191 either Tomas Soberanes or Pedro Estrada, but I do not recollect which of the two. Ques. 73. In whose office was it written? Ans. 73. In the government office; in the office of dispatch. Ans. 74. Yes, sir. Ques. 75. Did you see Jimeno, the secretary, sign it? Ans. 75. Yes, sir. Ques. 76. Did you see it delivered? Ans. 76. Yes. Ques. 77. Was all that done on the same day? Ans. 77. I do not remember, but I think not, for I was busy in those days in the sec'y's office. Ques. 78. Was there a copy of that grant attached to the expediente? Ans. 78. I do not remember. Ques. 79. Was the order of the governor, directing the title to issue, ever reduced to writing and attached to the expediente? Ans. 79. I think so. Ques. 80. Do you think so because you remember that it was so, or have you no recollection about it? Ans. 80. I cannot recollect so many things; I am no encyclopedia, and my head does not contain all the events that happened 15 or 20 years ago, but I think that it was attached to the expediente. Ques. 81. You state in your direct examination that you have recently examined the expediente on file in this case in the office of the surveyor general; state whether it is the same expediente which you first saw in the archives at Monterey? Ans. 81. Yes, sir; it is the same expediente. 192 Ques. 82. Was it not customary for the governor, when he thought to accede to a petition for land to enter a decree of concession, or cause it to be done, usually commencing with the words "vista la petition ;' and if so, state whether such a decree was entered in this case? Ans. 82. In these cases the secretary was responsible, and he was the person to do it or not, and that this circumstance exist in some expediente and not in others. It was done so in some cases and in some cases it was not, according to circumstances, as the governor had the power and he acted or not as he pleased. Ques. 83. Do you mean to say that the instances of omitting to enter that decree was so numerous as to preclude you from saying that there was no general custom on the subject? Ans. 83. Sometimes it was omitted by the clerks, sometimes by the secretary, and the governor did just as he pleased. It was not considered necessary. Ques. 84. Was there any "vista la peticion" or decree of concession made in writing in this case? 193 Ans. 84. 1 do not recollect; I believe not. Ques. 85. Was it customary while you occupied the offices you have mentioned in your direct examination to retain in the expediente copy of the titulo issued by the governor? Ans. 85. Yes, sir; it was customary. Ques. 86. Was there any copy retained in this case? Ans. 86. I do not remember. Ques. 87. Did Francisco Soto return from Monterey in company with Innocencio Romero at the time he got the grant? Ans. 87. He returned, but I do not remember if they went together. Ques. 88. Where did Soto live at that time? Ans. 88. He lived in the district of San José. I cannot state exactly where he lived-somewhere in San José, on his ranch. Ques. 89. Do you know whether the ranch on which he sometimes lived at that time was the same tract of land which you say the governor granted to the Romeros ? Ans. 89. I believe not. Ques. 90. When you speak of Soto living on his ranch what ranch do you refer to? Ans. 90. I refer to the San Lorenzo ranch, the property of his widow Ques. 91. Do you know the extent of the San Lorenzo ranch ? Ans. 91. I do not remember. Ques. 92. Was the ranch which you say was granted to the Romeros called by a particular name; if so, state the name. 194 Ans. 92. I do not remember. Ques. 93. Do you know whether it is identical with the ranch which you have just called San Lorenzo? Ans. 93. No, sir. Ques. 94. What ranch was it which you say Francisco Soto yielded his claim to in favor of the Romeros? Ans. 94. I refer to the sobrante lying between the Morega, Pacheco, and Welch. Ques. 95. Was there any recital in the titulo which you say the governor gave to the Romeros of the agreement between them and Soto, by which the latter yielded up his claim to the sobrante? Ans. 95. I do not remember. Ques. 96. How can you remember that the titulo was in the usual form if you cannot remember that circumstance? Ans. 96. Some things I recollect, others I do not. I had the title in my hands, and read that the title was in the sobrante. Ques. 97. Repeat the language of the grant, if you can, descriptive of the boundaries of the land granted? Ans. 97. I remember that they asked for the sobrante between the ranchos of Morega, Welch, and Pacheco. I am not able to give the boundaries, because I do not remember them. Ques. 98. Where did Innocencio Romero live during the years 1853 and 1854 ? 195 98th ans. I do not know. Ques. 99. When did you see him last? Ques. 100. How many of the following persons, and which of them, do you, and how long have you known them, to wit: Francisco Altoyo, Alvin C. Campbell, Jas. W. Thompson, William H. Mitchell, John M. Jones, C. Yeager, Miguel Garcia, and José Romero ? Ans. 100. I know Campbell, Garcia, and José Romero. I know Campbell since 1851, José Romero since the year 1836 or 1837; Miguel Garcia since 1844 or 1844. Ques. 101. Has either one of those men, at any time since 1852, asked you any questions touching your knowledge of the matters testified by you? Ans. 101. I do not remember. Ques. 102. Has Innocencio Romero done so at any time since 1852 ? Ans. 102. I do not remember. Ques. 103. Who spoke to you concerning your knowledge of this case, and when? Ans. 103. In the first place Mr. E. A. Lawrence, Mr. Smith, Mr. Tice. Mr. Tice about a month; Mr. Smith longer, both of whom are present. Ques. 104. What did Mr. Smith or Mr. Tice tell you about it? Ans. 104. These gentlemen begged to come forward and say what was true and just about the case, that I knew. Ques. 105. How did they ascertain that you knew anything about it ? 196 tion ? Ans. 105. I do not know. Ques. 106. Where were you when they made that applica Ans. 106. Mr. Tice met me in the street, and I was introduced to him by Mr. Lawrence. Ques. 107. Did you then tell them that you knew anything about it? Ans. 107. They asked me, and I said that I knew something about it. Ques. 108. How long before that was it that you met Mr. Lawrence ? Ans. 108. Mr. Lawrence wrote me a letter over a month ago, wishing me to come down here for the purpose of serving him in this case, for he knew that he was acquainted with, and he wished him to state what was true and correct in the matter according to his knowledge. Ques. 109. Did you ever communicate with Mr. Lawrence before receiving this letter in any way? Ans. 109. No, sir. Ques. 110. Were you in company with Mr. Lawrence in the office of the surveyor general about two months ago, looking at the expediente you have mentioned, and conversing with him about this claim? Ans. 110. Yes, sir. Ques. 111. Did Mr. Lawrence at that time state to you that any of the title papers had been lost? 197 Ans. 111. I do not remember. Ques. 112. Has any one at any time stated to you that some of the title papers had been lost? Ans. 112. I do not remember. Direct resumed. Ques. 113. Had you received the letter from Mr. Lawrence before or after you was with him in the office of the surveyor general? Ans. 113. I received the letter previously. Ques. 114. You have been questioned on the cross-examination about the handwriting on the expediente in this case. Was the original expediente before you when you answered, or did you answer from the recollection of it? Ans. 114. It is from memory. Ques. 115. After the Americans took possession of California, were the archives at Monterey kept with much care? Ans. 116. I believe not. Ques. 117. Do you know whether any original papers belonging to the archives and relating to land titled have been lost? Ans. 117. I know that great many documents have been mislaid. Ques. 118. Who was the owner of the San Lorenzo ranch-to whom was it granted? Ans. 118. William Castro and Francisco Soto. (Signed) FRAN'CO. ARCE, Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12th day of December, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Com'r. 198 Endorsed Filed Dec'r 26, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy Clerk. Deposition of Charles B. Strode. United States district court, northern district of California. INNOCENCIO ROMERO et al. vs. THE UNITED STATES. } SAN FRANCISCo, December 17th, 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 Charles B. Strode, 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: E. A. Lawrence, esq'r., for the claimants; U. S. 199 att'y, and E. W. F. Sloan, esq'r., for the United States. Questions by E. A. Lawrence, esq'r. Ques. 1. What is your name, age, and place of residence? Ans. My name is Charles B. Strode; 40 years old, and I reside in Oakland, Contra Costa county. Ques. 2. How long have you been a practicing attorney in this city, and what has been your principal business? Ans Since the last of November, 1850, the prosecution of Mexican and Spanish land claims before the U. S. land commission, and in some cases before the U. S. courts, in connection first with Wm. Carey Jones, afterwards with P. W. Tompkins, of the firm of Jones, Tompkins & Strode, and since by myself. Ques. 3. Have you ever seen the title papers of the Romeros to lands in Contra Costa county? If so, state when and where and under what circumstances, and what you know about them. Ans. I have seen what I supposed were the title papers. In the last of 1850 or the first of 1851 I became acquainted in the 200 city of San José with Mr. Sanford, who was a lawyer. In 1851 or 1852, my mind not being distinct, I met with Mr. Sanford in Benecia. I found him to be deranged, as I thought, certainly very flighty, in consequence of domestic troubles. He had been to my house, in this city, and I had afforded small pecuniary means. He took me to his office, in Benicia, and told me he had the Romero grant in his possession. I know the situation of the land by general description and by having been often on it. The paper that I saw was for a grant of a sobrante. I was the lawyer of several of the colidantes and expected to be that of others, which made me feel an interest in the examination of this paper. At that time I had learned to read the Spanish language, although very imperfectly, and both for convenience and certainty always used an interpreter. I had become very familiar with the appearance of Spanish and Mexican grants, and knew, as far as I could know by comparison with others, the handwriting of Jimeno and Micheltoreno, and could not, I think, have been deceived as to their genuineness of their signatures, altho' I never saw either of them write. I know that the signature of Micheltorena was to the papers, and I believe also that of Jimeno. I have examined the papers in this case, now on file in the surveyor general's office. They are not the papers shown me by Mr. Sanford. My interpreter, who, I believe, was Gutierrez, 201 said now to be in Cuba, read the papers carefully to me. They consisted of a good many papers sewn together on the back. It purported to be a full grant for land lying between the claims of Moraga, Welch, Pacheco and others, and was for a sobrante described to be of four or five leagues—I believe five-and was a grant in full title given to two or three brothers named Romero. This paper was offered me by Mr. Sanford, who told me he had gotten them in San José on a trial of ejectment in a suit between one of the Peraltas and a purchaser under the Romeros. He told me that he did not believe that the parties in interest knew where the papers were; that he, Sanford, intended to go to his family in Georgia, and that he was willing to give me the papers to see what I could do with them for him and myself. This I refused to do and left the papers in his office, in either a chest or a trunk. Afterwards Sanford left this State for the Atlantic States, and I have since heard that he is dead. Some months after this, and on the land that it purported to grant, I met with a gentleman who was a purchaser under that grant, named Yager, and told him where I had seen those papers. Sanford, at that time, as we understood, was in the mines. Yager informed me that he would start in a few days to find Sanford. I do not know, of my own |