I understood the extent of the grant to be three square leagues: fifteen thousand varas in length along the river, by five thousand in width.

This day personally came before Peter Lott, a commissioner for taking testimony to be used before the board of the U. S. land commissioners in said State, George G. Snyder, a witness on behalf of the United States in case No. 235 on the docket of said board, wherein Emanuel Pratt is claimant, and said witness, being duly sworn, on oath deposed, in English, as follows, to wit: The attorney for claimant is present.

Questions by U. S. Law Agent.

1st question. What is your name, age, and place of residence? Answer. My name is George G. Snyder; my age 34 years; my residence Sacramento county, California.

2d question. Are you acquainted with the tract of land called "Socayac," and claimed in this case? If yea, how long have you known it, and are there any natural or artificial marks to define the northern or eastern boundaries?

and have known

Answer. I am acquainted with that tract of it about 3 years. I know nothing of the boundaries, except from what Mr. Pratt told me. He told me his claim commenced at a slough above Daylor's ranch, or thereabouts, and went up the river 3 leagues. He told me he did not know where the northern line would run, but his witness could tell. There is no artificial mark that I know of to show the northern and eastern boundaries, and I have been over it several times.

ca

3d question. What is the nature of the country at the upper end of the claim? Is it hilly or mountainous? Is the said pable of cultivation generally, and does it or not include lands worked by miners in mining for gold?

(3d question objected to by claimant's att'y as leading the witness.-P. L.)

Answer. The country there is hilly and mountainous. Some

portion of the soil is very good, perhaps of the whole tract, and the claim includes lands worked by miners mining for gold. Perhaps one-third of the whole claim is mining land, and there are hundreds of miners working it in the winter when the water is suitable.

4th question. What is the character of the country at the lower end of the claim?

Answer. It is rather rolling.

Cross-examined by Claimant's Attorney.

1st question. Are you interested, directly or indirectly, in the event of this suit; and by whose procurement do you appear here as a witness?

That

Answer. I do not consider myself interested in the suit. I was called on by Mr. Crocker here to-day to testify in this case. is the first intimation I had of becoming a witness in this case. 2d question. Are you a squatter upon or near this claim? Answer. I lived near the supposed boundary. I do not know whether I am within the claim or not.

3d question. How did the conversation occur between you and Mr. Pratt which you mentioned in your examination in chief?

Answer. The conversation came up casually between us, and I asked him the boundaries of his claim, which led to what I have already stated of what he told me.

4th question. Did he pretend to speak with accuracy in relation to his boundaries ?

Answer. I thought so at the time.

5th question. In this conversation, was it necessary for him to speak with accuracy as to his northern boundary in answer to your question?

Answer. I should think it would, if he wished to answer civilly. 6th question. How do you know the upper part of this claim is covered by miners ?

Answer. Judging from the distance from the slough I mentioned up the river, it would take in the mining district, if we run three leagues, running measure.

GEO. C. SNYDER.

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 31st day of May, A. D. 1854.

PETER LOTT, Commissioner for taking testimony.

Filed in office May 31, 1854.

Recorded in Ev. B., vol. 4, p. 488.

[REC. CLXXXIV, D. T., 1858.]-2

GEO. FISHER, Sec'y.

GEO. FISHER, Sec'y.

Deposition of J. O. Sherwood.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

State of California, ss.

SAN FRANCISCO, June 1, 1854. This day personally came before Peter Lott, a commissioner for taking testimony to be used before the board of U. S. land commissioners in said State, Jonathan O. Sherwood, a witness on behalf of the United States, in case No. 235 on the docket of said board, wherein Emanuel is claimant; and said witness being duly

sworn, deposed in English as follows, to wit: The claimant's att'y is present.

Questions by U. S. Law Agent.

1st. question. What is your name, age, and place of residence? Answer. My name is Jonathan O. Sherwood; my age twenty-six years; my residence Sacramento county, California.

2d question. Are you acquainted with the tract of land claimed by Emanuel Pratt, on the Cosumnes river; if yea, how long have you known it?

Answer. I am acquainted with and have known it since November, 1850.

3d question. Are there any natural or artificial marks to define the northern and eastern boundaries of his claim?

Answer. I know of none.

4th question. What is the nature of the country: is it hilly, mountainous, or level; to what extent is it capable of cultivation, and is there any mineral land upon it, and to what extent?

Answer. It is broken, hilly, and rocky; no very high elevations of land; the foot of the mountains came down on the upper portions. of the claim. There is, perhaps, 3ds of the land that will pay for cultivation, and from a half to two-thirds of the claim is mineral land.

5th question. About how many miners are there mining for gold on said claim?

Answer. I should think about 100, or upwards.

Cross-examined by the Attorney for the Claimants.

1st question. How do you know the northern and eastern boundaries of the said claim?

Answer. I only know the northern boundary by knowing the distance of 3 leagues from where the claim begins below, on the river. I do not know the eastern boundary.

The witness corrects his answer to 4th question in chief, by saying he intended to be understood that there is comparatively a small portion of the land worth cultivating; it might be cultivated to the extent of d, but would not pay for cultivation to that ex

tent.

J. O. SHERWOOD.

Subscribed and sworn to on this 1st day of June, A. D. 1854. PETER LOTT,

Com'r for the taking of testimony, &c.

SAN FRANCISCO, June 23, 1854. This day personally came before Peter Lott, a commissioner for taking testimony to be used before the board of U. S. land commissioners, John A. Sutter, a witness on behalf of the claimant, Emanuel Pratt, in case No. 235 on the docket of said board; and said witness being duly sworn, on oath deposed in English as follows, to wit:

The U. S. law agent is present.

Questions by Claimant's Counsel.

1st question. What is your name, age, and place of residence? Answer. My name is John A. Sutter; my age 51 years; my residence Sutter county, Calif'a.

2d question. Have you testified in this case before? If yea, look at the document marked "In case 235, Exhibit 1 to depo. of Jno. A. Sutter, P. L.," and filed in case No. 201 in this board, and state whether the signature of Micheltorena thereto is genuine, and whether it is the original decree sent by Micheltorena to you from which the copy furnished by you to Chamberlain in this case was taken.

Answer. Yes, there is no mistake but that this is the identical original document sent by Micheltorena to me, from which the copy mentioned was taken, and Micheltorena's signature hereto is his genuine signature. I have often seen him write, and know his signature well.

Cross-examined by U. S. Law Agent.

1st question. When and from whom did you receive the said document?

Answer. It was during the war; I think it was about December, 1844. I received it by a courier from Micheltorena, while I was at the fort. He sent duplicates, for fear of one being lost, on account of the difficulties at that time in the country. It was at the time of the rebellion in California of the native Californians against the government of Mexico and Micheltorena, who was the Mexican governor.

2d question. Can you name the couriers who brought the documents to you?

Answer. Yes; one was Pablo Gutierrez, and the other was named Juan Brown, who was nicknamed "Flaco." Gutierrez is dead, and I do not know where Brown is.

3d question. Where was Micheltorena when these papers were delivered to you?

Answer. He was in Monterey.

4th question. When and how did you first apply for these grants? Answer. I applied for them a few weeks before the couriers arrived with the grant, by the private letter sent from me by a messenger, the same Pablo Gutierrez, to Gov. Micheltorena. I applied for the land as a bounty to the soldiers who had served under me, for their services in the war which I had already mentioned.

5th question. How long had the war been progressing when you received the grants?

Answer. About 3 months.

6th question. How long, altogether, did that war continue? Answer. Some little over three months.

7th question. Where did Micheltorena go after the war?

Answer. After the capitulation he returned to Monterey, and then, very soon after, left for Mexico.

8th question. Who took possession of the government immediately after and about the close of the war?

Answer. The governor was Pio Pico.

9th question. Why was the grant written on paper such as Americans use, and not on such as was used by Californians?

Answer. Perhaps they had no other-paper was very scarce here in those times,

10th question. Was there any explanation made by Micheltorena to you, privately or otherwise, or by any other person, why common foolscap paper was used, instead of the Spanish paper usually employed for making grants?

Answer. No; there was no explanation made. I only know that paper was purchased by the governor from ships which arrived when paper was difficult to get, and he was obliged to take such as could be got in that way,

11th question, Who was the leader of the opposition to Micheltorena, and what was the extent of that opposition throughout the country?

Answer. Gen. Castro and Alvarado were the principal leaders. They had about 900 men under arms from different parts of the country, among whom were some Americans and trapping parties from the lower country.

12th question. Were not the rebel party really the masters of the country at that time? if not, what power had Micheltorena to oppose to them, and where was that power principally concentrated?