Deposition of George B. Tingley. 169 United States district court, northern district of California. INNOCENCIA ROMERO et al. vs. THE UNITED STATES. SAN FRANCISCO, December 15th, 1857. On this day, before J. Edgar Grymes, a special commissioner and referee appointed by the dist. court of the United States for the northern district of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, &c., &c., came George B. Tingley, a witness produced on behalf of the claimants in case No. 304, being an appeal from the board of commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in case No. 654 on the docket of the said board of commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows. Present: W. F. L. Sloan, for the United States, and E. A. Lawrence, for claimants. Question by claimants' counsel. 1st ques. What is your name, age, and place of residence? 1st ans. My name is George B. Tingley; 42 years old; and I reside in San Francisco. 170 2nd ques. Have you been before examined in this cause; if so, hast your attention since that examination been called to the expediente on file in the surveyor general's office in this case? If so, state what further have you to state. Ans. 2nd. I am the same person who has been examined before in this case. I stated in my former examination, and I now say, that I carefully examined the original title papers in said cause; that the same were a bundle of papers commencing with the original petition, the informe, &c., and ending with an absolute grant of the land. I have recently examined the Spanish documents, being seven in number, attached to the deposition of Pico before the land commission, now on file in the surveyor general's office, and I say they are not the papers I testified to in previous examination; those papers are not bound together, and they do not have the appearance of ever having been. I was at the time of said trial perfectly familiar with Spanish grants; a large portion of my business at that time was connected with the examination of Spanish titles. I was sufficiently familiar with the Spanish language at that time to read and understand titles to land, and I know that the title of the Romeros was a concession in fee for the sobrante. I further state that I examined the papers in the district court of Santa Clara county, between Domingo Peralta, Francisco Garcia, and Innocencio Romero, I being at the time one of the counsel 171 for one of the parties, and also examined the papers at the in stance of Francisco Altoyo; also for a person by the name of John M. Jones. During the trial above alluded to the title papers of the Romeros, or what purported to be such, were in court during the whole time, which cause lasted for 4 or 5 days. During said cause I had them in my hands at least forty times. They were interpreted to me by one Frank Godden, who, I have heard since, is dead. My recollection of the papers used there was four or six attached together in the usual form of Spanish grant, and that they contained a petition, an order for information--the information, I think, was signed by Pico, as alcalde-and a concession of the land, or sobrante, in the usual form, with, I think, a restriction that they should not interfere with the lands of the adjoining proprietors, which, I think, was signed by Micheltorena. It was conceded on the trial, by Frederick H. Sandford and his associate counsel, that the land had been granted to the Romeros, but said that the grant was not valid, because it had been previously granted to Peralta. The genuineness of the titles on both sides were not controverted by either party. They were both admitted to be genuine titles. The whole dispute was about the boundaries. 172 The papers that I saw in the surveyor general's office did not seemed to have been attached together in the same way that the papers were that I examined in court, and certainly did not contain a final grant or concession of the land, as was the case with those examined in court, as alluded to before. I cannot say that I recognized the papers as those I saw in court. Cross-examination. Ques. 1st. Do you remember to have observed in that expediente, as used in the trial at San José, whether it contained a decree of concession as distinct as is usually called the titulo. Ans. 1st. It is my recollection that there was a decree of concession. I mean by that the grant of the land by the governor, or final title, as interpreted to me, read, as nearly as I can remember, as this: "That inasmuch as the petitioners have prayed for a grant of land as described in their petition, I have thought proper to concede the same to them for the benefit of themselves and their families." In addition to this, my impression is that there was a restriction that the grant should not infringe on the property of the adjoining owners; likewise that they should perform certain regulations required of them in regard to improving and occupying the land. 173 Ques. 2nd. Do you remember who produced those documents in the court of San José on the trial ? Ans. 2nd. I think that it was produced either by the Romeros or the Garcias. They were sent for, and brought by Garcia or Romero. Ques. 3. Do you remember whether there was a written translation used on the trial, or did some one simply translate them verbally on the trial? Ans. 3rd. They were translated verbally on the trial by Godden, I believe. Each party had his interpreter, and they concurred in the correctness of the translation. Direct resumed. Ques. 4th. Did you ever examined the Romero title papers in connection with other attornies? If so, was any objection raised to the title; if so, what was it? (Question objected to as new matter; and further, on the ground that it is not competent to examine the witness touching the opinion. of other parties.) Ans. 5. I did in connection with Joshua Redmond, and, I believe, James M. Jones, who had the reputation of being one of the best Spanish scholars at that time in California. 174 Ques. 6. Had it the approval of the departmental assembly? Ans. 6. It had not. Sworn and subscribed before me this 15th day of December, A. D. 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. Endorsed Filed Dec'r 26th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy Clerk. Deposition of Vicente P. Gomez. United States district court, northern district of California. INNOCENCIO ROMERO et al. vs. THE UNITED STATES. SAN FRANCISCO, December 15th, 1857. On this day, before J. Edgar Grymes, a special commissioner and referee appointed by the dist court of the United States for the northern district of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, &c., &c, came Vicente P. Gomez, a witness produced on behalf of the claimants in case No. 304, being an appeal from the board of commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in case No. 654 on the docket of said board 175 of commissioners, and was duly sworn, and testified as follows, his evidence being interpreted by John Argus, a sworn inter preter. Present: W. F. L. Sloan, for the United States, and E. A. Lawrence, for clainants. Question by claimants' counsel. 1st ques. What is your name, age, and place of residence? 1st ans. My name is Vicente P. Gomez; 34 years old; and I reside in Monterey. 2nd ques. What office did you occupy under the former government, and how long did you occupy it? 2nd ans. I was a clerk in the secretary's office and was clerk in the treasury department. I was employed from the time of the arrival of Micheltorena until the time this country was taken by the Americans. 3rd ques. Are you acquainted with the Romeros? If so, state what you know in regard to their petitioning for a grant of lands in Contra Costa county. 3rd ans. I was acquainted with the Romeros. Mariano Romero was the overseer of my father's rancho. I know that Innocencio, José, and Mariano Romero solicited or petitioned the governor, Michel torena, for a grant of land in what is now called the Contra 176 Costa. I mean by grant of land a sobrante. The grant I did not see, but I knew afterwards that it was issued, and I now know, through Mr. Lawrence, that the title or grant to which I refer has been lost. I saw about two weeks ago the petition at the surveyor general's office, and it is the same one that I refer to. 4th ques. Were the papers that you saw in the surveyor's office the whole of the papers, or was there in addition to that a copy of a grant or an order for the grant? 4th ans. There is wanting the order of "espidase el titulo," or that the title issue. I saw the papers in a hurry, and I cannot say exactly what other document was wanted besides the one I have mentioned. 5th ques. You stated that you knew that the title was issued. State the means of your knowledge? 5th ans. Because I used to take a note of the title that issued in the "Toma de Razon." 6th ques. Did you take a note of this title? 6th ans. I do not remember distinctly, but I ought to have taken it. 7th ques. Did Micheltorena state to you that or not he had issued a title to the Romeros? (Ques. objected to as leading.) 7th ans. That once a Romero solicited a grant of land from Micheltorena, and I heard the governor ask if it was the same Romero to whom he had already granted lands. 177 8th ques. What Romero was this who applied ? 8th ans. This Romero was from Colinelo; he was not related to the Romeros, the claimants in this cause. Cross-examination. 9th ques. You say you now know that the grant has been lost. through Mr. Lawrence. Do you not mean to say only that you are informed by him that the title is lost? 9th ans. I mean that I was informed. 10th ques. You also say that you know the title issued to the Romeros in this case, and yet you say you never saw it. Do you not mean to say simply that you were informed that it had been issued? 10th ans. I do not mean "simply," as I was employed in the secretary's office, and I know that it was issued because I think I took the "tomada razon. 11th ques. How can you know it unless you saw it? 11th ans. I know it because in the secretary's office everybody knew what took place, because there was so little to do. 12th ques. Was the "toma de razon written by order of the governor, or did the clerk make it of his own notion ? 178 12th ans. It was done by order of the governor, according to the custom of the government and by the laws of the colonization. 13th ques. At what time was the "toma de razon " made? 13th ans. After the concession was made. (Signed) VICENTE PERF'TO GOMEZ. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of December, A. D. 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. Endorsed Filed Dec'r 26th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy Clerk. Deposition of Francisco Arce. United States district court, northern district of California. INNOCENCIO ROMERO et al., vs. THE UNITED STATES. SAN FRANCISCO, December 12th, 1857. On this day, before J. Edgar Grymes, a special commissioner and referee, appointed by the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, &c., &c., came Francisco Arce, a witness produced on behalf 179 of the claimants in case No. 304, being an appeal from the board of commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in case No. 654 on the docket of the said board of commissioners, and was duly sworn, and testified as follows, his evidence being interpreted by John Hargons, a sworn interpreter. Present: E. A. Lawrence, esq'r, for claimants, and E. W. F. Sloan, esq., for the United States. Question by 1st ques. What is your name, age, and place of residence? 1st ans. My name is Francisco Arce; 35 years; and I reside in Monterey county. 2nd ques. What offices have you held under the former government of California? 2nd ans. I was first officer of the secretary under the former government, secretary interim of the same office. I held these offices during the years from April, 1839, until February, 1845. 3rd ques. Are you acquainted with the Romeros, claimants in this ase, and when did you first become acquainted with them? 3rd ans. I know them, and first became acquainted with them in 1835 or 1836. Ques. 4. Do you know of the Romeros petitioning for a grant of lands in Contra Costa county during the years 1843 or 1844? 180 Ans. 4. I remember that the Romeros were recommended to me for the petition of the land they asked for. I myself made the petition out. Ques. 5. Have you seen the original Spanish papers on file in surveyor's office in this case, and in whose handwriting are they? Ans. 5. Yes, I have seen them, and they are in my handwriting; I mean the petition and the informe. Ques. 6. Are the signatures of Jimeno and Micheltorena appearing |