Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

that in the present case. No similar signature occurs later than 1839. At that time he appears to have used this last form of signature, and that previously described indifferently. All these documents were produced in court, and submitted to inspection.

From the foregoing it appears that from the beginning of his official career, up to the year 1846, throughout all the expedientes on the journals of the Assembly (with the exception of one sheet supposed to be a borrador,) and in every grant, with three exceptions, Pio Pico's signature was marked by a uniform and striking peculiarity. That in grants made during 1846, he sometimes used another mode of signature; that this mode is also uniform and simlar to that now used by him, as it appears on his affidavit, deposition, &c., in this case.

The three exceptions among the grants made previously to 1846, are first, that to. Prudon & Vaca, which is supposed to be a forgery, and which is obviously intended to imitate his usual signature; second, another closly resem-bling it; and a third, differing from any other, and somewhat resembling that in this case.

Of all of these numerous signatures, not one made since 1839 is found which in any respect resembles those in the grant in this case, except the solitary instance last mentiored, which, as Mr. Hopkins states, differs from all others, though it somewhat resembles those in this case in the form of the "P's."

It thus appears that of 628 signatures made previous to 1846, all except four are uniform. That of these four one is attached to a borrador or blotter; the second is pronounced a forgery; the third strikingly resembles the second. The last is unlike any of the others. No one except the last resembles in any respect those in this case.

It is not enough, therefore, for the claimants to show that Pio Pico had various ways of signing his name. They should prove that the mode adopted in this case was one of the modes used by him. This they have sought to do by exhibiting documents made previously to 1839, but none since Of 639 signatures made since that time, all are uniform

except 14, and only one bears a resemblance to those in this case.

On the very day which this grant purports to have been issued, his signature appears to other grants, exhibiting its marked and uniform characteristics. In the journals of the Assembly it occurs 130 times, uniform and peculiar. It was certainly a strange accident that in this one grant he did not adopt the mode of signing which he was then, and for a long time previous had been, daily using in his official transactions, but recurred to a mode of signature not used by him since 1839.

All proof of hand writing except the direct evidence of those who have witnessed the act of writing, is but opinion, founded on a mental comparison of the writing in question with other writing of the same party which the witness has seen. But if, as in this case, more than 400 specimens of a signature of a party are presented, no one of which is found except those made previously to 1839, to resemble that in question, the opinions of witnesses who pronounce it genuine from its resemblance to other signatures become of little importance. It will be urged that he did use this signature in 1839, and therefore may have used it in this instance. It is undoubtedly possible that such may have been the case, but it is in a high degree improbable that amongst so great a number of signatures marked by a uniform and striking peculiarity, he should, in this instance, have adopted a mode of signature resembling that occasionally used by him six or seven years previously.

The suspicion involuntarily suggests itself, that the grant was not made at the time it bears date. But that either Pio Pico himself, or some one who has forged his name, has by mistake, adopted a signature different from that which at the date of the grant, or subsequently, he was in the habit of using.

On the part of the claimants, M. G. Vallejo, Alvarado, José Castro and Salvador Vallejo, testify that they are acquainted with Pio Pico's signatures, and believe those on the documents in this case to be genuine. The last witness says that he has seen Pio Pico's name to grants, and

V

that the "P's" in the signatures to the documents are made in his usual style; he also states that Pio Pico wrote his name with uniformity. The gross inaccuracy of both of these statements will not be disputed.

M. G. Vallejo states that Pio Pico made his "P's" like those in this case in his common writing. He has seen such in his grants and approvals, and common writing which he knew to be his. He cannot recollect any particular grant in which that letter is so made. The testimony of Mr. Hopkins exposes the error of this statement. Upon a grant by Pio Pico being shown to the witness he admitted that there was no resemblance between the signature to that document and those in the case at bar, and accounts for it by the observation," that he may have had more room in that grant, or was perhaps in a different humor."

Andreas Pico swears that the signatures appear to be the true and genuine signatures of Pio Pico. That he formed his opinion by comparing them with those he has seen. That he has seen a great many in the archives.

Manuel Castro, De Zaldo, and Benito Dias, all express the opinion that the signatures are genuine. To this testimony may be added that of Botello, who swears that in his opinion the signatures are genuine.

On the other hand, Richardson, Wm. Carey Jones, James Wilson, a former member of the Land Commission, and Thomas O. Larkin, all testify that in their opinion the signatures are not genuine.

Orlando McKnight testifies that he has been much accustomed to examine and compare handwritings and considers himself capable of judging whether a document is written in an assumed hand. On examining the documents in this case he expresses the opinion that the signatures of Pio Pico were signed by the person who wrote the body of the instruments, i. e., by Covarrubias.

On comparing these signatures with 17 signatures of Pio Pico, found in the records of the Departmental Assembly for 1846, he says that the letters of the name of Pio Pico in the former, as also the rubric attached have the

stiffness and clumsiness difficult to avoid in an imitation, while the 17 signatures appear natural, easy and without restraint. On making a very close examination of the 17 signatures with dividers, he states that he never saw a more uniform signature.

J. H. Purdy, also an expert, is inclined to believe that the signatures to the document are in the same handwriting as the body of the instrument, but is not positive. On comparing these signatures with those in the record of the Assembly, he says that the differences between them consist in the form of the "P's," and in that of the rubricsalso in their general appearance; that the rubrics in the record," though more condensed in width fall farther below the line of the writing of the signature than those in the documents in this case.

It ought perhaps to be added that neither of these witnesses profess to have any familiarity with Spanish documents, or practice in comparing hand writings in that language.

Col. Jonathan D. Stevenson testifies that he has corresponded with Pio Pico, and seen many documents purporting to be signed by him, that in none of them did the signatures resemble those in this case. That these last are bolder and larger than Pio Pico's usual signature, and the form of the letters, particularly that of the "P's" is unlike his genuine signature. He also thinks, from inspection, that the body of the documents and the signatures were written by the same hand and with the same pen and ink. When asked to explain why he does not believe these signatures genuine, he says, "To use a school-boy's phrase, I think these letters were 'painted,' after they were formed. The difference is more easily pointed out than explained."

I have thus recapitulated, perhaps unnecessarily, all the evidence as to the genuineness of the signatures.

It is certainly not over-stating its force to say that it leaves it open to the gravest suspicions-suspicions which the inspection of the originals has not tended to weaken. At the end of the grant produced by the claimants, is

3

the memorandum signed by the secretary, Covarrubias, stating that a note of the title had been taken in the corresponding book. This Covarrubias, in his deposition, states to have been done. The "corresponding book" is found in the archives, but it contains no note of this grant. Covarrubias swears that the book in which he entered this grant was not the one now produced. That it was not bound, but composed of sheets of paper sewed together. That in it were entered various "tomas de razon," in the handwriting of himself and of his two clerks. That he was in the habit of placing his initials, "J. M. C." at the bottom of each entry. The entries for 1845, in the book now produced, are in the handwriting of Francisco Lopez, one of his clerks at that time.

This statement is corroborated by the testimony of Narciso Botello. This witness swears that the book found in the archives is not that used by the government for the registry of titles at Los Angeles. That the latter was a Cuaderno, with loose leaves without binding, and generally in the handwriting of Covarrubias. He states that the writing in the last part is that of Francisco Lopez, and that on page 7, to be the writing of Don Augustin Olvera, the Governor's secretary.

On the other hand, Thomas O. Larkin, a witness produced by the claimants, testifies that he was acquainted with the books in the office of the secretary during the years '45 and '46. That there was only one book, and he believes the book produced from the archives to be the one referred to by him. That he saw this book in the secretary's office in the time of Micheltorena, and also among the archives when they were delivered over to the Americans, in August or September, 1846.

No other book of "Tomas de Razon," for 1845, is found in the archives, and the testimony of Mr. Larkin would seem sufficiently to identify it as that in which the entries for that year were made. But even admitting the accuracy of Covarrubias' statement, it is evident that as the entries are in the handwriting of one of his clerks, and the book was delivered to the Americans in 1846, among

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »