The San Francisco call., 1896-06-17

one 100 yaras and the other % yaras. On
this point the attorneys for the defendants
got rather badly entangled. Van Duzer
insisted that the exception OF the land
which Noe referred TO in the deed as hav-
ing been given to his son was OF no effect
as the gift had never been recorded.
Mullaney and Harding each admitted that
one OF the exceptions was of no avail, but
questions by the Judge developed the fact
that the two attorneys for defendants re-
ferred to different parcels OF land. They
INDUCED in quite an argument trying to
agree on what they would concede. And
to this Splivalo objected.
I'VE are not here, your Honor" he said
"to try differences between attorneys for
the defendants. The contention is be-
tween the plaintiffs and the defendants.
l move that all this discussion between
the defendants attorneys be stricken out"
His Honor SO ordered.
The defendants attorneys had now
reached a point similar to that which en-
barrassed the plaintiffs the day before.
They wanted to rest, but they did not
quite dare So far they had put in testi-
mony sufficient to combat the commu-
nifty property theory, but if in this they
were unsuccessful they desired to prove
the operation of the statute OF limitation.
This would be long, tedious operation
and if the court decided against the vail
dity of the record it would be unnecessary.
Franklin K Lane pleaded with the Court
for an intimation OF what his ruling would
be in regard to the record title, or at least
to agree that in case he decided against
them on that proposition he would reopen
the case for further testimony.
Judge Sanderson firmly declined to give
any advance rulings, and in answer to a
suggestion that it might take six months
to try the case told Attorney Van Duzer
not to worry about taking up the Courts
time.
Attorney Goodfellow finally succeeded
in suggesting q suitable arrange ment
whereby his Honor consented to hear ar
guments as to the record title, and then
if necessary he would listen to testimony
and argument concerning the adverse pos
session. Adjournment was then bad until
o'clock.
Koscalowski opened the proceedings of
the afternoon session by objecting to what
he termed a partial trial of the case.
Judge Sanderson stated that it was pro-
posed only to listen to argument on the
question as to whether on the showing so
tar made the plaintiff had made out
prima facie case. If it was shown by the
record that title was insufficient it would
be unnecessary to inquire into the ques-
tion of adverse possession. After some
discussion, with objections by Splivalo,
his Honor called upon Judge McKinstry
to open. Koscialowski objected to this
and stated the plaintiffs should be allowed
to open and close. Judge Sanderson said
he would accord him that right.
''This is a case" said Koscialowski
(which is without a parallel in the books
For that reason it will take quite a length
of time to properly present 1t. We have
shown that this grant was made in con-
formity with a petition setting forth that
the property was needed for the support OF
petitioners family. 1t is an important
point in the case that the petition was
written on ordinary paper"
The speaker here gave a historical re-
view of the colonization law under which
this grant was made. He declared that
the motive of the Mexican Government in
passing this law was to encourage the
settlement of California by families.
"Under the Spanish law" he proceeded,
marriage was looked upon as a partner
ship. All the property acquired in any
way by either party to the matrimonial
contract goes into the copartnership funds
eli a grant be made to a settler, with
onerous conditions which he must per-
form. or else the property will go back to
IN al, ;no ~
property dover to the wife in what was
known as the first class. II there were 10
such conditions attached she would have
in the property dover in the second class"
Judge McKinstry interrupted to ask
what all that law had to do with the case.
Judge McKinstry, replied his Honor,
'I presume Mr.. Koscialowski is arguing
this matter as well as he can
"But 1 insist that we have a right to
know the relevancy of this matter in re-
gard to DOVER" Judge McKinstry said.
Judge Sanderson admitted Mr.. Koscia-
lowski should show the relevancy of the
matter TO the court. Koscialowski said it
was to show the right which Mrs. Noe had
to one-half of the property.
"Do / understand you claim under Mrs.
Noe ?" asked Judge McKinstry.
Koscialowski said they did, and McKin-
stry SAID he was satisfied. II was in hopes
we would at some stage in the proceeding
get that statement" he remarked, ''and
now we have it,"
Koscialowski then proceeded with his
exposition OF Mexican law, which he
claimed was in regard to these claims, the
existing law to-day. He read voluminous
extracts from translations of Spanish law
works to prove his contentious. At 4
o'clock he annnunced that he would like
to continue his argument to-day.
II would suggest" said F. K. Lane,
"that the court limit this talk proceeding"
II will limit it when L get weary" said
his Honor significantly.
The case goes on again this morning at
10 o'clock.