and from now
Z on this question may be regarded IT.
n clearly s-ttled.
The po.vadera grant case was argued
! yesterday afternoon and subnlt,ed to
,. the court. Important points raised ~
tins case 10y the United States attorney
we're decided in the Los Alnmus case M
=! above set forth.
The Canon Santiago de Jemez grant
the smaller one, IL up for hearing to-
q day Ii covers the Jemez hot springs
aud much interest ~ shown IN the hear
. my. II appeArs that IN lINS two broth
, ers named Garcia petltoned for and ~
cured IA small grant, 800 acres, known
" 10y this name. Ten years later they are
- alleged 10 have joined with others IN a
IN petition Tor u larger tract TO include H.,
little grant This petition was answered
by the granting Of llG,OOO acres Of land
and the same was subsequently confirm
1t cd by the congress OF the United States
In Now the descendants OF the Garcial
:, have instituted suit g. have confirmed "a
V them by this court the original lit,
~ grant, which they alleged Was reserve,
ID from the larger grant 10 their exclusN,
" ownership.
:, Messrs. Rodsy and Childsrs, OF Albu
~ 9usrque, appear for tie claimants Of IT,,
Ip larger grant and also Tor adverse ella III
ie ants, Miller, Block; at al. settlers OF
II. the smaller grant, holding title from III,
larger grant Messrs. Earle and How
= ard represent Hon. Amado Chaves an,
70 others claiming the smaller grant ~
o. descendants OF the Garcia family.