Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

plaintiff to be ousted from the land in 1847, and have remained in possession of the same up to this day, whether that ouster was legal or illegal, the plaintiff possessory action was barred or prescribed at the time of the commencing this suit, and the jury for find for defendants.

95

5th. If either of defendants were in possession of said land, by going on the same in person, or by building thereon in 1844 or 1845,-'6 or 1847, it is prior possession of defendants, and the jury shall find accordingly.

Stricken out by going on in person. Stricken out '44,-'45,-'46,'47; and I add the the person first building, or doing other acts of ownership, is entitled to a verdict.

6th. That the jury must find from the evidence that plaintiff is entitled to some given metes and bounds to which he is entitled to possession; and if the jury find that the testimony does not establish any right of possession by metes and bounds that clearly identify the possession sought to be recovered, the jury should find for defendants; the evidence must embrace the land in dispute.

i. e.,

7th. That if the jury find from the evidence that defendants have been in full and undisturbed possession of the lands in controversy more than one year and one day before the commencement of this suit, the plaintiff's action is prescribed, and the jury should find for the defendants, given with the insertion "undisturbed."

96

8th. Defendants ask the court to charge the jury that if defendants have been in full possession of the lands in controversy since 1844 to 1850, or from 1847 to March 7, 1850, that plaintiff's possessory action is prescribed, tho' during that time the parties quarrelled personally about the possession, and plaintiff instituted suits to recover the possession of the property both before competent and incompetent courts, provided plaintiff failed to prosecute said suits to effect, or dismissed the same, or the same were decided against him.

PERALTA vs.

GARCIA ROMERO.

Possessory action.-May, 1850.

Now comes the defendants in open court, in presence of plaintiff, and given notice that he will appeal said case to the Supreme Court, in conformity to the provisions of the statutes of the State of California regulating appeals to the Supreme Court, and the practice of said district and Supreme Courts adopted by the legislature in 1850.

INNOCENCIA ROMERO,
FRANCISCO GARCIA,

Defendants.

97

Service acknowledged.

FRED. H. SANFORD,
Pl'ff's Altorney.

PERALTO

vs.

GARCIA & ROMERO.

Petition for possession.

Be it remembered that on this 14th day of May, 1850, the above cause having been submitted to a jury, and after all the evidence being heard on the part of plaintiff and defendants, thereupon defendants moved the court to instruct the jury as follows: (see instructions.) The 1, 2, 3, 4, and eight charges the court refused to give the jury, and gave the 5, 6, and 7 in the following form: (see instructions.) To the refusing of the court to give said charges as asked for, and giving said charges as modified, defendants objected, and except and pray that this their bill of exceptions may be signed and made a part of the record in this case, which is done.

JNO. H. WATSON.

El Exmo. Sor. Gobernador ha dispuesto que se proceda á la medicion del terreno sobrante que solicitan los Señores Romeros, y que si

98

fuere necesario medir los ranchos inmediatos que tam tambien se ejecute la espresada medicion en la inteligencia que los que salgan agraciados seran los que satisfagan el corte pendente de los gastos.

Y en cumplimiento de la superior orden le digo á V. para su conocimiento y ejecucion.

Dios y Libertad, Monterey, Marzo 23, de 1844.

Manuel Jimeno, secretario del despacho. Sor. Alcalde 1o. del Pueblo de San José.

Sea de acuerdo que en el dia 9 de Abril de 1847, ordeno á los interesados de tomar posesion de los terrenos mencionados segun el orden del gobierno, y á mas ordeno que en caso que se esponga algun colindante que se mand la medicion de sus terrenos.

(Firmado)

JOHN BURTON, J. P.

I do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the original found in this office. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 9th day of April, A. D. 1847.

(Signed)

JOHN BURTON, Magistrate.

Paso este documento al Señor D. José Miguel Garcia y para que conste lo firmo San José, 9 de Mayo, de 1849.

99

(Firmado)

JO É ROMERO.

Dijeron que por su parte se lor podia conceder á los Sñes. Romeros el sobrante del terreno que no los pertenesca.

Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe, 29 de Mayo de 1847.

(Firmado)

Tomado ante de mi Juez de Paz.

ANTO. MA. PICO.

(Firmado)

JOHN BURTON.

OFICINA DE PUEBLO DE SAN JOSÉ, 28 de Mayo de 1847. Procedo al interesado conforme el orden del supremo gobierno; y si algunos de los colindantes hara sus baraso, que se manda la medicion de sus terrenos segun lo mandado del gobierno, y en que caso no quierren cumplir siga II. con su trabajo.

(Firmado)

a

JOHN BURTON, J. P.

En la cuestion suscitada entre Domingo Peralta y los Sres. Romero y Garcia Estos no tienen mas que hacer que renunciar el beneficio de la conclusion llegar al juez de 1a instancia y alegar que entrea las medidas exactas del terreno de Peralta conforme á ordenanza para que sean señalados los dos sitios que pide su titulo, en caso de unfallo en contra de los Romeros deben apelar al supremo tribunal. Si proceden á la medicion del terreno debe verificarse por un agrimensor autorizado y no deben de perrmitir que sea por solo el llano sino sobre lomas y cañadas conforme á ordenanza.

100

Sor. Alcalde Constitucional:

El que suscribe esta surmisa representacion tiene el honor de rrecurirá V. fundado en el derecho de peticion que á todo ciudadano. le concede la ley, y asi como el Exmo. Sor. Gobernador de este departamento recomienda en sus proclamas que se atienda con justicia á todo ciudadano en sus peticiones y reclamos desde el año cuarenta y cuatro se paso una orden del gobierno anterior á este juzgado para que se hiciesen los medidas del terreno llamado las juntas que pedimos en compañia yo y mi hermano Inocencio Romero compre la sitacion de los colindantes lo que hasta la presente no se ha verificado los que suplicamos á V. se sirva como primer magistrado de este juzgado se haya una informacion ó se nos de un testimonio por el alcalde que fue en el año cuarenta y cuatro de los informes que se pasaron el gobierno que se nos podrá agraciar con dichas tierras.

P. T. Suplicamos se sirva proveer con piedad á favor del que reclama V. Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe, 28 de Mayo de 1847. (Firmado,) JOSE ROMERO.

101

Habiendo sido llamado el Sor. Don Anto. Ma. Pico el persona que era alcalde en el año de 1844, y habiendo sido preguntado sobre la materia de los Sres. Romeros tocante á la colindantes se pudeira sentar en dicho sitio pretendido llamado los juntos el Sor. Du. Joaquin Moraga y el Sor. D. Lorenzo Pacheco.

Presentado y admitido que se pasen lo mas pronto posible á cumplir con el orden del superior gobierno para su devido cumplimiento. Oficina del magistrado del Pueblo de San José, 5 de Abril de 1857. JOHN BURTON, J. P.

(Firmado)

Sor. Juez de Paz del Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe :

José Romero ante V. con el mayor respeti diciendo que hace algunos años que tenga solicitado un pedazo de terreno en el cañada de San Ramon y colinda con los terrenos que pertenece al sor. Don Mariano Castro tomando el sobrante de lo que espresa el titulo del sor. Castro

(que son dos leguas) y entonces colindando con los terrenos del difunto vil por el norte.

Sor. Juez el Ex'mo Sor. Governador mando que se midiese los terrenos del Sor. Castro y que si nos dasa posesion del sobrante pero nunca se ha cumplido por no haber lugar los papeles dever estar en 102 el juzgado de ese pueblo que consta del presente orden.

Sor. juez humildernente esponga á V. que somos dos hermanos y con gran numero de familia teniendo algunos bienes del campo y sin tener un pedago de terreno para criarlos por lo cual suplicamos á V. de ver por los interesados lo mas pronto que se picede para que podemos ir a fincar, y meter nuestros bienes.

Rendidamente suplico de prover como llevo pedido que es gracia que espero de 11. sus manores subditos.

[blocks in formation]

PUEBLO DE SAN JOSÉ, 31 de Marzo de 1847.

To the honorable 1st of the Pueblo de San José, P. G:

cruz.

As expressed in your decree of the 1st of March, I proceeded to the lands referred to, and known by the name parage conocido con el nombre de San Ramon, and going over a certain tract of land in a northerly direction, after measuring ten thousand varas (two leagues) in direct line, I made with an axe a mark on a tree which stands on the edge of a stream; my esteem is that there is about two thousand varas 103 between that point and the rancho of Francisco Garcia; and that with evidence Bartolo Pacheco, or assigns, have no right but to two leagues mentioned, and even I consider as very doubtful that the title of said Pacheco covers such a tract as he pretends. It would be allowing that their two leagues granted are to be measured lengthway, one league after the other, following the valley, leaving on each side vacant lands, though the grant does not mention such a special way of measuring the two leagues. The weather and other circumstances did not allow me to make further survey; but, anyhow, my opinion is, that Pacheco, or assigns, pretensions on these lands are exaggerated and out of justice.

San José Gp., Mar. 29, 1849.

105

A. JONAN.

(Here follows map marked original, page 104.)

Jusgado del Pueblo de San José:

Whereas, by this order of Micheltorena, then governor of California, a survey was ordered of the rancho of the Romeros and adjoining ranchos; and whereas said survey having been made by Augustus Juan, esq., by the appointment of the alcalde, in compliance of said order, therefore be it ordered that the said survey be respected by all parties, and be the said boundaries until altered or changed by competent authority.

R. H. DIMMICK, 1st Alcalde.

Petition for possession.

PERALTO

vs.

GARCIA & ROMERO.

Now comes the defendants and moves the court to arrest the judgment, to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, and grant a stay of the proceedings in this cause, for the following reasons:

1st. The verdict is contrary to law and the evidence.

2nd. The court erred in not giving the charges to the jury asked by defendants, and in giving the charges objected to by defendants.

106

3rd. The court erred in charging the jury that 1st alcalde's exercising the powers of judges of 1st instance had no power or jurisdiction over possessory actions, neither as alcaldes or judges of 1st instance, and that such jurisdiction, if exercised by them, was a usurpation of office.

4th. The verdict of the jury is not definite enough on which to render a judgment for possession to plaintiff of any given or definite tract or parcel of land.

5th. The verdict of the jury will not justify any judgment thereon whatever.

6th. There is no evidence that this court ever had jurdisdiction of this cause; no written or other certificate of buenos hombres in this case was filed in the court of 1st instance before this action was commenced, or at any other time.

For the 6th reason defendants move the court to non-suit the plaintiff and dismiss this action.

TINGLEY, for Def'ts.

DOMINGO PERALTA.

vs.

INNOCENCIA ROMERO and FRANCISCO GARCIA.

107

Arrest of judgment.-
May, 1850.

In this cause a verdict and judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff at this term of the court, the def'ts, by their attorneys, this day came and filed their motion to stay the proceedings, and arrest the judgment, and dismiss the cause, which, being argued and by the court duly considered, was overruled, to which overruling defendants except.

DOMINGO PERALTA

VS.

INNOCENCIA ROMERO and FRANCISCO GARCIA.

Appeal -17 May, 1850.

In this cause the defendants, by their attorney, this day came into court and gave notice to the plaintiff of appeal; whereupon the court ordered that the appellants, Innocencia Romero and Francisco Garcia, execute bond to the appellee, Domingo Peralta, in the sum of one thousand dollars.

Know all men by these presents that we, Innocencia Romero, Francisco Garcia, and Antonio M. Pico, and George B. Tingley, of the county of Santa Clara and State of California, are held and firmly

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »