Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1894-09-28
THE COCHITI CASE.
Full Text of the I. S. Land Courts
Decision Which Gave Victory
to the Miners.
Some Entertaining Historic Facts and
an Able Resume Of the Law by
Justice Sluss.

Appended is the full text of the opin
ion rendered yesterday by the U. S. court
OF private land claims in the case of oe
P. Whitney ct al. vs.. the United States in
volving the Canada de Cochitigrant:
The question chiefly pressed upon oul
attention in this case is as to the true
location of the north and west boundaries
of the land claimed.
The plaintiffs set up grant alleged tc
have been made by Bustamante, governor
of the province of New Mexico, August
1928.
The original grant document consists
OF the petition for the grant by Antonio
Lucero and an endorsement thereon, al
legged to be by the authority of the gov
ernor, granting the land prayed for. The
document is
VERY BADLY MUTILArED,
so much so that the signature of the gov.
ernor, if it ever appeared upon tho docu
ment, is gone.
The tract of land for which Lucero
asked grant is described IN this mutt
lated original petition as follows:
"* Il * IL Gel of land i: y at
the mesa of Cochiti to where the Indians
who rebelled retreated, to plant theron,
and the said piece of land will contain
about ten fanegas of wheat and two of
corn, and to pasture my sheep and horse
herd; and the said land is bounded on the
north by the old pueblo of Cochiti and
on the east by the Del Norte river, and
on the south by the natives of said pue
the west with of
Jemez."
The question as to the northern boun-
Diary arises from the fact of the existence
TWO OLD INDIAN PUEBLOs
in the vicinity. One of these pueblos is
situated on what is known as the mesa of
Cochiti, at which the tract of land asked
for was described as located; and one is
situated about seven miles northeast of
the mesa mentioned. The plaintiffs claim
the northern pueblo as indicating the
north line, and the government claims
the southern one as indicating the line.
An uncertainty arises as to the west
boundary from the description of it in
the original petition for the grant, which
is "the west with x of Jemez." The
plaintiffs claim that this means the top
of the main range of the Jemez noun
tains, which are several miles west of the
mesa of Cochiti.
There has been introduced in evidence
document from which it appears that
on December 80, 1917, the chief alcalde
of the jurisdiction of Cochiti undertook
to restore the old mutilated grant docu-
the governors name attached and de-
scrbing the west boundary Of the tract as
the Jemez mountain.
We are of the opinion that this pro-
ceeding of the alcalde was wholly void.
1t is commended that the alcalde was
judge having jurisdiction similar to that
exercised by courts of chancery and had
authority to entertain a proceeding to
restore these muniments of title. We are
UNABLE TO FIND ANY
provision of the law of Spain upon which
such contention can be based. Such a
proceeding, in the very nature of the case,
was against the crown, and the effect of
it would be 20 create evidence to deprive
the crown of title to it's land. Alcaldes
had no Jurisdiction of any proceeding
against the crown and could not by any
act of theirs, without express authority
in the particular case, affect the title to
crown land. Therefore, the certificate of
the acaldo is not to be taken as an evil
dence of what the grant document origi-
nally recited as to the west boundary.
Not being evidence against the crown of
Spain, it is not evidence against the
United States now. We are aware of but
one way by which the document could
have been legally restored, and that was
by the act of the granting power and the
archives show that it was not unusual for
the governor of the province to restore
and revalidate grants under like circum-
stances.
THE cIRcUMsrANTIAL EVIDENCE
IN the case Is not sufficient to satisfy US
that the west line of the grant was in
tended to be the main range of the Jemez
We do not feel justified in
reading the document inserting the word
The original may or may not have con-
tanned that word. The case is not aided
by evidence of practical location There
is some evidence to the effect that the
stock of the descendants of Lucero
grazed as far west az the Jemez noun
tains. But practical location means the
acts of the parties to the instrument, and
not the acts of parties generations dis
tant from them. Moreover, from
practical standpoint the grazing of stock
in this country has no value rs evidence
of practical location.
There was also evidence that the west
boundary was reputed to be the Jemez
mountain. But when we consider that
this repute was based upon the void cer-
tificate of the alcalde and not upon facts
of actual occupancy, lit
FAILS OF CONVINCING FORCE.
In view of all the evidence we can only be
certain that the west boundary was so To-
Gated as to include the particular parcel
of land specified by Lucero in his petit
ton as located at the mesa of Cochiti,
and from oil the circumstances we are
satisfied that it was not the intention
that this grant should include any of the
country lying west of the Canon of Co.
chit.
Az oboya stotad tbo pot;t;on enoo;fo1