202 knowledge, whether he saw him or not. From every appearance Sanford was in great pecuniary embarrassment. Having learned that all his furniture, including the trunk or chest in which I saw the papers, had been attached and sold for debt, I went to Benecia, at the request of the parties in interest, and made a diligent search for them, and although I heard from others where the trunk or chest had been seen after the departure of Sanford, I was unable to find where they are at present. I do not know where those papers are, and except from the statements of Sanford and other lawyers who were engaged in the ejectment suit in San José, how he ever got possession of them. Before the departure of Mr. Sanford he told me that he had left them in the same place where I had seen them. Cross-examination. Ques. 4. State as nearly as you can from memory the respective documents of which the supposed title papers consisted, and which you saw in Mr. Sanford's possession. Ans. They consisted of a petition signed by the applicants, of a marginal decree by the governor, with the usual informe, with the report of the secretary, I believe, with a rude map. I have 302 seen a map, and I think that was the time, connected with those papers, and a final decree or concession, and do not remember that the same differed from the usual form of making grants in property. I believe it had the ordinary conditions, and was dated, as well as I can remember, in 1844. There was no peculiarity that now strikes my mind about those papers. What I mean by decree of concession is that document usually commencing with "vista la peticion" and followed by a grant in form. (Signed) C. B. STRODE. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of December, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. Endorsed Filed Dec'r 26th, 1857. 204 Deposition of Inocencio Romero. United States district court, northern district of California. INOCENCIO ROMERO et al. vs. THE UNITED STATES. SAN FRANCISCO, December 18th, 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 Inocencio Romero, a witness produced on behalf of the claimants in case No. 304, being an appeal from the board of com missioners 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 Argas, a sworn interpreter. Present: E. A. Lawrence, esq., for claimants; E. W. F. Sloan for the United States. 205 Questions by claimants' counsel. Ques. 1. What is your name, age, and place of residence? Ans. My name is Inocencio Romero; 52 years; and my place of residence is beyond San Francisquito. Ques. 2. Are you the same person who has been heretofore examined in this case? Ans. Yes, sir. Ques. 3. Do you recollect of Soto petitioning for the same land as yourself; if so, was the difference between you and him settled before you obtained your grant, and how was it settled? (Question is objected to as leading, all except the last four words.) Ans. I recollect that Soto made a petition for the same land as I did. The difference was settled before I obtained my grant. Soto and myself were called in the presence of Micheltorena, and as Soto was already in possession of the rancho San Lorenzo, and as he had petitioned also for the Juntas, Micheltorena told him that he should have the San Lorenzo, and in that case he would grant the Juntas to the Romeros, and this was the way the difference was settled, both being satisfied with the governor's decision. Ques. 4. Did you ever petitioned John Burton, alcalde at San José, for a grant of this ranch after the Americans came to this country? Ans. No, sir. 206 Ques. 5. Did you ever petition John Burton, the alcalde in San José, for a survey of the land, in order that it might be granted to you; if nay, what did you petition for? (Question objected to.) Ans. No, sir; I did not petition Burton for a survey of the land, because the land had already been granted to me by Micheltorena. I petitioned Burton to settle the difficulty with Domingo Peralta about boundaries. Cross-examination. Ques. 6. Was your petition to Burton, the alcalde, in writing? Ans. It was in writing. (The counsel for the U. S. objects to all what the witness testified concerning what he said about petitioning Burton, as the paper would speak for itself.) Ques. 7. Are you interested, directly or indirectly, in this claim? Ans. No, sir. Ques. 8. Are you not one of the claimants in this case? 207 Ans. Yes, sir. Ques. 9. Were you not interested then when the claim was presented to the board of commissioners? Ans. Yes, sir, at the beginning I had an interest, but I sold my interest 3 years ago. Ques. 10. You testified in your former deposition that you handed your title papers to a lawyer who was an American, by the name of Tingley or Hinckley, to present the same for confirmation; did you ever see them afterwards? Ans. I never saw the papers afterwards. Ques. 11. Were you present in San José at the trial of a cause in which Domingo Peralta was on one side and yourself and Garcia on the other, in reference to this tract of land or a part of it? Ans. I was not there myself. I was at that time sick, and as Garcia was in partnership with me he went. Ques. 12. Was it before or after that trial that you handed your title papers to Tingley? 208 Ans. It appears to me that it was before. Ques. 13. What did the title papers so handed to Tingley consist of? Ans. The papers I gave him consisted of the title papers pertaining to the grant given to me by the governor. Ques. 14. What title papers were given to you by the governor ? Ans. After I made the petition I got the title papers with all the different papers usually issued at the government office. I cannot describe the number of papers. Ques. 15. Were there several papers; if so, how many? Ans. There were several papers, such as the map, petition, informe, and decrees. Ques. 16. Did Soto go with you to Monterey at the time you got your papers? Ans. We did not go together. Soto went on his own business and I went on mine. Ques. 17. Did you and Soto come away together from Monterey? Ans. No, sir. Ques. 18. Where did Soto live at that time? Ans. At San Lorenzo. 209 Ques. 19. How long after you had presented your petition was it that Romero and Soto were ordered before the governor, as mentioned by you in your direct examination? Ans. I do not recollect, but it was soon afterwards; perhaps some months afterwards. Ques. 20. In what month was it that you say you obtained that grant? State the time as nearly as possible. Ans. I cannot say exactly, but I think it was in March. Direct examination resumed. Ques. 21. Was it before or after the governor ordered you and Soto before him that the grant was made? Ans. It was after. Ques. 22. Can you and your brothers either read or write ? Ques. 23. Did you hand the title papers to Tingley in person or did you send them to him? If so, by whom? 210 Ans. I was sick at the time and sent them to him by negro Garcia. The papers were loose, without being sewn together. I do not know whether the lawyer sewed the papers together or not. his INOCENCIO + ROMERO. rubric. Sworn to and subscribed his rubric this 18th day of December, A. Deposition of José Antonio Chavis. United States district court, northern district of California. INOCENCIO ROMERO et al.) vs. THE UNITED STATES. SAN FRANCISCO, December 14th, 1857. On this day, before J. Edgar Grymes, a special commissioner 211 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 José Antonio Chavis, 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, his evidence being interpreted by John Argas, a sworn interpreter: Present: W. F. L. Sloan, esq., for the United States, and E. A. Lawrence for claimants. Questions by claimants' counsel. Ques. 1. What is your name, age, and place of residence? Ans. My name is José Antonio Chavis; 36 years old, and I reside on the frontier of lower California. Ques. 2. Did you hold any office under Micheltorena; if so, what, and during what period? Ans. I was secretary of the ayuntamiento in 1844. Ques. 3. Were you acquainted with Inocencio, José, and Ma212 riano Romero during that time, and do you know of their applying for a grant; if so, what occurred? Ans. I know them; I know that they made an application for a grant; I was intimately acquainted with the Romeros; Inocencio. came and called at my house to request me to assist him in his case, and then I went myself to the office of the government, where Francisco Arce was acting there as "official primero," and I recommended him to said Arce in the presence of Romero, in order that Arce should assist Romero in carrying his petition through. Some time afterwards Romero came to my house to thank me for the favor I had conferred on him, showing me at the same time the title of the land which he had petitioned for, which grant I looked over and told him it was perfectly good. Ques. 4. State the form, date and contents of the grant, and by whom signed. Ans. The grant was signed by Gen'l Micheltorena as governor; I do not recollect the date; Jimeno, acting as secretary, signed it. The land granted is situated in Contra Costa; it was for all the sobrante lying between the ranchos of Moraga, Pacheco, Welch, and others whose names I do not recollect. I heard Mr. Romero say that 213 it would contain four or five leagues. I do not remember exactly the form of the title, it being so long ago since I saw it, but I remember the substance of it as above stated. Ques. 5. Were you acquainted with the signatures of Micheltorena and Jimeno, and were their signatures genuine to that title? Ans. I was acquainted with their signatures, and they were genuine. Ques. 6. Was it an absolute grant, or a provisional grant? Ques. 7. Was it in the usual form, or a marginal decree? Ques. 8. What year was it dated? Ans. In 1844. Cross-examination. Ques. 9. Of what "ayuntamiento" were you secretary? 214 Ques. 10. Did your office of secretary of the ayuntamiento make you familiar with the proceedings of the territorial gov ernment? Ans. No, sir. Ques. 11. Did you ever see the expediente in this case either in Monterey or in the office of the surveyor general? Ans. I saw it here in this office-I mean a copy; I saw the original in Monterey in 1844. Ques. 12. Did you see it there before or after the issuing of the titulo, as above mentioned? Ans. After. Ques. 13. Did you examine it with sufficient care to enable you to recognize the document you saw in this room as a copy? Ans. Yes, sir. Ques. 14. Please describe, step by step, the documents of which it was composed. Ans. I cannot exactly tell one by one the documents which composed the expediente; it began first with the petition, and then fol |