The herald., 1896-01-21
ROjER|O ROCHA'S LANDS
A Tale OF Injustice Done an
Indian
DECIDED HIS RIGHTS AWAY
Attorney Lewis Very Peculiar PrOtec-
ton of His Clients Interest
He Secures From Him for $40 a Quit Claim
Deed to an Estate Worth Thousands
of Dollars

Helen Hunt jackson were she alive to-
day could write true story which would
rival Ramona as tale of the terrible in
justice and wrong which has been done the
Mission Indians. All that it would be nee
essary for her to do would be to detail the
history of Rojerio Rocha and his long and
futile struggle with the rapacious land
grabbers who have despoiied him of his
possessions and left him and his posterity
beggars, in a comparatively barren noun
tain canyon, when if the records have been
read aright,he and they are the real owners
of thousands of the most fertile acres in
the San Fernando valley of this county.
Long prior to the accession of California
by the United States, Michel Torena, the
Mexican governor of the territory, made a
grant of a large body of land within the
exterior line of what is now known as the
San Fernando ranch to Rojerio Rocha and
other Mission Indians.
1t was rich piece of territory compris-
ing 4400 acres, the water rights accruing
to it now being worth thousands and
thousands of dollars.
No one of the Mexican governors ever
disputed Rojerio Rocha's title to the land,
but years later Don Pho Pico, the last Mex
lean governor of California, granted that
portion of the San Fernando valley that
had not previously been granted to others
to E. de Cells.
Rojerio Rocha remained on his land con-
tinuousiy after ii had been gra 1ted to him,
and it was not understood that his rights
in any way confiicted with those of de
Cells. Rocha's rights were direct from the
Mexican government.
The title of Rojerio Rocha to these 400
broad acres in the very heart OF the rich
San Fernando valley was never disputed
by any one until 1878. when Porter &
Maclay, successors to The Cells grant, COM
menced all action of ej .ctmel IT in the old
district court of Los Aug lies county
against Rocha and tie other Indians then
in possession. The claim was set out that
the de Cells grant iDcluiea all the valley,
and that Rocha had no ri yhts whatever.
Summons was served on January %,
1878, and within the iel days allowed by
law. on January 81, 1878. Ii ocha appeared
by attorney and filed demurrer.
On March ~. 1878. the demurrer was
overruled and he was allowed ten days in
which to answer
On March %, 1878, Rocha, by his attor-
ney, regularly filed his answer, and then
the case entered upon its long sleep.
1t was not unit December |, 1883, that
Judge Il. NJ. Widney appeared in court as
the attorney for the plaintiffs, Porter &
Maclay, and in some manner incompre-
hensible induced the presiding Judge. Vol
ney h. Howard. to sign judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs, rectinx that Rocha had
been served with summons but had failed
to answer. This was palpable misstate-
ment, for his answer was then regularly on
the file and had been for five years, and is
now on file IN the record room of the SUI
perlor court at the county court house,
where it stands as an unimpeachable wit
ness to the high handed ard outrageous
robbery OF the OR Indian of his rights.
For over 4 year after this nothing was
done by the plaintiffs IN the matter of
electinR Rocha and those of his tribe from
The lands. They remained in possession,
cultivatiug the lands as usual until 1885,
when the s1erff came suddenly upon them
with q wri6 of restitution issued under the
judgment secured from the superior court
In 1883. The Indians were elected from
the premises,
In July, 1855, Rojerio Rocha's attorney
pettioned the court to set aside the judg-
ment which had been entered against him,
but for some reason which does not now
appear on the record and which attorneys
who have been consulted seem to be
wholly unable to account fer, his petition
was denied.
In the meantime Hon. G. Wiley Wells
had been appointed special United States
attorney for the Mission Indians. A brief
examination of the status Of Rocha's case
convinced him that a terrible injustice had
been done Rocha. He realized that the pro-
ceeoings by which the Indians had been
dispossessed of their lands wore entirely
illegal, null and void, and he Immediately
took steps to right the great wrong.
He secured an order from the court on
October 10. 1885, citing the plaintiffs,
Messrs Porter and Macaly, TO appear and
show cause why the writ of restitution
should not be quashed and the Indians re-
stored to their homes, their rights and their
lands. This motion was continued to DC.
tober 20, 1855, when it was argued and
submitted.
Then the case again entered upon one of
those long sleeps which are not entirely
unknown to courts of justice in California
where large interests are involved with the
poor and friendless on one side arrayed
against the rich and the powerful.
Ten years have elapsed, and there is not