the sobrante of the two leagues belonging to Castro and Pacheco was conceded to Inocencio and José Romero, that the title was in them. My mother owns a ranch in that vicinity. She has had her ranch. confirmed to her as Maria Manuela Valencia. I married one of Moraga's daughters in 1846. Cross-examination. Quest. 1st. In your reply to the 3rd interrogatory in chief, you say "that Antonio Maria Pico was ordered by Governor Micheltorena to place the Romeros in possession of the sobrante lying between Castro and Pacheco ranchos, because he had granted it to them." How do you know that Governor Micheltorena gave any such order? Ans. 1st. I know it from having seen the title at Romero's house, and from his being in possession. 274 Quest. 2nd. Did you ever see the order from Micheltorena to Antonio Maria Pico, directing him to give the possession of the ranch? Ans. 2nd. No, sir; I saw the title, but not the order. Quest. 3rd. Where were you when you saw the title from Micheltorena? Ans. 3rd. At the ranch of San Felipe. Quest. 4th. Where is the ranch of San Felipe; and who lived there at that time? Ans. 4th. It is in Contra Costa county, between the ranches of Welch, Brown, and Martinez. My mother and all the family lived there at that time. Quest. 5th. Who showed you that title? Ans. 5th. Inocencio Romero. Quest. 6th. When was it? Ans. 6th. In 1845. I do not know the month. Quest. 7th. Why did Inocencio Romero show you that title? 275 Ans. 7th. Because the neighboring rancheros had a dispute about the land, and said Romero had no title for it; upon which Romero pulled out his papers and said, here is my title. that day? Quest. 8th. Who was it that Romero showed his papers to Ans. 8th. Inocencio Romero's son read the papers to me, because his father could not read. I do not recollect the name of Romero's son. He is the eldest. I think it is José, but I am not certain. Quest. 9th. Did you read those papers yourself? Ans. 9th. No, sir. I did not read them myself, but heard his son read them. Quest. 10th. Did you examine those papers? Ans. 10th. I did not examine them, but look on while he was reading them. Quest. 11th. Do you know the signature of Micheltorena? Ans. 11th. Yes, sir. Quest. 12th. Did you see his signature on those papers, and did you examine it? Ans. 12th. I saw the signature, and I think it was his signature. Quest 13th. If you was to see that title paper now would you recognize it? Ans. 13th. If I was to see it and heard it read I would recog276 nize it. Quest. 14th. Did that paper say anything about Antonio Maria Pico's being ordered to give possession to Romero? Ans. 14th. I saw the title paper but not the order; there was no order of that kind on those papers. Quest. 15th. In whose handwriting was the title paper that you saw? Ans. 15th. I do not know. Quest. 16th. Did Romero read it to you alone, or before others; if so, whom? Ans. 16th. Only myself, Romero and his son were present. Quest. 17th. At what place was that title given, and what was its date? Ans. 17th. It bore date of 1844; from Monterey. Direct resumed. 277 1st quest. Does Romero's son read well? 1st ans. He does. 2nd quest. Do you read and write? 2nd ans. I read a little, and can only sign my name. 4th quest. Who were the colindantes mentioned in question and answer No. 7th, who were disputing about the boundary line? 4th ans. It was Domingo Peralta. 5th quest. Whose name was signed as secretary on the papers you. speak of? 5th ans. I do not recollect. RAMON BRIONES. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22nd day of May, A. D. 1858. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Endorsed Filed July 10, 1858. W. H. CHEVERS, Clerk. 279 Order restoring cause to calendar. In the district court of the United States for the northern district of Cal’a. J. ROMERO et al. vs. THE UNITED STATES. On motion of plaintiffs' attorney and by consent of the United States district attorney in open court expressed, it is hereby ordered that the above cause be restored to the calendar for the purpose of . substituting the names of the real owners of said ranch in place of the original claimants, and for the introduction of such further evidence therein as may be introduced by either party thereto. San Francisco, Oct. 14th, 1858. Endorsed Filed Oct. 14, 1858. W. H. CHEVERS, Clerk. Motion and affidavits of D. P. Smith and A. J. Tice. In the district court of the United States for the northern district of INOCENCIO ROMERO et al. 280 VS. UNITED STATES. California, ss: No. 314 on land calendar. You will please take notice that on the facts, and for the reasons stated in the annexed affidavits, I shall, on Monday next, the 20th day of Sept., 1858, at the opening of said district court on that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, move said court to set aside the order submitting the said cause to the court, and to open said cause for further proof, and also for leave to make the said David P. Smith and Andrew J. Tice parties to the petition for confirmation, and for such other or further order as may be needful to protect the interests of said Smith and Tice in the said lands. Dated at San Francisco, Sept. 15, 1858. J. B. CROCKETT, To P. DELLA TORRE, Esq'r., District Att'y. In the district court of the United States for the northern district of INOCENCIO ROMERO et als. vs. THE UNITED STATES. California, ss: No. 314 on land calendar. David P. Smith, being duly sworn, deposes that the petition 281 of the claimants in the above cause for confirmation of their title was filed in the land commission on the 28th Feb'y, 1852, after which time, to wit, on or about the 28th day of September, 1853, Francisco Attoyo, one of the claimants, sold to this deponent all his (the said Attoyo's) interest in the tract of land in controversy in this cause, at and for the price of $3,000, which has been fully paid, and for which the deponent holds the receipts of the said Attoyo, specifying that the said sum is in full for the purchase money of the said tract so sold by said Attoyo to the deponent, which receipts deponent is ready to produce to the court. He further deposes that the said Attoyo has left the State of California and gone to foreign parts, without having executed and delivered to deponent a deed for the said premises, and deponent has been compelled to institute a suit in the district court of Contra Costa county against said Attoyo to enforce such conveyance, which suit is yet pending; that immediately on purchasing said land deponent took possession thereof and has ever since remained and yet is in the quiet possession thereof, and has expended about $4,000 in improving the same. 282 He further deposes that he took the advice of counsel as to the necessity of being substituted in said petition for said Attoyo, and was adviced that uch substitution was unnecessary inasmuch as a confirmation to said Attoyo would enure to the benefit of his vendor; but since then some of the petitioners have caused the deposition of said Attoyo to be taken in said cause on behalf of the claimants, wherein he testifies that he has no interest in said lands, having sold the same to this deponent and others in 1853, which deposition was taken in December, 1857, during the absence from this State of J. B. Crockett, the attorney employed by the deponent to represent his interest in said cause and on whom he especially relied, being the only attorney employed by him in the cause. He further deposes that his said attorney did not return to this State until the 14th August last, and after said cause had been submitted, and within the last three or four days deponent has ascertained, for the first time, that in order to protect his interest in said land it is necessary he should be made a party to said cause and substituted for the said Attoyo as one of the claimants, which he prays may be done. 283 DAVID P. SMITH. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 15th Sept'r, 1858. CUTLER MCALLISTER, [SEAL.] U. S. Com'r. Andrew J. Tice, being duly sworn, deposes that after the petition of the claimants for a confirmation was filed, to wit, on the 6th day of December, 1853, Inocencio Romero, one of the petitioners, and his wife, by their deed of that date, conveyed to Domingo Pujol and Francisco Sanjurjo all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands mentioned in said petition and which are in contest in this cause, with a stipulation, however, in said deed that in the event of a confirmation of said claim the said grantees should pay to the grantors the sum of three thousand dollars, in addition to the price before then paid; and also that of all the purchase money remaining unpaid from vendors of other portions of said tract claiming under said grantors, one-half should be paid to the grantors and the other half to the grantees. He further deposes that afterwards, to wit, on the 14th Feb'y, 1855, the said Pujol and Sanjurjo, by their deed of that date, conveyed the land so acquired by them to one James W. Tice, who afterwards, to wit, on the 8th day of August, 1855, by his deed of that date, conveyed to this deponent all, which conveyances have been duly recorded, and deponent is now the owner of the said interest. He further deposes that afterwards, to wit, on the 10th day of August, 1856, the said Inocencio Romero, by his certain instrument in writing, under his hand and seal conveyed, assigned, and transferred to one Manuel Miranda, for a valuable consideration, all his interest in the stipulations aforesaid, and in all 284 monies in any manner to arise therefrom, and by means of the said conveyance and transfer the said Romero ceased to have any interest whatsoever in said lands or the proceeds thereof. He further deposes that afterwards, to wit, on or about the 26th Dec'r, 1857, some of the claimants caused the deposition of said Romero to b taken in said cause, and to be retaken on the 11th Feb'y, 1858, in which depositions the said Romero testifies amongst other things that he had no interest in said lands, having sold, conveyed, and transferred the same as hereinbefore stated. He further deposes that he was adviced by counsel that it was not necessary he should be made a party to 285 said suit, inasmuch as a confirmation to said Romero would. enure to the benefit of his vendors; and at the time when said Romero's depositions were taken, J. B. Crockett, the only attorney employed by deponent to represent his interest in said cause, was absent from this State, and did not return until about the 14th August last, after said cause had been submitted, and deponent was not aware until within the last three or four days that it was necessary he should be made a party to said petition and substituted to the rights of said Romero, so far as relates to deponent's interests in said land. But he is adviced by his counsel that unless he is made a party to the said proceeding his rights will be seriously jeopardized, if not totally lost. A. JACKSON TICE. Sworn to and subscribed, Sept. 15th, 1858, before me. W. H. CHEVERS, In the above entitled cause it being represented to the court that since the filing of the original petition for confirmation before the board of United States land commissioners Andrew J. Tice has succeeded to and become the owner of all the right, title, and interest of Inocencio Romero,' one of the said petitioners, in and to the lands mentioned in said petition, and which are the subject matter of this suit; and also that David P. Smith has in like manner succeeded to and become the owner of all the right, title, and interest of Francisco Attoyo, of the said petitioners, in and to the said lands, and the said Tice and Smith having petitioned to be made parties to the said cause in order to be allowed to make proof of their respective titles, derived as aforesaid, it is therefore ordered and decreed that the said Andrew J. Tice and David P. Smith be, and they are hereby, admitted as parties to the said cause, with leave to take proof therein in |