Los Angeles herald., 1909-10-08
SUIT
IS ON TRIAL IN
SUPERIOR COURT
CASE TO DETERMINE TITLE TO
LANDS is BEGUN
POSSESSION OF TRACT ON OCEAN
FRONT DISPUTED
Southern Pacific Claims Frontage at
San Pedro ard 1t Is Expected
Its Ownership Will
Be Wrested
DR1AL to determine the title to the

IN RIAL to determine the title to the
most important of the various
Il properties involved in the numer-
Gus tidelands suits was begun before
Judge Bordwell in the superior court
yesterday after the first two hours oil
the session had been expended in wind
ing up the proceedings in the first ac-
ton involving location So, consisting OF
1880 acres adjoining the Southern Pa
cific slip at San Pedro. This case will
be included in the general argument 10
be made after all the suits are tried.
The second suit trial of which was
begun in the afternoon, seeks to quiet
title to 461 acres of land, the railroad
company being eliminated in the acton
except only in so far as a small portion
of the land to which it claims owner
ship laps over the property now in con-
troVersy.
The defendants in the second action
are William Banning, Mary Banning
Hancock Banning. the Imperial Invest
ment company, KerGkhoff- Gunner Mill
and Lumber company the Pacific Elec-
tric and the Los Angeles Harbor com
pany, and title to the land, which eX-
tends along the west basin from San
Pedro to Wilmington, with large part
of the east basin, is claimed by the de-
PENDANTS under a patent to Ph1neas
Banning granted December 16, 1881, af-
ter a legal struggle lasting many years
improved with Wharves
The property, which is designated as
location 81, is improved with wharves
belonging to the Banning interests ana
other concerns, and crossing 1t is the
line of the Pacific Electric running to
San Pedro, a right of way having been
granted the railway company by the
Bannings.
Perhaps the best informed as well as
the most interesting witness thus far
called by the state to testify as to con-
ditions in early days occupied the wit
ness chair shortly before adjournment
yesterday. This was DR.. ]. P. Widner,
who came to California in 1867, year
after Phineas Banning applied to the
states surveyor general for the land.
DR.. Widner's testimony Is regarded as
extremely valuable, owing to his IA
miliarity with conditions as they eX-
listed at that time in the vicinity of San
Pedro and Wilmington, his duties in
looking after harbor work giving him
a peculiar advantage over others In TINS
connection.
DR.. Widner said he reached San Pc
dro with a company of troops on MS
way to the frontier in January. 1857,
remaining about month at Whining
the following year he returned and set
tied at Wilmington, his duties being TO
look after harbor work.
1.-THE original wharf was located at
the foot of Canal street." said the wit
ness. 81 have recently seen the pie
work down the line of the channel, ana
it appears to be a part of the original
wharf which extended down toward
San Pedro.
Talks of Old Warehouse
"The old warehouse near Canal street
was the ouartermaster's house, and 1t
is nv impression the government was
landing supplies by lighters"
Wilmington. he said. was larger tne9
than it is today, and the population dld
not include the troops.
"Were you familiar with the appear
ance of the bay at low tide?' asked At
torney Anderson of states counsel.
"Yes," responded DR.. Widner, ''and
7 have observed it since and recently. L
notice little change in the shore line,
but the channels have become more
shallow to the west basin, which is now
shut in by the railroad track. There
was more water in the west basin at
low tide in the early days than there Is
now. At present many of the channels
seem to have Disappeared
In 1874, he said, Major Jones built a
wharf between the government build
inc and the foot of Canal street toward
san Pedro until the channel was
reached. There was a fierce war on
between Jones and Banning at that
time" said the witness, "and I was
there to make peace between them"
An important point in the present suit
concerns the incorporation of Whining
ton, the law providing that no tidelands
can be sold within two miles of an in
corporated town 1t was stated that
citizens of Wilmington voted in 1878 to
incorporate but neglected to organize,
and the state contends that incorpora-
ton was effected by the vote.
This is disputed by the defendants.
who claim the Incorporation was not
one in fact and that the tideland grants
are not invalidated by reason of the
election.