The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-07-15
COBURN WINS HIS SUIT,
San Mateo County Enjoined From
Further Trespassing on
His Premises.
Decision of the Court Spells the
Chances of Pebble Beach Be-
coming a Resort.

The suit in equity, brought by Loren
Coburn to restrain and enjoin the county
of San Mateo from trespassing on certain
premises, was decided by Judge Morrow
yesterday in favor of the complainant.
The court also holds that the property
in question belongs to the State because
the land of the claimant extends only to
tide-water. The Supervisors hoped at one
time to make the coveted strip of land
known as pebble Beach public resort.
The decision of the court is in part as fol-
lows:
The complainant, Loren Coburn is the
owner of tract of land originally forming
part of a Mexican land grant, known as the
Simon Castro on May 81, 1912. by Juan B. Al
varado, then Governor of California, for four
square leagues. This grant was subsequently
confirmed by the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, and
thereafter, on the Sd day of December, 1857 q
patent was issued by the Government of the
widow of Simon Castro, and to the children
and heirs of said Simon Castro, and to their
heirs. The grant was by metes and bounds,
and as surveyed contained 17,753.15 acres
The complainant acquired his title 10 all the
westerly half OF said ranch through certain
mesne conveyances.
Then follows a lengthy description of
the property directly in dispute. Along
the ocean side OF this tract are several
small beaches, the one known as Pebble
Beach being the subject of controversy in
the present case. The only convenient
way to reach this spot is through the
land owned by Coburn. Up to 1890 gate
furnished exit and entrance for all who
desired to visit Pebble Beach. At that
time, however, the complainant moved on
the property, mailing up the gate leading
to the beach.
Some twenty-five or thirty citizens of
San Mateo, including Supervisor H. B.
Adair protested against the action, claim
ing that the road was a public one and
consequently Coburn had no right to close
it. They then cut down the gate and
destroyed part OF the fencing. Later the
Supervisors declared the road a public
thoroughfare, instructing incidentally
Adair to keep the same open. Covering
this point and in conclusion Judge Morrow
says:
The Supervisor was by virtue of his office
ex-officio Road Commissioner. AS such he was
under the affirmative duty, ''under the direc-
ton and supervision and pursuant to the order
OF the Board of Supervisors, !" to take charge of
the highways within their respective districts,
all men, teams, etc., necessary to do work on
the road, also to keep the road clear of OBJ
structions. For the proper discharge of this
duty as Road Commissioner, ne was directly
RESPONSE BILE to the Board of Supervisors.
But il is claimed by the respondent that SUI
pervisor Adair was never authorized by the
board to commit the acts proved against him
or pursue the course he did. It is true that the
board did not pass an order or authorization
directing in so many words Supervisor Adair
| to tear down complainant's gate and fence
and keep the road free from distractions, nor
! did they adopt resolution indorsing Adair g
action nor did they officially ratify his course.
! But on the LIST OF May, 1893, two months
subsequent to the passage of the act declaring
Pebble Beach place of recreation for the pub
| lie, they passed an order declaring Pebble
Beach road a public road It is diiti-
cation for his efforts to keep the road free from
distractions and open to the public Supervisor
| Adair required.
= / am of the opinion, both from the
law and the facts of this case, that the county
| of San Mateo is liable for the tortuous acts of
| its officer and agent, Supervisor and ex-officio
Road Commissioner Adair, and that the COM
| plainant should be Unidentified for whatever
| damage he may have suffered in this connec-