The San Francisco call., 1896-01-25
OVER BENSLEY TITLES,
A Petition for Final Relief From
Adverse Litigation Is
Filed.
Decree of the United States Dis
trict Court Alleged to Have
Been Violated.

A bill of equity, which concerns large
number of people in the Potrero, has been
filed in the District Court of the United
States by John Lloyd, as assignee of James
Linforth, John BensIey and L. B. Bench.
ley, against Julia Ball ct al. The de-
PENDANTS are the Bensley heirs and also
William T. Baggett, ]. ]. Rauer, Clinton
G. Tripp and \. Everett Ball, who are ac-
cused in the bill with having conspired to
thwart Assignee Lloyd in the discharge oi
his duties as assignee, and for the purpose
of preventing him from selling any of the
estate, and for the purpose OF clouding the
title thereto, and of compelling him to
sacrifice the property at less than its real
value, or to pay for the removal of an al
legged cloud on the title.
Several pages OF the bill in equity are
devoted to a history of the celebrated
Bensley lana case, how John Bensley
owned the property involved in 1877 and
conspired with his wife, Marian J.. J NJ.
Bensley, and other persons to conceal his
property from his assignees IN bankruptcy
and of defrauding his creditors and those
of the firm IN which he was partner; and
how Bensley conveyed the land to the fic-
titious De Tarentes, that were assumed
names of his wife, but which are even now
a nightmare upon many land titles in this
City and in San Diego. Coming down to
December Z, 1893, the bill sets forth that a
decree was then rendered in the United
States District Court which was final
and valid decree, binding and estopping
ali persons claiming under John Bensley
from either asserting or. pretending to
maintain any right. title or interest in OF
to any of the property mentioned. "Aud
thenceforth forever" the bill continues
ho caiA 6ofa 70 oIo
the sole heirs at law of the said John
Bensley, deceased, were and are estopped
from asserting, maintaining, setting up or
pretending to have any estate, right, title
or interest in or to said real property or in
or 70 any part thereof"
1t is then claimed that, Notwithstanding
this binding decree the defendants con-
spired and confederated together and COM
menced divers actions against Assignee
Lloyd, without any order or permission of
the United States District Court so to do.
and in these actions falsely pretended to
be sole heirs of John Bensley, and conse-
quently lawful owners of the real estate in
question, and that the assignee had no
right or title TO the lana. The defendants
furthermore prayed that their alleged title
be quieted as against the assignee. SINH
lar actions were also brought in the Su-
perior courts of San Francisco and San
Diego
Although commenced in Novembe
1895, no further proceedings have been
taken in either of these actions; no SER
vice of process has been made upon Mr.
Lloyd. who AYERS that the complaints
were filed solely for the purpose of cloud
ing the title and preventing him from sell
ing the property, but not with the bona
fde intention of prose cutting the actions to
judgment.
The bill prays that writ of injunction
be issued perpetually enioining the de-
PENDANTS, their agents or attorneys from
prosecuting the actions already begun,
from commencing any other action against
the assignee in reference to the Bensley
lands, and from pretending or asserting
any right, title or interest in or to the land.
A provisional injunction Is also sought to
be effective at once.
In this final proceeding Mr.. Lloyd and
his attorneys, Pierson & Mitchell, believe
there can be no room ior doubt that vexa-
tious suits against the Bensley lands will
soon become a memory. That would mean
the absolute clearing of the title to vast
tracts in San Diego County large tracts in
San Diego city, and nearly all the Potrero
of San Franc. SEQ; and, not only clearing
of title, but complete guarantee against
future blackmail suits against the owners
of these lands