The San Francisco call., 1896-06-16
SPANISH Law INVOLVED
A Grant From Governor Pho
Pico Declared to Be Com
munity Property.
THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS
Plaintiffs Attorneys Closed Their
Case, but Concluded to Unclose
1t and Try Again.

The trial of the long-pending Noe suit
is on at last. When order was called in
Judge Sanderson's courtroom yesterday
morning it looked as though the San
Francisco bar had turned out to give his
Honor a surprise party. Every available
chair within hearing distance of the bench,
not excluding those in the iury-box, was
occupied by a lawyer. The prospect Of
such an array of legal lore must have beer
rather embarrassing to Judge Sanderson,
and he announced that the first thing to
be done was to ascertain just who each
attorney represented. In order to facill-
tate matters he announced that all parties
interested in any of the three Noe suits, OF
which the one on trial is the first and from
a standpoint of value the most important,
would be allowed to make an appearance.
To this Attorney Koscialowsk objected
and was allowed the consolation of al ex-
ception.
In the suit now on trial there are $50 de-
PENDANTS. OF these nearly 200 are repre-
sented by Lane & Lane. Judge E. w.
McKinstry appears as the champion of
represents Homer King of Wells, Fargo &
Co., Morrison and Forester appear for the
Crocker estate, Michael MulIaney for
Behrend Joost, R. T. Harding for the Cali
fornia Title Insurance Company, A. P.
Van Duser the Mission Defense Club, and
James NJ. Taylor, E. ]. Pringle, w. s..
GoodfelIow, Shadburne & Herrin, A. G..
Freeman and T. V. O'Brien represent in
dividual defendants.
Opposed to this phalanx of talent are P.
L. Koscialowski and a. V. Splivalo. The
numerical inequality of the contest was
apparently felt by the plaintiffs attor-
ney, for though having the aggressive
side of the case he was most of the time
acting upon the defensive the small army
of his opponents being constantly on the
alert for an opening.
The present action is founded upon a
claim which has for years caused occs-
sional fear among the more timid prop
erty-oWners of the Mission.
The claim is based upon a grant made
by Pho Pico, the last Mexican Governor of
California, to Jose Jesus Noe. 1t was
given in answer to petition filed by Jose
in which he set forth that he needed the
lan6 for the support of his family. In1848
Noes wife died, and soon thereafter, but
before the annexation of the State, Noe
decided the land to Charles B. Stroude.
Through him it passed through several
OWNERS to those who are now in posses
sion.
So far the parties to the suit are agreed.
The entire contention in the case is one of
law, namely: Did Noe have right to con-
vey the entire property, as he attempted
to doP The proposition of the plaintiffs,
who are the heirs of Guadalupe Noe, Jose
Jesus Noes wife, is that the grant was of
community property.
By the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,
ratified one year after the annexation of
California, all land grants which were
good under the Mexican regime were to
be held valid at United States law. Under
the Spanish law in regard to community
property, which has been adopted by this
State, all property acquired by the hus-
band during marriage, except such as is
acquired 'by gift, bequest or descent is
community property.
The question then is whether or not
such grant as the one to Don Jose Jesus
Noe is within the exception. In this State
it is universally considered that a grant
would not be community property, but
the plaintiffs in this case claim that by its
nature the grant was intended to be for
the community, and was so specified in
the petition. This they will argue will
bring it within the law.
The first witness put on by the plaintiff
was c. c. Hopkins. Mr.. Hopkins had pre-
pared translation of the petition of Jose
Noe and the grant of Pho Pico He was
asked to swear to the correctness of his
translation. In one instance he ventured
to explain that there might be a shade of
doubt about the meaning of one WORD.
1t happened that this particular doubt
was in regard to the operative way of the
grant, and instantly the venerable scholar
found himself the target of a voIIey of
queries. To the best of his ability Mr..
Hopkins tried to explain why the Spanish
of conveyance might mean either grant or
donate, and how it was that both these
words meant just the same thing He
corrugated in Spanish and compared it
with the Latin. Then he made some nice
English distinctions, and still the attor-
neys refused to be satisfied. At Americen