Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

has been conversant with the whole tract of country since 1852, and never saw any evidence of any old Spanish improvements on this land, or heard of any.

E. F. Elliott testifies, that in the spring of 1846, Rosa moved into the same house with himself, and purported to be a school teacher, that he had no property, and since the war he has followed the business of a tailor, and sometimes worked in Gen. Vallejo's vineyard. The witness further states that he was personally acquainted with the whole neighborhood, and worked in every rodeo, that his business was killing cattle for their tallow and hides, and that Rosa did not have, during the years 1846, 1847, 1848 and 1849, cattle to the number of from 300 to 500, the same number of horses, or any less number, nor could he have had them without the witness' knowledge. That he never saw the brand delineated by Rosa on any cattle, that he would have seen it had it been there.

The witness gives from memory some 16 brands which were upon cattle in the neighborhood. He further states that he has heard Rosa frequently complain of his poverty, but never heard him speak of having any property.

Elmsley Elliott swears to nearly the same facts. He states that Rosa's family has often come to his father's house begging for some thing to eat, that he has travelled all over the country, and has never heard of Rosa's owning the stock described by him, that Rosa has told him more than twenty times, from 1845 to 1849, that he did not own any such.

John Cameron, a witness for the claimants, who has resided in Sonora from April, '47, until March, 1854, stated that he never knew Rosa to be the owner of any number of horses and cattle. That he was acquainted with all the brands used from Sutter's to San Rafael, and he never had any pointed out to him as Rosa's brand, that he was generally supposed to be a very poor man.

It is unnecessary to recapitulate all the evidence on this point. A careful perusal of it has led me irresistably to the conclusion, that it is not proved that Rosa either occupied, built upon, or cultivated this rancho. From the

2

whole testimony in the case, as well on the part of the claimants as of the United States, it clearly appears that up to the latter part of 1844, Rosa's residence was in Monterey, where he was employed as printer. That in 1844 or the beginning of 1845, he came to Sonoma, where he resided with his family until after the conquest, that he was poor, and obtained his livelihood by mending clothes and watches, and similar occupations.

From 1846 to 1848, it is stated by one of the claimant's own witnesses, (J. P. Leese,) that he lived with Gen. Vallejo, to whose children he taught music, and that Gen. Vallejo, from charitable motives. gave him an opportunity to support himself.

Since the organization of the Board of Commissioners he is stated by one of the witnesses to have added to his ordinary business, as a tailor, the more profitable profession of testifying in land cases.

No one can read the depositions of the numerous witnesses who testify as to his continued residence in Sonoma, as to his circumstances and means of livelihood, and avoid the conviction that his statement as to the occupation of the rancho, his ownership of fifty tame and three or four hundred wild horses, &c., is incredible.

To all this may be added the repeated declarations of Rosa, that he never owned a rancho, and had never applied for one.

This last evidence, however, is met on the part of the claimants by that of George C. Yount and Narciso Botello. The first of these witnesses swears that sometime in 1846 Rosa told him he had a rancho, and to the best of his, witness', belief, stated that it lay between Baca and Bidwell's ranch, and was called Pulpones or Pulpinas.

Narciso Botello swears that he remembers that while a member of the Assembly he heard some talk of an application by Rosa for a grant in Sonoma; that he does not know whether he ever obtained the grant, nor was he informed of the fact until he recently saw the papers exhibited by the claimants.

The circumstance stated by Botello may perhaps explain

the testimony of Mr. Yount. It may be that Rosa did endeavor to obtain a grant, or that "there was some talk about it,” and he may have stated that fact to Mr. Yount. At all events I do not feel at liberty to receive this testimony of an isolated declaration as outweighing the evidence of so many witnesses, who testify as to his residence, his mode of life, his means of livelihood, and his repeated declarations that he owned no rancho whatever.

Having thus seen that no evidence of the authenticity of this grant is afforded by the archives of the former government, nor by the production of the documents from the proper custody, nor by proof of an occupation of the land, we proceed to consider the evidence as to the genuineness of the signatures.

A large number of witnesses testify, on the part of the claimants, that in their opinion the signatures of Pio Pico are genuine.

On the part of the United States several witnesses testify that they believe them to be forgeries; and one of them expresses the opinion that they were written by the person who wrote the body of the instruments-that is, by Covarrubias.

It is admitted by all the witnesses for the claimants that the signatures of Pico to these documents are unlike his usual mode of writing his name, although it is stated by them that his mode of signing his name was not uniform. The deposition of Pico himself has been taken since the case was appealed, but a traced copy of the grant, and not the original, was submitted to him. The testimony of Pico is singularly guarded. He says he cannot now remember in regard to the original document, "but the signature as it appears in the traced copy appears to be my signature, and I believe my signature was placed to the document at the time it bears date." He repeats totidem vabis the same answer to three successive interrogatories. To the 7th interrogatory he answers:

66

[ocr errors]

"I do not now remember of the grant of land mentioned in the interrogatory, except from the papers shown me, and therefore cannot state further in regard to it."

In answer to the 1st cross-interrogatory, he says:

66

My statement in regard to my signature is made from inspection of the papers now presented to me, and not from recollection of signing the originals. I believe, however, from my best recollection, that the original documents were signed by me at the time they bear date."

To the 2d cross-interrogatory he says:

"I speak of the papers as they are now shown me, and not from recollection of the events as they transpired."

It is evident that the testimony of the witness merely amounts to a statement that the signature, a traced copy of which is shown him, appears to be his. But the fact of the application for, or issuance of the title, he is wholly unable to recollect.

The depositions of John W. Shore and Joseph A. Hinchman have also been taken since the appeal.

These witnesses testify in substance that there is now on file in the County Clerk's office, at Los Angeles, a document, purporting to be signed by Pio Pico, a traced copy of which is annexed to their deposition. One of them swears that he believes the signature to be genuine. The document is dated Oct., 1845, and the signature somewhat resembles, in the formation of the "P's" in Pio Pico's name, the signature in the case at bar. It differs from it, however, very perceptibly. It is this resemblance, such as it is, which alone gives importance to the testimony. But unfortunately it does not appear that this document is genuine. Shore testifies, April 24, 1857, that it had been in its present place of custody, to his knowledge, about three years and a half. Whether it was then filed for the first time does not appear. A document filed at the end of the year 1853, with a signature resembling those now in question, cannot certainly aid the claimants. Shore, it is true, expresses his belief that the signature is genuine, but his testimony is of no greater force than if he had expressed the same belief with regard to the signatures to the papers in this case. It is but one more witness in addition to prove the genuineness of the signature. It is worthy of remark that Pio Pico is not himself asked whether his

signature to this document is genuine, although he resides in Los Angeles county, where the original is kept, and was, it is presumed, accessible.

Since the cause was submitted the Court, being desirous of obtaining more full information from the archives, directed an examination of them by Mr. Hopkins, the clerk in charge. Mr. Hopkins was therefore examined by the court, with liberty to either side to cross-examine him. From Mr. Hopkins' testimony it appears that the signature of Pio Pico appears in various expedientes on file in the archives two hundred and ninety-eight times; that on the journal of the Assembly it occurs one hundred and thirtyone times; and on various grants in 1845 and 1846, about one hundred times.

The signatures in the expedientes, and on the journals, are remarkable for their uniformity. Those on the expedientes are exactly similar, without a single exception; those on the journals are also uniform, with the exception of a single sheet, signed "Pico." This appears to be a loose borrador, or blotter, and the signature is unlike any other that appears in the records.

The one hundred signatures in the grants present the same uniformity, with some exceptions. The first is that in the case of Prudon & Vaca, hereafter alluded to. Mr. Hopkins expresses the opinion that it is a forgery.

The next is a signature bearing a striking resemblance to that last mentioned. It is attached to the certificate of approval of the grant of Petaluma to M. G. Vallejo.

The next is in the decree of concession in case No. 648, before the Commission. It differs, says Mr. Hopkins, from all others that he has seen. The "P's" are made somewhat in the style of those in the present case. The remaining signatures are attached to various documents, dated from January to July, 1846.

All these last differ from all others. They are all uniform and resemble each other. They differ from all others in the form of the " P's."

A letter written by Pio Pico, as administrator of a Mission in 1839, is also produced. The signature resembles

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »