The San Francisco call., 1896-01-22

William Patterson Charles S. Harney,
James Connell, A. Hattabough, L. G. Williams,
NJ. A. Cachot, Fred. C. Siebe, Jacob P. Selmer,
William ]. Welch. Sarah A. Madden, George Mar
golf; Gilbert P. Chase, Asa NJ. Simpson, George
C. Smart, Charles Hopper, l. w Carr, Patrick
Tiernan, John Pagan, Thomas j. Lynch,
Samuel ]. Marshall, John Harrigan, C. L.
Tilden, Stanley Coghill, Charles NJ. Wig
gins, James Keene, ]. A. Cooper, NJ l..
Kelly, w. B. Swain, Alexander F. Holm
berg, H. Wilder, William Drury, Thomas J..
Crowley, C. C. Darling, ]. G. Klumke,
L. E. Osgood, Patrick Cosgrove, ]. c. Carroll,
F. G. Brooks, Robert Benson. A. F. Caseboldt,
Henry J. Foley, Richard H. Harris, Hugh b.
Jones, James Moore, Henry Lamp Jr., Charles
A. Peters, Max Pepper, Archer B. Thompson,
Samuel Wyatt, John Doe, William Doe. Samuel
Doe, Robert Doe, Stephen Doe, George Doe,
James Doe, Silas Doe, Aaron Doe, Reuben Doe,
Mary Doe. Jane Doe, Susan Doe, Rachel Doe,
Ella Doe, Richard Roe, John Roe, Stephen Roe,
William Roe, George Roe, Reuben Roe, Michael
Roe, Nancy Roe, Mary Roe, Jane Roe and Ella
Roe defendants.
The plaintiffs, represented by Philip I.
Koscialowski, seek to recover an undivided
one-half of the rancho, being the old
Sonora Noe one-haf claim. In the new
complaint the rancho is said to contain
4443 38-100 acres, while in the suit OF thirty
tlve years ago it was put at $500 excepting
two tracts. The geographical description
and location in the two instruments are
worded little differently, but both desig-
nate the tract in dispute as the San Miguel
rancho.
Attorney Koscialowski for the plaintiffs,
when interviewed yesterday, stated that
he had never heard of the Borie VS.. Noe
suit, and recourse to the volume of court
lndices of California cases in his Office
failed to resurrect any mention of the case.
Joseph Naphtaly of the firm of Naphtaly,
Friedenrich & Ackerman, attorneys who
represent the Home of Peace Cemetery,
was surprised to hear of the former suit
and Judge Morton's important decision.
Where did you find this story?" asked
Mr.. Naphtaly of the newspaper man.
''Oh, CALL reporter found it among the
records at the City Hall, and thought
there might be something in it."
"Well, believe there is something in it,
It's my opinion that every one of those
tenants in Noe Valley holding title from
Borie are safe in their possession, and
their property is as safe as the coin in
their pockets. The decree, if you have
Noe claimants, and the plaintiffs in this
case, like the defendants in the former
suit, haven't the ghost of a case. But,
mind you, they haven't ghost of a case
anyhow, and especially in the question of
the cemetery which l represent. The
statute of limitations makes that case
ours. But it is good story, young man,
and will be good news, no doubt, to the
San Miguel rancho people"
Isaac n. Thorne, the attorney whose
name is mentioned as one of the defend
ants in the suit of 1858, had forgotten the
details of the Borie case and its decree.
He believes that Judge Norton's decision
settled the case against the Noe people
thirty-five years ago, even if the Card case
did not three years prior to that date. Mr.
Thorne gave the following short history of
the San Miguel Rancho:
I'm 1852" said he, Jose Jesus Noe.
after the death of his wife, sold the entire
tract of league square 10 William Cary
Jones, brother-in-law of Mrs. Jessie Ben
ton Fremont, and B. F. Strobe, attorneys
of land claims. I believe the price was
$20o,ooO but think Noe only got $1OO 600.
In 1858 they conveyed 1t to John Y. Horner
who laid out the Horner Addition now
known Oh the maps. Horner mortgaged
the tract to Mayor Garrison, which mort
gage was transferred to Phoebe & Bayer-
que, who had been liquor merchants.
Phoebe went to France, where he per-
suaded a number OF his capitalist
friends that money would draw 3
per cent monthly in California. They
entrusted funds with him and the
two liquor-dealers launched out as bank
ers. They loaned money on everything,
and were soon at the end of their and their
friends resources. P1oche went back to
France for more funds and was imprisoned
for fraudulent transactions. He escaped
gong to penal colony and returned to
San Francisco to be found dead somewhere
in the seventies in his room on Stockton
street. The tract got into the hands of the
French bank, by which it was sold out in
parcels.
In 1857 the suit was brought against Card
for the possession of a 50-vara lot The
civil law then IN force in the territory ac-
quired from Mexico held that all property
was common and children could inherit
their mothers half of the estate. But the
Supreme Court decided adversely ard
we dropped the case, discouraged.
think that settled the question, and if
1T did not, Judge Norton's decree certainly
does. 1t strikes me that this is an i'm
portant discovery"