Amador ledger., 1903-10-23
MATTLEY VS.. THOMAS.
Suit to Compel Right of Way Over
Defendants Land by Virtue of Long
Usage.


The trial of the case of David Mat.
tley VS.. Geo. L. Thomas, was com.
menced in the superior court last Mon.
day. The points involved in this case
are of much interest to land owners
generally. Thomas last year purchased
from Mrs. Clark the property known
as the Clark ranch of 160 acres, one
mile southwest of Jackson. Mattley
owns over 700 acres west of this tract.
He has owned this land for over AZ
years, before either his own land or the
neig boring land was fenced, and long
before a patent was issued. The near
est and most available route to town
for hauling wood, driving stock, ETC.,
stated that he had travelled through
there in the transaction of his business
during the entire period; that gates
had been maintained for that purpose,
which were kept unlocked; that Clark
had at different times objected to his
going through, and on one occasion
placed an obstruction in the way; but
when Mattley proposed to go before
the supervisors for the purpose of get
ting this Travelled road declared pub
lie road, Clark then said, ''Don't cut
up my land" and recognized his right
to go through. Clark has been dead
over 20 years, and no one was pres
ent at the time except the two
principals. No written acknowledge
ment of such right of way was
given, and no consideration was paid
for it. Mattley said it was his only
way of egress from the place, but ad-
mitted that after Thomas locked up
the gate he found way out elsewhere.
He never attempted to drive through
when there was crop growing. and a
portion of the land through which the
road went was cultivated every year.
He wanted the supervisors to take the
matter up, so that the county would
have to fight Clark instead of himself
individually. He never petitioned the
supervisors as body, but spoke to
one supervisor about it.
A snag was encountered in relation
to the testimony of the witness at the
hearing for a temporary injunction.
The testimony had been taken in short
hand, and afterward transcribed, and
a copy furnished to each attorney. On
comparing these copies, it was found
that they did not exactly agree; that
the difference was material one, seri-
Ously affecting the merits of the case.
The tangle was Strengthened out by ad-
mitting the copy furnished the defend
ants attorneys as correct.
A number of witnesses were examined
for plaintiff, going to show that plain
tiff had used the road since early days,
not as a favor from the defendant and
his grantors, but u matter of right; that
it being his only outlet, and used ad-
versely to defendants title, he had
thereby acquired right of way by
prescription.
On the side Of the defendant it was
shown that Mattley had travelled the
road by permission of Clark only; that
the outlet had changed at different
times; that Clark had actually locked
the gate on the division fence between
the two properties; that Mattley had
other ways of egress from that particu-
lar ranch, and had hauled wood and
driven cattle by other outlets
George Thomas testified that since
the dispute arose, the plaintiff in con-
versation admitted that he had no road
over the Clark ranch, but that he
would force one if it cost him 500, 600 to
do it. Another witness testified sub
stantially to the same effect.
The case will likely be finished to-day,
N,,ff &o;,