The herald., 1896-03-03
Was His Ejectment Illegal or
Cruel the Question
FERNANDO LANDS AGAIN
Judge R. M. Widney's Reply to "Jus.
tice's" Last
The Judge Goes Into Some Details Regarding
the Transfer Of Certain Of the
Valley Lands

EDITOR HERALD:-The incog signing
himself "Justice" appears in The HERALD
of March 1st, instant, in another attempt
by falsehoods to sustain a worthless
cause.
have been willing all along to assume
that he was some recent arrival who had
been stuffed by others and used as a
heroic catspaw, and therefore classified
his errors under mistakes. But in his ar
ticle of March 1st, he in conclusion says:
"The writer of this article knows whereof
he writes" By this he assumes personal
authenticity for tine truth of the matter
stated by him. Now, I will call him to
face the following from his article referred
to. He says: "Under this order of eject
ment against John Rogers, Rogerio Rocha
was thrown out of house and home at
midnight, in a binding storm" Now,
"Justice,' q man is not necessarily what
he or others assert he Is. "He is what he
is" If he tells a lie, he is q liar. IF he
steals, ne is thief. Now, why did you
deliberately pen End publish the above lie,
and below assert that you know whereof
you write?
Elected at "midnight in a binding
Storm" Do you not know that the sheriff
does not serve writs OF eiectment at mid
night, but in the day time? In "blinfing
storm" Do you not know that the day Ro-
gerio was jected was q clear, sunshiny day
OF course you do, for you affirm that you
know whereof you write. Therefore. you
know you have told lie, and you, there
fore, are liar, not because | say SO, but
because you have told lie am not re-
sponsible for that. You did it.
Now, that the public may know the facts,
copy the following affidavit made by the
deputy sheriff who elected Rogorio:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Los ANGELES Coz ss
Mr.. Hammel, being first duly sworn.
says he was one of the deputies who exc
cuted the writ referred to in the circular
referred to in the foregoing afIidavits.
That the statements referred to in the said
circular about the manner of the ejectment
being cruel, or that the property of the In
dians was plfered is incorrect, SO far as
the deputies were concerned. That the
service of the writ of removal was with
more than ordinary care and considerate-
ness, and that none of the Indians prop-
erty was pilfered at the time of the re-
moval, as far as the officers know. THAT
AT THE TINE OF THE REMOVAL IT WAS NOT
RAINING OR STORMING, BUT IT RAINED
sUBsEQUENNLY.
WILL A. HAMMEL.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
18th day of September, 1887.
r.. Il. ToNEY,
Justice of the Peace, Los Angeles Town
ship.
was in Fernando that day and know
that the ejectment occurred in the day
time, and not at midnight, and that there
was no storm at the time or on that day.
Yet in face of the facts you are willing to
stoop to such falsehood as to assert that
"Rogerio Rocha was thrown out of house
and home, at midnight. in binding
Storm" l do not wonder that you are
ashamed to sign your real name and con-
ceal yourself under an incog.
Now, we will take another of similar
moral cast from your same article. You
say: "Their claim was not presented to the
land commissioner, for tho reason that,
like Rogerio, Pico de Cells, and even Porter
and Maclay, had agreed with all these In
dians that the patent should come to Cells
and the claimants would convey to them
the Indians-the land that rightfully be-
longed to them" And you assert you know
whereof you write.
Now for the facts. The land commission
was created in 1858 and ended in 1865.
All claims under Mexican or Spanish au-
thority had TO be presented within those
two years or be forever barred ,and null and
void. If the Indians were prevented from
presenting their claims 10 said commission
by promises, the promises must of neces-
sity have been made not later than 1855.
Now, to my personal knowledge, Maclay
was never in Los Angeles county until
about 1878, nearly twenty years after the
expiration of the commission. l am in
formed that Porter came for the first time
about 1878. 1t is therefore an mpossi-
bility that the above statement of Justice
can be correct. Yet he does not scruple to
promulgate that falsehood and assert that
he knows whereof he writes. Now Justice
you will agree with me that both of the
propositions herein exposed are lies. You
will also agree with me that the man who
lies. is liar, not because you and I call
him such, but because he has told u lie.
Now does it not look that way to you. |
certainly beg your pardon in advance, if I
am SO woefully in error in the above, and l
will only be too glad to have you correct
the error.
Maclay1 bought his interest at probate
sale of the property in the De Cells estate.
The title sold him was the title shown by
the records of Los Angeles county and of
the probate court. lie paid $ll7.5OO for
the property, and took his title clear of all
claims not shown of record. His purchase
was in 1874, and as the sale was probate
court sale neither he nor De Cells could af-
feet the record title. Myself and others
bought about 10000 acres for 100000
from Maclay. The land lying northeast of
the railroad from the tunnel to the Pa
coima creek, thence down the creek to the
Lankershim ranch. thence east to the ranch
line. thence along the same to the tunnel.
Our abstracts of title show n complete title.