fUwmiig afi €alif<»jrti»+ No Division Range Shelf. Received T> i8< !?] PRESENTED TO THPJ % ;| Library of the University of California, ;* ; ' V i VVVs4 v fit i|e Sfoiiei Slates District (fart, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. THE UNITED STATES \ vs. ,. 421 ANDRES CASTILLERO. "NEW ALMADEN." TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD. P. DELLA TORRE, Esq., U. S. Attorney. EDMUND RANDOLPH, Esq., of Counsel. A. C. PEACHY, Esq. „.._ y foe Claimant. FRED'K BILLINGS, SAN FKANCISCO 1859. INDEX PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LAND COMMISSION. Page. Index to Proceedings 3 Petition of Andres Castillero ; 5 Exhibit A. — Pico Act of Possession 73 Exhibit B. — Translation of Exhibit A. . * 75 Exhibit C. — Expediente of approval of Mining Possession and Grant 34 Exhibit D.— Translation of Exhibit C 49 Exhibit E. — Castillo Lanzas to the Governor of California. . 65 Exhibit F.— Translation of Exhibit E 67 Exhibit G. — Lyman's Notes of Survey 80 Exhibit H. — Plat of Survey. (Separate.) Deposition of Fernando Alden 8 Deposition of Chester S. Lyman 11 Affidavit of William E. Barron 13 Deposition of Jose Maria Lafragua 15 Exhibit A.— (See Exhibit C. to Petition) 34 Exhibit B.— Marginal Decree of May 20, 1846 63 Translation of Exhibit B 64 Exhibit C— (See Exhibit E. to Petition) *. . 65 Exhibit D. — Lafragua's Report 69 Translation of Exhibit D M Deposition of Jose Noriega 2 - Deposition of Antonio Sunol £4 Exhibit A.— (See Exhibit A. to Petition) Deposition of Frank Lewis - ' Deposition of Domingo Danglada * 8 Deposition of Francisco de Leon ^ Deposition of Jose Fernandez Opinion of the Board, by Commissioner Felch • • • 81 Dissenting Opinion by Commissioner Thompson 10 J MM 1 J * 4 Page. Decree of the Board 12 9 'Order to make Transcripts 129 Secretary's Certificate to Transcript 1 29 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DISTRICT COURT. Notice of Appeal by Claimant 131 Notice of Appeal by Attorney-General 132 Petition for Review by the United States 132 Deposition of Francisco Villegass 133 Deposition of John P. Brodie 135 Petition for Review by Claimant 140 Answer of Claimant 142 Notice to Claimant to produce Papers 142 Deposition of George M. Yoel 144 Exhibit G. M. Y. — Concession by Weekes 147 Translation of Exhibit G. M. Y 805 Exhibit H. L. No. 1. — Deed : Josd Castro to Alexander Forbes 151 Translation of Exhibit H. L. No. 1 492 Exhibit II. L. No. 2.— Deed : Castillero to Alexander Forbes 149 Translation of Exhibit H. L. No. 2 , 507 Deposition of James W. Weekes 165 Exhibit J. W. W. — Forbes' Petition to Weekes 168 Translation of Exhibit J. W. W 806 Deposition of Antonio Maria Pico 169 Notice to Claimant to produce Papers 198 Deposition of George M. Yoell 252 Exhibit R. No. 1. — Pico Act of Possession 257 Translation of Exhibit R. No. 1 794 Deposition of II. C. Melone 260 Exhibit R. No. 3.— Petition : Walkinshaw v. Forbes 272 Exhibit R. No. 4. — Citation : Walkinshaw v. Forbes 273 hibit Et. No. 5.— Bond : Walkinshaw v. Forbes 274 Exhibit R. No. 6.— Notice : Walkinshaw v. Forbes 275 Exhibit R. Xo. 7.— Affidavit: Walkinshaw v. Forbes 275 Exhibit R. Xo. 8. — Petition and accompanying Documents : Forbes to Chief Justice 278 Exhibit R. Xo. 9.— Concession by Weekes. (See Exhibit G. M. Y. p. 147) : 286 I ranslation of Exhibit R. No. 9 802 Exhibits II. JI. Nos. 1 to 13.— Proceedings in denouncement of New Almaden Mine by Horace Ilawes 287 5 Page. Notice to Claimant to produce Papers * 305 Deposition of James W. Weekes 305 Exhibit R. No. 2. — Pico Act of Possession 311 Translation of Exhibit R. No. 2 797 Deposition of Frank Lewis 316 Notice of Motion for leave to recall Antonio Sufiol and Jose Nori- ega ! 320 Order to recall Sufiol and Noriega 320 Deposition of S. 0. Houghton 321 Deposition of H. W. Halleck. 325 Deposition of Benjamin Davidson 375 Exhibits F. Nos. 1 to 27. — Produced from a box in custody of Witness. (See Exhibits O. H. attached to Deposition of J. A. Forbes, p. 433) 382 Deposition of Henry Laurencel 376 Deposition of G. W. P. Bissel 380 Deposition of Antonio Sufiol 409 Deposition of Jose Noriega 418 Order to make Copies 423 Deposition of Captain John Paty 424 Exhibit J. P. No. 1. — Memorandum 429 Exhibit J. P. No. 2.— Letter to T. O. Larkin 431 •Exhibit J. P. No. 3.— Receipt for Letters 431 Exhibit J. P. No. 4.— Certificate of Captain of trie Port of Acapulco 432 Exhibit J. P. No. 5.— Certificate of C. Horn 433 Deposition of James Alex. Forbes 433 Exhibit O. H. No. 1.— Letter : Barron, Forbes & Co. to J. A. Forbes, May 20, 1849 • 390 Exhibit 0. H. No. 2.— Memorandum of Documents, May '27, igiQ 391 Exhibit 0.*H. No. 3.— Letter: L A. Forbes to Wm. Forbes, Oct.- 28, 1849 •••;•• 392 Exhibit 0. H. No. 4.— Letter: J. A. Forbes to Alex. Forbes, Oct. 30, 1849 ■•••'•••.•;• 393 Exhibit 0. H. No. 5.— Letter: Barron, Forbes & Co. to J. A. Forbes, Nov. 30, 1849 • •••• • • ■ 394 Exhibit O. H. No. 6.— Letter : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Nov. 30, 1849 v •;•■ 395 Exhibit O. H. No. 7— Letter : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Dec 1, 1849 r'"\\" 396 Exhibit O. H. No. 8.— Letter : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Jan. 7, 1850 39 ' 6 Page. Exhibit 0. II. No. 84-.— Letter : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Feb. 3, 1850 ... 400 Exhibit O. H. No. 9. — Letter : Jas. Alex. Forbes to Alex. Forbes, Feb. 26, 1850 403 Exhibit O. H. No. 10.— Letter: Barron, Forbes & Co., to J. A. Forbes, March 2, 1850 404 Exhibit O. H. No. 11. — Letter: Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. . Forbes, March 11, 1850 404 Exhibit O. H. No. 12. — Letter: Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, April 7, 1850 405 Exhibit O. H. No. 13. — Letter: Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, June 6, 1850 406 Exhibit O. H. No. 14. — Letter: Jas. Alex. Forbes to Alex. Forbes, Jan. 29, 1850 399 Exhibit O. H. No. 15. — Letter: Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Jan. 10, 1851 407 Exhibit O. H. No. 16.— Letter : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, May 11, 1846 382 Exhibit O. H. No. 17. — Letter: Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Sept. 2, 1846 382 Exhibit O. H. No. 18. — Letter : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Jan. 7, 1847 383 Exhibit O. H. No. 19. — Letter: Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Oct. 1, 1847 384 Exhibit O. H. No. 20. — Letter: Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Jan. 19, 1848 386 Exhibit O. H. No. 21. — Letter : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Nov. 19, 1847 385 Exhibit O. H. No. 22.— Letter : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Feb. 1, 1848 388 Exhibit O. II. No. 23.— Letter : Alex. Forbes to J. A. Forbes and Padre Real, Nov. 24, 1847 386 Exhibit O. H. No. 24.— Petition : Alex. Forbes to Alcalde of San Jose, Jan. 19, 1848 387 Exhibit O. H. No. 25. — Explanatory Sketch of the Lines of Xevv Almaden Exhibit O. II. No. 26.— List of Documents contained in the Box 408 Exhibit 0. H. No. 27.— Letter : Barron, Forbes & Co. to J. A. Forbes, April 11, 1849 ' 390 Exhibit O. H. No. 28.— Deed : S. and J. T. Robles to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Sept. 14, 1847 1 72 Exhibit O. H. No. 28^-.— Deed : Jose Castro to Alex. Forbes, 1847 151 Exhibit O. II. No. 29.— Translation of Exhibit 0. H. No. 28£ 492 Exhibit, 0. II. No. 30.— Deed : S. and J. T. Robles to R Walkinshaw, April 14, 1848 ' 173 Exhibit (). II. No. 31.— Deed : Padre Real to R. Walkinshaw, Aug. 9, 1849 175 Exhibit O. II. No. 32.— Translation of Exhibit 0. H. No. 31. 505 7 Page. Exhibit 0. H. No. 33.— Deed : Castillero to Alex. Forbes Dec. 27, 1847 149 Exhibit 0. H. No. 34.— Translation of Exhibit 6. H. No. 33 507 Exhibit O. H. No. 35.— Power of Attorney : Alex. Forbes to Jas. Alexander Forbes, April 23, 1849 510 Exhibit O. H. No. 36.— Deed : J. A. Forbes to John Par- rott, Aug. 9, 1850 179 Exhibit 0. H. No. 37.— Deed : J. A. Forbes to H. Lauren- eel, Sept. 10, 1850 180 Exhibit 0. H. No. 38.— Deed : H. Laurencel to Bolton & Barron, March 22, 1851 182 Exhibit 0. H. No. 39.— Deed : Bolton & Barron to J. E. Fernandez, April 30, 1852 183 Exhibit 0. H. No. 40.— Deed : J. E. Fernandez to J. F. De Leon, April 14, 1853 .' 185 Exhibit O. H. No. 41.— Deed: J. F. De Leon to Jas. A. Forbes, Aug. 4, 1853 187 Exhibit O. H. No. 42.— Deed : J. A. Forbes to Wm. E. Bar- ron, March 30, 1855 189 Exhibit 0. H. No. 43.— Deed : J. A. Forbes to Win. E. Bar- ron, May 29, 1855 512 Exhibit 0. H. No. 44.— Deed : Jeeker, Torre & Co. to Bar- ron, Forbes & Co., Dec. 7, 1852 192 Exhibit O. H. No. 45.— Translation of Exhibit O. H. No. 44. 514 Exhibit 0. H. No. 46.— Deed : Castillero to Fred'k Billings, Oct. 2, 1856 519 Exhibit 0. H. No. 47.— Deed : Fred'k Billings to Wm. E. Barron, Nov. 18, 1856 520 Exhibit 0. H. No. 48. — Additional Extracts from Lafragua's Report. (See Exhibit D. page 69) 523 Exhibit 0. H. No. 49.— Translation of Exhibit 0. H. No. 48. 531 Exhibit O. H. No. 50. — Certified Transcript from 3d District Court ; Berreyesa, et al. v. Forbes, et al 219 Exhibit O. H. No. 51. — Certified Copy Bill and Answer from U. S. Circuit Court : Berreyesa, et al. v. Forbes, et al . . . 199 Exhibit O. H. X. No. 1. — Letter: Jas. Alex. Forbes to Eus- tace Barron, Jan. 30, 1846 539 Exhibit O. H. X. No. 2.— Letter : Jas. Alex. Forbes to Alex. Forbes, Sept. 22, 1846 540 Exhibit 0. IT. X. No. 3.— Letter : Jas. Alex. Forbes to Alex. Forbes, July 14, 1847 • • • • 541 Exhibit 0. H. X. No. 4.— Letter : Jas. Alex. Forbes to Alex. Forbes, Feb. 7, 1848 542 Exhibit 0. H. X. No. 5. — Letter : Barron, Forbes' & Co. to Jas. Alex. Forbes, Feb. 6, 1850 543 Exhibit O. H. X. No. 6.— Letter : J. Alex. Forbes to Ysidoro De la Torre, June 18, 1850 • • • 544 Exhibit 0. H. X. No. 7.— Notarial Copy of Castillo Lanzas' Document 645 8 Tage. Exhibit O. IT. X. No. 7^-.— Letter : J. A. Forbes to Alex. Forbes, Feb. 17, 1848 547 Exhibit O. H. X. No. 8.— Ratification of Contract by J. Alex. Forbes, Mav 4, 1847 548 Exhibit 0. H. X. No. 9.— Document referred to in " O. H. No. 7," page 396 550 Answer in Equity : Tobin et al. v. Walkinshawet al 557 Deposition of Jose Fernandez 599 Exhibit A. B. — Chaboya Copy of Pico Act of Possession. . 622 Exhibit C. D. — Articles of Partnership ; Castillero and others 624 Exhibit T. R.— Receipt : March 4, 1846 ; A. Gutierrez 626 Exhibit M. A.— Gutierrez to Pacheco, March 9, 1846 627 Exhibit X. Y.— Gutierrez to Pacheco, Feb. 12, 1846 628 Deposition of Antonio Maria Pico 628 Deposition of Salvio Pacheco 664 Deposition of T. F. Grant 673 Deposition of Benito Diaz 676 Exihibit No. 1, X. ; Exhibit No. 3, in Case 754 ; T. O. Larkin. 715 Exhibit No. 2, X. ; Exhibit No. 4, in Case 754 ; T. O. Larkin. 716 Deposition of John M. Murphy 743 Deposition of Domingo Danglada 749 Deposition of John M. Murphy 752 Exhibit No. I.— Giants by Pedro Chabolla 754 Translation of Exhibit No. 1 761 Deposition of Rafael Sanchez , '. 765 Deposition of William McCutchen 766 Subpena duces tecum to Chapman Yates 768 Deposition of Chapman Yates 769 Exhibit No. 1. — Inventory of Books and Documents of Juz- gado de San Jose, Jan. 2, 1846 807 Exhibit No. 2.— Letter: Manuel Castro to First Alcalde, San Jose, Dec. 15, 1845 809 Exhibit No. 3.— Letter : J. Alex. Forbes to John Burton, Aug. 14, 1847 810 Exhibit No. 4.— Inventory of Property, San Jose, 1846 and 1847 810 Exhibit No. 5. — Communication from Mayor and W. F. ♦Lovett to the Common Council, San Jose, M'ch 3, 1852. 812 Exhibit No. 6.— Extract from Minutes : G. C. Cook v. J. A. Forbes, 1847 815 Exhibit No. 7.— Notice to the Public by Dolores Pacheco, June 7, 1846 81 6 Translation of Exhibit No. 7 816 Exhibit No. 8.— Notice to the Public by Dolores Pacheco, . April 24, 1846 817 Translation of Exhibit No. 8 818 9 Page. Offer of Evidence by the United States 772 Expediente of Justo Larios 173 Translation 775 Grant annexed to Deposition of Antonio Sunol 718 Translation 779 Expediente of Jose R. Berreyesa 781 Translation 787 Translation of " R. No. 1 "—(page 257) 794 Translation of " R. No. 2 "—(page 311) 797 Translation of " R. No. 9 "—(page 286) 802 • Translation of " A. P. L."— (page 73) 803 Translation of " G. M. Y."— (page 147) 805 Translation of " J. W. W."— (page 168) 806 TRANSCRIPT PROCEEDINGS, ■ In Case No. 366, ANDRES CASTILLERO, Claimant, VS. The UNITED STATES, Defendant, FOR THE PLACE NAMED SAN FRANCISCO: WHITTON, TOWNE & CO., PRINTERS, EXCELSIOR STEAM PRESSES, 125 CLAY STREET, COBNEB BANSOME. 1858. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO ASCERTAIN AND SETTLE THE PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Be it Remembered, That on this thirtieth day of September, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, before the Commis- sioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, sitting as a Board in the city of San San Francisco, in the State aforesaid, in the United States of America, the following pro- ceedings were had, to wit ; The petition of Andres Castillero, for the place named " New Almaden," was presented, and ordered to be filed and docketed with No. 336, and is as follows, to wit : (Vide page 5 of this Transcript.) Upon which petition the following subsequent proceedings were had in their chronological order, to wit : San Francisco, April 5, 1853. In case No. 366, Andres Castellero, for the place named " I Almaden," the deposition of F. Alden, a witness in behalf of the claimant, taken before Commissioner Harry I. Thornton, with docu- ments marked H. I. T, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, annexed thereto, was filed ; (Vide page 10 of this Transcript.) San Francisco, Sept. 28, 1853. Case No 366 was ordered^ on motion of claimant's counsel, to the foot of the docket. San Francisco, Feb'y 18, 1854. In the same case the deposition of Chester S. Lyman, a witness in behalf of the claimant, taken before Commissioner Alpheus Felch, was filed. (Vide page 15 of this Transcript.) San Francisco, Sept. 26, 1854. Case No. 366 was ordered to be placed at the foot of the 2d class cases on the trial docket. San Francisco, Oct. 23d, 1854. In the same case the counsel for the claimant filed the following affidavit, to wit : (Vide page 19 of this Transcript.) San Francisco, November 7, 1854. Case No. 366, on motion of the claimant's counsel, with the consent of the U. S. Law Agent, was ordered to be placed at the foot of the 4th class cases on the trial docket. San Francisco, January 30, 1855. In the same case the deposition of Jose' Maria Lafragua, a witness in behalf of the claimant, taken before Commissioner Peter Lott, with documents marked "Exhibits, A., P. L," " B., P. L.," " C, P. L.," " D., P. L.," annexed thereto, was filed; (Vide page 22 of this Transcript.) San Francisco, March 19, 1855. In the same case the depositions of Frank Lewis, Jose' Noriega, and Antonio Suiiol, witnesses in behalf the claimant, taken before Com- missioner Peter Lott, the last with document marked " Exhibit A., P. L.," annexed thereto, were filed; (Vide pages 35, 38 and 43 of this Transcript.) San Francisco, March 21, 1855. In the same case tlfe depositions of Domingo Danglada, and Fran- cisco de Leon, witnesses in behalf of the claimant, taken before Com- missioner Alpheus Felch, were filed ; (Vide pages 45 and 48 of this Transcript.) San Francisco, March 28, 1855. In the same case the deposition of Jose* Fernandez, a witness in behalf of the claimant, taken before Commissioner Peter Lott, was filed; (Vide page 51 of this Transcript.) San Francisco, April 3d, 1855. Case No. 366 was submitted on briefs and taken under advisement by the Board. San Francisco, Jan'y 8, 1856. In the same case, Commissioner Alpheus Felch delivered the opinion of the Board — Commissioner R. Aug. Thompson dissenting — confirm- ing the mining rights, and rejecting the claim for the land : (Vide pages 139 and 197 of this Transcript.) And the following order was made, to wit ; (Vide page 220 of this Transcript.) PETITION. To the Honorable Commissioners to settle Private Land Claims in California : The petitioner, Andres Castillero, respectfully shows : That in the year 1845, the petitioner, Andres Castillero, discovered a mine of cinnabar in the then jurisdiction of San Jose, and in the now county of Santa Clara, in this State : That having formed a company for working said mine, he, on the 22d day of November and on the 3d day of December, A. D. 1845, U ui th received from the magistrate of that jurisdiction, in due form, the juridi- cal possession of said mine, and land to the ement of three thousand varas in all directions : all of which is shown by the duly authenticated papers, issued from the office of said magistrate, copies of which are submitted herewith marked " A," with translations marked " B." That said record of testimony of his mining possession was soon after submitted to the Junta de Fomento y Administracion de Mineria, the highest mining tribunal in the Republic of Mexico ; which tribunal, after mature deliberation, and an examination of the laws relative thereto, on the 14th day of May, A. D. 1846, declared said juridical possession, although embracing an unusually large extent of land, to be in accordance to law, and fully justified by the peculiar circum- stances of the case, and they therefore recommended to the Executive power of the Republic, through the Minister of Justice, not only that the mining possession of three thousand varas in all directions from the mouth of the mine, be confirmed but that the Executive should also grant in fee to the said Castillero, for the benefit of his mine, two square leagues of land on the surface of his mining possession. That on the 20th day of May, A. D. 1846, the Minister of Justice replied to the President of the "Junta de Mineria" that the Presi- dent of the Republic had acceded to the recommendations of the Junta and the petition of Castillero, and granted the land so asked for, and so recommended. That on the same day the Minister of Justice officially notified the Minister of Exterior Relations, Government and Police, of the afore- said grant of the President of the Republic, in order that the corres- ponding decree or order might be issued ; all of which is fully shown by the duly attested documents issued from the corresponding- offices in Mexico; copies of which, and also copies of the duly authen- ticated certificates of the Minister of Interior and Exterior Relations, and of the Secretary of the Mining Tribunal, that the aforesaid grant of land to the petitioner Castillero, was legal and approved by the Supreme Government, are submitted herewith, marked " C," with translations marked u D." That on the 23d day of May, A. D. 1846, the Minister of Exterior Relations, Government and Police issued his order to the Governor of California, notifying him of the aforesaid grant to Castillero, and di- recting the said Governor to put Castillero in possession of the two square leagues so granted ; a copy of which order' or patent of title is submitted herewith, marked " E.," with a translation marked u jr." That the said Castillero, immediately on receiving the aforesaid grant from the government of Mexico, .started for California for the purpose of measuring off and taking the juridical possession of the land so granted, but was prevented from so doing and interrupted in his jour- ney by the operations of the war which was then commencing between the United States of America and the Republic of Mexico ; he how- ever still continued by his agents and servants in the occupation of the land of his mining possession ; and in the latter part of the year 184:7, or the beginning of the year 1848, and as soon as the opera- tions of the war between the two nations would permit, he procured a survey of the land so granted, and marked out its boundaries ; a copy of which notes of survey, dated March 7th, 1848, and a plot of the land, made and executed by Chester S. Lyman, a duly appointed and authorized surveyor of the Middle Department of California, copies of which notes of survey and plot are submitted herewith, marked u G." And the petitioner further shows : that the said survey was made with as much formality as was possible, and by the most skilful and competent officer to be procured in the then peculiar state of the country, and under the then organized de facto government of Califor- nia ; that in order to avoid all questions of boundary with the claim- ants of the neighboring lands, the agents of Castillero and those holding under him in making the said survey and marking the bound- aries of his grant as aforesaid, so located it on their then mining pos- session which had been given to Castilero in 1845, and duly approved as aforesaid, as to leave the mouth of the said quicksilver mine now called " New Almaden," in the centre, or nearly so, of said grant so located, and to include little or no land on the side next the claimants of neighboring lands, but on the contrary to leave out a considerable portion of land, included in the said juridical possession, on the side next such claimants ; this being done to avoid all dispute respecting boundaries ; all of which is shown by the plot*submitted herewith marked " H." That the said tract of land has not been surveyed by the Surveyor- General of the United States, but that it was duly surveyed, and its boundaries marked in the year 1848, as aforesaid ; that these bound- aries are well known, and that the land within them has been in the possession of, and occupied by, the said Castillero, his agents, and those holding under him, since the year 18.45 by juridical authority, and since the month of May 1846, by virtue of a title in fee. That the rights acquired under said denouncement and juridical possession have continued uninterrupted until the present time, and now are vested solely and wholly in the petitioner, Castillero, and those holding under him ; that by the working of the mine from its denouncement as aforesaid, he acquired by the laws of Mexico a per- fect title to the minerals of said mine, and a perfect right to use the said land for said mining purposes, even if he had no title in fee to 8 the land itself ; but he avers and has shown that such title in fee ab- solute was conveyed to him by the grant aforesaid on the 20th day of May, 1846. That since the petitioner took possession of said mine and tract of land in the year 1845, and more particularly since he received the said grant in fee in the month of May 1846, he and his associates holding under him have expended immense sums of money in work- ing said mine and in improving said land, in constructing roads, opening quarries, erecting lime kilns, furnaces, smelting works, machinery storehouses, and other costly works of permanent utility, viz : from December, 1845, to the first day of May, 1852, the sum of $978,114,^. And the petitioner relies for confirmation of title upon the original documents, copies of which are transmitted herewith ; and upon such other and further proofs as they may be advised are necessary. Wherefore the said Castillero prays this Honorable Board of Com- missioners to confirm to him the aforesaid tract of two square leagues of land, as embraced in his mining possession and grant as aforesaid, and described in the accompanying surveys and maps By his attorneys, HALLECK PEACHY & BILLINGS Filed in office Sept. 30, 1852. GEO FISHER, Sec. DEPOSITION OF F. ALDEN. San Francisco, April 5th, 1853. On this day before Comr H. I. Thornton, came Fernando Alden, a witness on the part of the claimant A. Castillero, petition No. 366, and was duly sworn, his evidence being given in English. ( In answer to enquiries propounded by counsel for the claimant, the witness testified as follows : My name is Fernando Alden, my age is 49 years. I first came to San Francisco 21 years ago the 1st day of this month : I have lived in Mexico and California 25 years. I first went to live on the lands of New Almaden about the 1st day of April, 1847, and continued to reside there until about a year ago. I acted as the agent and overseer for the Company who held under the present claimant^ Andres Castillero, but I never have and do not now own any interest in these lands or mine. In the early part of 1848, the lands called New Almaden, were surveyed, by Mr. C. S. Lyman, the Surveyor of the Middle District of California ; I was present and assisted in making a part of this survey. I have compared the notes of survey and map filed with this deposition, and marked Exhibit No. 1, with the original notes of survey and map made by Mr. Lyman in 1848, and find them to be exact copies of the originals made at that time. The land claimed by Castillero, and those holding under him, is marked out by the red lines on this map, and has been in their possession and occupation ever since I first went there in March or April, 1847. The boundaries are distinctly marked and well known. The tract is bounded on the west, south, and east, by public lands ; on the south and south-east by the lands claimed by the heirs of Jose R. Berreyesa. His widow, Maria E. Berreyesa, and several of his children, (of whom I particularly remember his sons Fernando Berreyesa, Nemesio Berreyesa, Jose Encarnacion Berreyesa, and his son-in-law Lorenzo Pineda) were present when this survey was made, and pointed out and assisted in establishing the boundaries between the lands of New Almaden and the lands of the Rancho of San Vicente, claimed and occupied by the Berreyesas, and they assent- ed to the boundaries described in the aforesaid survey and map as the dividing lines between their lands and the lands of New Almaden. The Quicksilver Mine of New Almaden is situate nearly in the cen- tre of the tract represented in the aforesaid survey and map. When I first went upon this land as an agent, in March or April, A. D. 1847, the mine had been worked by Castillero to a considerable extent, and some small buildings erected ; the works were then commenced on a larger scale, and have been continued ever since to the present time. The amount of money expended in these works, the erection of build- ings, furnaces and store-houses, and in the construction of roads, bridges, &c, has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, been about one million of dollars. A portion of the land has been and now is oc- cupied by the works, furnaces and buildings of the claimants, and the other portions as pastures for the animals used on these works, and for cutting fuel for the furnaces ; the land embraced in this claim is all very rough and mountainous, and is only useful as woodland and as pasture, not being suitable for cultivation. I was in Mexico in 1846, and left there to take up my residence at New Almaden, in January, 1847. When I was in Mexico in 1846, I heard of this grant by the Mexi- can Government of two leagues to Andres Castillero, and I was em- ployed by the agent and partner of Castillero — Alexander Forbes— to 2 10 come to California for the purpose of working the mine, erecting works and buildings, and occupying the land so granted to Castillero. The aforesaid survey and map were made to mark out the land so granted, and to the best of my knowledge and belief do so represent it. I am a surveyor, and in early life was employed by Benjamin Wright, the celebrated Engineer, in surveying the Erie Canal, in the State of New York, and have been frequently engaged in surveying since that time. I am a native of Oneida County, in the State of New York. The mining possession upon which this grant of two square leagues was made by the Mexican Government, was 3000 varas in every di- rection from the mouth of the mine, and this survey was made so as to locate the two leagues granted to Castillero, as nearly over this min- ing possession as could be done without interfering with lands claimed by the Berreyesas. The dividing line between this survey and the Berreyesas, was that fixed and claimed by the Berreyesas themselves. Mr. Lymcin, the Surveyor, removed from this State several years ago, and I am informed resides in the State of Connecticut. Questions by U. S. Law Agent. 1st. — What do you mean by laying out the two leagues on the min- eral possession ? Answer. — I mean that the grant described the land as " Sobre el terreno de su possession mineria," and that the two leagues were marked out as nearly on this mineral possession as it could be, and not conflict with the lines of private claims. Taking the mineral pos- session as three thousand varas each way in the direction of the four winds from the mouth of the mine, and forming a square, it would in- clude a strip claimed by the Berreyesas. The survey was therefore made to follow the lines of the Berreyesas' claim, as established by themselves, and the two leagues laid out as nearly on this square as it could be, by taking the highest points of the mountains as landmarks, and following the lines pointed out by the Berreyesas as their boundaries. This is shown by the plot filed here- with as Exhibit No. 2, and by comparing it with Exhibit No. 1. Questions by Claimant's Counsel. 1.— Examine paper marked Exhibit No. 3, and filed herewith, and say if it is, to the best of your recollection, a correct copy of the grant referred to in your answer to the foregoing question ; and if the survey you speak of was made to represent the land described in this grant. 11 Answer. — I have compared this copy with original grant to which I referred, and find it a correct copy ; the survey was made to mark out the land described in the grant. 2nd Question. — Was the agent of the grantee satisfied with this survey, and were the colindantes or bordering owners satisfied with this survey ? Answer. — The agent of Castillero was satisfied with this survey. The Berreyesas, as I have already said, assented to it, and assisted in marking the lines, and no others to my knowledge made any objec- tion to it. FERNANDO ALDEN. U. S. Law Agent present. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 5th of April, 1 853. HARRY I. THORNTON, Comr. Filed in Office, April 5th, 1853. GEO. FISHER, Sec. DEPOSITION OF CHESTER S. LYMAN. United States Land Commission, ) San Francisco, Feb'y 18, 1854. \ On this day before Commissioner Alpheus Felch, came Chester S. Lyman, a witness in behalf of the claimant, Andres Castillero, case No. 366, who after being duly sworn, deposed as follows : Questions by Mr. Peachy, Attorney for Claimant. 1st Question. — What is your name, age, and place of residence ? Answer. — My name is Chester S. Lyman, my age is forty years, and I reside in New Haven, in the State of Connecticut. 2nd Question. — Did you ever make a survey of the land lying around the Almaden Mine, in Santa Clara County, in the State of California ; if so, state when and at whose request you made it, and in what manner the survey was made ? Answer. — I made such survey in the month of February, 1848, at the request of James Alexander Forbes, of California, and Alexander Forbes, of Topic, in Mexico, who was at that time at said mines. 12 At the time the survey was made I held a commission from General Mason, who was then Governor of California, as Surveyor for the Mid- dle Department of California, which embraced what is now Santa Clara County. I was requested to lay out two square leagues of land, and was shown either a grant or a copy of a grant from the Mexican Gov- ernment for those two square leagues. These were to be laid out so as to cover certain mining rights called " pertenencia" which extend- ed three thousand varas in each direction from the mouth of the mine. I made the survey by triangulation, and it was so made as to include two square leagues in a somewhat irregular shape, approximating a rectangle, and it was so surveyed as to have the mouth of the mine as near in the centre as could be without covering land of the neighboring ranchos claimed by individual owners. If there had been no surrounding claims, it would have been laid out with the mouth of the mine in the centre. The survey includes the pertenencia of three thousand varas in each direction from the mouth of the mine, excepting on the north, side. On that side, the line was placed by me where it is on account of the claim of the land by Grove C. Cook, and by the family of Berreyesa. The Rancho claimed by Cook is called the Justo Larios Rancho, and that claimed by the Berreyesa family is called San Vicente. The line as actually run by me on the portion adjoining San Vicente, was one which was agreed upon at the time of compromise between said Forbes and the Berreyesa family. I was at the same time when this survey was being made, requested by the widow Berreyesa to make a survey of the Rancho San Vicente. I made, in fact, both surveys at the same time, and one of her sons went with me and pointed out the boundaries which they claimed. The line above mentioned as agreed upon, was made the boundary between the two. 3d Question. — Look on the document now presented to you, being a map and description of boundaries marked " Exhibit No. 1 " to the Deposition of Fernando Alden taken in No. 366. H. I. T.", hereto- fore filed in this case, and state whether you recognise the same as accurate copies of the field notes and map of the survey made by you as above mentioned ? Answer. — I have examined. They appear to be accurate copies of the originals. The map appears to me to be a perfect fac-simile in all its details. 4th Question. — Please state what improvements were on the land when you made the survey of it. Answer.— There were works on it for extracting quicksilver, em- bracing four furnaces, and there were between twenty and thirty men 13 at work on it. The miners were Mexicans ; the other hands at work were principally Americans. There was a storehouse of considerable extent, where the quicksilver and some goods were kept. There were four or five lodging and boarding houses. The princi- pal house was occupied by Mr. Forbes for an office and lodging places. There were also other improvements there, but I cannot now specify them. Questions by Mr. McKune, Law Agent. 1st Question. — Who did you understand was working the mines at the time you made the survey ? Answer. — Alexander Forbes. (The Law Agent objects to the foregoing deposition being read and considered as evidence on the grounds, 1. That C. S. Lyman was not a Government Surveyor, and not authorized to make the survey. 2. The survey was not made until after the said land became American Territory. 3. The commission spoken of in the deposition is the only evidence of such commission.) CHESTER S. LYMAN. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 18th day of February, 1854. ALPHEUS FELCH, Commis'r. Filed in Office, Feb'y 18, 1854. GEO. FISHER, Sec. AFFIDAVIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) gg State of California, jf San Francisco, October 23d, 1854. This day came before Peter Lott, Commissioner for taking testi- mony, to be used before the Board of U. S. Land Commissioners in said State. I, William E. Barron, on oath, state as follows : That I am the sole 14 attorney and agent in California of Andres Castillero, the owner and claimant in this case of the lands of New Almaden ; that as such agent and attorney I have the entire management and control of the business relating to said lands, and the mine situated therein, and of the pros- ecution of this claim before this Honorable Board ; that I have made every exertion to procure from the City of Mexico duly certified copies from the archives of the Government, of the papers relating to, and constituting the title of Andres Castillero to the said lands of New Almaden ; that I have received, at different times, two or three copies of said papers from the archives of the Government, but not verified by the Great Seal of State, but was informed by counsel that such copies were not so proved and authenticated as to be entitled to be used and read as evidence in the courts of the United States. That on the 16th day of la*st March, Henry W. Halleck, one of the claimants attorneys in this case, left the city of San Francisco, with the intention of proceeding to the city of Mexico, about the busi- ness of procuring testimony to prove the genuineness of the signatures to the title papers mentioned and referred to in the petition, but was unable to reach the city of Mexico, owing to the civil war then pre- vailing between General Alvarez and Santa Anna. That since the attempt of Mr. Halleck to reach the city of Mexico, the civil war has continued to prevail, cutting off all communication between the capitol and Acapulco, the only, port on the Pacific with which there is a mail communication to San Francisco, so that depo- nent could communicate by mail with his principal only by Havana and New Orleans. • Affiant further says, that he has used all possible diligence to pro- cure a duly authenticated copy of said documents from the archives of the Departments of Mexico, verified by the great seal of State, but that they have been sent to him verified by the keeper of the archives and the minister, but without the great seal — that being, as he under- stands, the manner of verifying documents to be used in the Courts of Mexico, and he is informed that in the Mexican Repubic there is no seal used corresponding with what is used in other nations, and known as their great seals ; and that for that reason he cannot procure copies of said documents so certified and authenticated as, under the advice of counsel, to be safely depended on as competent documentary proof in the trial of this case. Affiant further says, that he has recently communicated with the claimant m Mexico, both by way of Havana and by a sailing vessel going to San Bias, and has advised the claimant to procure the attend- ance before this Board of a competent witness or witnesses acquainted with the signatures of the public officers in Mexico, and who shall 15 have compared the copies of said original documents with the original documents themselves on file in the public archives, and affiant believes that such witness or witnesses will be in attendance on this Eoard as soon as practicable. Affiant further says, that he does not know of any person in this State who can prove the signatures to the papers offered as claimant's title in this case. Affiant further says, that the failure to procure the proper authenti- cation of the papers or witnesses to prove them, has not resulted from a desire to delay a decision in this case, but from the mode of verify- ing papers in Mexico, and from the difficulty of communicating with the claimant, who, he has every reason to believe, is very desirous of having an early decision of this Honorable Board on his claim. WM. E. BARRON. Subscribed and sworn to before me, on this 28d day of October, A. D. 1854. PETER LOTT, Comm'r, &c. Filed in office, Oct. 23, 1854. GEO. FISHER, Sec. DEPOSITION OF JOSE MARIA LAFRAGUA. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) gs State of California, J San Francisco, January 29, 1855. This day came before Peter Lott, Commissioner for taking testi- mony to be used before Board of U. S. Land Commissioners in said State, Jose Maria LaFragua, a witness in behalf of the claimant, An- dres Castillero, in case No. 366, on the docket of said Board, and said witness being sworn, deposed in Spanish, which was interpreted by the interpreter to said Board as follows : The U. S. Associate Law Agent is present, and Judge Thornton, as Associate Counsel. Questions by Mr. Peachy for Claimant. 1st Question. — What is your name, age and residence ? Answer. — My name is Jose Maria Lafragua, my age 41 years, my residence in the city of Mexico. 16 2nd Question.— Please to state what is your profession, and what public offices you have held. Answer. — I am ll lawyer by profession, and have held the office ot Minutro de llelaciones Interiores y Esteriores de Mexico, in the latter part of the year 18-46. From 1848 to 1852 I was a Senator of the Republic of Mexico, and I have been several times a deputy in the Mexican Congress. 3d Question.— Look at the document now shown to you, marked " A. P. L.," as an Exhibit to this deposition, and state^ whether you have compared the writings therein contained with the originals in the archives in Mexico ; whether the same are accurate copies of said originals ; whether the originals are in the offices where they purport to be ; whether you know any or all the signatures attached to said originals ; what are your means of knowing said signatures ; and are the same genuine ? Answer. — I have compared all the papers in this document with the originals in the city of Mexico in November, 1854, and found them all to be correct copies. The said originals are in the archives of the Junta de Mineria and in those of the Minister io de Relaciones. In 1846, the business of the Government relating to mines was con- ducted in the department of Government called Ministerio de Justicia, and now it is in the department of the Ministerio de Jlelaciones Este- 8, and the documents are properly in the latter department. I know the signatures of all the persons whose names appear signed in said original papers in said archives. I have seen them all write, and been familiar with their signatures in many public documents, and in these I believe them all to be gen- uine. 4th Question. — Are you acquainted with the course of business in the Departments of the Government of Mexico ; if yea, state whether copies of documents which are transmitted from one Department of the State to the other are preserved in the office from which they em- anate, or whether minutes of the same are there kept? Answer. — I am acquainted with the course of business in the offices of the Government of Mexico, and in each of the offices of State are kept copies of all papers originating in or emanating from that office ; when papers are transmitted from that office to another office or De- partment of State, these copies remaining are called Minutas. When the Minister of a Department writes a despatch or official letter, the original or rough draft, called borrador, is filed in the office, and constitutes the minuta of that transaction. 5th Question. — Look at the communication which was made by the Junta de Mineria, or by its president, Vicente Segura, on the 14th 17 of May, 1846, to the Minister of Justice and Public Instruction, en- closing the petition of Andres Castillero to said Junta de Mineria, dated May 12th, 1846, and state whether you have ever seen said communication in the office of the Minister of Justice and Instruction aforesaid, and if it contains any minute made on it by the Minister of Justice ; if yea, whether you have made a copy of that minute, and can produce it. Answer. — I have seen the original communication made by said Junta, enclosing said petition of Castillero, of which a copy appears here in the document exhibited " A., P. L." I saw it in the office of the Minister of Foreign Relations, to which the mining business had been transferred, as I before said. When I saw the said papers, in November, 1854, 1 saw on the mar- gin of said communication, a decree bearing the rubric of the Minister of Justice, which does not appear in the copies here presented, but which I then copied, and the true copy I then made I now produce to be filed herewith, marked " B., P. L." as an Exhibit to this deposi- tion. The reason why said marginal writing does not appear in this copy " A., P. L." is because it was merely a minute of the document or memorandum of the decree. 6th Question. — Look at the document now shown to you marked " C.,P. L." as an exhibit to this deposition and state whether you are acquainted with the hand writing of Castillo Lanzas ; if yea, by what means you are acquainted with it, and state whether his signature in said document is genuine, and also what office said Lanzas held at the date of said document. Answer. — I know said Lanzas' hand writing. I have seen him write and have seen various communications from him, and this is his gen- uine signature in this document. He was Minister of Foreign Rela- tions on May 23d, 1846, the date of said document. 7th Question. — While you held any official position under the Mex- ican Government, was any communication ever addressed to you, relating to ihe . mine of New Almaden in Upper California ; if yea, what action aid you take" on said communication ? Answer. — While I was Minister of Interior and Exterior Relations in November 1846, I received a communication from the Junta de Mineria, relating to said mine. I, as Minister aforesaid, reported said communication to the Constituent Congress and recommended it in a memorial of December of the same year. 8th Question. — Have you in your possession the report you made on that occasion ? if yea, please to produce it. Answer. — I have so much of my report as relates to this matter 3 18 and produce it here marked " D., P. L." as an Exhibit to this deposi- tion. This Exhibit is in printed form. The paragraphs marked with a pen on pages 65 and 66, embrace what I said about the matter in my report. The written note on page 118 relates to the document marked " Num 52." The two documents marked with a pen in the margin of page 136 relate to the subject of said Castillero's mine. The marked paragraphs, partly marked with lead and partly with ink, on page 146, relate to the same matter. I made these marginal marks and annotations myself, to show what portions of the Document relate to this particular subject. This document is taken out of a large bound Volume which em- braced my whole report as Minister of Relations, upon all subjects pertaining to my office, with accompanying documents. I took this portion for convenience, because it embraced everything which my said report contained relating to said Almaden mine or Castillero's connec- tion therewith. The book I speak of is a ponderous volume. 9th Question. — Who was president in Mexico when this grant "C., P. L." was made? Answer. — General Paredes was President of the Republic from January to July of the year 1846. 10th Question. — State what were the powers of Paredes as Presi- ident — Were they Constitutional or not ? Answer. — His powers were not Constitutional, they were Extraor- dinary. The Organic Bases of 1843 had been suppressed by revolu- tion and there was no Constitution during the sway of Paredes. In August 1846, the Federal Constitution of 1824 was re-established, and Gen Salas came into power by another revolution. 11th Question. — Had Paredes the power to grant vacant lands in the Territories, by virtue of his Extraordinary powers as President, or by the Colonization Law of 18th August 1824 ? Answer. — In my opinion Paredes had the power to grant such lands under and by virtue of the laws of August 16th 1824, because in the 16th article of that law the President was authorized to adopt mea- sures, and arrange the affairs of Colonization in the Territories. In consequence of the Revolution, Paredes became clothed with absolute power embracing the Legislative as well as the Executive, and all other functions of the Government. _ 12th Question.— Was it customary for the President of Mexico 11' to sign documents, or was it done by the proper Secretary ? 19 • Answer. — It would depend upon the character of the document. Commissions, Laws of the Republic and appointments were signed by the President. Communications to the Governors of Departments and to other high functionaries were signed by the Ministers, and not by the President. The President did not sign grants of the public lands because those matters were communicated to the Governors of the Departments. 13th Question. — In what light do regard this document " C, P. L." Answer. — It is a communication from the Minister of Relations to the Governor of California It is substantially the approval by the President through the Minister, of the petition of Castillero, and it contains a grant of the land or rather the consent of the President that the land should be granted. And I therefore consider it a title to the land. (13th Question and answer objected to by the IT. S. Associate Law Agent.) Cross-Examined by U. S. Associate Law Agent. 1st Question. — Have you any interest by way of commission or oth- erwise, depending in any manner upon the confirmation of this claim by the Board of U. S. Land Commissioners ? Answer. — I have no interest of any kind in the matter. 2nd Question. — Is said Andres Castillero still living ; if yea, where ; and what is his profession ? Answer. — He is living. He has a hacienda about 4 leagues from the City of Mexico, on which he resides. 3rd Question. — Has said Castillero recently held any Civil or Mili- tary office in Mexico ? Answer. — I do not know that he holds any office at present, nor do I know of his having held any recently. I think he was a deputy in the Mexican Congress along about 1846. It was before 1846. 4th Question. — Do you know whether said Castillero ever returned to Upper California after May 23, 1846 ? Answer. — I do not know whether he did or not. 5th Question. — Have you compared verbatim the papers "A., P. L" with the originals of which they purport to be copies ; and when did you last see said originals ? Answer. — I have compared them verbatim. The last time I saw the originals was when I compared them, which was between the 11th and 15th days of November, 1854. 20 6th Question. — Did you ever see said originals prior to that time ? Answer. — I saw them in 1846, because I was then Minister and was obliged to examine all the acts of Paredes for the purpose of lay- ing them before the Mexican Congress. 7th Question. — Was the minister of which you have spoken "B., P. L " on the document in the Archives when you first saw it ? Answer.— Yes, it was there written when I first saw said document in 1846. 8th Question. — Do you know of any grant of land in Upper Califor- nia having been made by the General Government of Mexico since the enactment of the Colonization law of 1824 ? Answer. — I do not. 9th Question. — Does the Supreme Government of Mexico ever grant the fee simple title in mines, or were they not denounced under the mining laws ? Answer. — A title to a mine could not be obtained without the de- nouncement by the applicant under the mining laws. So long as the requirements of the mining laws were complied with the applicant for a title could hold and enjoy a full and complete title in the mine forever, according to the ordinances. When I say his title was forever, I mean so long as he complied with the mining laws. (9th question and answer both objected to as relating to written laws, and incompetent to prove them in this way.) i 10th Question. — Were not continued occupation and possession, as well as the payment of the usual stipend, required by law ? (10th Question same objection as to 9th.) Answer. — At this moment I do not remember the provisions of the mining law. 11th Question — Does this minute or memorandum " B., P. L." bear any date in the original, of the time when it was written ? Answer.— It has the date of May 20th, 1846, in the original in the Archives, which I understood to be the time when said marginal de- cree was entered; the inverted commas or quotation mark in this copy are my own and do not appear in the original. 12th Question. — What action did the Mexican Congress take upon your report, or upon the part thereof relating to this matter of Castil- lero ? Answer. — The Congress took no action upon it. 21 13th Question. — Were the actions of Paredes as President ever re- cognized or approved by the Mexican Congress ? Answer. — Some of his acts have been approved and some disap- proved, as Congress thought proper, and his acts until they were dis- approved were recognized as valid. 14th Question. — Was it not required that his acts should be sub- mitted to Congress before they could acquire validity ? Answer. — No, it was not necessary. There was no express provi- sion to that effect in the plan which the Government established. That was the plan of San Luis Potosi, of the latter part of 1845. Instead of saying there was no express provision &c, I would wish to say, I do not remember of any express provision to that effect. I therefore repeat that all the acts of Paredes were deemed valid till expressly annulled or disapproved by the Government. 15th Question. — Was it not usual for officers acting under extraor- dinary powers, to sign the acts done by themselves ? Answer. — No ; the President only signed usuallysuch documents as I have before discriminated, even when invested with Extraordinary powers. 16th Question. — Was not the Geary Grant of lands on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, made under extraordinary powers, 'and was it not signed by the President ? Answer. — I do not know whether the President signed that Grant or not. 17th Question. — You have expressed in your examination in-chief the opinion that Paredes had the power to grant lands under the Colo- nization law of August 1824, because by the 16th Article of that law, the President was authorized to adopt measures of Colonization — Did Paredes ever promulgate any regulations for the colonizations of lands in the territories under said 16th Article ? Answer. — I do not remember of his issuing any such regulations. 18th Qnestion. — Do yon know of Paredes ever having made any change or departure from the ordinance of November 1828, carrying out the decree of August 1824 ? Answer. — I do not know of Paredes ever having made any change or departure, such as the question suggests. 19th Question. — Was not the document "C, P.L." a recommenda- tion to the Governor of California in favor of Castillero, to make him a grant according to the laws and dispositions regulating colonization in the territory of Upper California ? Answer. — It is not a recommendation. It is an order given to the Governor of California by the Supreme Government of Mexico to give Castillero the possession of the sitios mentioned in the documents which had been granted to him (Castillero) on the 20th May, 1816. 99 20th Question. — Look at the 8th proposition in the petition of Cas- tillero in " A., P. L " which is referred to in " C, P. L." and state whether said proposition was not to have granted to him two square leagues as a colonist, and agreeably to the Colonization Laws. Answer. — My opinion is that the two sitios were to be granted to the petitioner for the benefit of the wood on the land ; my individual opinion is, the grant was made to encourage the developement of the mine. Re-Examined by Claimants' Counsel. 1st Question.— Look at the document signed by Isidro R. Gondra in " A., P. L" near the end of said Exhibit, and state whether you know said Gondra's handwriting ; if yea, your means of knowledge, and whether his signature thereto is genuine. Answer. — I know said Gondra's handwriting; I have seen him write, and this is his genuine signature. (This first question objected to by the U. S. Law Agent as incom- petent to prove w r hat the document states.) J. M. LAFRAGUA. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of January, A. D. 1855* PETER LOTT, Commissioner. Filed in Office Jan'y 30, 1855. GEO. FISHER, Sec. DEPOSITION OF JOSE NORIEGA. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \ »« State of California, j San Francisco, March 19, 1855. This day came before me, Peter Lott, Commissioner for taking testi- mony to be used before the Board of U. S. Land Commissioners in said State, Jose' Noriega a witness, on behalf of the claimant Andres Castillero in case No 366, on the docket of said Board, and said wit- 23 ness being sworn deposed in Spanish, which was interpreted by the interpreter to said Board, as follows : The U. S. Law Agent is present. Questions by Mr. Peachy for Claimant. 1st Question. — What is your name, age and residence ? Answer. — My name is Jose Noriega— my age 55 years, my resi- dence in San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. 2nd Question. — Examine the Document entitled " Posesion de la Mina de Sta Clara — Ano de 1845 " the same which has just been exhibited to Frank Lewis, the Deputy Recorder, who has just testified in this case, and also to Antonio Sunol, and state whether you are acquainted with the signature of Andres Castillero, and your means of knowledge, and also whether the petitions of said Castillero in said doenments dated respectively November 22d, 1845, and Decem- ber 3d, 1845, both made to the" Senor Alcalde de 1° Nominacion del Pueblo de San Jose* Guadalupe "—making known the discovery of a mine containing gold, silver, and quicksilver, and signed by the genu- ine signatures respectively of said Castillero. ' Answer. — I am acquainted with said Castillero's signature ; I have often seen him write, and I believe these both to be his genuine signa- tures. 3d Question. — Look at the next w T riting in said document, purport- ing to be a record of the action of the Alcalde on the above named petition, whereby he gave Juridical possession to the said Andres Cas- tillero of 3000 varas of land in all directions around the mine, elated December 1845, signed Antonio Maria Pico, and by the assisting wit- nesses, Antonio Sunol and Jose* Noriega, and state whether said signa- tures are genuine and whether you was one of the witnesses, and whether said document is genuine and made at the time it bears date. Answer. — I know the signatures of said Pico and Sunol, and I saw them sign this document, and I was one of the assisting witnesses and signed my name here, and the document was made and executed at the time it bears date and is a genuine document. 4th Question. — State whether or not you know of Andres Castillero working said Quicksilver mine before the Americans took possession of the country ; if yea, how long did he work it, and if he took out Quicksilver how much he got ? Answer. — I know he worked said mine before the Americans took the country. I do not know how long he worked, but I know he had 24 at my house one arroba (25 pounds) of Quicksilver, which he gave to me. I saw a great deal which he got out, he had a great many jars full but I cannot say how much there was. Cross-examined by U. S. Law Agent. 1st Question. — How do you know said Castillero worked the mine, and state to what extent was it worked by him ? Answer. — I saw him working the mine ; he had some eight or ten hands at work there, and he had gone ten or twelve varas deep with the work. That was in December 1845 He had then just commenced the work. 2nd Question.— Did you ever see it again before the Americans came in July 1846 ? Answer. — I saw it two or three times in that interval. 3d Question.— Was the mine on private or public lands ? Answer. — It was the property of Jose Reyes Berreyesa. 3d Question objected to as irrelevant and incompetent. JOSE NORIEGA. Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 19th day of March A. D. 1855 Filed in Office March 19, 1855 PETER LOTT, Commissioner. GEO. FISHER, Sec. DEPOSITION OF ANTONIO SITftOL. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ™ State of California. j fefe * San Francisco March 19, 1855 This day came before Peter Lott Commissioner for taking testimony to be used before the Board of U. S. Land Commission in°said State, Antonio Sufiol a witness on behalf of the claimant Andres Castillero in case No. 366, on the Docket of said Board, and said witness being 25 sworn deposed in Spanish, which was interpreted by the interpreter to said Board as follows : The U. S. Law Agent is present. Questions by Mr Peachy for Claimant. 1st Question.— What is your name, age and residence ? Answer.— My name is Antonio Sunol, my age 57 years, my resi- dence at the Pueblo of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. 2nd Question. — Examine the document entitled " Posesion de la Mina de Sta Clara, — Ano de 1845 " the same which has just been exhibited to Frank Lewis, who has now given his deposition in this case, and state whether you are acquainted with the signatures of Andres Castillero, and your means of knowledge, and whether the petitions of said Castillero in said document, dated respectively No- vember 22d, 1845 and December 3d, 1845 both made to the " Senor Alcalde de l a Nomination del Pueblo de San Jose* Guadalupe " mak- ing known the discovery of a mine containing gold, silver, and quick- silver, are written in a handwriting with which you are acquainted, and whether they are signed by the genuine signature respectively of said Castillero. Answer. — I am acquainted with the signature of said Andres Cas- tillro. I have seen him write, and these his signatures to these two petitions are his genuine signatures. The first in order as they stand in said document, and as referred to in this interrogatory, is written (the body of it) in the handwriting of one Gutierrez, whom I have seen write, he was a teacher of chil- dren in my house, and the second petition, although appearing to be in different hand, I think may also have been written by him, for he varied his hand very much in consequence of his sometimes drinking too much. 3d Question. — Look at the next writing in said document, purport- ing to be a record of the action of the Alcalde on the above named petitions, whereby he gave Juridical possession to the said Andres Castillero of 3000 varas of land in all directions around the mine, dated December 1845, signed Antonio Maria Pico and by the assisting wit- nesses Antonio Sunol and Jose* Noriega, and state whether the said signatures are genuine, and if yea, how you know it, and whether you were one of said assisting witnesses, and whether said document is genuine and was made at the time it purports to have been made. Answer. — I know the signatures of said Pico and Noriega I have 4 26 often seen them write and these are their genuine signatures, and I was one of said witnesses, and this is my own signature. The document is genuine, and was made at the time it bears date. 4th Question. — Examine now the paper marked " A., P. L." pur- porting to contain a copy of the documents of which you have been testifying, to wit ; the said two petitions, and the action of the Alcalde thereon, and state whether it is a true copy of said original papers and how you know it. Answer. — This is a true copy of said original document. I have just now compared it carefully with Mr. Lewis, the Deputy Recorder, who has just been testifying in this case, and also with Jose' Noriega who looked over at the same time, while we were comparing said copy "A., P. L" with said original in said Lewis' custody. 5th Question — Was there ever to your recollection in the Depart- ment of Upper California a mining deputation (diputacion de mineria) or special court or body of men having jurisdiction in matters relating to the discovery and denouncement of mines and other things apper- taining thereto ? Answer. — $o, I never knew of any such deputation or special tri- bunal. If there had been such I think I should have known it. I have lived 38 years in San Jose', and was four or five years Sub-Pre- fect there, and never knew of any such special court or deputation. 6th Question. — State whether or not you know of Andres Castillero working said quicksilver mine before the Americans took possession of the Country in July 1846 ; if yea, how long did he work it and how much quicksilver he got out of it ? Answer. — I knew of said Castillero working said mine before the event and time mentioned, and I know that Jie took out a great quan- tity of quicksilver. I was there and saw him working the mine, and he had about 60 or 70 Quintals (each Quintal is 100 pounds) of quick- silver which I saw at one time. 7th Question. — Has the mine been worked since the time the Americans took possession ? Answer. — Yes, it has been worked all the time since, or at least I do not know of any interruption of the work since that time. 8th Question. — What was the name of the mine when it was first denounced, and what is it's present name ? Answer. — It used to be called the mine of Santa Clara, but of late years it has been called the mine of Nuevo Almaden, since they got such a quantity of quicksilver from it. They gave it this name from a celebrated mine in Spain. 27 Cross-Examined by U. S. Law Agent. 1 Question. — When did you first know Castillero to work the mine; how often since have you known it worked, and to what extent ? Answer. — I first knew him to work it about November 1845. I have often seen it worked since that time: perhaps fifty times. I can- not say exactly, but I have seen it a great many times. 2nd Question. — State if you know when said Castillero left Califor- nia for Mexico, and whether he ever returned. Answer. — The last time he left for Mexico was in 1846, and I do not know of his having returned. ANTONIO SUK T OL. Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 19th day of March 1855 PETER LOTT, Commissioner. Filed in Office March 19, 1855 GEO. FISHER, Secy. DEPOSITION OF FRANK LEWIS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State op California. San Francisco, March 19, 1855. This day came before Peter Lott, Commissioner for taking testimony to be used before the Board of U. S. Land Commissioners in said State, Frank Lewis, a witness on behalf of the Claimant, Andres Castillero, in Case No 366, on the Docket of said Board, and said witness being sworn, testified as follows : The U. S. Law Agent is present. Questions by Mr. Peachy for Claimant. 1st Question. — What is your name, age and residence ? Answer. — My name is Frank Lewis, my age about 27 years, my residence in San Jose', Santa Clara County, California. 2nd Question. — State what office you hold in California and how long you have held the same. 28 Answer. — I am Deputy County Recorder of Santa Clara County. I was appointed about the 15th of August 1855, and have been in that position ever since till the present time. 3d Question. — Look at the paper now shown to you entitled " Pos- sesion de la Mina de Sta Clara, Ano de 1845 ;" state where you ob- tained and why you produced it before this Commission ? Answer. — I obtained it from among the papers filed in the County Recorder's Office of Santa Clara County, and I produced it here in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum, which was served on Solomon A. Clark, as County Recorder of said County, a few days since by a U. S. Deputy Marshal. Mr. Clark sent me as his Deputy here with the papers. 4th Question. — Can you allow me, as counsel for the Claimants in this case, to keep this paper and file it in the Archives of this commis- sion in this claim ? Answer. — No. I do not consider myself authorised to part with the custody of the document, but feel bound in duty to return it to the Recorder's Office of Santa Clara County. 5th Question — Examine now the paper marked "A., P. L" purport- ing to be a copy of the petitions and action thereon in the document of which you have been testifying, and state whether it is a true and exact copy of said original papers and how you know it. Answer. — It is a true and exact copy. I know it from having care- fully compared it at the present time I have the original and copy both now before me. FRANK LEWIS. Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 19th day of March A. D. 1855 PETER LOTT, Commissioner. Filed in Office March 19, 1855 GEO. FISHER, Secy. DEPOSITION OF DOMINGO DANGLADA. United States Land Commission, ) San Francisco March 21, 1855. ) On this day, before Commissioner Alpheus Felch, came Domingo 29 Danglada, a witness on behalf of the Claimant in Case No 366, who after being duly sworn deposed as follows : Questions by Mr Peachy, Attorney for the Claimant. 1 Question. — Please state your name, age, and place of residence. Answer. — My name is Domingo Danglada, my age forty eight years, and I reside in San Francisco, California. 2 Question. — When and how long did you live in Mexico, and in what business were you then engaged ? Answer. — I lived in Mexico twenty three years, and was engaged in mercantile business. I was there twenty two years previous to 1849, when I came to California. 3rd Question. — Was you ever engaged in mining business in Mexi- co, or ever have any interest there in mines ? Are you familiar with the mode of registering the discovery of new mines or of denouncing old ones ? If yea, state before what officers the said proceedings were had. What was the general usage and custom in regard to the officers who took jurisdiction in those matters, and specify if you can some particular cases in which registers and denouncements were made ? (Mr. Blanding objects to the 3rd Question and Answer. A. F.) Answer. — I was engaged there in copper mines, mixed with gold, in the State of Sonora. I am familiar with the mode of registering and denouncing mines. The proceedings are before the Judge of the First Instance or in his absence before the Alcalde. I have known several instances of such proceedings in Sonora and the States of Mexico. I know an instance in the case of the mine in which I was interested, and I have also known instances in Alamos, which is a mining district, and in Hermosillo where also there are mines. 4th Question. — Did you ever know in any of the Mexican States or Departments a tribunal or Court, or officer specially charged with min- ing affairs and who had jurisdiction in relation to the discovery or de- nouncement of mines, or of disputes concerning them between individ- uals, or between individuals and the Government ? Answer. — I have never known any except the Judge of the First Instance, and in his absence or sickness the Alcalde. Formerly there were tribunals having special charge of mining affairs, but since the adoption of the Federal Constitution there have been none such. The jurisdiction was then given to the tribunals above mentioned. 30 Questions by Mr. Blanding, Associate Law Agent. 1 Question. — Do you know of any other tribunals in Mexico before whom denouncements could be made ? Answer. — I do not. DOM DANGLADA. Subscribed and sworn to before me the 21st day of March 1855 ALPHEUS FELCH, Commissioner. Filed in Office March 21, 1855 GEO. FISHER, Secy. DEPOSITION OF FRANCISCO DE LEON. United States Land Commission ) San Francisco March 21, 1855 ) On this day, before Commissioner AlpheusFelch, came Francisco de Leon, a witness on behalf of the Claimant, Andres Castillero, in Case No 366, who, after being duly sworn, deposed as follows, his evidence being interpreted by the Interpreter for the Board : Questions by Mr Peachy, Attorney for Claimant. 1 Question. — Please state your name, age and place of residence. Answer. — My name is Francisco de Leon, my age is sixty-five years, and I reside in San Francisco, California. 2 Question. — When, how long, and in what parts of the Mexican Republic have you lived ? What offices have you held under the Mexican Government ? Are you familiar with the mode of register- ing the discovery of new mines, and of denouncing old ones ? If yea, state before what officers the said proceedings were had, and what was the general usage and custom in regard to the officers who exercised jurisdiction over such matters. Answer. — I lived in the Mexican Republic all my lifetime until I came to California in 1849. I was born in the Republic and have lived in various parts of it, but longer in Sinaloa than any other. I have lived in Durango and in Chihuahua, which are mining dis- 31 tricts. I have held several Military and Civil offices, such as Prefect, Sub -Prefect, and Judge, and was elected as member of the Legislature of Sinaloa, but did not serve in that capacity. I am acquainted with the mode of registering the discovery of new mines and denouncing old ones. The proceedings are held before the Judge of the First In- stance, but where there is no such Judge it is done before the nearest Alcalde, who by law is authorized to give possession of the same. Ever since the establishment of the Mexican Republic, such proceedings have been held before the officers above named. Before the Republic was established the Tribunal of mines (Tribunal de Mineria) was es- tablished in the City of Mexico and in the mining districts there was a Deputation having special jurisdiction in the matters relating to the mines ; but under the Federal Government these were abolished, and jurisdiction in the registering of the discovery and the denouncement of mines given to the Judge of the First Instance and to the Alcalde as above stated. (Mr Blanding objects to this question and answer) 3 Question. — Answer the foregoing question particularly in refer- ence to the mode which has prevailed in the Mexican Republic since 1836, when the Federal Government was abolished, and the New Constitution establishing the Central Government adopted. Answer. — The same mode of proceedings prevailed after the estab- lishment of the Central GoAernment as under the Federal, and it con- tinued up to 1850, so far as I know. Questions by Mr Blanding, Associate Law Agent. 1 Question. — Were you at the time of your residence in Mexico in any way interested in Mines ? Answer. — I worked one of the mines there, which cost me the loss of nearly fifty thousand dollars. I worked also some others of less importance, and I have been present at the giving possession of many mines. From 1820 to 1822 I was an enrolled miner. 2 Question. — Did you in your official capacity ever perform any act of registering the discovery of any mines ? Answer. — I never' did ; but I have seen possession given to others. F. FRANC? DE LEON. Subscribed and sworn to before me this twenty-first day of March 1855 ALPHEUS FELCH, Commissioner. 32 Filed in Office March 21, 1855 GEO. FISHER, Sec. DEPOSITION OF JOSE FERNANDEZ. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) gg State of California J San Francisco March 28, 1855 This day came before Peter Lott, Commissioner for taking testimony to be used before the Board of U. S. Land Commissioners in said State, Jose' Fernandez, a witness on behalf of the Claimant Andres Castillero, in Case No 366, on the Docket of said Board, and said witness being sworn, deposed in Spanish, which was interpreted by the Interpreter said Board as follows : The U. S. Associate Law Agent is present. Questions by Mr Peachy for Claimant. 1st Question. — What is your name, age and residence ? Answer. — My name is Jos6 Fernandez, my age 5Q years, my resi- dence near Pueblo of San Jos6, California. 2nd Question. — When and how long have you lived in California, and in what part of it ? Answer. — I have lived in California 38 years, chiefly in Monterey and San Francisco. 3d Question. — What offices have you held in California ? Answer. — I have been second Alcalde and Justice of the Peace in the Pueblo of San Jose several times. 4th Question.^ — Was there any Judge of First Instance in or about the years 1844, 1845 and 1846, "exercising Jurisdiction in the district of San Jos6 ? Answer. — There was no Judge of First Instance there in those years. 5th Question. — Was there any Judge of First Instance in those years in the Department of California, to your knowledge ? Answer. — There were none that I know of. I knew one Judge of First Instance in 1842 or 1843. It was Don Jose' Zenon Fernandez, in Monterey. 6th Question. — Did the Jurisdiction of that Judge Fernandez ex- tend over the Pueblo or District of San Jose' at that time ? 33 Answer. — No, it did not. 7th Question. — Do you know where the mine of Almaden, or the mine of Santa Clara, as it was formerly called, is situated, being a mine situated on the land claimed in this case ? Answer. — Yes, I do. 8th Question. — Within what district, or under what jurisdiction was that mine situated in the year 1845 ? Answer. — It was within the jurisdiction of the Pueblo of San Jose\ Cross-Examined by U. S. Associate Law Agent. 1st Question. — State accurately the line which divided the jurisdic- tion of Monterey from that of the Pueblo of San Jose*. Answer. — The jurisdiction of the Pueblo of San Jos£ extended to the Arroyo de los Llayos, about eight or nine leagues southerly from said Pueblo ; then next adjoining that came the jurisdiction of San Juan Bautiste, and below that came the jurisdiction of Monterey. 2d Question. — Were these lines of jurisdiction established by any official acts or legal provisions ? Answer. — They were the established limits, by some Governmental action ; but I do not know what particular act or law fixed them. I only know that they were generally known as the Lines. JOSE FERNANDEZ. Subscribed and sworn to before me, March 28th, 1855. PETER LOTT, Commissioner. Filed in office, March 28th, 1855. GEORGE FISHER, Sec'y* 5 34 ESPEDIENTE OF APPROVAL OF MINING POSSESSION AND GRANT. A. P. L., annexed to the Deposition of Jose* Maria Lafragua, January 29th, 1855. Junta de Fomento y Administrate va de Mineria, Numero 573. EXCELENTISIMO SENOR : Habiendo presentado 4 esta Junta el Senor Profesor Don Toinas Ramon del Moral unas muestras de cinabrio de la Mision de Santa Clara, en la Baja California, que le remite Don Andres Castillero, asi como las adjuntas copias con el objeto de escitar al Supremo Gobierno para que se sirva auxiliar tan importante empresa, inmediatamente re- miti6 dichas muestras al Excelentisimo Senor Director del Colegio para que se hiciesen los debidos ensayos, Su Excelencia con oficio de veinte y nueve del pasado recibido ayer le dice lo que sigue. El Senor Don Tomas Ramon del Moral, Presidente de la Junta Facultativa del Colegio Nacional de Mineria en oficio de veinte y cua- tro del pasado me dice lo que sigue. Excelentisimo Senor : Habiendose enterado la Junta Facultativa de los documentos que V. E. le pas6 el veinte y unodel presente mes, relativos k un criadero de cinabrio descubierto en California por el Sefior Don Andres Castil- lero y a otro de Carbon de piedra de la Bahia de San Francisco, tiene el honor de informar a V. E. que las muestras remitidas por dicho Senor Castillero estaban ya depositadas en el Gabinete de Mineralo- gia unas, y otras ensayadas por el Profesor de Quimica Don Manuel Herrera. El — ( Aiios de mil ochocientos cuarenta ) SELLO CUARTO } J > UN REAL. ( mil ochocientos cuarenta y uno. } — ensayo di6 una ley de treinta y cinco y medio por ciento tomando para hacerlo una mescla de las diferentes muestras, por que hay algunas tan ricas que son de cinabrio puro. La Junta cree que el Senor Castillero se ha hecho digno por tan importante discubrimiento de la eficaz protec- cion del Supremo Gobierno y de la Junta de Fomento de Mineria, y esta persuadida, de que V. E. interpondra todo su influjo a fin de que este individuo reciba una prueba de que el Supremo Gobierno sabe distinguir y premiar a los cuidadanos que contribuyen a la prosperi- dad de la patria. Reproduzco a V. E. con este motivo las concideraciones de mi es- timacion y respeto. Y tengo el honor de trasladarlo a V. S. S. como resultado de su oficio relativo. La Junta al incertar a V . E. la anterior comunicacioh tiene el honor, de particparle que ha preguntado ya al Senor Castillero la clase de auxilios 6 de proteccion de que necesita para fomento de su brillante empresa, felicitando al Supremo Gobierno por un descubrimiento que si encuentra en un principio toda la proteccion que se merece puede cambiar completamente el aspecto de nuestra Mineria, libertandola de la necesidad en que ha estado hasta ahora del azogue estrangero. La Junta con este motivo aprovecha la oportunidad para partici- ( Anos de mil ochocientos cuarenta J SELLO CUARTO 1 J > UN REAL. ( mil ochocientos cuarenta y uno. ) par 4 Y. E. que como el veinte y cuatro del presente mes termina la gracia que concedi6 la ley de cinco pesos de premio a cada quintal de azogue extraido de las Minas Nacionales, han acreditado hasta la fecha los mineros de Guadalcazar haber esplotado mil quinientos se- tenta y cinco quintales, de Diciembre de ochocientos cuarenta y cua- tro, a fin de Marzo proximo pasado, cuyo resultado excede del calcu- lo que hasta ahora se habia hecho de que la produccion de este mine- ral era de cien quintales mensuales. La Junta reitera a V. E. con este motivo las protestas de su distin- guida consideracion y aprecio. 36 Dios y Libertad, Mexico, Mayo cinco de mil ochocientos cuarenta y geis. VICENTE SEGURA, Presidente. Por ocupacion del Secretario, YSIDRO R. GONDRA, Oficial Primero. Excelentisimo Seiior Ministro de Justicia. Es Copia ; Mexico, Abril veinte y tres de mil ochocientos cincuenta. 0. MONASTERIO. Secretaria de la Junta de Fomento de Mineria. El Seiior Don Andres Castillero comisionado por el Supremo Gobierno el aiio proximo pasado para pasar a Californias a desempenar objeto del servicio publico, me dice en cartas escritas de la Mision de Santa Clara en diez y nueve, y veinte y dos de Febrero del presente aiio lo que sigue : "A distancia de cinco leguas de esta Mision al Oeste, he descubierto y denunciado una mina abundan- C Aiios de mil ochocientos cuarenta J SELLO CUARTO < J > UN REAL ( mil ochocientos cuarenta y uno. ) tisima de azogue, y a confirmar mi verdad remito a V. S. unas piedras de las que se han tornado por encima de la veta ; tambien va un poco de azogue del que sacamos con la mayor facilidad. El Seiior Director del Colegio de Mineria Don Ramon del Moral, ha de recibir mucho gusto al ver igualadas las piedras de Almaden. Segun lo ancho de la veta y abundancia de Saca de metales dentro de un aiio mediante la proteccion del Gobierno Supremo, no necesitara la Republica azogue de afuera. Remito a V. algunas frioleras hechas por los indios del Noroeste y producidas de aqui ; el Carbon de piedra es abundantisimo y se en- cuentra en las costas de la Bahia de San Francisco, de modo que los Buques de Vapor hechando sus embarcaciones menores, pueden car- gar todo el que necesiten ; este descubrimiento lo hizo el Seiior Coro- nel Don Juan Bautista Alvarado ; El crista! de roca es un cerro muy grande." Es Copia : Mexico, Abril trece de mil ochocientos cuarenta j seis J J de HERRERA." Senor Director del Colegio de Mineria, Don Ramon del Moral. Mision de- Santa Clara ) Febrero 19, 1846. j Mi estimado Amigo y Senor que aprecio: V. sabe lo aficionado que soy al ramo de mineria y empeiiado en encontrar una mina buena de Azogue he dado aqui con un criadero abundantisimo ; al Ecselentisimo Senor Pre- SELLO CUARTO < SEAL } UN REAL sidente remito junto con esta unas piedras de cinabrio y un poco de azogue, estamos formando un horno y hemos ensayado dicho metal en un canon de escopeta, tapado el oido con barro y metido la boca en agua, asi nos ha dado el treinta por ciento. Yo estimaria & V. que se toman el trabajo, en obsequio del bien publico que se ensayase este metal por depender de su trabajo esta operacion. Que V. y toda la familia se conserven buenas y que mande cuanto guste k su afectisimo S. S. Q. B. S. M. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Son Copias. Mexico Mayo cinco de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. YSIDRO R. GONDRA Oficial Primero. Es Copia Mexico Abril veinte y tres de mil ochocientos cincuenta. 0. MONASTERIO. ♦ EXCELENTISIMO SENOR : Por la nota de V. E de cinco del actual y copias que se servio* acompanar, queda enterado con satisfaction el Ecselentisimo Senor Presidente interino de la Republica, de que en la Mision de Santa Clara de la Baja California ha descubierto el Senor D n Andres Cas- tillero un criadero de azogue de escelente calidad, segun los ensayos 38 practicados en ese Colegio, y de que se ha preguntado ya por esa Junta al referido Senor Castillero, la clase de auxilios que necesita para fo- mento de su brillante empresa. Asi mismo se ha impuesto S. E. de lo que participa esa Junta con respecto de la cantidad de azogue extraida de las Minas de Guadalcazar, cuyo resultado ha ecsedido al calculo que se habia formado. Lo que tengo el honor de decir k V. E. en contestation, reiterandole con este motivo las protestas de mi consideracion y aprecio. Dios y Libertad. Mexico Mayo nueve, de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. BECERRA. Excelentisimo Senor Don Vicente Segura Presidente de la Junta de Fomento de Mineria. Es Copia. Mexico Abril veinte y tres de mil ochocientos cincuenta. 0. MONASTERIO. Junta de Fomento y Administrativa j de Mineria. \ Excelentisimo Senor: Como tuvo el honor esta Junta de anunciar a V. E. en cinco del corriente, bajo de numero quinientos setenta y tres, el Senor D n Andres Castillero le ha derijido la solicitud que original tiene el gusto de acompafiar — ( Ano de mil ochocientos cuarenta ) SELLO CUARTO < J > UN REAL ( mil ochocientos cuarenta y uno. ) k V. E., sobre auxilios que necesita para el nuevo descubrimiento de la Mina de azogue en la Mision de Santa Clara del Departamento de Californias. La Junta no duda recomenclar a V. E. dicha solicitud, porque persuadida de la grande importancia de la empresa, la conside- ra acrcedora k toda la protection del Supremo Gobierno, cuando por otra parte las circumstancias particulares de aquel Departamento, y el justo empeilo que ha manifestado el Ecselentisimo Senor Presidente por conservar la integridad del territorio national, lo hacen digno de la mayor concideracion. Por consiguiente, la Junta es de parecer que se le facilite immediatamente al Senor Castillero la cantidad de cinco mil pesos en los terminos que propone ; que la autorice para franquear 39 las retortas y frascos de fierro de su pertenencia, y los otros mil pesos que podran emplearse en la construction de retortas, cilindros y otros aparatos pequenos de destilacion, para dicha Mina. Aunque la Ley que autoriza a la Junta para hacer prestamos en fomento de los cria- deros de azogue, exige el premio de un cinco por ciento anual al cap- ital que se preste, es indudable que la oferta del Senor Castillero de pagar los cinco mil pesos con cincuenta quintales de azogue puestos en Mazatlan a disposition de la Junta, & razon de cinco pesos cada uno — SBLLO CUARTO { SEAL } UN REAL. Y en el termino de seis meses, presta sin duda mayores ventajas al fondo que el indicado interes. La urgencia que manifiesta el Senor Castillero para verificar su marcha a aquel Departmento, y lo que k ella pueda contribuir en las circumstancias presentes, para la conservation del Territorio National, es en concepto de la Junta, mas que suficiente motivo para dejar a e*poca mas oportuna la formacion de un contrato de compania 6 de avio para al fomento de dicha mina. Resta pues manifestar a V. E. que aunque la posecion dada al Se- nor Castillero por las autoridades locales de California, no ha sido con- forme a la ordenanza, ues que se le han concedido pertenencias en la estencion de tres mil varas que equivalen a quince pertenencias con- forme al articulo segundo del titulo octavo, es preciso considerar que reune en su favor la calidad de descubridor de un cerro absolutamente nuevo en que no habia ninguna mina avierta a quienes se conceden, en el articulo primero del titulo sexto, tres pertenencias continuas dinter- rumpidas y se hubiesen descubierto mas vetas una en cada una de ellas. Reune tambien la circumstancia de trabajar en compania k las que se concede que sin perjuicio del derecho que por el titulo de des- cubridor tengan cuando lo sean, el que puedan denunciar cuatro perte- nencias nuevas aun cuando esten contiguas y por un mismo rumbo ; pero lo jnas — SELLO CUARTO X SEAL \ UN REAL digno de concideracion es, que siendo Californias un Departamento fronterizo y amagado con frecuencia por los emigrados de los Estados Unidos de America, y por los nuevos colonos del Oregon, parece con- veniente conceder a la primera mina descubierta en un Departamento 40 tan basto, mayor numero de pertenencias, lo que corrobora la razon que se encuentra alfin del articulo 1°. titulo octavo que dice, " considerando que los limites establecidos en las minas de estos Reynos a que se han ar- reglado hasta ahoralos de nueva Espafia, sonmuy estrechas a proporcion de la multitud, abundancia, y felicidad de las venas metalicas que la suma bondad del criador ha querido conceder a aquellas regiones, ordeno y mando que las minas que en adelante se descubrieren en veta nueva 6 sin vecinos se observan estas medidas. Segundo. Por el hilo, direccion, 6 rumbo de la veta, sea de oro, de plata, 6 de cualquiera otro metal, concedo a todo minero sin distincion de los descubridores (que ya tienen asignado su premio) doscientas varas castellanas que llaman de medir tiradas a nivel. " Por ultimo, en el articulo primero, titulo once, se expresa en estos terminos. Y por que no siendo suficiente el caudal de uno solo para grandes em- presas, puede serlo de todos los companeros, quiero y mando se procu- ren, promuevan, y protijan semijantes companias por todos los termi- nos convenientes, concedien- SELLO CUARTO \ SEAL \ UN REAL do mf virey a los que las formaren todas las gracias, auxilios, exen- ciones que fueren de conceder a juicio y discrecion del Real Tribunal de Mineria y sin detrimento del interes del publico y de mi real erario. En cuanto a la propiedad que solicita el Sr. Castillero como colono de dos sitios de ganado mayor sobre la superficie de su propiedad mi- nera, con el objeto de proporcionarse la lena necesaria para el benefi- cio, la Junta, no teniendo los conocimientos necesarios en la materia en que abunda el Supremo Gobierno, siempre resolvera el Excelentisimo Seiior Presidente lo que creyere mas conveniente. En tal concepto, al elevar a V. E. Junta la solicitud esta del Senor Castillero, no duda recomendarla muy eficazmente por la importancia vi- tal de la empresa, y su increible trascendencia en el bien general y la prosperidad de la Republica. La Junta tiene el honor con tal motivo, de reiterar a V. E. las pro- testas de su distinguido aprecio y consideracion. Dios y Libertad. Mexico, Catorce de Mayo de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. VICENTE SEGURA, Presidente. Excelentisimo Senor Ministro de Justicia 6 instrucion publica. Es copia. 41 Mexico, Abril veinte 7 tres de mil ochocientos cincuenta. 0. MONASTERIO, Sello tercero. Cuatro reales. Anos de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis y mil ochocientos cuarenta y siete. Andres Castillero, vecino y minero en el Departmento de la Alta California, ante V. E. y V. S. S. como mejor proceda digo ; que habiendo descubierto en la Mision de Santa Clara una mina de azogue de leyes tan altas como seguramente no se han visto, no solo en la Republica sino acaso en el mundo entero, como lo acreditan los ensayos hechos de orden de la Junta Facultativa del Colegio de Mineria, que reuniendo de todas las muestras que traje, desde la mejor hasta la infima, han dado por resultado un treinta y cinco y medio por ciento, mientras que ha habido muestras de las superiores que deben producir leyes mucho mayores ; me veo en el caso, para satisfacer mis deseos en favor del progreso de mi patria de aprovechar esclusivamente en favor de los Mexicanos, las lisonjeras y muy fundadas — Aiios de mil ochocientos cincuenta ) y mil ochocientos cincuenta y uno. SELLO CUARTO I y > UN REAL. esperanzas que proporciona semejante descubrimiento. En tal virtud, he denunciado y tornado posesion no solo de dicha Mina denominada Santa Clara, sino de una extencion hasta de tres mil varas en todas di- recciones de dicho punto, he formado una compania para su laboreo, he construido el tiro y cumplido todas las condiciones que previene la or- denanza, quedando la mina en frutos con la notable circumstancia de que las muestras que traje y que se han ensayado, han sido extraidas de la boca. Muy facil me habria sido haber dado todo el vuelo necesario a la negociacion admitiendo las repetidas y ventajosas ofertas que se me han hecho por varias casas extrangeras de Californias, pero la em- presa no necesita de semejantes auxilios que resultarian en ventaja estrana, cuando todo puede ser nacional, y no he dudado por lo mis- mo ocurrir ante V. E. y V. S. S. los unicos y pequenos re- cursos de que. necesito ; ellos se reducen 4 una corta anticipacion de cinco mil pesos en dinero, atendidala excesiva escasez de numerario que hay en aquel Departmento, y lapronta remision & el de retortas, cilindros 6 42 y otros aparatos pequenos de destilacion, asi como de frascos de fierro para el embase del azogue. Yo habria propuesto un contrato de compania k la Junta, un avio 6 cualquier otro convenio, si tuviese tiempo para poder proporcionar los datos y circums- ( Anos de mil ochocientos cincuenta ) SELLO CUARTO < y ? UN REAL. ( mil ochocientos cincuenta y uno. -) -tancias que se requieren para dichos contratos ; pero compromitido por el Supremo Gobierno k marchar de esta capital dentro de algunos dias, me veo en el caso de limitarme k lo que parece no presenta dificul- tad, y abre el campo a nuevos convenios posteriores. Estoy bien per- suadido de que la Junta accedera a mi solicitud en todo aquello que este" en sus facultades, y que elevara al Supremo Gobierno con re- comendacion lo que sea del resorte de este. Mis proposiciones pues, son las siguientes. Primera — La Junta en el acto aprobar et convenio, me entregara una libranza contra una casa de Comercio de Mazatlan, valiosa de cinco mil pesos. Segunda — Por mi parte me comprometo k situar en dicho puerto k los seis meses de haber salido de el, cincuenta quintales de azogue a razon de cien pesos cada uno, que remitire' de las primeras extracciones con absoluta preferencia k todo otro compromiso, Tercera — La Junta mandara poner k mi disposicion antes de mi salida de la capital, las ocho retortas de fierro que tiene en su oficina y todos los frazcos para azogue que se hallan en la negociacion de Tasco, en estado de uso, y por ultimo entregard al Senor Don Tomas Ramon del Moral, mi apoderado, las cantidades que importen las retortas, cilin- dros, y otra clase de aparatos pequenos que se mande hacer para la negociacion hasta la cantidad de mil pesos. ( Anos de mil ochocientos cincuenta ) SELLO CUARTO < y ( UN REAL. ( mil ochocientos cincuenta y uno. ) Cuarta — Las retorfris de la Junta las recibire* por el precio de su costo y los frazcos que escoja, k dos pesos cada uno conforme k su avaluo. Quinta — El importe liquido de dichas retortas y frazcos, y el de las cantidades que se hayan entregado al Senor Moral lo devolvere' en el termino de un afio de este convenio, asi como el premio»de la libranza contra Mazatlan, en azogue puesto en dicho puerto al precio de cien pesos quintal ; pero si la Junta quisiere tomar una 6 mas accionesen 43 la mina, quedara en parte de la cantidad correspondiente a una 6 mas barras. Sexta — Entretanto que se aregla la compania, durante un ano con- tado desde el dia en que se apruebo este convenio, y satisfechos ya los cinco mil pesos de que habla la proposicion primera, preferir^ a la Junta en la venta del azogue puesto en Mazatlan a razon de cien pesos quintal. Setima — La Junta representara al Supremo Gobierno la necesidad de que apruebe la posesion que se me ha dado de la mina por las au- toridades locales de Californias, en los mismos terminos en que hoy la tengo. Octava — Ygualmente le representara las ventajas de que como colono se me concedan dos sitios de ganado mayor sobre el terreno de mi posesion minera con el ojeto de poderme aprovecharde lasmaderas para mis quemas. Novena — Al cumplimiento de este contrato hipoteco la misma mina y todas sus pertenencias. El que subscribe sugeta & la deliberacion de la Junta esta solicitud la que acceptada se podra elevar a contrato formal y legalizar del modo mas conveniente. . Dios y Libertad. Mexico, doce de Mayo de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Es copia. Mexico, Abril veinte y tres de mil ochocientos cincuenta. 0. MONASTERIO. EXCELENTISIMO SENOR : Habiendo dado cuenta el Excelentisimo Senor Presidente interino de la Republica con la nota de V. E. de catorce del presente k que se sirvi6 acompanar con recomendacion la solicitud del Senor D n . An- dres Castillero para el fomento de la mina de azogue que ha descubi- erto en la Mision de Santa Clara en la Alta California ; se ha servido S. E. aprobar en todas ( Anos de mil ochocientos cincuenta } ( mil ochocientos cincuenta y uno. sus partes el convenio celebrado con dicho individuo, para principiar SELLO CUARTO \ J > UN REAL. 44 la esplotacion de dicho mineral, y con esta fecha se hace la comunica- cion que corresponde al Ministerio de Relaciones exteriores y gober- nacion para que libre las ordenes oportunas por lo relativo a" lo que con- tiene la octava proposicion k la concesion de terrenos en aquel depar- tamento. Reitero & V. E. las protestas et cetera. Dios y Libertad. Mexico Mayo veinte de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. BECERRA. Excelentisimo Senor Don Vicente Segura, Presidente de la Junta de Fomento de Mineria. La anterior se comunic6 & este Ministerio de Relacions diciend6 : Y tengo el honor de incertarlo a V. E. k fin de que por lo respec- tivo a la solicitud del Senor Castillero, a" que ha tenido 4 bien acceder el E. S. Presidente interino sobre que como colono, se le conceda dos sitios de ganado mayor, sobre el terreno de su posecion minera se sirva V. E. librar las ordenes de que se trata. Reitero & V. E. &c, fecha ut supra. BECERRA. E. S. Ministro de Relaciones exteriores y Gobernacion. Es copia. Mexico Abril veinte y tres de mil ochocientos cincuenta. 0. MONASTERIO. _ El infrascrito Ministro de Relaciones Interiores y Exteriores. Cer- tifico : que aunque en la comunicacion que la Junta de Fomento y Ad- ministrativa de Mineria derigi6 en cinco de Mayo de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seisal E. S. Ministro de Justicia relativa a la mma de cinabrio descubierta en California por D n . Andres Castillero, se escribio que ella esta situada 45 ( Anos de mil ochocientos cihcuenta ) SELLO CUARTO < J [ UN REAL. ( mil ochocientos cincuenta y uno. ) en la Mision de Santa Clara, en la Baja California, y lo mismo se dice en la contestacion del Ministerio, fecha nueve del citado mes, de cuyos documentos se dieron copias en veinte y tres de Abril ultimo al Senor Eustaquio Barron ; este es un equivoco, pues dicha mina y los terrenos que se adjudicaron a Castillero, estan en territorio de la Alta Califor- nia, cuya concesion declar6 legitima y aprob6 el Supremo Gobierno despues. Y doy el presente certificado para los fines que convengan a pedimento del espresado Senor Barron, en Mexico, a treinta de Ju- lio de mil ochocientos cincuenta. LACUNZA. ESCRITO. Eustaquio Barron de esta vecindad, ante V. como mejor de derecho proceda, y salvas las protestas legales, digo : que & -mi derecho con- viene tener un testimonio autorizado del contenido que se espresa en los documentos que con la solemnidad debida acompano en once fojas utiles ; y al efecto, A. V. suplico se sirva mandar que por el actuario se compulse el referido testimonio, sinnecesidad de citacion por no ha- ber a quien competa, y hecho se me entregue con los originates que presento, pues todo es conforme a Justicia, que imploro jurando con lo necesario et cetera. EUSTAQUIO BARRON. AUTO. Mexico, Agosto diez y nueve de mil ) ochocientos cincuenta. j Por presentado con los documentos que acompanan : como lo pide, y obre los efectos qua haya lugar. Lo proveyo y firm6 el Senor D n . Antonio Madrid Juez de Letras del ramo civil en el Distrito Federal : doy fe\ A. MADRID. Ramon de la Cueva. 46 Concuerdan las copias y escrito insertos con sus originates que de- volvi al ( Anos de mil ochocientos cincuenta 1 SELLO CUARTO < J > UN REAL. ( mil ochocientos cincuenta y uno. ) Senor interesado ; de donde se compuls6 el presente por duplicado en virtud de lo mandado en el auto tambien incerto, en la cuidad de Mex- ico & veinte y dos de Octubre de mil ochocientos cincuenta y va en diez y seis fojas, la primera y su correspondiente del sello primero y las demas del cuarto, siendo testigos & su saca y correcion Don Juan A. del Toro, Don Juan Zavala y Don Felipe de Jesus Moctezuma de esta vecindad. Doy fe*, es caso de vale testado el diez no vale. RAMON DE LA CUEVA. E. N. y P co . Los que subscribimos certificamos y damos fe* que Don Ra- SAnos de mil ochocientos cincuenta ) y > UN REAL, mil ochocientos cincuenta y uno. ) mon de la Cueva, por quien estd autorizado el anterior testimonio es escribano Nacional y Publico del numero de esta cuidad, fiel y de en- tera confianza por lo que a cuantos instrumentos legaliza se les ha dado y da entera fe* y credito en juicio y fuera de $1 Y para constancia ponemos la presente sellado con el de nuestro Nacional Colegio en Mex- ico, 4 veinte y seis de Octubre de mil ochocientos cincuenta. t t t F.V. M.A. C.L. FERMIN VILLA, MIGUAL ARISTIQUI, C. LANDGRAVE. 47 [ No. 839. ] Consulate op the U. S. of America, ) Mexico, January 8th, 1851. j I, the undersigned, Consul of the United States of America for the City of Mexico, hereby certify that the signatures of Fermin Villa, Miguel Arsitiqui and Cresen co . Landgrave, subscribed to the preced- ing certificate, are in the proper handwriting of said persons respec- tively, the same as used by them in all their respective official acts, who are all well known to me, and were at the time of subscribing the same, duly authorized Notaries Public for the City of Mexico, and that all their official acts are entitled to full faith and credit as such. Register F ; folio 30. Fees, $4. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the Consular Seal the day and year first before written. ( Consular ^j JOHN BLACK, (^ Seal. J Consul. Ysidro Rafael Gondra, Secretario de la Junta Directiva y Admin- istrativa de Mineria : Certifico que del espediente que obra en la Secretaria de Mineria relativo al denuncio posesion y adjudicacion a D. Andres Castillero de la mina de cinabrio que existe en la Alta California Uamada el Nuevo Almaden consta que por informe de la Junta Directiva el Supremo Gobierno de la Republica, en virtud de lo pedido por el Senor Castil- lero fue espedido a este el titulo legal 6 testimonio respectivo k su ad- quisicion conforme a las ordenanzas del ramo y que esa concesion al mencionado Castillero fue' de una pertenencia de tres mil varas sobre el piano de dicha mina de azogue para trabajarla en esa estencion y de dos sitios de ganado mayor contiguos a la referida pertenencia para sacar de ellos la lena y demas aprovechamientos indispensables y uti- les para los trabajos de la mina, cuyas concesiones particulares y espe- ciales creyo conveniente hacer el Supremo Gobierno por el favor que las leyes disponen que se imparta a los descubridores de minas de azogue procediendo en ello de conformidad con lo informado por la Junta Directiva. Y a pedimento de los propictarios del Nuevo Almaden doy la pre- 48 sente certification refireindome al espediente enunciado, de que todo constacomo va referedo yla firmo en Mexico, k 23 de Enerode 1851. YSIDRO R. GONDRA. Srio. El infrascrito, oficial mayor del Ministerio de Relaciones Interiores y Exteriores : Certifico que la firma que antecede del S r . Don Ysidro Rafael Gondra, Secretario de la Junta Directiva y Administrate de Mi- neria, es ligitima y la misma que acostumbra en sus actos oficiales. Mexico, Febrero 26, de 1851. JOSE MARIA ORTIZ MONASTERIO. I hereby certify that the above is the signature of Don Jose Maria Ortiz Monasterio, under secretary of State of foreign affairs of the Mexican Republic. PERCY W. DOYLE. Her Britannic Majesty's charge* d'affaires in the Republic of Mexico. Mexico, February 26th, 1851. of Mexico. No. 1075. Consulate of the U. S. of America, ) Mexico, February 26th, 1851. \ I, the undersigned Consul of the United States of America for the city of Mexico, hereby certify, that the signatures of Jose" Maria Ortiz Monasterio and Percy W. Doyle subscribed to the foregoing certificates, are in the proper hand-writing of the said persons respec- tively, the same as used by them in their several official acts ; who are well known to me, and were at the time of subscribing their respective names a3 follows, to wit, the first — First Clerk of the Department of Interior and Foreign Relations of the Mexican Government ; and the second, Her Britanic Majesty's charge* d'affaires near the aforesaid Government ; and that all their several acts are entitled to full faith and credit as such respectively. 49 Register F, folio 75. Fees, $4. ^^^^ In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and N j affixed the consular seal the day and year above seal. ! written. JOHN BLACK, Consul. Filed in Office Jan. 30, 1855. GEO. FISHER, Secy. "D." TRANSLATION. ( Seal for the years ) STAMP FIRST < \ EIGHT DOLLARS ( 1850 and 1851. J Junta for the Encouragement and Ad- ) MINISTRATION OF MlNING, No. 573. j Most Excellent Sir : ' . Professor Don Jomas Ramon del Moral having presented to this Junta some specimens of Cinnabar from the Mission of Santa Clara in Lower California, which Don Andres Castillero sends him, together with the annexed copies, with the object of inciting the Supreme Gov- ernment, that it may be pleased to aid so important an enterprize ; said specimens were immediately sent to His Excellency the Director of the College that the proper assays might be made. His Excellency in an official communication of the twenty-ninth of last month, received yesterday, says that which follows : Seilor Don Jomas Ramon del Moral, President of the Junta Facul- tativa of the National College of Mining, in an official communication of the 24th ulto., says to me as follows : — Most Excellent Sir : The Junta Facultativa having examined the documents which Your Excel- lency referred to it on the twenty-first of the present month relative to a deposit of Cinnabar discovered in California by Seilor Don Andres Castillero and another of coal on the Bay of San Francisco, has the honor to inform your Excellency that the specimens sent by said Seilor Castillero, were deposited, some in the Mineralogical Cabinet, and others assayed by the professor of Chemistry, Don Manuel Herrera. The assay gave a ley of twenty-five and a half per cent., a mean of the different specimens having been taken to make it (the assay), for there are some so rich that they are pure cinnabar. The Junta believes that Seilor Castillero has by such an important 7 50 discovery made himself deserving of the efficacious protection of the Supreme Government and of the Junta for the Encouragement of Mining, and is persuaded that Your Excellency will interpose all your influence, to the end that this individual may receive a proof that the Supreme Government knows how to distinguish and reward those cit- izens who contribute to the prosperity of the country. With this motive I repeat to Your Excellency the considerations of my esteem and respect. And I have the honor to transmit it to Your Excellencies as the result of your despatch in " the matter." The Junta, on enclosing the foregoing communication to Y r our Excel- lency, has the honor to inform you that it has already asked Sefior Castillero what kind of aid or protection he needs for the encourage- ment of his brilliant enterprise, congratulating the Supreme Govern- ment on a discovery which, if it meets from the beginning with the protection it deserves, may change completely the aspect of our min- ing, freeing it from the necessity, in which it has been until now? of foreign quicksilver. With this motive, the Junta takes advantage of the opportunity to inform Your Excellency that, as on the twenty-fourth of this month the favor terminates which the law guarantees of five dollars premium on each hundred weight of quicksilver, attracted from the mines of the nation, the miners of Guadalcazar have proven that they have taken out one thousand five hundred and seventy-five quintals from Decem- ber, eighteen hundred and forty-four, to the end of March last, which result exceeds the calculation, which until now has been made, that the product of this mineral was a hundred quintals per month. The Junta on this occasion reiterates to Your Excellency the assur- ances of its distinguished consideration and esteem. God and Liberty. Mexico, May 5, 1846. (Signed) VICENTE SEGURA, ' President. The secretary being occupied. (Signed) YSIDRO R. GONDRA, First Clerk. To his Excellency the Minister of Justice. It is a copy. Mexico, April 23d, 1850. (Signed) 0. MONASTERIO. 51 Office of the Secretary of the Junta, ) for the enoouragement of mlning. j Senor Don Andres Castillero, commissioned last year by the Su- preme Government to pass to California on an object of public service, tells me, in letters written from the Mission of Santa Clara on the nineteenth and twenty-second of February of this year, that which follows : At the distance of five leagues from this mission, to the west, I have discovered and denounced a very abundant mine of quicksilver ; and to confirm my truth, I send you some ores of those which have been taken from the top of the vein — a little quicksilver also goes, which we have taken out with the greatest facility. The Senor Director of the College of Mining, Don Ramon del Moral, will receive much pleasure in seeing equalled the ores of Almaden. From the width of the vein, and the abundance of metals taken out within one year, with the protection of the Supreme Government, the Republic will not need quicksilver from foreign parts. I send you some trifles made by the Indians of the Noith "West, and products of this country. Coal is very abundant, and is found on the coasts of the Bay of San Francisco, so that the steamers sending out their small boats may load all that they require. This discovery was made by Colonel Don Juan Bautista Alvarado. The rock Crystal is a very large " hill." Copy. Mexico, April 13, 1846. (Signed) J. J. de HERRERA. Senor Director of the College of Mining, Don Ramon del Moral. Mission of Santa Clara, \ February 19, 1846. \ My ESTEEMED FRIEND AND APPRECIATED SlR : You know how devoted I am to the branch of mining, and intent upon finding a mine of quicksilver. I have discovered a most abund- ant deposit. With this I send to His Excellency, the President, some ores of Cinnabar, and a little quicksilver. We are forming a furnace, and assayed said metal in a musket barrel, the touch-hole stopped with clay, and the muzzle put in water. In this manner it has given us thirty per cent. I would esteem it a favor if you would take the 52 trouble, for the sake of the public good, to cause this metal to be assayed, as this operation depends upon your work. May you and all the family retain your health, and as much as you please command your obedient servant, &c, &c. (Signed) ANDRES CASTILERO. The above are copies. Mexico, May 5, 1846. (Signed) YSIDRO R. GONDRA, First Clerk. The above is a copy. : Mexico, April 23, 1850. (Signed) 0. MONASTERIO. Most Excellent Sir: By your Excellency's note of the 5th inst. and copies which you were phased to transmit therewith, His Excellency, the President, ad interim, of the Republic, learns with satisfaction that in the Mission of Santa Clara, of Lower California, Senor Don Andres Castillero has discovered a deposit of quicksilver of excellent quality, according to the assays made in that college, and that said Senor Castillero has been asked by that Junta what kind of assistance he needs to encour- age his brilliant enterprise. His Excellency is likewise informed of tha£ which the Junta reports relative to the quantity of quicksilver extracted from the mines of Guadalcazar, the result of which has exceeded the calculation which was made. This is what I have the honor to say to your Excellency in answer, repeating to you with this opportunity the assurance of my considera- tion and esteem. God and Liberty. Mexico, May 9, 1846. (Signed) BECERRA. 53 His Excellency Don Vicente Segura, President of the Junta for the Encouragement of Mining. Copy. Mexico, April 23d, 1850. (Signed) • 0. MONASTERIO. Junta for the Encouragement and \ Administration op Mining. j Most Excellent Sir : As this Junta had the honor to inform your Excellency on the 5th inst. in Number 573, Senor Don Andres Castillero has directed to it a petition, the original of which it has the pleasure to transmit here- with, upon the assistance which he needs for the new discovery of the Quicksilver mine in the Mission of Santa Clara, in the Department of Californias. The Junta has no hesitation in recommending said petition to your Excellency, for, being persuaded of the great importance of the enter- prise, it considers it entitled to all the protection of the Supreme Gov- ernment, and also the particular circumstances of that Department, and the just desire which his Excellency, the President, has shown to preserve the integrity of the national territory, render . it worthy of the greatest consideration. The Junta is consequently of opinion that there should be imme- diately furnished to Senor Castillero the sum of five thousand dollars in the terms he proposes, that it should be authorized to furnish him with the iron retorts and flasks belonging to it, and the other thousand dollars, which can be employed in the construction of retorts, cylinders and other small apparatus of distillation for said mine. Although the law authorizing the Junta to make loans for the encouragement of de- posits of quicksilver, exacts a premium of five per cent, per annum on the capital loaned, it cannot be doubted that the offer of Senor Castil- lero to pay the five thousand dollars with fifty quintals of quicksilver placed in Mazatlan at the disposition of the Junta, at the rate of one hundred dollars each, and in the term of six months, offer greater ad- vantages to the fund than said interest. The haste shown by Senor Castillero to put in execution his journey to that Department, and that which his so doing may contribute under present circumstances towards the preservation of the national terri- tory, is, in the opinion of the Junta, a sufficient motive to leave until a more opportune occasion the formation of a contract of partnership or of " avio " (for) the encouragement of said mine. 54 It remains then to show to jour Excellency, that although the pos- session given to Senor Castillero, by the local authorities of California, has not been in conformity with the ordinance, inasmuch as there have been granted him " pertenencias " to the extent of three thousand varas, which are equivalent to fifteen "pertenencias" agreeable to the second article of the eighth title, yet it is necessary to consider that he has in his favor the qualification of discoverer of an absolutely new hill in which there was no mine open, and to such there is granted, in the first article of the sixth title, three pertenencias, either continuous or interrupted, and if he shall have discovered other veins one (per- tenencia) in each of them. He has also in his favor the circumstances that he works it in com- pany with others, to whom there is granted that, without prejudice to the right which they may have by the title of discoverers when they are such, they may denounce four new " pertenencias," even though they are contiguous, and in the same direction ; but that which is most worthy of consideration is that Californias, being a frontier Department, and frequently threatened by the emigrants from the United States of America, and by the new colonists of Oregon, it seems proper to grant to the first mine, in a Department so extensive, a greater number of " pertenencias," which view is corroborated by the reason found at the end of the eighth Tit., Article 1st, which says : " Considering that the Courts established in the mines of these kingdoms, to which those of New Spain have until now been made to conform, are very contracted in proportion to the multitude, abund- ance, and richness of the metallic veins, which the goodness of the Creator has pleased to grant to those regions, I order and command that in mines which may hereafter be discovered in a new vein, or without neighbor, these measurements be observed. 2nd. Along the thread, direction, or course of the vein, be it of gold, silver, or any other metal, I grant to every miner, without dis- tinction of the discoverers, (who have their reward already assigned to them), two hundred Castillian varas, called, 'varas de medir,' measured on a level." Lastly, in the first article, eleventh title, there are expressed these terms : " And because the capital of a single individual may not be sufficient for great undertakings, while that of all the partners may be, I will and command that such companies be encouraged, promoted, and protected by all convenient measures. My Viceroy granting to those who may form such, every favor, aid, and exemption, which can be granted them according to the judgment and discretion of the Royal Tribunal of Mines, and without detriment to the public or to my Royal Treasury." In reference to the ownership of two square leagues which Senor 55 Castillero solicits, as a Colonist, upon the surface of his mining prop- erty, for the purpose of supplying himself with the firewood necessary for the reduction of ores (beneficio,) not having the necessary informa- tion on the matter, of which the Supreme Government has abundance, His Excellency, the President, will decide as he may think proper. In this view the Junta, in sending up to your Excellency the peti- tion of Senor Castillero, has no hesitation in recommending it very efficaciously on account of the vital importance of the undertaking, and its incredible influence upon the general good and prosperity of the Republic. The Junta has the honor, on this occasion, to repeat to your Excel- lency the assurances of its distinguished esteem and consideration. God and Liberty. . Mexico, May 14, 1846. (Signed) VICENTE SEGURA, President. His Excellency the Minister of Justice of Public Instruction. Copy. Mexico, April 23d, 1850. (Signed) . 0. MONASTERIO. Stamp Third, Four Reales. For the years Eighteen Hundred and Forty-Six and Eighteen Han- dled and Forty-Seven. I, Andres Castillero, resident and miner in the Department of Up- per California, before your Excellency and your Honors, as I best may proceed, say : that having discovered in the Mission of Santa Clara a mine of quicksilver of leys richer certainly than was ever seen before, not only in the Republic, but perhaps in all the world, as shown by the assays made by order of the Junta Facultativa of the College of Mining, which — some of all the specimens I brought being mixed from the best to the worst — have given a result of thirty five and a half per cent., while there have been specimens of the best kind whiclynust produce much greater "leys. I see myself in a condition to satisfy my 56 desires in favor of my country, of benefitting exclusively Mexicans, by the flattering and well founded hopes which such a discovery offers. In virtue of this, I have denounced and taken possession not only of said mine named Santa Clara, but also of an extent of three thous- and varas in all directions from said points. I have formed a com- pany to work it, I have constructed the pit, and complied with all the conditions prescribed by the ordinance ; the mine yielding ore with the notable circumstance that the specimens which I brought, and which have been assayed, have been taken out of the mouth. It would have been very easy for me to have given the necessary extension to the negociation by accepting the repeated .and advantageous offers which have been made me by several foreign houses in California ; but as the undertaking does not require that kind of assistance, which would result in advantage to foreigners, when it may be entirely national, I have not for that reason hesitated to apply to your Excellency, and your Honors, to obtain the small and only resources which I need. These are reduced to a small advance of five thousand dollars in money, in consideration of the excessive scarcity of coin in that de- partment, and the quick remittance to it of retorts, cylinders, and other small distilling apparatus,- and also iron flasks for bottling up the quicksilver. I would have proposed a contract of partnership to the Junta, an avio, or some other agreement, if there had been time to be able to furnish the proofs and details which would be required for said con- tracts ; but being compromised by the Supreme Government to leave this Capital within a few days, I find it necessary to restrict myself to that which appears to present no difficulty, and which may open a way to our future agreement. I am well persuaded that the Junta will accede to my request, so far as may be within its power, and that it will send up to the Supreme Government with a recommendation that which may require the deci- sion of the latter. My propositions, then, are the following : First. — The Junta, in the act of approving the agreement, will give me a draft for five thousand dollars on some mercantile house in Ma- zatlan. Second. — On my part, I bind myself to place in said port, within six months after leaving it, fifty quintals of quicksilver, at the rate of one hundred dollars each, which I will send from the first taken out, with absolute preference over every other engagement. Third — The Junta will order that there be placed at my disposition before leaving the Capital, the eight iron retorts which it has in its office, and all the quicksilver flasks which can be found in the negotia- tion of Tasco, which are fit for use ; and lastly, it will deliver to Senor 57 Don Tomas Ramon del Moral, my attorney, the sums to pay for the retorts, cylinders, and other kinds of small apparatus, which may be ordered to be made for the negotiation, to the amount of one thousand dollars. Fourth. — I will receive the retorts of the Junta at cost price, and the flasks which I may select at two dollars a piece, agreeably with their valuation. Fifth. — The asertained value of said retorts and flasks, and that of the sums which may be delivered to Seiior Moral, I will return in the term of one year from this agreement, and also the premium on the draft on Mazatlan, in quicksilver, placed in said port at the price of one hundred dollars the quintal ; but if the Junta should wish to take one or more " acciones " in the mine, it shall be left as a part pay- ment of the sum corresponding to one or more " barras." Sixth. — While the company is being formed, during the period of one year, counted from the date on which this agreement shall be ap- proved, and the five thousand dollars spoken of in the first proposition being paid, I will give the preference to the Junta in the sale of quick- silver placed in Mazatlan, at the rate of one hundred dollars the quin- tal. Seventh. — The Junta shall represent to the Supreme Government the necessity of approving the possession which has been given me of the mine by the local authorities of California, in the same terms as those in which I now hold it. Eighth. — It shall also represent the advantage of there being grant- ed to me, as a colonist, two square leagues upon the land of my min- ing possession, with the object of being able to use the wood for my business. Ninth. — For the compliance of this contract I pledge the mine itself and all its appurtenances. The subscriber subjects this request to the deliberation of the Jun- ta, which if accepted, may be made into a formal contract, and made legal in the most proper manner. God and Liberty. Mexico, May 12th, 1846. (Signed.) ANDRES CASTILLERO. c °py- . Mexico, April 23d, 1850. (Signed.) 0. MONASTERIO. 8 58 Most Excellent Sir. Having reported to his Exellency, the President, ad interim, of the Republic, your Excellency's note of the 14th inst., with which you were pleased to transmit with a recommendation, the petition of Senor Don Andres Castillero, for the encouragement of the quicksilver mine which he has discovered in the Mission of Santa Clara in Upper Cali- fornia. His Excellency has been pleased to approve in all its parts the agreement made with that individual in order to commence the extraction of said mineral, and on this day the corresponding commu- nication has been made to the Minister of Exterior Relations and Gov- ernment, to issue the proper orders respecting that which is contained in the eighth proposition for the grant of lands in that Department. I repeat to your Excellency the assurances, &c. God and Liberty. Mexico, May 20, 1846. (Signed.) BECERRA. To his Excellency, Don Vicente Segura, President of the Junta for the encouragement of Mining. The foregoing was communicated to this Ministry of Relations, say- ing, " And I have the honor to enclose it to your Excellency, to the end that with respect to the petition of Senor Castillero, to which his Excellency, the President, ad interim, has thought proper to accede that there be granted him, as a colonist, two square leagues upon the lands of his mining possession. Your Excellency may be pleased to issue the orders corresponding." I repeat to your Excellency, &c. Date as above. (Signed.) BECERRA. To his Excellency, tlu Minister of Exterior Relations and Govern- ment. Copy. Mexico, April 23d, 1850. (Signed.) 0. MONASTERIO. 59 I, the undersigned, Minister of Internal and External Relations, cer- tify, that although in the communication which the Junta for the En- couragement and Administraion of Mining directed on the 5th of May 1846, to his Excellency the Minister of Justice, relative to the min- of cinnabar discovered in California by Don Andres Castillero, it was written that it was situated in Lower California, and the same is said in the answer from the Ministry, dated the 9th of the said month of which documents copies were given on the twenty-third of April last, to Senor Eustaquio Barron. This is a mistake, for said mine and the lands granted to Castillero are in the territory of Upper California, which grant the Supreme Government afterwards approved and de- clared legitimate. And I give this certificate for the purposes which it may serve, at the request o the said. Senor Barron, in Mexico, on the 30th of June, 1850. (Signed.) LACUNZA. PETITION. I, Eustaquio Barron, of this neighborhood, before you as I best may proceed in law, and with all legal reservations, say : That it is requi- site for the security of my right to have an authenticated copy of the enclosed, which is expressed in the documents which, with due solem- nity, I transmit on eleven written leaves ; and for that purpose I pray you to have the goodness to order that the said copy be made by the Notary, without having occasion to issue a summons, there being no person to be summoned ; and being finished, that it be given to me with the original which I present ; for all that I ask is in conformity with justice. Swearing whatever may be necessary, &c. (Signed.) EUSTAQUIO BARRON. ORDER. Mexico, August 19, 1850. Admitted with the accompanying documents, let it be done as he requests, and let it answer the purposes which it may serve. Senor 60 Don Antonio Madrid " Juez de Letras " of the Civil Branch in the Federal District, thus ordered and signed. (Signed.) MADRID. I certify. (Signed.) Ramon de la Cueva. The foregoing documents agree with their originals, which I returned to the person interested, to which I refer, from which the present copy was made to the letter, faithfully compared and corrected in conform- ity with that ordered in the act included, at the request of Senor Don Eustaquio Barron, in the city of Mexico, on the twenty-first of Au- gust, eighteen hundred and fifty, and it goes on nine leaves, the first being of the 1st stamp, and the others of the 4th stamp, for the present two years, the witnesses to its copy and correction being Don Juan La- vala, Don Felipe Moctezuma, and Don Manuel Rojo, of this neigh- borhood. I certify, (Signed.) RAMON DE LA CUEVA, National Notary Public. We, who subscribe, certify and assure that Don Ramon de la Cu- eva, by whom is authenticated the foregoing copy, is a National Notary Public, of the number as it is called, faithful and of confidence, and to whatsoever instruments he makes legal there has been given and is given entire faith and credit in court and out of it. And in testimony thereof we give this present, sealed with the seal of our National College in Mexico, on the twenty-first of August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty. ( Seal of the \ (Signed) IGNACIO PERA. \ National College I S of Notaries of f (Signed) FERMIN VILLA. (^ Mexico. J * v ' (Signed) MAN'L. CABEZA DE VACA. No. 932. Consulate of the U. S. of America, Mexico, January 8th, 1851. I, the undersigned, Consul of the United States of America for 61 the City of Mexico, hereby certify that the signatures of Ignacio Pena, Man'l. Cabeza de Vaca, and Fermin Villa, subscribed to the preceding certificate, are in the proper handwriting of said persons respectively, the same as used by them in all their official acts, who are well known to me, and were at the time of subscribing their sev- eral names, duly authorised Notaries Public for the City of Mexico, and that all their official acts are entitled to full faith and credit as such respectively. / i In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, \ seal [ and affixed the Consular seal, the day and year above ' — ~*> ' written. (Signed) JOHN BLACK, Consul. Register F. folio 52. I, the undersigned, 1st Chief Clerk of the Ministry of Interior and Exterior Relations, certify that the forogoing copy of the documents or certificates given by me of the titles of the Mine of New Alma- den, is equal to and agrees with their literal tenor, as shown by the comparison which has been made, and that the signature of Don Ramon de la Cueva, which covers it, and those of the other Notaries which prove it, are the same which they use as such Notaries. Mexico, January 10, 1851. (Signed) JOSE MARIA ORTIZ MONASTERIO. Fees, $4. No. 9T0. Consulate of the U. S. of America, Mexico, Jan. 11, 1851. I, the undersigned, Consul of the United States of America for the City of Mexico, do hereby certify that the signature of Jose Maria Ortiz Monasterio, subscribed to the foregoing certificate, is in the proper handwriting of said person, the same as used by him in all his official acts, who is well known to me, and was at the time of sub- scribing the same, First Clerk of the Department of Interior and Foreign Relations of the Mexican Government, and that all his official acts are entitled to full faith and credit as such. 62 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Consular seal, the day and year above written. | Z2 1 (Signed) JOHN BLACK. Register F. fo. 58. Fees $2. Isidro Rafael Gondra, Secretary of the Directive and Administra- tive Junta of Mining. I certify that the 'expediente which exists in the Secretary's office of Mining, relative to the denouncement, possession, and grant to Don Andres Castillero, of the Mine of Cinnabar which exists in Upper California, called New Almaden, shows : That in consequence of the reports of the directive Junta, the Supreme Government, in virtue of the petition of Senor Castillero, issued to him the legal title, or respective testimony of his acquisition in conformity with the ordi- nances on that branch, and that this grant to the said Castillero, was for a " pertenencia" of three thousand varas upon the plan of said quicksilver mine, in order to work it to that extent, and for two square leagues contiguous to the said " pertenencia," to take from them the firewood and other indispensable and useful benefits for the works of the mine, which grants, particular and special, the Supreme Government thought proper to make on account of the favor which the laws direct to be imparted to the discoverers of quicksilver mines, proceeding in them in conformity with that reported by the Directive Junta. And at the request of the owners of New Almaden, I give the present certificate, referring to the said expediente, by which all the foregoing is proved, and I sign it in Mexico, on the 23d of Jan. 1851. (Signed) YSIDRO R. GONDRA, Secretary. The undersigned, Chief Clerk of the Ministry of Interior and Foreign Relations : Certifies that the foregoing signature of Sr. Don Ysidro, Secretary of the Directive and Administrative Junta of Mining is legitimate, and the same which he is accustomed to use in his official acts. Mexico, Febr'y 26th, 1851. (Signed) JOSE MARIA ORTIZ MONASTERIO. Fees $4. 63 I hereby certify that the above is the signature of Don Jose Maria Ortis Monasterio, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the Mexican Republic. | seal | (Signed) PERCY W. DOYLE'. Her Britannic Majesty's Charge* d' Affaires in the Republic of Mexico. Mexico, Feb'y 26, 1851. No. 1075. CONLULATE OF THE U. S. OF AMERICA, Mexico, February 26, 1851. I, the undersigned, Consul of the United States of America for the City of Mexico, hereby certify that the signatures of Jose* Maria Ortiz Mona'sterio, and of Percy W. Doyle, subscribed to the fore- going certificate, are in the proper hand writing of said persons res- pectively, the same as used by them in their several official acts, who are both well known to me, and were at the time of subscribing their respective names as follows to wit: the first, First Clerk of the Department of Interior and of Foreign relations of the Mexican Government; and the second, Her Britannic Majesty's Charge d' Affaires near the aforesaid government, and that all their several acts are entitled to full faith and credit as such respectively. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Consular seal, the day and year above written. | seal I (Signed) JOHN BLACK, * > Consul. Filed in Office, Sep. 30th, 1852. GEO. FISHER, Secy. / B. P. L. EXHIBIT TO DEPOSITION OF JOSE MARIA LAFRAGUA. JANUARY 29, 1855. Copia literal del decreto que se halla puesto al margen de la comu- nicacion de la Junta Mineria, en que se insert6 la solicitud de Castil- lero. Mayo 20 de 1846. " Se concede en los terminos que se propone ; y por lo tocante al 64 terreno, librese la orden correspondiente al Ministro de Relaciones para las providencias de su resorte, en el concepto de que el Supremo Gobierno esta anuente a la solicitud." »i>: J. M. LAGRAGUA. Filed in office Jan'y 30th, 1855. GEO. FISHER, Secretary. TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT B., P. L., TO DEPOSITION OF J. M. LAFRAGCFA. A literal copy of the decree which is formed on the margin of the communication from the " Junta de Mineria," which was inserted in the petition of Castillero. May 30, 1846. It was granted upon the terms proposed ; and with respect to the land, let the proper order issue to the Minister of Relations for the proceedings, so far as his department is concerned, with the under- standing that the Supreme Government is favorable to the petition. (Signed) J. M. LAFRAGUA. I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct translation of a document marked "B., P. L.," exhibit to deposition of Jose* Maria Lafragua, in case No. 366, on the docket of the U. S. L. Commis- sion, &c. Witness my official signature, this 30th day of January, A. D. 1855. GEO. FISHER, Secretary. Filed in office, Jan. 30, 1855. GEO. FISHER, Secretary. 65 C., P. L. EXHIBIT TO THE DEPOSITION OF JOS^ MA- RIA LAFRAGUA, JANUARY 29th, 1855. Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Gobernacion y Policia : Exmo. Sr., El E. Y. S. Ministro de Justicia, en oficio del confente mo, / j dice lo que copio : w> "E. S. — Hoy digo al E. S. D. Vicente Segura, Presidentevfo^ ,- - Junta de Fomento de Mineria, lo siguiente : ^^Tli^ 1 E. S. Habiendo dado cuenta al E. S. Presidente interino conlanota de V. E. de 14 del presente a que se sirvio acompanarme, con reco- mendacion, la solicitud del S. D. Andres Castillero para el fomento de la Mina de Azogue que ha descubierto en la Mision de Sta. Clara, en la Alta California ; se ba servido S. E. aprobar en todas sus partes el convenio celebrado con dicbo individuo para principiar la esplotacion de dicho mineral, y con esta fecha se hace la comunicacion que corres- ponde al Mintsterio de Relaciones Esteriores y Gobernacion, para que libre las ordenas oportunas por lo respectivo a lo que contiene la 8 a . proposicion, relativa a la concesion de terrenos en aquel Departa- mento.' Y tengo el honor de insertarlo a Y. E. a fin de que por lo respectivo a la solicitud del S. Castillero, a que ha tenido a bien acceder el E. S. Presidente interino sobre que como c61ono se le conceda dos sitios de ganado mayor sobre el terreno de su posesion minera, se sirva V. E. librar las ordenes de que se trata. Reitero a V. E., & a ." Y lo trascribo a V. E. para que, con arreglo a lo que prevengan las leyes y disposiciones sobre colonizacion, ponga al S. Castillero en pose- sion de los dos sitios que se mencionan. Dios y Libertad. Mexico, Mayo 23 de 1846. CASTILLO LANZAS. e. s. gobernador del Departamento de Californias. 66 Sello Cuarto. Un Real. Jesus Vejar, Escribano Publico. Certifico y doy fe, que el presente instrumento autentico firmado por el Exmo. Senor Ministro de Relaciones Esteriories, Gobernacion y Po- licia, Castillo Lanzas, ha sido respetado bajo esa firma y obsequiado por las autoridades Mejicanas que gobernaban en la Alta California en el ano de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis, segun las insereiones que aquellas mismas autoridades hizieron de tal instrumento en actos que autorizaron sobre el asunto que verzan, y los cuales doy fe haber visto, y por esta razon debe tenerse por cierto y del puno y letra del E. Se- nor Ministro esa firma en el repetido instrumento y como que tambien por actos que ante mi han pasado la reconocio el Senor Don Andres Castillero. Y a pedimento de los Seiiores Barron, Forbes y Compania signo y firmo el presente en Tepic & quince de Marzo de mil ochocientos cin- cuenta. JESUS VEJAR. El Alcalde 1°. Constitucional y Escribano Publico que firmamos, certificamos y damos fd, que el signo y firma que antecede es el que usa y acostumbra el Escribano Don Jesus Vejar en todos los autos que ante el pasan. Asi lo comprovamos en Tepic, a quince de Marzo de mil ochocientos cincuenta. LORETO CORONA. EUSEBIO FERNANDEZ. Consulate of the United States, Tepic, June 8, 1850. I, E. L. Barre, acting Consul of the U. States, do hereby certify that the foregoing signatures are in the true handwriting of Loretb 67 Corona and Eusebio Fernandez; the first, Alcalde 1°., and the second, a lawfully appointed Public Notary, in this city, and whose acts are worthy of all faith and credit. c ) In testimony whereof I do hereby set my hand and seal j seal [ of office this day above mentioned. ( — ~ ] E. L. BARRE, Filed in office, Jan. 30, 1855. Acting Consul. GEO. FISHER. Secretary. [No. 3.] TRANSLATION OF C, P. L. EXHIBIT TO DEPOSITION OF JOSE MA LAFRAGUA. Ministry of Foreign Relations, ) Government and Police. ) Most Excellent Sir: His Excellency, the Minister of Justice, in an official note of the 20th inst, communicates to me that which I copy below : " Most Excellent Sir : I have this day addressed to his Excellency, Don Vicente Segura, President of the Board for the encouragement of mines, the following : 'Most Excellent Sir: Having laid before his Excellency the President, ad interim, your Excellency's note of the 14th inst., wherewith you were pleased to accompany me, with a recommendation, the petition of Seilor Don An- dres Castillero for the fomentation of the quicksilver mine which he has discovered at the Mission of Santa Clara in Upper California. His Excellency has been pleased to approve, in all its parts, the agreement made with said individual to commence the exploring of the said mine, and under this date the corresponding communication is addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Relations and Government for the issuing of the necessary orders with reference to what is contained in the eighth proposition relative to the granting of lands in that De- partment.' I have the honor to transcribe it to your Excellency, that, in re- gard to the petition of Seilor Castillero, to which his Excellency, the President, ad interim, has thought proper to accede, provided, that 68 as a colonist, two square leagues be granted bhn upon the land of his mineral possession, you may be pleased to issue the orders referred. I reiterate to your Excellency, &c." And I transcribe it to your Excellency, that in conformity with the provisions of the laws and decrees relative to colonization, you may give Senor Castillero possession of the two square leagues above men- tioned. God and Liberty. Mexico, May 23, 1$}6. (Signed.) CASTILLO LANZAS. To his Excellency of the Department of the Calitornias. ( For the years J SEAL 4TH., < > ONE REAL. ( 1850 and 1851. ) I, Jesus Vejar, a Notary Public, hereby certify and attest that the foregoing authentic instrument, signed by his Excellency, the Minister of Foreign Relations, Government and Police, Castillo Lanzas, has been respected under that signature, and obeyed by the Mexican authori- ties that governed in Upper California in the year eighteen hundred and forty-six, according to insertions which the said authorities made of the said instrument in acts which they passed upon the subject of which they treat, and which I certify to have seen, and for this rea- son that signature in the said instrument should be esteemed as au- thentic and signed in the hand-writiting of his Excellency, the Min- ister, and as, also, by proceedings that have passed under my obser- vation, Senor Don Andres Castillero recognized it. And at the instance of the Messrs. Barron, Forbes & Co., I have placed hereon my signet, and sign it in Tepic, on this 1st day of March, 1850. (Signed. JESUS VEJAR. We, the undersigned, First Constitutional Alcalde and Notary Pub- lic, hereby certify and attest that the foregoing signet and signature which Don Jesus Vejar a Notary, generally uses in all the acts is that performed by him. 69 This we verify in Tepic, this 1st March, 1850. (Signed.) LORETO CORONA. (Signed.) EUSEBIO FERNANDEZ. A true and correct translation. Witness my hand this 30th January, 1855. GEO. FISHER, Secretary. Filed in office, January 30th, 1855. GEO. FISHER, Secretary. EXHIBIT "D., P. L.," ANNEXED TO THE DEPOSITION OF JOSE MARIA LAFRAGUA. page 65. j] n e j Estado de San Luis Potosi, se hallan en proporcion de los me tales que se benefician y el azogue que se estrae, y en la Alta Cal- ifornia se ha descubierto un criadero, cuyu ley sobrepuja 4 la de la mejor mina que se conoce, la de Almaden, la cual no produce mas de un trece por ciento, cuando la nuestra, en los ensayos practicados en el Colegio de Mineria de esta Capital, sube a un trienta y cinco y medio por ciento. ********* ********* ********* ********* page 66. Yo recomiendo al Soberano Congreso que fije su atencion en este ramo, haciendo de la esplotacion de nuestro azogue, una verdadera empresa national, cuya importancia no se puedo encarecer demasiado, bien sea creando un fondo, 6 bien dictando otras medidas oportunas. ********* ********* ********* ********* page 136. j^ a j un t a en 21 de Abril proximo pasado, pas6 a la facultativa del Colegio unas muestras de cinabrio que presentd D. Tomas Ramon del Moral a nombre de D. Andres Castillero, vecino de la Alta Califor- nia, con una esposicion en que pide se le auxilie. para trabajar una mi- na que ha descubierto en la Mision de Santa Clara, conocido por los 70 antiguos Indios, quienes sacaban de ella el bermellon para pintarse el cuerpo. Hecho el ensayo por el profesor de quimica resulta que los metales en comun produjeron la estraordinaria ley de 35J por 100, lo que se participo al Gobierno en 5 de Mayo, manifestandole que se ha- bia preguntado al Sr. Castillero cuales era los auxilios que necesitaba de la Junta. Este Senor presento su solicitud en forma, y examinada muy dete- nidamente por la Junta, hizo sus proposiciones, en que esta con vino, reducida k que se le franqueasen por entonces cinco mil pesos en nu- merario, ocho retortas de fierro, de las que mand6 hacer la Junta para que serviesen en los reconocimientos hechos anteriormente, y todos los frascos para azogue que tiene en la negociacion de Tasco. El Sr. Cas- tillero se oblig6 por su parte k entregar dicha anticipacion en azogue, k razon de cien pesos quintal dentro de seis meses de su salida en el puerto de Mazatlan. Este eonvenio fue aprobado por el Supremo Go- bierno en 20 del mismo ; pero k virtud de la declaracion hecha por los Estados Unidos del Norte, cuando iba ya k recibir la libranza sobre Mazatlan, el Ministerio pas6 la orden de 19 de Septiembre de este ano, mandando suspender todo pago del ramo de azogues a escepcion de los gastos alimenticios del Colegio y la Oficina. ********* ********* page 146. ^ es j a ocas i on d e presentar reunidos todos los trabajos de la Junta para corresponder a la alta confianza con que la honr6 el go- bierno. Una parte de ellos van especificados en la presente nota, y los demos se hallan consignados en las memorias informed y multitud de comunicaciones que obran en ese ministerio. Por ahora umcamente se reducird k asegurar lo que consta de eros documentos, a saber ; que el espiritu de empresa se llego a estimular en terminos de estarse es- plotando minas de azogue en los principales Departamentos de la Re- publica, ya por companias ya tambien por particulares ; que en el de San Luis Potosi, azogue que se estrae est& en proporcion de la plata que se beneficia, en terminos de no necesitarse del estrangero ; que en la Alta California, en el presidio de Santa Rosa, ha llegado k descu- brirse un gran criadero, por el Sr. Andres Castillero, cuyos leyes son verdaderamente sorprendentes ; pues resulta de los ensayes practicados en el Colegio de Mineria que las que dan los frutos comunes sube k un 35J por 100, cuando los de la mejos mina que se conoce, que es la del Almaden, no para de un 13 por 100 ; y en fin, que por todos los datos que se han reunido, se puede esperar descansando en muy bucnos fun- damentos que nuestros criaderos de azogues son mas que suficientes para habilitarnos de todo lo que se necesita para el beneficio de nues- tras platas. 71 Esta gran empresa nacional, la Junta no ha podido Uevarla a cabo, porque se le privo de uno de sus fondos del 1 por 100 de la circulacion de la moneda sin sustituirle otro, y porque del que le restaba, solo ha podido dispone de menos de una tercera parte, pues el gobierno en los apuros del erario, ha usado de las restantes. El mal se agrav6 hasta el estremo lamentable de quedarse sin ninguno por la orden de lo de Mayo ultimo, que mando suspender todos los pagos que se hacian por la hacienda publica. Los resultados funestos de tales determinacio- nes, la Junta no se detendrd a pormenorizarlos ; ellos se hacen paten- tes por lo hasta aqui manifestado. ********* ********* Filed in office, Jan. 30, 1855. (Signed) GEO. FISHER, Secretary. TRANSLATION OF "D.,P. L." EPHIBIT TO DEPOSITION OF JOSE MARIA LAFRAGUA. Translations of those portions of document marked "D., P. L." ex- hibited in the deposition of Jose* Maria Lafragua, January 29th, 1855, therein marked as referent to the subject of the land claimed in this case. page 65. j n ^ G gtate of San Louis Potosi, the minerals yield fifty per cent, of quicksilver, and in Upper California a criadero has been disco- vered whose base exceeds that of the best mine known, that of Almaden, which produces eighty-seven per cent., while ours in the assays made in this .mineral, of this capital only ascends to sixty-five per cent. page ee. j wou i(j recommend the sovereign Congress to direct their atten- tion to this Department, making the exploration of our quicksilver a truly'national enterprise, the importance of which cannot be too highly estimated, either by creating a fund, or adopting other convenient measures. ******* 72 page 156. Q n fa e 21st day of April last, the Board transmitted to the faculty of the college a few specimens of ore which Don Tomas Ramon del Moral presented in the name of Don Andres Castillero, a resident of Upper California, with an exposition, in which he asks means for the working of a mine which he has discovered in the Mission of Santa Clara, known by the old Indians, who used to obtain therefrom ver- milion to paint their bodies with. The assay having been made by the Professor of Chemistry, it was ascertained that the ores produced on an average the base of thirty-five per cent., which was reported to the Government on the 5th of May, with the representation that Senor Castillero had been asked what were the means he needed from the Board. This gentleman presented his petition in form, and the Board having examined it very carefully, he made his propositions, to which the Board agreed, it having been resolved that for the present there should be furnished him five thousand in money, eight iron retorts of those which the Board ordered to be made to serve in the examina- tions previously made, and all the quicksilver flasks which it has at the establishment of Tasco. Senor Castillero obligated himself on his part, to pay the said advance in quicksilver, at the rate of one hundred dollars per quintal, within six months from the date of his departure from the port of Mazatlan. This agreement was approved by the Supreme Government on the 30th of the same, but in consequence of the declaration made by the United States of the North, when he was en route to Mazatlan to cash the draft, the minister issued an order on the 19th September of this year, directing the suspension of all payments from the quick- silver department, with the exception of the alimentary expenses of the College and the kitchen. rage 146. This is not the occasion to present all the collected labors of the Board, to correspond with the high confidence with which the govern- ment has honored it. A portion of them are specified in the present note, and the rest are assigned to the memorials, reports, and the numerous communications which exist in that ministry. For the present it will confine itself alone to the stating of what is contained in those documents, to wit : that a spirit of enterprise was stimulated at the time of the exploration of the quicksilver mines in the principal departments of the Republic, both by com- panies and by individuals. That in that of San Louis Potosi, the quicksilver which is extracted is proportionate to the silver that is wrought, so as not to need any foreign : that in Upper California, at the Presidio of Santa Rosa, a large criadero has been discovered 73 by Senor Don Andres Castillero, the base of which is really wonderful, as it is ascertained by the assays made in the Mineral College, that that which yields an average per cent., ascends to 35 1-2 per cent., whilst those of the best mines that is known, which is that of Almaden, does not exceed 13 per cent., and finally from all the data that has been obtained, it may be expected, relying upon good reasons, that our quicksilver criaderos, are more than sufficient to furnish us with all that is necessary for the working of our silver mines. The Board has not been able to carry this great national enterprise into effect, because it was deprived of one of its resourses, of the one per cent of the circulation of the money, without substituting it by another, and because it has only been able to dispose of two-thirds of the balance, as the Government, in its necessity for funds, has used the other two-thirds. The evil was enlarged to the lamentable extreme of its remaining without any, by the order of the 10th of May last, which ordered the suspension of all the payments that were being made by the public Treasury. The Board will not stop to particularise the untoward results of such determinations, they are made clear by what is here expressed. A true and correct translation. Witness my official signature, this 3d day of November, A.D. 1855. GEO. FISHER, Secy. Filed in Office Nov. 3, 1855 GEO. FISHER, Secy. "A., P. L.," EXHIBIT TO THE DEPOSITION OF ANTONIO SUftOL, MARCH 19, 1855. Sor. Alc e . de 1\ nomin on . Andres Castillero, Cap n . de Cab a . Perm te . y residente hoy en este Departam to . ante la notoria justificacion de V. hace presente, que habiendo- descubierto una veta de plata con ley de oro, en terreno del rancho perteneciente al Sarg t0 . retirado de la compania presidial de S. Fran co . Jose Reyes Berreyesa, y queriendo trabajarla en compania, su- plico a V. que arreglado a la ordenanza de mineria se sirva fijar rotu- lones en los parages publicos de la jurisdiccion para que llegado el tiempo de la posecion juridica, asegure mi derecho, segun las leyes de la mineria. A. Y. suplico, provia de conformidad en lo que recibire' merced y justicia admitiendo este en papel comun por falta del sellado corres- pondiente. Mision de St a . Clara, Nov 6 . 22 de 1845. ANDRES CASTILLERO. 10 74 S R . Alcalde de 1\ nominacion del Pueblo de San Jose Guada- lupe : Andres Castillero, Capitan de Caballeria permanente, ante la notoria justificacion de V. comparesco y digo que entablando el mineral con anterioridad denuncie* a ese juzgado he sacado k mas de plata con ley de oro, azogue liquido, en presencia de algunos concurrentes que podre* citar en caso oportuno, y por convenir asi k mi derecho le he de merecer k V. que unido al escrito de denuncio se archive esta pre- sentation, no llendo en papel del sello por no haberlo. A V. suplico provea de conformidad en lo que recivere" merced y iusticia. St a . Clara, Diciembre 3, de 1845. ANDRES CASTILLERO. No encontrandose en el Departamento de California, Diputacion de Mineria, y siendo esta la unica vez desde la poblacion de la Alta Cali- fornia, que se trabajo con arreglo a las leyes un mineral, y careciendo ademas de Juez de letras el segundo distrito, Yo, el Alcalde de l a . nominacion, C. Antonio M a . Pico, he venido acompaiiado de dos testigos para actuar por receptoria k falta de escribano publico que no lo hay, para dar posecion juridica de la mina conocida con el nombre de Santa Clara, en esta jurisdicion, situada en el rancho del Sarg t0 . Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, por que habiendo fenecido el tiempo que senala la ordenanza de mineria para deducir su accion el C. Andres Castillero y que otros pudieran alegar mejor derecho, desde el tiempo del denuncio k la fe- cha, y encontrandose dicha mineral con abundancia de metales esplo- tados, el pozo hecho con las reglas del arte, y produciendo la elaboracion de la mina abundancia de azogue liquido, segun las muestras que tiene el juzgado ; y estando tan recomendado por leyes vigentes la proteccion de un articulo tan necesario para la amalgamation de oro y plata en la Republica, he venido en concederle tres mil varas por todos rumbos, k reserva de lo que sefiale la ordenanza gen 1 , de mineria, por ser trabaja- da comp\ de lo que doy fe* ; firmando conmigo los testigos y quedando agregado este acto de posesion al cumulo del espediente que queda de- positado en el archivo de mi cargo ; no yendo puesto en papel del sello respectivo, que no le hay en los terminos de la. ley. Juzgado de S n . Jose' Guadalupe, Deciembre 30, de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco. ANTONIO M\ PICO. De asa — Antonio Sunol. De asa — Jose Noriega. Filed in office, March 19th, 1855. GEO. FISHER, Secretary. 75 « [" B." Translation.] Sen or Alcalde of First Nomination. Andres Castillero, Captain of permanent Cavalry, and at presentt resident in this Department, before your notorious justification, makes representation, that having discovered a rein of silver, with a ley of gold, on the rancho pertaining to J ose* Reyes Berreyesa, retired Ser- geant of the Presidio Company of San Francisco, and wishing to work it in company, I request that, in conformity with the ordinance on mining, you will be pleased to fix up notices in public places of the ju- risdiction, in order to make sure of my right when the time of the ju- ridical possession may arrive, according to the laws on the matter. I pray you to provide in conformity, in which I will receive favor and justice ; admitting this on common paper, there being none of the corresponding stamp. Pueblo of San Jose Guadalupe, November twenty-second, eighteen hundred and forty-five. (Signed) ANDRES CASTILLERO. This is a copy of the original to which I refer, signing it with two assisting witnesses, in the Pueblo of San Jose" Guadalupe, on the 13th of January 1846. (Signed) PEDRO CHABOLLA. Assisting witnesses : (Signed) Sansevain, (Signed) Jose sunol. Senor Alcalde of First Nomination. I, Andres Castillero, permanent Captain of Cavalry, before your well known justification, appear and say, that on opening the mine which I previously denounced in this Court, I have taken out besides silver with a ley of gold, liquid quicksilver, in the presence of several bystanders, whom I may summon on the proper occasion. And considering it necessary for the security of my right so to do, I have to request of you, that uniting this representation to the de- 76 nouncement, it may be placed on file, it not going on stamped paper, because there is none. I pray you to take measures to this effect, in which I will receive favor and grace. Santa Clara, December 3d, 1845. (Signed) ANDRES CASTILLERO. This is a copy of the original to which I refer, signing it with the witnesses of my assistance, in the Pueblo of San Jose' Guadalupe, on the 13th of January 1846. (Signed) PEDRO CHABOLLA. Assisting witnesses : (Signed) P. Sansevain, (8igned) Jose Sunol. There being no deputation on mining in the Department of Califor- nia, and this being the only time since the settlement of Upper Cali- fornia, that a mine has been worked in conformity with the laws — and there being no Juez de Letras (Professional Judge) in the 2d District, I, the Alcalde of 1st Nomination, citizen Antonio Maria Pico, accom- panied by two assisting witnesses, have resolved to act in virtue of my office for want of a Notary Public, there being none, for the purpose of giving juridical possession of the mine known by the name of Santa Clara, in this jurisdiction, situated on the Rancho of the retired Ser- geant Josd Reyes Berreyesa, for the time having expired which is de- signated in the ordinance of mining, for citizen Don Andres Castillero to show his right, and also for others to allege a better right, between the time of denouncement and this date, and the mine being found with abundance of metals discovered, the shaft made according to the rules of art, and the working of the mine producing a large quantity of liquid quicksilver, as shown by the specimens which this Court has ; and as the laws now in force so strongly recommend the protection of an ar- ticle so necessary for the amalgamation of gold and silver in the Re- Republic, I have granted three thousand varas of land in all direc- tions, subject to what the general ordinance of mines may direct, it be- ing worked in company, to which I certify, the witnesses signing with me ; this act of possession being attached to the rest of the Expediente, 77 deposited in the Archives under my charge. This not going on stamped paper, because there is none, as prescribed by law. Juzgado of San Jose" Guadalupe, December 30, 1845. (Signed) ANTONIO MARIA PICO. Assisting witnesses : (Signed) Antonio sunol, (Signed) Jose Noriega. I have received of Don Andres Castillero the sum of twenty-five dollars, on account of the fees for the possession of the quicksilver mine, which is in this jurisdiction, under my charge, named Santa Clara. Court House of San Jose Guadalupe, December 30, 1845. (Signed) ANTONIO MARIA PICO. $25. Writing of partnership executed by Don Andres Castillero, Captain of permanent Cavalry, with the Commanding General, Don Jose* Cas- tro, and the Senores Secundino Robles and Teodoro Robles, and a voluntary grant which the partners make perpetually to the Rev. Fa- ther Friar, Jose* Maria del Refugb Suarez del Real, of a mine of sil- ver, gold, and quicksilver, in the Rancho ef Don Jose* Reyes Berrey- esa, in the jurisdiction of the Pueblo of San Jose* Guadalupe. Art. 1. Don Andres Castillero, conforming in all respects to the ordinance of mining, forms a regular perpetual partnership with the said persons in this form : The half of the mine, which is that of which he can dispose, will be divided in three parts, in this manner ; four shares to Don Jose Castro ; four shares to Senores Secundino and Teo- doro Robles ; and the other four shares to the Rev. Father Jose' Ma. R. S. del Real, as a perpetual donation. Art. 2. Neither of the partners can sell or alienate any of The United States. ) For the New Almaden Mine, and two square leagues of land adjoining, in Santa Clara County. The claim presented in this case is two-fold : First, for the mine of quicksilver, known as"' the New Almaden Mine, alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner under the laws of Mexico, in December, 1845 ; and second, for two square leagues of land around the mouth of said mine, alleged to have been granted in colonization to the petitioner, by the Mexican authorities, Mav 20th 1846. J We shall consider each in its order. 1st. The right to the mine. As to this part of the petitioner's claim, it is urged by the Law. Agent of the Government ; first, that this Commission has no jurisdic- tion in the case of a mere mining right, however well established un- der the Mexican law, and therefore cannot adjudicate in the matter ; and secondly, that if adjudged to be withm the jurisdiction of the Com- mission, the proof is not sufficient in the case to establish such right under the laws of the former Government. The question of jurisdiction meets us on the threshold ; but, as the power of the Commission to take cognizance of the case depends upon the legal character of the petitioner's interest or right, I shall first ex- amine the proofs by which it is sought to be sustained, and then in- quire whether such claim is within the range of adjudication commit- ted to this Commission by the Act of March 3d, 1851. The petitioner presents the following documentary evidence : First. — His petition directed to the Alcalde of first nomination, rep- resenting that he had discovered a vein of silver with a ley of gold, on the land of the rancho pertaining to Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, and wishing to work it in company, he requests the Alcalde, in conformity with the ordinance on mining, to fix up notices in public places of the jurisdic- tion, in order to secure the right when the time for juridical posses- sion should arrive, according to the laws on the matter. This is dated November 22d, 1845. On the 3d of December a supplement to the petition is added, alleging that he had taken out of 11 82 the mine, liquid quicksilver, which, in order to secure his right, he also wishes to add to the representation in his statement. This is followed by a document signed by the Alcalde in these words : " There being no deputation on mining in the department, and this being the only time since the settlement of Upper California, that a mine has been worked in conformity with the laws ; and there being no fc Juez de Letras* (Professional Judge) in the 2d district, I, the Alcalde of first nomination, citizen Antonio Maria Pico, accompanied by two assisting witnesses, have resolved to act in virtue of my office for want of a Notary Public, there being none, for the purpose of giving juridical possession of the mine known by the name of Santa Clara, in this jurisdiction, situated on the rancho of the retired Ser- geant Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, for the time having expired, which is designated in the ordinance of mining, for the citizen Don Andres Castillero to show his right, and also for others to allege a better right between the time of denouncement and this date, and the mine being found with abundance of metals discovered, the shaft made according to the rules of art, and the working of the mine producing a large quantity of liquid quicksilver, as shown by the specimens which this court has ; and as the laws now in force so strongly re- commend the protection of an article so necessary for the amalga- mation of gold and silver in the Republic, I have granted three thousand varas of land in all directions, subject to what the general ordinance of mines may direct, it being worked in company, to which I certify, the witnesses signing with me ; this act of possession being attached to the rest of the expediente deposited in the archives under my charge. This not going on stamped paper because there is none, as prescribed by law. Juzgado of San Jos6 Gaudalupe, December 30, 1845. (Signed) ANTONIO MARIA PICO. Assisting witnesses : Antonio Sunol, Jose Noriega." These documents exhibit the proceedings before the local officer where the mines are located. The subsequent proceedings took place in Mexico, before the officers of the Supreme Government, and are shown by the records at the capital, sworn copies of which are given in evidence. These proceedings were commenced by a communication from said Castillero, dated at the Mission of Santa Clara, February 19, 1846, 83 which was followed by a second, written three days later, announcing his discovery of the mine, and transmitting to his Excellency, the President, some ores of cinnabar, and a little quicksilver. He states that he was erecting a furnace, that the ores had yielded twenty per cent, and asked that an assay may be made by the proper officer, under the direction of the " Junta for the encouragement and administration of mining.' * The assay was duly made, and the several reports incorporated in the record showed the most satisfactory and gratifying results, and the Junta applied to Senor Castillero to know " what kind of aid or pro- tection he needs for the encouragement of his brilliant enterprise." This information was communicated to the President of the Repub- lic by the President of the Junta, on the 5th of May, and the receipt thereof, with the expression of the gratification of the President, was acknowledged by the Minister of Justice, to whose department the mining interests of the nation were then committed, by letter of the 9th of the same month. This is followed by the proposal of Castillero, addressed to the Junta for the encouragement of mining, bearing date May 12th, 1846, in which he sets out his discovery, the proceedings in obtaining the assay by order of the Junta, the favorable result, and his desire to benefit his country thereby. He adds, — "In virtue of this I have denounced and taken posses- sion not only of said mine named Santa Clara, (afterwards called New Almaden,) but also of an extent of three thousand varas in all directions from said point. "I have formed a company to work it. "I have constructed the pit, and complied with all the conditions prescribed by the ordinance ; the mine yielded ore with the notable circumstance that the specimens which I brought, and which have been assayed, have been taken out of the mouth." His proposal is as follows : 1. That the Junta, in the act of approving the agreement, shall give him a draft on some mercantile house in Mazatlan for five thou- sand dollars. 2. He binds himself to repay the amount by delivery of fifty quintals of quicksilver, at one hundred dollars each, in Mazatlan, within six months. 3. The Junta shall put at his disposal certain retorts and flasks then on hand, and also a sum of money sufficient to pay for certain apparatus, which it was necessary to order, not exceeding one thousand dollars. 4. Fixes the prices of the retorts and flasks which should be furnished. 5. The price of the same, the premium on the draft on Mazatlan, 84 and the money which should be advanced to pay for the apparatus to be ordered, were to be repaid in' quicksilver delivered within one year at Mazatlan, reserving to the Junta the right to take one or more acetones in the mine, in part payment of the sum which might be due. 6. The Junta to have the preference in the purchase of all quick- silver in Mazatlan, at 100 dollars per quintal, while the company is being formed and during the period of one year. 7. The Junta shall represent to the Supreme Government the necessity of approving the possession which has been given me of the mine by the local authorities of California, in the same terms in which I now hold it. 8. It shall also represent the advantage of their being granted to me, as a colonist, two square leagues upon the land of my mining possessions, with the object of being able to use the wood for my burnings. 9. For the performance of the proposed contract, the applicant pledges the mine and its appurtenances. This document was transmitted to the Minister of Justice, with a communication from the Junta, signed by its President, recommend- ing in strong terms to the approval of the Supreme Government the entire proposition relative to the mine. In regard to the proceedings in California, in the registration and denouncement of the mine, it is stated that " the posession has not been in accordance with the ordinance, inasmuch as there have been granted him 'pertenencias' to the extent of three thousand varas, which are equivalent to fifteen ' pertenencias,' agreeably to the second article of the eighth title." And the Junta then proceeded to obviate this objection by citing the several laws applicable to the case of the discoverer of an abso- lutely new hill in which there was no mine open, and to the working of a mine by a company, associated with the discoverer ; showing moreover the propriety, on account of the extent, and the peculiar fron- tier position of the department of California, of conceding to the first mine a large number of ' pertenencias' and citing the first article, eleventh title, for authority to grant to such company every favor and exemption which can be granted them according to the judgment and direction of the Royal Tribunal of Mines, and without detriment to the public, or to the royal treasury. As to Castiilero's application for the grant to him, as a colonist, of the ownership of two square leagues of land on the surface of his mining property, the Junta decline to express any opinion. With these documents before him, the President, ad interim, of the Republic, was pleased to approve in all its parts the agreement made with that individual, in order to commence the extraction of said min- 85 eral, and the same was notified to the Junta for the encouragement oi mining, on the 20th day of May, 1846 ; and as to the prayer for the grant of land, it was decreed that the proper order issue to the Minis- ter of Relations for the proceedings, so far as his department is con- cerned, with the understanding that the Supreme Government is fa- vorable to the petitioner. This decree was communicated to the Minister of Foreign Relations on the 23d of May, that he might issue the orders corresponding. The Mexican and Spanish law recognized two interests in real es- tate — the mining and the colonization interests. The latter embraced the full enjoyment of premises for every pur- pose of cultivation, habitation, and of the various pursuits of civilized life, The former secured the right to the mineral which was found de- posited in the earth. These were treated by the Government as distinct interests, anc were conceded as such separately. The methods of acquiring these interests by the individual citizen were distinct ; and the tribunals having the power to make concessions of them, were not the same. The laws known as the " Colonizatioi Laws," directed as to one class of grants ; the mining laws establishec the course of proceedings as to the other, and designated the tribunals which should have jurisdiction over the subject. This distinction found in the law, is illustrated in the papers before us. Castillero sought to obtain a concession of the two interests ; first the mine as such, and secondly, two square leagues of land, to be helc under the colonization laws. We first enquire whether the proceedings developed in this recorc were such as were required by the Mexican law, in order to inves Castillero with the right to the mines, as recognized by that law ? At the time of the separation of Mexico, by revolution, from Olc Spain, the code known as the Mining Ordinances of New Spain, adopt ed in 1783, with its subsequent alterations and amendments, was ii force ; and this, as well as other laws of the Kingdom, were continuec in force under the new Government, so far as they were not incon sistent with the new order of things, or modified by law. A translation of these mining ordinances of 1783, in full, is founc in Rockwell's Spanish and Mexican Law, together with a part of thi celebrated Commentaries of Gamboa on the Mining Laws of Spain which, although published before the ordinances of 1783 was adopted is a work of inestimable value at the present time. By the ordinance of 1783, a Tribunal-General of Mines wasestab lished in the city of Mexico ; and in the departments, Deputations o; Miners, who had exclusive original jurisdiction in mining aifairs. In order to acquire the right to a mine newly discovered, the dis- coverer must present a written application to the Deputation of Mines 86 in the district — or if there be none in the district to the nearest there- unto — setting out certain particulars in regard to himself and the mine discovered ; the proper registry was required to be made by the Dep- utation and their clerk ; the written statement was then returned to the discoverer, and notices thereof posted in certain public places. Within ninety days the discoverer was required to open the mine, so registered, to the depth of ten varas ; it was to be immediately exam- ined by one of the deputies and the clerk, or two assisting witnesses, and by the mining professor of the Territory, taking an accurate ac- count of the developments, in order to add the same to the entry in the register. This was followed by the act of possession, which was immediately to be given to the discoverer by the proper officer, in the royal name, measuring him his portion, and establishing his limits. By these proceedings, known as the registry, the legal right of the discoverer of a new mine was secured therein. By the Constitution of Mexico, and by the subsequent decree of May 20th, 1826, the Tribunal-General of the Mines was estab- lished. In these, nothing is said of the local deputations, and it may be a question whether or not it was intended to abolish them. The subsequent decree of December 2d, 1842, makes another pro- vision on the subject. It requires the Governors of the Departments, in concert with the Departmental Juntas, and with the approval of the Supreme Govern- ment, to establish in each the number of tribunals of the First In- stance which are necessary within the limits, and provides for the election of three Territorial Deputies, to be elected in the same man- ner as prescribed by the ancient ordinance of mining, and assigns to them substantially the same powers and duties. This decree also provides that : The second and third instances which may arise, shall be proven and decided in the Superior Courts of Justice of each respective de- partment, and in the courts designated by the laws, or which shall be hereafter designated. — [Rockwell, 598 — 603. This decree allows, by its provisions and its preamble, that the dep- utations provided for in the ordinance of 1783, were either regarded as abolished altogether, or at least that they did not generally exist in the districts. It shows also, a discontinuance of the old mining districts in which the deputations formerly held jurisdiction, and provides for a new di- vision of the departments, and the establishment of such number of tribunals of the first instance, composed of deputies, as the Govern- ment thereof might direct. The proceedings before the Alcalde appear, by the record before us, 87 to have been, in form at least, substantially in accordance with the law relative to registration. Several objections are urged to the validity of these proceedings, the principal of which is that they were had before an Alcalde, and not before the mining deputation. From the record made by the Alcalde, and from other proofs made in the case, it appears that in the whole department of California there was no mining deputation, or special mining tribunal of any kind ; none had been appointed here under the ancient law, and no assign- ment of the number of the tribunals in this department had been made under the decree of 1826. Gamboa treats the subject of registration and denouncement as judi- cial in its character, and one, under the laws of the Indies, in which the Justices of the Departments, Chief Alcaldes or Mayors, and, by way of appeal, the Royal Ordinancias, have cognizance. — [Rockwell, 359, 177, By the Royal Ordinance of 1584, the new office of Administrator- General, and an Administrator for each department and mining dis- trict were established, and full and exclusive jurisdiction given them over the entire subject of mines. In Mexico these officers were never appointed.— [Rock. 175. Gamboa holds that, in default of the officers named in the law, in order to guard against the serious consequences which might otherwise ensue from the important interests involved in mining : the ordinance ought in this, as in all other respects, to be main- tained and observed in that kingdom, agreeably to the rules of the mu- nicipal laws. The same ordinance committed to the charge of the general and special administrators, to be appointed under its provisions, the cogni- zance of certain specified subjects growing out of the mining interests, and expressly prohibited the ordinary tribunals to entertain jurisdic- tion of them ; yet the same eminent commentator declares that in the Indies, where these officers are wanting, the proceedings are to be had in the first instance before the justices, subject to appeal to the Royal Audencias. Rock. 357. The same ordinance provides specifically that the discovery of a new mine shall be registered before the mining justice within whose jurisdiction it shall be situate, and in the presence of a Notary, who shall send an authenticated copy of the registry to the Administrator, in order that the same may be noted and entered in the book of registry. The mining Justice or Judge was the officer to whom the ordinance committed specially this subject of registry ; but in the district where no such officer existed, Gamboa declares, in relation to the duties de- volved specially on this officer by the ordinance, that the other Justices must act in the matter. Rock. 362. 88 It thus appears that under the ancient ordinance this whole subject of registry, denouncement, and mining jurisprudence generally, was committed to administrators and mining Justices. No administrators were ever appointed in New Spain, and in many portions of the country there were no mining Justices or Judges. And in the portions of the country where neither existed, the ordi- nary judicial officers were held to have full jurisdiction over the sub- ject. Such was the law when the new ordinance of 1788 went into operation, which established the new tribunal of mining deputations, and committed this subject to their adjudication. But in many portions of the country, of which the department of California was one, these officers were never appointed ; in such a case it would seem most natural, if not a legal necessity, that cognizance of such a subject should continue to be exercised by the ordinary justices. Strongly corroborative of this view of the subject, is the principle recognized throughout Spanish and Mexican jurisprudence, to the effect that in the absence of the higher officer the next in grade suc- ceeds to the jurisdiction ; and that when cognizance of a particular matter is given to a special tribunal not being in existence, the matter reverts to the ordinary tribunal as a matter of course. On this subject, Pena y Peila, in his " Practical Forensica Mejicana," vol. 3, p. 53, says : "The ordinary jurisdiction is the most advantage- ous of all, for it is the most ancient, the most ample, and the most to be favored ; the fountain and the mother of all the rest, that which is liable to no motive of partiality ; that which therefore ought not to be strictly construed, and in case of doubt is to take precedence of all others." And again, in the same volume, page 371, he says : " A special tribunal is so called, in contradistinction to the ordinary, which is established for every class of causes and persons, so that every special tribunal comes to be an exception from the ordinary tribunals. Hence it is, that the exception being removed, the general rule remains in force, and that the special being wanting, its jurisdiction returns as it were to the fountain, the ordinary tribunals ; and it reverts to them by the very nature of things, without any necessity that the authority of the suppressed (or wanting) tribunals should .be given to them de novo." A fortiori, when a new tribunal was established to take cognizance of a matter previously belonging to the ordinary justices, it would seem that the latter might act until the new tribunal was established. And such seems to have been the practice in Mexico in those dis- tricts where the deputations were never established under the ordi- nances of 1783. Two witnesses, Domingo Danglada and Francisco de Leon, testify 89 to their familiarity with the proceedings in such cases in Mexico, and declare that since the establishment of the independence of that country, proceedings in the registry of a new mine are had before the Judge of the First Instance, or where there is no such Judge, the nearest Alcalde. In California, where there was neither Judge of the First Instance, nor Escribano, the Alcalde acted in the capacity of the former. 1 Cat. R. 220. It is claimed, further, that the right of Castillero to the mine must be declared invalid on account of his failure to perform the conditions imposed by ordinance — such as paying damages to the owners of the soil, the payment of a percentage of the product of the mine to the government, not commencing the work of the mine within six months, or a failure for four months to prosecute the working. The testimony shows that the process of working the mine com- menced in December, 1845, and has been continued to the present time without interruption, and there is no evidence tending to show a want of compliance with any duty imposed by law on the petitioner. We cannot presume a forfeiture. Under the facts presented in this case, and with the view of the law above expressed, I should feel great reluctance in declaring the proceedings before the Alcalde, in the registry of the mine, invalid. There is no claim that the rights of any individual citizen were in- fringed by the act, and the only question is whether the conscience of the Mexican Government was bound to recognize the right of Castil- lero to the mines as established by it. I cannot but so regard it, and the evidence of the subsequent re- cognition of the rights of Castillero by the highest officers of the Supreme Government, to which I shall again have occasion to refer, shows that it was evidently so regarded by them. II. ~T3ut, secondly, there is another view of the subject which pre- sents itself, tending to the same result. The ordinances above referred to contained the rules of proceed- ings as to the mines of every kind ; but quicksilver mines were the subject of frequent special ordinances, both under Spanish and Mexi- can jurisdiction. By the ordinance of 1783, quicksilver mines might be registered by the new discoverer like other mines ; but it was on the express condition of giving an account of them to the viceroy, and to the sub- delegate of quicksilver mines of Mexico, in order that it might be 12 90 determined whether they should be worked on account of the Royal Treasury, making some equitable reward to the discoverer, or by the latter, he delivering all the quicksilver which he might extract into the royal store-house, under stipulated terms and prices. Rock. 54, 131. Previous to the date of this ordinance, the sale and supply of quicksilver to the silver mines in Mexico, was a royal monopoly. It was sent by the government of old Spain to officers appointed here, and by them distributed among the mines at fixed prices and according to established rules, while all importations, and traffic in the article on private account, were prohibited under the most severe penalties. The supply of this article, so indispensable in the working of the mines of gold and silver, came from Almaden, in old Spain, and the new mines of Peru, while the working of quicksilver mines in New Spain was prohibited. Three instances are mentioned by Gamboa, where such mines were discovered, and the working of them commenced, when the autho- rities interposed and caused them to be stopped up. These instances occurred in 1718, 1780 and 1745, and in two of them the orders of prohibition were approved by the king. Bock. 139. By the ordinance of intendants of 1803, the office of comptroller was continued in Mexico, in order to carry out the ordinances for the distribution and sale of the prohibited article. Rock. 395. In 1811, the geiteral and extraordinary Cortes, by decree, reciting the evils resulting from the monopoly of quicksilver, and from the provision in the ordinance of 1783, reserving the right of the govern- ment to work all newly discovered mines of it on its own account, repealed these provisions, making it an article of free trade, and ex- empt from all taxes, including the fifth, which was previously required to be paid by the miner. This decree further recognised the right of discovery and working of such mines by individuals, with the right of acquiring a title thereto, under the general regulations relative to mines. Rock. 396. On the restoration to the throne of King Ferdinand VII, this, among other decrees of the Cortes was declared null and of no effect. By a subsequent Royal decree, proclaimed June 29th, 1821, in which the mines are freed from certain duties, provision is still made for continuing the supply of quicksilver to the Mexican miners, through the officers having charge of that subject. Rock. 407. It is doubtful whether these two last mentioned decrees had ever any practical operation in Mexico. After the declaration of independence, the Sovereign Provincial Committee, then exercising the powers of the government, on the 22 91 November, 1821, abolished many of the impositions on the business of mining generally, and declared quicksilver entirely exempt from tax, whether it proceeds from Europe or Asia, or be drawn irom the mines of the empire, " Mexico," and the same provisions were re- enacted by the Sovereign Constituent Congress, by decree of 13th February, 1824. In the same year the Congress gave to Don Juan B. Binnon, the exclusive right to work quicksilver mines of the Terri- tory of the Republic, for the five years preceeding July 24th, 1831, without prejudice to the right of those who might have acquired such mines at the commencement of said term. Rock. 597. By decree of May 20th, 1826, the Tribunal General of Mexico, was abolished. On the 12th May, 1838, a premium of five dollars on each quintal of quicksilver imported, not French property, was given by law, to continue during the blockade by the French, and six months thereaf- ter. Rock. 598, 601. But the most important decree on this subject is the edict of Gen'l Bravo, then President of the Republic, made December 2d, 1842, establishing the " Board of Encouragement and Improvement of the Mining Corporation." To this Board was committed the economical and faithful manage- ment of the mining fuuds, and they were specially required to pro- pose to the Supreme Government a regulation determining the cases and modes in which the working of quicksilver mines in the Republic is to be encouraged by rewards, or in any other way promoted. They were to have charge of the fund arising from the distribution of quicksilver, as provided in the edict, and in the management, pre- servation, and safe-keeping of the stock of quicksilver itself. The Board is limited in the disposal of the funds in their charge to the objects specified in the edict, and to such as should previously be approved by the Government. Rock. 603, 605. A decree of Santa Anna, of the 24th May, 1853, declares that quick- silver shall be sold throughout the nation without permits, passes, or other custom house papers, and that derived from the possessions of tbe Republic shall be subject to no general or municipal impost, and that 825,000 shall be granted to each of the four first proprietors who should extract in one year from the mines of the Republic 2,000 quintals of liquid quicksilver. It also provides for a premium of five dollars for each quintal which should be produced from these mines within three years, and exempts the laborers in such mines from military duty and personal taxes. Rock. 609. By decree of October 7, 1823, foreigners were authorised to hold shares in mines, for the working of which they should advance money to the proprietors ; and by that of March 11, 1842, their privileges were so enlarged as to entitle *hem, in certain cases, to acquire own- 92 ership of mines (including quicksilver) of which they might be discov- erers, in conformity with the ordinances on the subject ; and by decree of July 12, 1842, the right to acquire property therein was given to them, when they restored old mines which had fallen into disuse or been abandoned. lb. 610, 6U , 613. The decree of September 23, 1843, is the last which it will be necessary to cite, and this is the more important in the case under consideration, as it defines more clearly the powers of the Board for the encouragement of mining, before whom the proceedings were had, in the city of Mexico, on which the claimant bases, in a great measure, his claim. lb. 618. The decree requires the Board to appoint a Commission in each de- partment of the Republic to explore and examine the quicksilver mines situated therein, and to report whether there are any mines of quick- silver there, which have been or which can be worked, designating those which are best, their present condition, the work necessary to put them in order, the alloy contained in the yield which might be produced, and the cost of extraction and working. The Board of Encouragement, in view of such reports, was author- ised to decide upon the places which should be selected for these mines, and the sum which should be expended in putting them in ope- ration. Two methods for rendering aid out of the funds at their disposal, in the opening and working of the mines, are specified in the decree. The first is by a loan of the funds necessary for the purpose, at the usual interest of six per cent., under an agreement that the same shall be returned at a specified time, the same to be secured by bond, to the satisfaction of the Board, to be invested exclusively in the busi- ness in question ; and for this purpose the Board should have the power to appoint a supervisor of the mine, who should be paid by the owner thereof. The second method was by furnishing all the necessary supplies for working the mine, taking the exclusive charge, and making distribu- tion to the owner of his share of the profits. The Board was required to draw up a regulation for supplies ac- cording to the basis of these two methods, submitting the same to the Government for its approval. It does not appear in the case that any commission was ever ap- pointed for the Department of California under the decree, and from the short time which elapsed between the date of it and the discovery of the New Almaden mine by Castillero, it is almost certain that no such examination had been made. It is also equally certain that the proceedings had by the Board for the Encouragement of Mining, on the application of Castillero and by the Supreme Government, on their official report, was under the provisions of this decree. 93 The Board decided upon the importance of working the mine, and on the propriety of making advances from the funds at their disposal to Castillero for that purpose ; they invited proposals from him as to the advances necessary, and transmitted them according to the 9th Article of the decree, to the President, for his approval ; and that officer, by his decree thereon, approved the same so far it related to the opening and working of the mine by Castillero. In my opinion, this operated as a contract under the law. It is so stated to be in the decree of approval by the President, and in a report by Lafragua, Minister of Relations to the Mexican Con- gress in 1846, extracts from which are made evidence in the case, authenticated by the testimony of said Lafragua, it is clearly shown that both the Junta and the Government regarded it as a complete and binding contract ; and it is also alleged therein that Castillero was on his way to Mazatlan to cash the draft specified in the agreement, when the war with the United States broke out and compelled the suspension of payments from the fund. In one respect the proposition of Castillero differed in letter from the terms of the decree under which it was made. That decree contemplated that where money was advanced to the discoverer, to enable him to work a mine, the fund should receive an interest of six per cent, on the sum advanced. In this case, the whole was to be paid in quicksilver, delivered at Mazatlan, within a limited time, at the stipulated price of one hundred dollars per quintal. In their communication to the Government the Board remark upon this, and add, that it cannot be doubted that the proposition aifords greater advantages to the fund than the said interest. The Board was charged with the purchase of quicksilver, and with the distribution of it among the gold and silver mines of the Republic, at cost and expenses. The furnishing of quicksilver to the Board at a point where it was needed for use, was even more advantageous than the payment of coin, and it was competent for the Board, with the approval of the Government, to stipulate to receive both principle and interest in that article. The quicksilver to be delivered at the price stipulated, was considered by the Board, and also by the President in his approval, as equivalent in value to the sum to be advanced and the interest there- on ; and the contract required it to be received therefor. Consider- ing the ample powers entrusted to the Board and the President, I think the terms of this contract are within the scope of their authority, and cannot be invalidated on the ground of a departure in this respect from the terms of the decree. This brings us to the question whether this action of the Junta and the President, could make valid the rights of Castillero in the mine 94 claimed to have been acquired by the registration before the Alcalde, if the same was informal, and without authority, or if not, whether these proceedings were sufficient to establish his right to the mine, without a formal registration before the local authorities. The Junta was not an appellant tribunal. It had no authority to review the proceedings of any local officer, and to affirm or disaffirm his decision. Nor does it appear to have had any authority in cases of registra- tion or denouncement, as known to the laws in existence at the time of its organization. If registration before the Alcalde was not valid, the Junta had no power to make it so by virtue of any authority to review and affirm the acts of the Alcalde. But in my opinion, although not an appellate power to review the acts of the Alcalde, it was sufficient, with the approval of the Govern- ment, to establish the rights of Castillero in the mine, without a pre- vious official registration before the local officer. Registry was nothing more than the presentation to the proper offi- cer of a written description of the person who had found the mine, and the place where it was situated, with an exhibition of a specimen of the ore, and a claim of the rights of the discoverer therein. This was followed by the registry thereof made by the officer, and the subsequent assignment of boundaries and giving possession. Rock., p. 173. This simple act perfected in the discoverer all the right in the mine which the citizen could ever acquire. The right of every one in this simple manner to possess the mines, is what is meant by the saying often repeated in the books, that the mines were common to all ; the tribunal was usually at the door of the discoverer or denouncer ; the process without expense ; the proceedings with little formality, and the interest, once acquired, was held under the terms of decrees and customs well known to all. But this method of acquiring the right to a mine, might not be, and perhaps never was, the only one by which the miner's right might be secured. While the mines continued a part of the royal prerogative, the method of acquiring them was subject to be changed or modified at any time by the decree of the King. And after the independence of Mexico, though the old laws remained in force, when not Contrary to the new order of things, or expressly annulled, the sovereign power of the new nation might at any time have changed the mariner of acquiring such rights. Such I regard the effects of the decrees passed subsequently to the independence, and especially of those of the 2d of December, 1842, and of the 25th of September, 1843, establishing and prescribing the powers and duties of the Board for the Encouragment of Mining. 95 The policy of the Royal Government of Spain was to monopolise the supply of quicksilver for the mines in Mexico, to prohibit all importa- tion by others, and all traffiic in it by individuals, and finally to in- terdict the opening and working the mines of it which might be known throughout Mexico. When the independent government was established, the policy in Mexico was changed. It was then an object to render all importa- tions, especially from Old Spain, unnecessary ; and in order to obtain the indispensable supply for the working of the gold and silver mines, to give every inducement which the Government could afford, to dis- cover and open, and render productive, the mines of quicksilver. Hence the decrees making quicksilver a free article of commerce, and exempt from all duties, whether imported or obtained from the mines of the country ; the allowance of a Government premium of $5 per quintal ; the raising of funds from specified sources for the purchase of quicksilver, to be distributed among the mines ; the ex- emption of the miners from duties, taxes, and arrests ; the creation of officers to take charge of the subject, and to use money to promote the working of such mines. To the new tribunal, the Board for the Encouragement of Mines, was especially committed the charge of determining, with the approval of the Government, the manner of obtaining quicksilver, and the cases and modes in which the working of quicksilver mines in the Republic should be encouraged, by rewards, or in any other way promoted. By the decree of September 25th, 1843, the Board was authorized to decide upon the places which should be established in preference, and the sum which should be advanced to put the establishments in operation, tlfe same to be approved by the Government ; and the two methods of furnishing supplies — first, by an advance of the necessary amount, at an annual interest ; and second, by becoming supplier of the mine, directing its operations and sharing the profits — show both the anxiety of the Government to open new mines of that metal in the Republic, and the broad discretionary powers over the subject given to the Board. All the mines in the Republic which had not already been acquired by individuals, agreeably to former decrees, whether on the National domain, or on lands ceded under the colonization laws, belonged to the nation. Commissioners were appointed to explore and discover them, and it can scarcely be doubted, if such were newly discovered, to which no individual rights had attached, the Board had full power to arrange for opening and working with any individual, and upon any terms au- thorized by the law and approved by the President. I do not suppose, in such a case, that they were required to make a registry before the local authority, before such arrangement could be made. 96 None but the discoverer could proceed to make a registry, and it seems to me preposterous to say that the Board, the officers of the Government, could not make a contract with an individual to work a mine under the terms of the law, which should be binding on the Gov- ernment, unless a registry was had before the local authorities in the first place. The Board might contract for the working of the mines for five, or ten, or fifty years, on certain terms. This is as much the act of the Government, and would seem to transfer the Government right to the mine to the contractor, as surely as the proceeding in registration transfers to the discoverer the pre- cise interest in the mine, which the law declared he should obtain by his registration. Nor do I think there is anything to prevent an arrangement, under the terms of the decree, with the new discoverer of a mine, upon the proper evidence being laid before the Board, to work the same, al- though he has not proceeded to a registry in the place of its lo- cality. If, through fraud or misapprehension, by chance, individual rights previously acquired should be infringed, in such a case the party would not be without a remedy ; but where, as in the case before us, no such infringement is suggested, the Government itself would be bound by its agreement with the contract. From the very nature of the case, such a contract made with the national authorities, upon a subject-matter recognized to belong to the nation, implies a possession of, and a right in, the mine. That interest would be such as is specified in the contract, and where that is silent as to the character and nature of tHfe tenure, the laws and recognized customs of the country as to such right, must govern. The right to contract for the working of a mine, on such terms as the Board, with the approval of the Supreme Government, might see fit, necessarily implies that the contractor might receive an interest in the mines different from that secured to the new discoverer by the act of registration. The size of the mine might be enlarged, the work of opening and working it be modified, and the multifarious and mi- nute directions by which the right of the new discoverer under a regis- tration were burdened and restricted, might be modified by the con- tract in any of those methods which the discretion of the public officers should dictate as the most effectual to render the mine productive. That this was the design of establishing the Board, and of giving full power over the mines, which are specified in the decree, I cannot doubt. But let us suppose that a contract for the working of a mine can 97 confer no right in it to the contractor, who is the discoverer, unless he first registers that discovery in the proper locality. The present case may illustrate most fully the consequence. In the locality of San Jose' there was no person, but an Alcalde, to whom the discoverer could apply for registration, and the Law Agent argues upon us that he had no authority, and that his act is therefore totally void. There were other districts, also, where the offi- cers specially designated by name in the regulation of 1783, for the purpose, were not in being. Admit that in all these no person was authorized to make such registrations, and in Califor- nia, where nothing but the curse of blindness, it would seem, could prevent the discovery of the richest mines at almost every step, no registration could be made, and consequently no individual could entitle himself to work any mine which he might have discov- ered. Can it be possible that the Board, who were required to encourage mining everywhere throughout the Republic, could here do nothing to foster it when new mines were discovered ; when premiums were of- fered for every pound of quicksilver produced in the country ? Was there no right in any of the executive officers of the Government, to arrange for the rich supp ly which the mine afforded, simply because no officer at the spot could make a registration, or entertain proceed- ings for a denouncement ? With the duty imposed on the Board to send a commission into every department to examine and explore sci- entifically in search of quicksilver mines, and to report fully on the subject of their value, and the expense of working them, can it be, that however rich might be the deposits discovered, no contract for working them could be made, for want of officers to make the registra- tion ? Or that, with money at their command, which the Board was authorized to advance for the purpose, with full powers to contract at the discretion of themselves and the Government, the great object which lay at the bottom of the Mexican political economy, and for which more than any other, they provided by law, the supplying of quicksilver for the working of the mines, must, for this reason, prove abortive-? In my judgment, the provisions of these enactments are not thus inert and inoperative. I think the powers of the Board, with the approval of the President, were amply sufficient, whether Castillero had obtained a registration of his discovery or not, to make with him a contract to work the mine according to the terms of the decrees of 1842 and 1843, and that said contract was binding on the Mexican Government. The rights which it secured to him were such as are specified in the contract, and where that is silent they are such as the laws and cus- 13 98 toms at that time recognized as belonging to a mining possession, ac- quired in the usual manner by registration or denouncement. In either aspect of the case, I think the petitioner has established his right to the mine. III. The next inquiry is whether the interest thus acquired is of such a character as to bring it within a class of subjects over which this Commission has jurisdiction. This must depend on the character of the interest or estate which Castillero took by the proceedings. The Act of Congress of March 3d, 1851 limits the jurisdiction of this Commission " to persons claiming lands in California by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican Government ;" and requires the Commission to decide upon the validity of the said claim, entering therein a decree of confirmation or rejection. The right in the mine which was given to Castillero by the con- tract, is the same as that which was secured to the discoverer under the Mexican laws by a registration ; whether he held by virtue of the registry before the Alcalde, or under the contract, then, the es- tate was the same. What was the interest which was vested in the discoverer then by the act of registration ? In Spain the mines, wherever found in the Kingdom, were the prop- erty of the Royal Crown. Two interests, as I have already said, were recognized in land, which were different in their character, and disposed of as distinct in- terests and by different officers, yet both connected with and insepa- rable from the realty : the one carrying the enjoyment cf the land for agricultural and all domestic purposes — the other securing the min- eral deposit in the earth, with the right to work the same in the man- ner designated by law. The former right was secured to the individual citizen by grant un- der the colonization laws ; the latter by registry or denouncement. The colonization grant gave the grantee no right to the mines hid- den in the soil, nor had he any preference over a stranger in acquir- ing a right to them. — Mock. 49, 43. In the ordinance of 1783, the interest in the mines acquired by the citizen is declared to be " in property and possession in such manner that they may sell, exchange, (pass by will either in the way of inherit- ance or legacy) or in any other manner dispose of all their property in them, upon the terms on which they themselves possess it, and to persons legally capable of acquiring it." The interest acquired by the discoverer, under his registration, is spoken of in the ordinance as a grant ; and he is said to acquire, with the right to hold for mining purposes, the extent of land described in 99 the ordinance, and which shall be marked out, and possession given with due formality. Foreigners are prohibited " from acquiring or working mines as their own property ;" but to all subjects " the King grants the mines of every species of metal," under the condition of the payment to the royal treasury of the proportion of metal reserved thereto, and that they shall work the mines subject to the provisions of the ordinance. — Jb., 49, 50, 55. Escreche describes grants to miners as " made for an unlimited time, and so long as the grantees comply with the lawful conditions they may dispose of the right thereto, and of the products thereof, as of any other property." Throughout the ordinances and laws on the subject of mines such a right is denominated " property," and the process of denouncement or registration is said to be " acquiring the mine." The boundaries once fixed must remain forever, unless changed by due competent author- ity. The holder of such an interest is variously denominated the owner of the property, the " mine owner," and all the terms which may im- ply complete ownership of the mines, subject only to be defeated by violation of the requirements of the mining laws which everywhere abound. Gamboa discusses at length the right of the Crown to the mines, and the character of the interest conveyed to the subject therein by the discovery and registration of a new mine, or the denouncement <5f an old one. These, he says, give an interest merely, and not a separate and ab- solute property in them, and which authorizes him to deal with them in such manner only as shall be consistent with the regulations of the ordinances. And although the grant gives a right of property, yet it only amounts to a cession of a partial interest, and not to an absolute trans- fer, the supreme right of property remaining vested in the Crown. — lb. 130. By the- laws of Castile, the mines were granted in possession and property to the citizen, with power to dispose of them as of anything of their own. The existence of the right to the mines in the Crown is easily rec- onciled with the exercise of a right of property over them on the part of the subject, who has secured a right in them by proceeding under the law of registration or denouncement. In fact, such individual right is derived from the crown through the ordinances, and is not only consistent with it, but depends upon it. This grant of the sovereign, therefore, continues Gamboa, conveys to his subjects a direct and beneficial right of property. 100 It must follow beyond dispute, as a consequence of their being made over to the latter, with power to dispose of them as of a thing of his own, that all the incidents of property must attach in favor of the proprietor, and that they may therfore be exchanged, sold, leased or alienated, by contract, donation, or inheritance ; may be given as a portion in marriage, or may be charged with rent. lb. 131, 133. The numerous laws relating to mining, impose on the miner many onerous duties in the manner of working his mine, requiring large outlays of capital, with a view to make permanent improvements, necessarily implying the permanency of the interest which he holds in the works. This property is subject to but two conditions : first, paying the dues to the royal treasury, and secondly, conforming in the manage- ment of the mining operations to the requirements of the ordinances. While the miner complied with these terms, there was no provision by which he could be deprived of his property. Government itself could not deprive him of his inviolable right. Under the government of Mexico, after the establishment of Inde- pendence, the condition of the miner, in reference to his interest in that kind of property, was made better than under the old regime, by freeing him from payments in the public treasury, and granting him a premium on every quintal of quicksilver produced from his es- tablishment. The mining right was also accompanied with all the privileges of occupying sufficient of the surface of the land for the extensive work- ing of the mine beneath, and for the establishment of the necessary permanent buildings for the smelting of the ores, on payment to the proprietor of the damages assessed by the persons appointed for their asssessment. The interest of the miner who acquired his mine by registration or denouncement, was clearly recognized by Spanish and Mexican law as one of the most useful and sacred estates which the citizen could acquire or hold. It was not a mere license to carry away metal, but a fixed right of property in the deposits, with the fullest authority for excavation beneath, and occupancy on the surface for the needed hacienda. If it be said the right was held subject to forfeiture, if the mines were not worked according to the requirements of the laws, it is answered that these were conditions subsequent, and the estate con- tinues good until a breach of the terms of the grant. The colonization grant is often subject to conditions subsequent, of a character as stringent as that attached to the mines, yet until a for- feiture is proved, the estate of the grantee is always held good. By the first act of our own Congress, providing for the sale of lands, one-third part of the mines of all gold, silver, lead, and copper, 101 were reserved to the United States, for the future disposal of the government. This reservation was not retained in subsequent acts, and an Ameri- can patent is now understood to carry a title in fee simple to the land and all the metals which lie beneath the surface. Spain and Mexico, on the contrary, recognized the two interests as separate and distinct in the premises, and granted them as seperate estates. Both interests partook of the realty, were inseparable from, and constituted a part of the land itself. The right of the miner was " property," as much as that of the colonist, and was as much recognised and protected by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The mine owner was as much a person claiming lands by virtue of a right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government, as he who claimed under a colonization grant. The latter held the premises subject to the title of the owner, and the former must enjoy his privilege without infringing the light of the latter. Such an estate existing at the time of the cession, I cannot doubt is protected as property by the treaty ; and I think it equally clear, that such a claim is within the description of cases upon which this Commission has authority, and is required to adjudicate. As to the duty of the claimant in the performance of the con- ditions contemplated by. the Mexican law, or the consequences of a failure to continue to perform them, it will be for another tribunal to decide, if the occasion should ever be presented. But it has been strongly pressed upon us by counsel, that the Su- preme Court of the United States have decided, in Fremont's case, that such a claim is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Fremont's claim was based on a grant under the colonization laws. Subsequently to the grant, mines of gold and silver were discovered on the premises, and the Attorney General contended that this ren- dered the grant void, and the claim should therefore be rejected. Aftef declaring that, under the law of Spain, the discovery of a mine of gold or silver did not destroy the title of an individual to the land granted, the Court proceeds as follows : " The only question before the Court, is the validity of the title ; and whether there be any mines on this land, or if there be any, what are the rights of the sovereign in them, are questions which must be determined in another form of proceeding, and are not subjected to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners or of the Court, by the act of 1851." The colonization grant could not be defeated on the ground that mines existed on the land, because under Mexican law all such grants 102 were subject to a reservation of all the mines on the premises ; and while Mexican jurisdiction continued, these remained the property of the national sovereignty, unless specially disposed of. By the treaty of cession, the right of the Mexican sovereignty was transferred to the American nation. The argument in the case referred to must have rested on the ground that our own sovereignty was now the owner of the mines on the land in question ; and that if a decree of confirmation was entered, and a patent issued to the claimant in the usual form, the latter would thereby obtain a larger estate than was embraced origi- nally in his grant, and would acquire the mining right which was not covered by his original concession, and which was held by the United States government, under a subsequent transfer. But the grant was, beyond question, within the jurisdiction given by the act of March 3d, 1851, and the Court well said that this com- mission had no jurisdiction to determine upon the rights claimed by the sovereign. If Congress designed to confirm to the Mexican claimant in coloniz- ation only the interest which his grant gave him under Mexiean law, and to retain the sovereign right of the mines in the conceded premises, for the subsequent disposition of the nation, it was for that body to provide, and to require, the corresponding reservation in the patent which should eventually be issued to him ; or if, when the patent should issue in the usual form under the present law, it should be the opinion of the proper law officer of the Government that it confirms only such right as was given him under the Mexican law, the property in the mines being then reserved, and now belonging to the sovereignty of our nation, it pertains to the judiciary of the country, in another form of proceeding, to try the question. In no aspect of the case, under the act of Congress of 1851, could the claimant under a colonization grant be defeated in title by showing a claim to the mines on the land in the sovereignty, nor could the question be entertained for that purpose by the court acting under it. But the Supreme Court no where expressed the opinion that the sovereignty of Mexico could not grant the mines in her own national domain without a grant of the land itself, or could not make such separate grant of mines which were discovered in lands already con- ceded in colonization. Nor have they intimated that such grant would not convey a " prop- erty " in the mines which would be protected by the treaty of Guada- lupe Hidalgo ; nor that a claim founded on such grant would not be a proper subject for adjudication under the act of 1851. It is the opinion of the Commission, then, that Castillero's right to the mine was established under the Mexican law at the time of making 103 the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ; that his interest constitututed u property " within the meaning of that treaty, and as such, was pro- tected by it ; that in its character it was a fixed, definite interest in the land, and therefore within the class of cases for adjudication of which this Commission was established by the act of Congress, and that he is entitled to have his rights secured, under our laws, by a decree of confirmation. IV. The claim for land granted in colonization. In the proposition of Castillero, made to the Board for Encourage- ment of Mining, he proposed that that corporation should represent to the Supreme Government the advantage of there being granted to him, as a colonist, two square leagues upon the land at his mining possession, with the object of being able to use the wood for his burn- ings. In transmitting this document to the Supreme Government, the Board declined to express any opinion on this subject. With grants in colonization they had nothing to do. This belonged exclusively to another branch of the Goverment. The action of the Government on this part of the application of Castillero is found in the marginal decree entered on the document, and is as follows : " And with respect to the land, let the proper order issue to the Minister of Relations for the proceedings, so far as his department is concerned, with the understanding that the Supreme Government is favorable to the petition. " This decree was communicated to the Minister of Foreign Rela- tions, in order that he might be pleased to issue the orders corres- ponding; and by him, the Governor of the Department of Califor- nia was notified thereof by communication, dated May 23, 1846. The petitioner claims that these documents establish a grant made by the President of the Republic to him. The decree of the President is not, in my opinion, a grant, nor was it intended to be such. The Colonization Law of 1824, and the Regulations of 1828, made under it~ had committed the granting of the national lands to the Gov- ernors of the Departments, subject to the approval of the local assem- blies, and in certain cases the Supreme Executive of the Republic. The Minister of Foreign Relations and Government was the proper organ of the Executive to communicate with the Governors of the Departments, and hence the decree, not that the grant be made, but that the Minister communicate the application to the ^ officers having charge of the subject of grants where the land was situated, with an expression of the favorable disposition of the Executive thereto. The Minister of Relations so understood the decree, and acted in accordance, by his communication to the Governor on the subject. 104 If a grant had been intended by the President, a document of title would have been issued and delivered to the party, instead of direct- ing a simple communication to the Governor of California. The inference from the whole proceedings is inresistible that the President did not assume to make a grant ; but that he referred the matter, with an expression of his favorable appreciation of the object of Castillero, to the Governor, to proceed according to the Coloniza- tion laws on the subject. The land asked for was, in part at least, according to Castillero's representation, granted in colonization to Berreyesa. It could not, therefore, be granted to Castillero, unless by denounce- ment, which could be decreed with propriety only by the local author- ities. The Regulations also required certain investigations to be had on an application for a grant, by those authorities. It is evident, therefore, that the President contemplated the appli- cation of Castillero to the Governor of the Department for the land in the usual form, and that the ordinary investigation agreeably to the Colonization Laws would be had by that officer, to ascertain whether the grant could with propriety be made. It does not appear that any further proceedings were had, or that any grant was ever issued. It is of no consequence, then, to determine whether the acting President, Paredes, had extraordinary powers, by which he was auth- orized to make grants without reference to the Colonization Laws, or whether, under the law of 1824, and the regulations of 1828, he could make grants by his own direct act ; as we are of opinion, in the first place, that he has not assumed to make a grant, and in the second place, that the documents clearly show that he regarded the Governor of California as the proper authority to investigate the case, and to issue a grant, if the claimant entitled himself to it agreebly to the Colonization Laws. Under these views of the case, the claim for the land must be re- jected. Filed in office, January 8th, 1856. GEO. FISHER, Sec'y. 105 OPINION BY COMMISSIONER R. AUG. THOMPSON. Andres Castillero, ) vs. > For the New Almaden Mine. The United States. ) The opinion of the majority of the Commission, confirming to the claimant in this case the mine of quicksilver known as the New Almaden Mine, is based upon three leading propositions, to wit : 1. That the proceedings had before the Alcalde of San Jose, and the acts performed by that officer in the premises, as set out in the official record filed in the case, were sufficient to invest the claimant with all the rights in the mine which the citizen would acquire under the laws of Mexico in force at the time. 2. That if those preceedings were not sufficient for the purpose, the subsequent acts of the Central Board for the encouragement of mining, and the contract authorised between that body and the claim- ant, with the approbation of the President of the Republic, conferred those rights irrespective of the local proceedings before .the Alcalde. 3. That the rights so acquired, gave to the claimant such an interest in the mine and its appurtenances, as to constitute them lands within the meaning of the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1851, creating this Commission, and to bring the case within its jurisdiction. From each and all of these propositions I dissent ; and will proceed, as briefly as the nature of the subject will permit, to give my reasons therefor — considering them in the order in which they are stated above, being the same as that in which they are discussed in the opinion of the majority. First, as to the character and effect of the proceedings before the Alcalde. These proceedings are fully set out in the opinion of a majority of the Board, and I shall therefore only refer to them so far as may be necessary to elucidate my views of the question under consideration. The law upon which those proceedings were based, is also correctly stated in the opinion, and on this point I only differ with my associ- ates in the conclusions which they have drawn from the facts as stated, and the law as applied by them. It is fully admitted that the provisions of the Spanish " Ordinanzas de Mineria," promulgated by the King in 1783, prescribing the mode in which individuals and companies could acquire the right to occupy and work newly discovered mines, were in full force in Mexico at the time these proceedings were had; and^art. 4, title 6, of the Ordi- nanzas, is cited for the purpose of showing what was necessary to be done in order to acquire such right. As that article, and the following one, prescribe minutely and par- ; w, ceedings were commenced. It was not the policy of Mexico to work the mines of quicksilver on her own account, or to continue the monop- oly in the supply of that article, as had been the case under the for- mer government ; but rather by premiums, rewards and other induce- ments held out to her citizens, to encourage the discovery and work- ing of such mines. Hence the decree of Sept. 30th, 1843, directing the mode in which advances should be made to the owner of the mine. There is nothing in it, or in that of Dec. 2d, 1842, creating the Min- ing Junta, or Board for the encouragement of mining, changing the mode of acquiring property in them, or from which any such change can be inferred. They simply authorize the Board to make certain advances to aid in the development and working of them, upon the fa- vorable report, after due examination, by commissioners to be appoint- ed for that purpose. With the registry or denouncement of the mine, the Board has nothing to do ; that was a subject provided for by the laws and com- mitted to other tribunals, and until the provisions of these laws had been complied with through the agency of the proper tribunals, the functions of the Board in making such advances could not commence ; 115 for until then, there was no party who could enter into the contract, or comply with the terms upon which the advances were to be made. An examination of the record of proceedings before the Mining Junta filed in the case, will, I think, fully sustain this view of the subject. The only papers contained in the expediente, which have any consid- erable bearing on the question under consideration, are the petition of Castillero to the Junta, the communication of that body to the Minis- ter of Justice and Public Instruction, transmitting the petition to the Government and recommending a compliance with the propositions of the petitioners, and finally the decree of the President approving the agreement proposed to be made with Castillero in order to commence the extraction of the mineral. These documents, in the opinion of the majority, constitute the transaction a contract, the effect of which was to establish' the rights of Castillero in the mine without a previous offi- cial registration before the local officer. In their argument to establish this position they admit that : " The Junta was not an appellate tribunal, that it had no authority to review the proceedings of any local officer, and to affirm or disaffirm his deci- sion ; nor does it appear to have had authority in cases of registration or denouncement as known to the laws at the time of its organization." " If," say they, " the registration was not valid, the Junta had no au- thority to make it so by virtue of an authority to review and affirm the acts of the Alcalde." That the simple acts of registration, according to the forms prescribed by the ordinance, " perfects in the discoverer all the rights in the mine which the citizen could ever acquire." These admissions are, to my mind, conclusive of the question under consideration, as they point out in distinct terms what was required by the law to enable the citizen to acquire a right in the mine ; and, at the same time, deny to the Junta all authority or jurisdiction over the subject ; and yet, by a process of reasoning which, I confess, I can- not comprehend, and which is in direct conflict with the propositions above stated, they decide that the act of the Junta, approved by the Supreme Government, conferred on the discoverer all the rights in the mine which could be be acquired by a strict compliance with all the forms of registration, as prescribed by the ordinance. The argument by which this conclusion is arrived at, is based on the following propositions. I quote the language of the Opinion : " This method of acquiring the right to a mine, might not be, and probably never was, the only one by which the miner's right might be acquired. While the mines continued a part of the Royal preroga- tive, the method of acquiring them was subject to be changed or mod- ified by the decree of the King, and after the independence of Mexico, although the old laws remained in force when not contrary to the new order of things, or expressly annulled, the sovereign power of the new 116 nation might at any time have changed the manner of acquiring such right, and such is regarded as the effect of the decrees passed subse- quently to the independence, and especially those of the 2d of Dec. 1842, and the decree of the 25th of Sept., 1845, establishing and prescribing the powers and duties of the Board for the encourage- ment of mines. " In relation to the powers of the King in the exercise of his Royal prerogative to confer mining rights, or to prescribe the mode of acqui- ring them, I do not know that there is any substantial difference of opinion between myself and the majority ; but I do not admit that while the law continued unchanged, any other than that prescribed by it, could be legally employed for that purpose, even by the sove- reign. It is true that the Government of Spain was an absolute monarchy ; but it was at the same time a government of laws, and the absolutism of the King consisted in the concentration in his person of all the powers of government, both legislative and executive. The King could, therefore, change the law at his pleasure ; but while the law contiued in force, he was as much bound by its provisions as the sub- ject, and any act done by him in contravention of the existing law would not be regarded by the Judiciary as a legitimate expression of the King's will. The same construction would be put upon any royal cedula — order or rescript, — which was issued in contravention of any existing law, without expressly referring to, and abrogating such laws. Pro hcec vide, Ordinamiento Real, lib. 3, tit. 12, law 1 ; JVavisima 11, law 2, tit. 4, lib. 8. The principles above stated pervade the whole system of Spanish jurisprudence ; it would, therefore, be useless to multiply authorities in the point. In consequence of the monopoly of the Crown in the production and supply of quicksilver, the mines of that metal were reserved from the ordinary process of registry and denouncement by which the right to most other mines was acquired. The King might, in the exercise of his royal prerogative, remove the exemption in favor of any partic- ular individuel or mine ; but I apprehend that in such a case, the party favored would have to resort to the regular process of law to perfect his right. I do not perceive, however, that this proposition, whether true or false, has any bearing on the question at issue, as it is not contended that the Mexican Government could exercise any such prerogative. The second branch of the proposition, that the sovereign power of Mexico might at any time change the manner of acquiring mining rights, I shall not pretend to controvert ; but that the decrees cited had such effect, or can by any rule of construction lead to such an in- ference, is, I think, abundantly disproved by the analysis of these de- 117 crees, contained in the former part of this opinion. A single addi- tional view will, I think, place the question beyond a reasonable doubt. If any change was effected by these decrees in the mode of acquiring mining rights, it must have been by that of the 2d of December, 1842, which created the Board and defined its powers ; that of the 30th of September, 1843, only prescribed the mode in which certain functions conferred by the former, should be performed. If, therefore, any change was contemplated in the decree by which the mode of acquir- ing mining rights was so changed as to give the Board the power, un- der any circumstances, to confer such rights, it is a little remarkable that under another title of the same (Title IV.) decree, the ancient ordinances of 1783, should be re-affirmed and reenacted, and a special tribunal instituted, with all the powers and functions of the former mining deputations, to whose charge all judicial proceedings in the af- fairs of mining were committed. We have already shown that these powers embraced the whole subject of registry and denouncement, and subjected the proceedings to all the laws and rules prescribed by the ordinances in relation to the same. How then can the decree be said to change the manner of acquiring mining rights, when one of its avowed and express objects is, to re-affirm and re-establish on a firm basis, the ancient method, which is declared in the preamble to have been always in force ? Or can we presume that the Government, in prescribing a particular mode of doing a thing, and constituting a tribunal for the special purpose of doing it, intended by the same decree to give by implication the same powers to another body, whose attributes and functions were of a character totally different ? This question is answered in the opinion of the majority where they inform us that the Board possessed no jurisdiction over the subject, and yet they claim for their acts, when approved by the Government, the same effect as if they were in full enjoyment of the power to confer mining rights. The argument is to my view suicidal ; and when tested by the laws referred to in support of it, may be stated thus — The Board of Encouragement was authorized by the decree, under certain re- strictions and limitations, to contract with the owners of quicksilver mines, to make certain advances or furnish supplies in aid of their development and operation. Castillero was not the owner of the mine, and consequently had no capacity to enter into such a contract ; but the Board contracted with him notwithstanding, and thereby conferred upon him the ownership of the mine, and the consequent capacity to contract, a conclusion so manifestly untenable, as to require only to be stated in order to show the error of the argument from which it is drawn. But, again, is there any evidence in the case, as disclosed by the record of the proceedings before the Mining Junta, that a contract was entered into with Castillero in accordance with the provisions of 118 the decree of the 30th of September, 1843, which the opinion alleges constituted the authority for making such a contract. I think not ; on the contrary an examination of the petition of Castillero and the other proceedings in relation to it, will show that the transaction referred to was an arrangement entered into between the Mining Junta and the claimants, entirely independent and outside of the pro- visions of the decree. The petition of Castillero commences by setting out that he had discovered in the Mission of Santa Clara a quicksilver mine of extraordinary richness ; that he had denounced and taken possession of said mine, and also of an extent of three thousand varas in every direction from said point : that he had formed a company to work it ; constructed the pit, and complied with the other conditions prescribed by the ordinance. He therefore makes application to the Junta to furnish the small assistance which he con- sidered necessary, in order to carry on his operations, consisting of an advance of five thousand dollars in cash, the retorts, cylinders, and other distilling apparatus, and also iron flasks for bottling the quick- silver. The petition then proceeds in the following tenor, " I would have preferred a contract of partnership, an avio, or some other agree- ment, if there had been time to be able to furnish the proofs and de- tails which would be required for said contracts ; but being com- promised by the Supreme Government to leave this capital within a few days, I find it necessary to restrict myself to that which appears to present no difficulty, and which may open the way to our future agreements. I am well persuaded that the Junta will accede to my request, so far as may be within its powers, and that it will send up to the Supreme Government, with a recommendation, that which may require the decision of the latter." He then goes on and states, under six different heads, the precise character of his propositions, and two alternative modes, in which the advances to be made by the Junta might be refunded, to which are added the following articles, numbered 7 and 8. " Seventh. The Junta shall represent to the Supreme Government the necessity of approving the possession which has been given me of the mine by the local authorities of California, in the same terms as those in which I now hold it." " Eighth. It shall also represent the advantages of there being granted to me, as a colonist, two square leagues upon the land of my mining possession, with the object of being able to use the wood for my burnings." The petition concludes as follows : " The subscriber subjects this request to the deliberation of the Junta, which if ac- cepted may be made into a formal contract, and made legal in the most proper manner." This petition, with the recommendations asked for in it, was transmitted to the Supreme Government by the Junta, in reply to which the following communication was addressed by the 119 Minister of Exterior Relations and Government, to the President of the Junta. " Most Excellent Sir : — Having reported to His Excellency, the President, ad interim, of the Republic, your Excellency's note of the 14th inst., with which you were pleased to transmit, with a rec- ommendation, the petition of Senor Don Andres Castillero, for the encouragement of the quicksilver mine, which he has discovered in the Mission of Santa Clara, in Upper California, His Excellency has been pleased to approve, in all its parts, the agreement made with that individual, in order to commence the extraction of the said min- eral ; and on this day the communication has been made to the Min- ister of Exterior Relations and Government, to issue proper orders respecting that which is contained in the 8th proposition, for the grant of lands in that Department. I repeat to your Excellency the assurances, &c. God and Liberty. Mexico, May 20, 1846. - (Signed.) . BECERRA. To His Excellency, Don Vicente Segura, President of the Junta for the encouragement of mining. Now, I deny, in the first place, that these proceedings can be con- strued to amount to a contract at all. It is manifest from the face of the documents, that it was a simple proposition on the part of Castillero, which, when approved by the Junta and the Government, should form the basis of a contract to be entered into in future. This is apparent from the concluding clause of the petition, in which the petitioner declares that his propositions, if accepted, may be made into a formal contract, and made legal in the most proper mode. There is no proof that this ever was done, or that the transaction was ever consummated by a formal agreement between the parties. In the absence, then, of any proof of a contract, all the conclu- sions drawn from its supposed effects in conferring a right of property in the mine on the claimant necessarily fail. But admitting, for the sake of the argument, that the proceedings operated as a contract, I deny that it was made under the decree of the 30th of September, 1843, but was an arrangement independent, and outside of its pro- visions. A very brief reference to that decree, in connection with the petition of Castillero to the Junta, will be sufficient to establish that point. Before the Junta was authorized to contract for advances or supplies to be furnished for the working of quicksilver niines^the following requirements of the decree had to be complied with : First, 120 it was necessary that an examination of the mine should be had by a commissioner, to be appointed by the Board for that purpose, and a report of the same made upon the following points. 1st. As to the condition of the mine, and its susceptibility of being worked. 2d. As to the works necessary, and the expense required to put them in operation. 3d. The quality of the ore, and the cost of working and extracting the metal : and secondly, there must have been an owner of the mine, with whom the Board might enter into the contract for advances or supplies, on the principle of a partnership, as the case might be. A reference to the proceeding will show that none of these con- ditions were complied with — indeed, if they had been, there would have been no necessity for applying to the Supreme Government for its approval, as the Board would have possessed ample power without such additional authority. The only evidence of owership presented to the Junta by Castillero, was his own assertion that he had denounced and taken possession of the mine, and had complied with the other requirements of the ordi- nance. It is very evident that the proceedings before the Alcalde in California were never laid before the Junta. If they had been, they would, under the practice in Mexico, have constituted a part of the expediente, or at least some reference would have been made to them ; but in addition to this, the fact that in the petition of Castillero to the Junta, and throughout the proceeding before that body, the mine is described as in the Mission of Santa Clara, and consequently on the public domain, whereas the proceedings before the Alcalde that it was in fact on the private property of Berreyesa, is conclusive of that point. Castillero seems to have been fully aware of the obstacles to his entering into a contract, under the decree referred to, when he uses the language quoted above in his petition, in which he says, that he would have proposed a contract of partnership, an " avio," or some other agreement, if there had been time to be able to furnish the necessary proofs and details. This quotation, evidently, has refer- ence to the provisions of the decree ; the term " avio " meaning advances made for the working of quicksilver mines, and the word " aviador," used in the law, the person who furnishes supplies for that purpose. The proofs and details, which time would not allow him to furnish, refer to the evidence of ownership, which was necessary in order to enable him to contract : and to the report of the Commis- sioners upon the character of the mine, and the other particulars required by the law. He therefore proposes a temporary arrange- ment, which he supposes the Junta, and the approval of the Govern- ment, may be authorized to make, in order to commence the working of the mines, and which, in the words of the petition, " may open a way to their future agreements." These circumstances prove clearly, to my mind, that no contract under the decree was ever made or con- 121 templated by the parties, and that the arrangement proposed to be entered into, but which was never consummated, was merely prelimi- nary to such contract, when Castillero should, by perfecting his right to the mine, and complying with the requisition of the decree, have put himself in a condition to make such a contract. It may be said that the decree of the Government approving the propositions of Castillero, included the 7th Art., which required the Junta to recommend to the Government the approval of the posses- sion which had been given him of the mine by the local authorities in California ; but an examination of this decree will show that the approval only had reference to that part of the proposed agreement which related to the advances to be made for the purpose of com- mencing the extraction of the metal. The 8th proposition, in relation to the grant of two leagues of land,; is treated of separately, and is referred to the Governor of California, to whose jurisdiction it properly belonged. To the 7th no reference is made in the decree. The reason of this is obvious : the law has created tribunals, to which all subjects relating to the acquisition of property in mines was committed, and to these tribunals, the party was, very properly, left for the purpose of surveying or perfecting his right in the premises. This course was in entire conformity with their action in relation to the petition for the two leagues of land as a Colonist. The subject of colonization, and granting of lands in Cali- fornia, was committed to the Governor of that Department : the Pres- ident did not, therefore, think proper to interfere with the functions of that officer, and therefore referred that part of the petition to him. So in regard to the acquisition of mining rights. The Mining Depu- ties of the district, or of the one nearest to it, were charged with the subject ; and the government had no power or authority, under the law, to interfere with their functions ; they, consequently, make no reference whatever to that portion of his petition. It is to be observed, that these proceedings took place at the pre- cise period when the war between the United States and Mexico com- menced.- Castillero was then under orders to leave the Capital in public service, and the probability is, that he left without taking any further steps in the matter, leaving his right to the mine in the imper- fect and inchoate state in which we find them. California was, soon after, taken possession of by the American forces, and no further opportunity was afforded him for perfecting them. After a careful examination of the evidence in the case, and the laws of Spain and Mexico applicable to the subject, I am clearly of the opinion, that the claimant has not, upon either of the grounds pre- sented in the Opinion of the Majority, established such a right in the mine, as would constitute it property, within the meaning of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, even admitting, that such a right, if perfected, ■■ 122 could be considered a claim for land, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the provisions of the Act of the 3d of March, 1851, which brings me to the consideration of the third proposition asserted in the Opinions of the majority, to wit : Tn ■ That the claim presented in this case, is a claim for land, within the meaning of the act, and, as such, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The leading feature of the argument by which this proposition is maintained in the Opinion of the Majority, may be stated thus : Under the laws of Spain and Mexico, the interest which the subject or citizen could acquire in the mines, was " in property and possession, in such manner that they could sell, exchange, pass by will either in the way of inheritance or legacy, or in any other manner dispose of all their property in them, upon the terms on which they themselves possess it, to persons legally capable of acquiring it." Hence it is argued that such an interest conferred a right of property in the land itself, which was protected by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the provisions of the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1851. I may very safely admit the premises laid down in the foregoing proposition, without, by any means, acknowledging the correctness of the conclusions drawn from them. Property is denned in the books to be the right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels, to the exclusion of others, and is divided into corporeal and incorporeal ; the former comprehends such property as is perceptible to the senses, such as lands, houses, goods, merchandise, &c. ; the latter consists of legal rights, as choses in action, easements, and the like. There are many things incident to land, in which an individual may acquire a right of property and possession, and yet have no proprietary right in the land itself — such as a right of way, and other easements of a similar character. Under the Common Law, and the laws of most of the States of the Union, an individual or company, or the public, might in a proceeding in the nature of a writ of adquod damnum, ac- quire a right of way through the lands of another ; and such a right would possess all the characteristics of property, claimed for the min- ing rights of the citizens of Mexico in this case. It would b3 defined by metes and bounds, it would give the exclusive right of possession and occupancy for the purpose indicated, it might be sold or ex- changed, and would pass by will or in the way of inheritance ab. intestate; the possessor of it might also be designated, with propriety, by all the terms applied to the mine owner in the laws and authorities cited in the Opinion of the Majority, such as, " master of the prop- erty," "proprietor," u owner of the property," &c, yet it has been repeatedly decided by the Courts, both in thi3 country and England, that such a right conferred no property in the land ; the rights of 123 the original proprietor in the soil were continuous, subject to the ease- ment, and whenever it ceased to be used for the purpose for which it was assigned, he was free to enter again into the possession. The rights of the citizen in mines acquired under the ordinances in Spain and Mexico, as defined in the Commentaries of Gamboa, presents so close an analogy with that of the owner of a right of way under the Common Law, as to leave no doubt on my mmd, that they were inci- dental in their nature. A few quotations from the Commentaries, as translated in Rockwell, will I think, establish this position beyond con- troversy. Gamboa, in arguing in favor of the right of the Crown to the mines, and in sects. 19 and 20, proceeds as follows : " Our opin- ion is further confirmed by the circumstance, that the newly discov- ered mine can be worked until registered, and that no old mine, once abandoned, can be worked again until denounced and registered before the Justice : and that the boundaries of mines cannot be assigned, or the working conducted in an arbitrary manner, but according to the rules of the ordinances only ; so that an acknowledg- ment of the right is in fact made to the King, or to the Justice in his name. And by the laws of the Indies, a license must be obtained previous to searching for mines or pearl banks, and an oath must be taken that all discoveries shall be duly reported for the better levying of the revenue. And an additional corroboration of this opinion is derived from the circumstance of permission being given to try for mines in the ground of any other proprietor, and of the latter being disabled from making any objection, provided a compensation be made to him for any damage to his property. For this, as we have already seen, would not be tolerated by the civil law, were it not authorized by the crown, in the exercise of its supreme right of property over the mines, and were it not a consequence of their having been reserved for the general benefit of the subject, so that all persons should be at liberty to search for and profit by them. But after all, the strongest ground of argument is afforded by the laws of Castile and of the Indies themselves, which give the subject an interest merely, and not a separate and absolute property in them, and which authorizes him to deal with them in such manner only, as shall be consistent with the regulations of the ordinances. And thus although the grant gives a right of property, yet it only amounts to the session of a partial in- terest, and not to an absolute transfer ; the supreme right of property remaining vested in the Crown. " " Sec. 20. The correct opinion then seems to be that the property of the mines remains vested in the Crown, and that as the sovereign cannot work on his own account, he has given his subjects a partial interest in them under various restrictions, and subject to various lia- bilities ; and as proof of this, it may be observed that, at first, the law made the quicksilver mines, amongst others, common : that subse- 124 quently, it was left to the discretion of the Viceroy to allow the discov- erers of the mines such advantages as they might think proper ; but that finally, they were reserved for the use of the Crown only, and are not allowed to be worked in New Spain ; all of which is evidence of the supreme right of the Crown." Rockwell, pp. 130 and 131. So also the Ordinances of 1783. Rockwell, p. 53. " Any person may discover and denounce a vein, not only on common land, but also on the property of any individual, provided he pays for the extent of surface above the same, and the damage that immediately ensues therefrom." " By the civil law," says Gamboa, " all veins and mineral deposits of gold or silver ore, or of precious stones, belongs, if in public grounds, to the sovereign, and are part of his patrimony. If on private prop- erty, they belong to the owner of the land, subject to the condition, that if worked by the owner, he was bound to render a tenth part to the Prince, as a right attaching to the Crown." Rockwell, p. 124. " Under the law of Partida, the property of the mines was so vested in the King, that they were held not to pass in the grant of the land, although not excepted out of the grant, and even though inclusive in it, the grant was valid as to them only during the life of the King who made it. Afterwards, by a law of Don Alphonso the 11th, in the ' Ordinamiento Real,' copied in the collection of Castile, all veins of gold or silver or any other metal whatsoever, and the produce of the same, were declared to be the property of the Crown." Rockwell, 125. In discussing the question, whether under the then existing law, upon the discovery of a mine upon the ground of another proprietor, the owner of the soil is entitled to claim precedence of, and to oust the discoverer, Gamboa insists that the discoverer is to be preferred, and assigns his reasons in the following language : " First, because he who first takes possession according to law is in a better condition ; second, because the mine or vein is not part of the estate, nor did it pass with the land, but is common, and falls to him who first takes possession : provided he comply with the directions of the ordinances concerning registry." Rock., 109. These extracts demonstrate clearly to my mind, that the vein was, in contemplation of law, a thing separate and distinct from the land ; and the right which the discoverer or denouncer could acquire in it under the ordinances, was a mere incideut to the land, or easement, subject to be divested at any time by non-user, or a failure to comply with the other conditions prescribed by them. But this will be still more apparent, when I come to consider the causes which, according to Gamboa, operated a forfeiture of the miner's right to the mine, and divested him entirely of all his interest in it. An examination of the following extracts from the commentaries, will show how slight and un- certain was the tenure by which the miner held his right to work the 125 mine ; and will establish fully the analogy between the right of way, under the common law, and that now under consideration. It will be seen that the non-performance of the condition operated, ipso facto, to divest him of his right : that these conditions were not, as asserted in the opinions of the majority, in the nature of conditions subsequent, the performance of which perfected the right, and made the estate ab- solute, but were continuous, and operated a divestiture at any time when a failure to comply with them occurred ; and so complete was the divestiture that the miner could never afterwards re-assert his right, without a proceding de novo in denouncement, according to the pro- visions of the ordinance. On this point, Gamboa holds the following language : " Having investigated what number of persons must be employed, and what description of labor presented, to constitute a sufficient work- ing in point of law, the ordinance proceeds to impose the penalty of forfeiting the mine, ipso facto, upon leaving it insufficiently worked for four months successively, and that he shall have no right to the mine unless by making registry thereof anew, and going through the other proceedings, in conformity with the ordinance.'.' Rockwell, 313. " The second point established, by words of the ordinance, in pro- viding that by leaving the mine unworked for four consecutive months, the party to whom it shall belong, shall, ipso facto, forfeit it, is that although the person who has left the mine unworked, should again set it at work before it has been denounced by any other person, yet he can claim no title to the mine, and any other person may denounce it as not having been registered, and as merely held in the possession of the party contrary to right." Rockwell, 315. " A party denouncing a mine, and applying to have it adjudged to him as insufficiently worked, or upon any other ground, under which the ordinances declare it forfeited, should make registry of it anew, and observe the conditions limited by the ordinance, as appeared from the ordinances themselves in the places above cited. The old registry is of no avail, for every thing is to be done anew, the mine itself under the iiew registry is a new subject, the three c estados ' must be sunk anew, the possession is given anew, and the possessor is new. Rece- dant vetera nova sint omnia." " The first registry is, in fact, abolished, extinguished, and annihi- lated, so completely that, as is clearly laid down in the ordinance, the very party who has abandoned the mine, having forfeited it by leaving it insufficiently worked, < has no right to it except by making registry of it anew,' so that, even supposing no new party to interpose, a fresh registry is required, the original registry being of no avail, even to the same individual ; but being merged, and annihilated, without leaving a trace even in favor of the party himself who originally made it." Rockwell, 245, 247. 126 These authorities seem to me so conclusive as scarcely to require comment. They establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that under the law of Spain and Mexico, the title to the mine never passed from the Crown or Government, and that the right acquired by the discoverer or denouncer, under the ordinances, was simply an easement, which gave the party a right to possess and occupy the mine, and a certain portion of the land above it for the purposes, and upon the conditions prescribed by the laws upon the subject, without conferring any right of property in the land itself, of which this Commission would take cognizance. The Supreme Court, in the case of Chateau vs. Molony, 10 How- ard, p. 203, have cited and revised many of these authorities, and al- though they do not, in direct terms, decide upon the relative rights of the Government, and the discoverer or denouncer in the mines, or the nature of the interest acquired by the latter under the ordinances, yet the plain inference from the views of the Court, as expressed in the opinion, is, that the right of property never passed from the former, and that the interest of the latter was a right of occupancy merely, subject to be determined at any time by a new compliance with the conditions on which they were held. But whether this be so or not, there is one point, I think, clearly established by the Court in that case, and that is, that mines are not lands within the meaning of the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1851. An examination of the opinion will show that the Court everywhere discriminate between mines and lands ; indeed, the case was decided mainly on the ground that the grant to Dubuque was a grant of a mining privilege, and not of land. After discussing the law of Spain in relation to mining rights, and de- ciding that the Indians could, under these laws, acquire such rights, the Court say : " With these rights and privileges, it is much more rational to construe the contract of the Foxes with Dubuque into a sale and purchase of mines, than into a transfer of lands" Again they say : " We do not doubt that Dubuque meant to ask for lands, as well as mines. But the true point is not what he meant to ask for, but what he had a right to ask for, under his contract with the Indians, and what the Crown meant to grant, and could grant under that contract." 11 Howard, 231, 232, 233, 254. We find this distinction running through the whole opinion, and the inevitable conclusion from it is, that a grant of minos or mining privi- leges, and a grant of lands are two separate and distinct things, and as a necessary corollary to this proposition, the power to adjudicate a right or title to lands, would not embrace a grant of a mine, or a min- ing privilege. It is true that under the laws of Mexico, the miners were relieved from many onerous burdens, to which they were subjected under those of Spain. But none of these charges affected in any manner the char- 127 acter of the interest which they held in the mine, or the tenure under which they enjoyed it. That a complianoe with the terms of the ordi- nance would give a right of property in the mine, which the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo would protect, if the law in which that right is founded is not abrogated by the act of cession, does not admit of con- troversy ; but it does not follow that it was such a right to lands as w T ould give this Commission jurisdiction of a claim founded upon it. Property of every description, real as well as personal, is protected by the treaty, and yet it will scarcely be contended that the Commission could take cognizance of a claim for a band of horses or a herd of cattle. I am by no means satisfied that the doctrine laid down by the Su- preme Court in the case of Fremont, in relation to mines, does not apply in this case. The Court very correctly state, that the existence or non-existence of mines on the premises, would not in that case affect the claimant's right to a confirmation of the title to the land ; they then go on and say : " Whether there be mines on the land, and if there be any, what are the rights of sovereignty in them ? are ques- tions which must be decided in another form of proceeding, and are not subjected to the jurisdiction of the Commission or the Court, by the act of 1850." I can very well see why the question of the existence or non- existence of mines, could have no bearing on the decision in that case, as no claim for the mines was set up, but simply for the lands under an ordinary colonization grant. But this case is widely different. The claim is for the mine itself, and a certain portion of land appurtenant thereto, and held under -the same right. This is a proceeding between the claimant and the United States, to whom the sovereignty of the country passed, by virtue of the treaty of cession. It is not denied, that under the Mexican law, the title to the mines was vested in the Government ; if therefore, the right of Castillero to the mine is not established, the title to it would remain in the United States, as the successor of Mexico ; this raises directly the issue as to the existence of thymine, and the right of the sovereign in it ; the very questions which the Court say, in express terms, are not submitted to the juris- diction of the Commission or the Court under the act of 1851. There are other objections to the confirmation of this claim, and to the jurisdiction of the Commission over the subject, which I think carry with them much force, but which the great length to which this opinion has extended, will prevent my discussing in detail. I will therefore content myself with barely suggesting a few of them : ^ 1. " The jurisdiction of this Commission only embraces claims to land which has been severed from the public domain, the limits of which can be fixed by certain metes and bounds, and the titles to which can be finally settled." The Supreme Court, in the case of 128 Smith vs. The United States, 10 Peters, p. 330, distinctly affirm the principle here laid down. The following is the language of the Court : " The land claimed must have been severed from the general domain of the king, by some grant which gives it locality by its terms, or by reference to some description." Again, page 333-34, they say : " These provisions show clearly that Congress did not contemplate the submission of any claims to the Court, except such as, on confirmation could be surveyed and patented, and on rejection, would be thence- forth held and taken to be a part of the public domain." The author- ities already cited in this opinion prove abundantly, that in the case of mines, no such severance from the public domain ever took place. The ordinance of 1783 expressly declares that, " without separating them from any royal patrimony, I grant, &c." This grant is made on con- ditions that never cease to bind the property, the violation of which operate an immediate forfeiture of the right. Rockwell, p. 49. A confirmation of this claim, therefore, even upon the supposition that he had perfected his right to the mine, according to law, followed by a patent conveying the mine and appurtenances to the claimant in fee simple, which is the only form recognized by our law, would give the claimant a title or right of property which the Government of Mexico could not by law have conferred upon him, and one which it was impossible for him to acquire. It would be giving to him greater rights than he possessed under the former government, and would be in effect the exercise of legislative powers on the part of the Commis- sion and the Courts. 2. The laws of Spain and Mexico, regulating the discovery, reg- istration, and working of the mines, may well be classed with these political laws, when, by the laws of nations, are abrogated on a change of sovereignty. Their principle object was for purposes of revenue, and as such they would come within that denomination. If so, they were clearly annulled by the treaty of cession, and all rights acquired under them would necessarily cease and determine. From the best examination I have been able to give to the subject, I can discover no grounds upon which this claim can be confirmed, either upon its merits or the question of jurisdiction. I, therefore, for the reasons above sta- rted, dissent from the opinion of the Board, so far as it confirms the claimant's rights to the mine and its appurtenances. In that part of the opinion which rejects the claim for two leagues of land under the colonization laws of Mexico, I concur. Filed in office January 8th, 1856. GEO. FISHER, Secretary. 129 DECREE. Andres Castillero, ) vs. > The United States. ) In this case, on hearing the proofs and allegations, it is adjudged by the Commission, that the claim of the said petitioner to the mine known by the name of New Almaden, (formerly called Santa Clara,) together with the right of enjoying the privileges as mine owner under the Mexican law, within the space, as pertenencia, of three thousand varas in all directions from the mouth of the said mine, as originally opened by said Castillero, is valid, and it is therefore decreed that the same be confirmed to him. And as to all other rights, property, and interests, set out and claimed in the petition filed in this case, it is adjudged that the same is not valid, and the same is therefore rejected. ALPHEUS FELCH, R. AUG: THOMPSON, S. B. FARWELL. Filed in Office Jan. 8, 1856. GEO. FISHER, Secy. And it appearing to the satisfaction of this Board, that the land hereby adjudicated, is situated in the Northern District of California, it is hereby ordered, that two transcripts of the proceedings and of the decisions in this case, and of the papers and evidence upon which the same are founded, be made out and duly certified by the Secre- tary ; one of which transcripts shall be filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the other be transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States. OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, To ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California. I, George Fisher, Secretary to the Board of Commissioners to 15 130 ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing two hundred and twenty pages, numbered from 1 to 220, both inclusive, to contain a true, correct, and full Transcript of the Record of the Proceedings and of the Decision of the said Board, of the Documentary Evidence and of the Testi- mony of the Witnesses, upon which the same is founded, on file in this Office, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board, wherein Andres Castilloro is the Claimant against the United States, for the place known by the name of New Almaden. In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand and affix my private seal, (not having a seal of office,) at San Francisco, California, this twenty-third day of February, A. D. 1856, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eightieth. seal GEO. FISHER, *— ^ ' Secy, (Endorsed :) Filed February 26, 1856. John A. Monroe, Clerk, PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROSECUTE APPEAL. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 420. Andres Castillero, Appellant, ) vs. v Mine and lands of New Alamaden. The United States, Appellees, ) Transcript from Board of Commissioners, No. 366. Andres Castillero, claimant for the Mine and Lands called New Alma- den, situate in the county of Santa Clara and in the Northern District of California, hereby gives notice of his intention to prosecute an ap- peal from" so much of the decision of the Board of Commissioners as rejects his claim for two square leagues of land granted to him in col- onization, which claim was presented to the said Board and by them rejected ; his claim being that which is numbered on the docket of said Board No. 366, and the transcript whereof, as filed in the office of the clerk of this Court, is numbered No. 420. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Appellant. Endorsed : Filed March 26, 1856. JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk, by W. H. Che vers, Deputy. 132 APPEAL NOTICE. Office of the Attorney General of the United States, ) Washington, 18 March, 1856. j 366. "New Almaden" Andres Castillero, Claimant : — You will please take notice that in the above case, decided by the Commissioners to ascertain and settle private land claims in the State of California, in favor of the claimant, and a transcript of the proceedings in which was received in this of- fice on the 1st day of March, 1856, the appeal in the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California will be prosecuted by the United States. C. CUSHING, Attorney General. Endorsed : Filed April 15 1856, JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk, by W. H. Chevers, Deputy. PETITION. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, northern district, california. The United States, ) vs. [ D. C. 420 ; L. C. 366. Andres Castillero. \ The United States, by their attorney, represent that this cause is for a review of the decision of the U. S. Land Commission, whereby the claim of the Appellee was confirmed in part, as will appear by reference to to the record in the case ; that a transcript of said record was filed in this Court, February 26, 1856 ; that a notice of appeal was filed on the part of the United States, April 15, 1856 ; that the land claimed lies in this District, and that said claim is invalid. Wherefore appellants pray that this Court reverse the decision of the said Commission, and decree the said claim invalid. Wm. blanding, U. S. Attorney. Endorsed : Filed April 27, 1857, JOHN A- MONROE, Clerk, by W. H. Chevers, Deputy. 133 DEPOSITION OF FRANCISCO VILLEGASS. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OP CALIFORNIA. San Francisco, April 13, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the United States for the northern district of California, duly authorized to adminis- ter oaths, &c, &c, came Francisco Villegass, a witness produced on be- half of the claimants, in case No. 420, being an appealfrom the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in case No. 366 on the docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows — his evidence being interpreted by John P. Brodie, a sworn interpreter. Present: — A. C. Peachy, Esq., for claimant; the U. S. District Attorney. Questions by Attorney of Claimants. Question 1. — Your name, age and place of residence ? f Answer 1. — Francisco Villegass ; 39 years ; I reside in the county of Monterey, on the ranch of San Felipe. Question 2. — Of what country are you a native ? Answer 2. — Of the State of Sonora. Question 3. — Did you ever live in Lower California ? . Answer 3. — The most part of my life I spent in Lower California. I was eight years of age when I went there, and I was there about 23 or 24 years. Question 4. — Did you ever hold any office in Lower California ; if yea, state, what office, when and how long you held them. Answer 4. — I cannot say exactly in what year I held them, but from the year 1830 to .the year 1848, at different periods during that time. -I held the office of Scindico, in the year 1830 or 1831; also the office of Justice of the Peace, to act in the absence of the first Justice of the Peace, which office is called " Juez supplente de paz" perhaps about the year 1836 or 1837, about as near as I can recollect. Afterwards I was Judge of First Instance, about the years 1843 or 1844, I don't recollect exactly ; afterwards I was Constitutional Al- calde in the year 1848. I held all these offices in La Paz, in Lower California. Question 5. — Are you acquainted with the steps pursued by indi- viduals for registering the discovery of new mines and denouncing such as are abandoned, and of obtaining title to and possession of the same ? 134 Answer 5. — I have some knowledge of these matters. Question 6. — How was that knowledge acquired J Answer 6. — In the first place I acquired that knowledge from a residence of twenty years and more in that country, and from seeing that the Judges took cognizance of such matters. Question 7. — While you were Judge of First Instance, or Justice of the Peace, were any proceedings had before you in the registering or denouncement of mines ? Answer 7. — There was one case before me while I was Judge of First Instance. There was a Spaniard there named Antonio Rufo, who discovered a vein in the hill called San Juan, and he presented a writing to me denouncing the same, and declaring his intention of working it. I conceded him leave to do so according to the mining ordinance, conceding him the necessary time, and afterwards, when Rufo had dug what is called the " Pozo de posesion" I went and gave him possession of the mine according to the mining ordinance. I have no recollection of any other case in which I was personally con- cerned. I never was present at any other, but I know that the judges gave possession of all mine3 which were denounced or registered — that is, the highest civil judge. Question 8. — Did there ever exist, to your knowledge, in Lower California any tribunal, court, or officer, exercising special jurisdiction in matter relating to the registry or denouncement of mines ? Answer 8. — I never have known of any. The first civil judicial authority had jurisdiction over mining matters. Sometimes the Judge of First Instance, sometimes the Alcalde, but always the first local judicial authority. Question 9. — If there had existed, in Lower California, in the years 1843-44-45-46, any such special tribunal, court, or officer, as is spoken of in the preceding question, would you have known the fact of its existence ? Answer 9. — Such could not have existed without my knowing it, because I was residing at La Paz, the capital of -Lower California. FRANCISCO VILLEGASS. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 13 April, 1857. cutler McAllister, U. S. Commissioner. Endorsed : Filed May 4, 1857, JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk, by W. H. Cheveus, Deputy. 135 DEPOSITION OF JOHN P. BRODIE. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. San Francisco, April 4th, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the United States for the northern district of California, duly authorized to ad- minister oaths, &c, &c, came John P. Brodie, a witness produced on behalf of the claimants, in case No. 424, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in case 366 on the docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present : — A. C. Peachy, Esq., for claimant, and U. S. District Attorney. Questions by Attorney for Claimant. Question 1. — What is your name, age, place of residence, and of what country are you a native ? Answer 1. — John P. Brodie ; 50 years of age ; I reside at present in Stockton, San Joaquin county ; I am a native of Scotland. Question 2. — Have you resided at any time in the Mexican Repub- lic ; if yea, state in what parts and how long in each ? Answer 2. — I came to Mexico first in the year 1824. I resided in the City of Mexico until 1828, with the exception of a few months on the coast ; from 1828 to 1832, 1 resided in the City of Guadalajara, in the State of Jalisco, and from 1832 to 1854 I resided in the State of Sonora, with the exception of about 8 months in the year 1850, in which I went to Europe, and during that time I made a visit to San Francisco ; from 1854 to ths present time, I have lived in California. Question 3. — Are you acquainted with the mode pursued by indi- viduals for registering the discovery of new mines, or denouncing such as are abandoned, and of obtaining title to and possession of the same ? if yea, state the extent of your knowledge on the subject, the means by which you acquired your information what that mode is in such parts of the Mexican Republic as you are acquainted with. (Question objected to, on the ground that the laws which govern that branch are written laws, and it is incompetent to prove written laws in this manner ; also, because the inquiry seems to be directed to the mode of registering newly discovered mines and of denouncing old ones not in the territory of California, but in some of the States of Mexico.) 136 Answer 3. — I have had some practice and acquired some knowledge in the matter during my residence in Mexico. The first time I had anything to do with mines was in Temascultepec, about 30 leagues to the south-west of the City of Mexico, in the State of Mexico. About 1826 or 1827, 1 was one of twelve who formed a company to work a mine in that district. The mine was denounced by one of our compa- ny ; the denouncement was made before " Juez de Letras" which office is the same as Judge of First Instance, and possession was given to him also by the same judge. This was a silver mine. I went down to Temascultepec at the time possession was given. I was pre- sent when possession was given. What was required by the Mexican law to give the possession of an old mine, was to have one of the u chambers" cleaned out and in working condition ; people actually working in it. This mine was shortly after abandoned by us. I had nothing to do with mining after that until the year 1832, in Sonora. I was there engaged in mining from the year 1832 to the year 1838. When I engaged in that mining in Sonora, my partner Ignacio Perez was already in possession, and possession had been given to him a few months previous to my going there. Possession had been given him by the Alcalde of Arispe, which was then the capital of Sonora, acting as Judge of First Instance. Among the papers and documents belonging to the negotiation that we were engaged in, I had in my pos- session the title papers to the mine, containing the denouncement and the certificate that possession had been given. The same Alcalde who had given possession was there two or three years afterwards as over- seer to the mine under my orders. I have also drawn up the papers denouncing and registering mines, and petitions for possession, for other people. I have presented them to the Judge of First Instance. I have been present also when possession was given, on two or three occasions perhaps. The custom is, when a new mine is discovered, or an old mine is going to be worked, for the person who is going to claim it to file a notice with the Judge of First Instance, or with an Alcalde where there is no judge, of his intention to work or claim the mine ; then, after a certain time, given for the purpose, in new mines, of open- ing it — in old ones, of cleaning out the f chamber ; after the expi- ration of that time, the claimant makes a petition to the Judge of First Instance, or Alcalde, the same officer with whom he has filed his no- tice, that possession should be given him, who then goes in person, and measures off his amount of land, and puts him in possession. If it is one individual and an old district, the land measured off is two hundred varas in the length of the vein; the same in width, I believe. When it is a company who petition, or when the mine is the first discovered in a new district, the extent measured out is more, but I forget exact- ly how much more is measured off. The mode described above is the same that I have known in such parts of Mexico where I have been, 137 and the proceedings were always had before the Judge of First In- stance, or Alcalde. The experience that I have stated with regard to drawing up papers and seeing possession given, in cases of other per- sons than myself, was subsequent to the year 1838 ; it extended over four, five or six years afterwards. Question 4. — In what capacity did you' attend to the drawing up of papers, &c, for other persons ? Answer 4. — Generally in a friendly capacity. I may have got paid for it, but I do not recollect, the same as with regard to other business I used to transact in the courts for other people. Question 5. — Please to state whether, in any part of the Mexican Republic, you have known of any other method of registering or de- nouncing mines than the one you have already stated. (Question objected to on the grounds of objection mentioned before.) Answer 5. — No, I never have. Question 6. — Please to state whether, to your^knowledge, there has existed in the State or Department of Sonora, during the time you re- sided there, any officer or court specially charge'd with jurisdiction over matters relating to mines. (Question objected to as being irrelevant.) Answer 6. — No, sir. I know positively that no such officer or court existed with special jurisdiction over such matters. All proceedings of this nature were had before the Judge of First Instance or Alcalde. I say this with reference to the whole time during which I resided in Sonora. Cross Fxamination — Questions by U. S. District Attorney. Question 1. — Do you know if there is a code of mining laws exist- ing throughout the Mexican Republic ? Answer 1. — Yes, there is the old Spanish code, called the " Orde. nanzas de Mineria" which existed in Mexico prior to her indepen- dence. Question 2. — Do you know whether those ordinances describe the mode of denouncing or giving possession &c, of mines ? (The two preceding questions objected to, on the ground that they ask the witness concerning the existence and contents of written laws.) Answer 2. — They describe it and very minutely. Question 3. — Do you know whether the officers you have named, to 16 138 wit, the Judge of First Instance, and the Alcalde, if there be no Judge of First Instance, derive their authority from any law of the Supreme Government of Mexico, or from laws of the respective States where they may reside ? (Question objected to, on the ground that it is asking the opinion of the witness with regard to written laws.) Answer 3. — I know that by the decree of the Mexican Congress, passed in the year 1824, perhaps shortly after, the Tribunal of mines, which till then had jurisdiction in all mining matters, was abolished, and the jurisdiction transferred to the ordinary Courts. There was no special tribunal after that for mining matters. I believe there are no State Laws in reference to mining affairs. Question 4. — In your last answer do you allude to the decree of the Supreme Government of Mexico, by which the Royal Tribunal General of Mines was abolished ? Answer 4. — I alluded to the decree which abolished the tribunal having special jurisdiction in mining affairs. Question 5. — Who was President of the Republic of Mexico at the time of the decree you allude to was made ? Answer 5. — I believe it must have been Guadalupe Victoria. Question 6. — Are you perfectly certain that there were not special local tribunals in some of the States in Mexico, having jurisdiction in the registry and denouncement of mines, subsequent to the date of that decree ? Answer 6. — I do not know that any such tribunals existed subse- quent to that time. I know that either an order or a law was issued by the Mexican Government for the establishment of such tribunals in the Department of Sonora — none were established ; but whether they were or not in other States, I don't know. I don't recollect when this order or law was made, but it was soon after the year 1833. Question 7. — At the time that you took possession of the mine, in company with others, in Temascultepec, State of Mexico, what was the extent of the pertenencia measured off to the company ? Answer 7. — I really do not recollect, but it was more than two hun- dred varas. Question 8. — State in detail the whole process of giving possession on that occasion. Answer 8. — The officer went down with us into the chamber we had cleaned out, saw the vein and the direction in which it ran, and he reckoned the inclination of it ; then he measured off the pertenencia on the ground and drove stakes in the boundaries ; he also performed a ceremony by passing a handfull of the ore to the person who had taken possesion. 139 Question 9. — On the subsequent occasions mentioned by you in your direct examination, was the same course pursued ? and if not, state any particular in which it differed. Answer 9. — On one occasion, in giving possession of the mine San Pedro, an old mine, possession was given to Don Lorenzo Lopez, by the Judge of First Instance of Arispe, simply by going upon the ground, conversing a little, and drawing up the papers. On other oc- casions I have seen the same ceremony more or less, generally less. Question 10. — Do you know whether, on the occasion last referred to, the old pertenencia was continued as that of the denouncer, or a new one given ? Answer 10. — The San Pedro mine was in a solitary district, with no neighbors to interfere. Question 11. — Were you ever present at the registry of a newly discovered mine ? Answer 11. — Yes, I have drawn up the paper myself and presented it. Question 11 1-2. — State what the proceeding was in such a case. Answer 11 1-2. — To fulfil the letter of the law was merely to file the paper with the judge or alcalde. Question 12. — Did the Alcalde do any more than file the paper ? Answer 12. — They did not ; that is, in my presence ; it was done of course ; it is always done. Question 13. — Did he make no entry of any kind ? Answer 13. — I don't know whether he did or not. Question 14. — Did he make no note of the exact time of day at which the applicant presented himself with his statement ? Answer 14. — I do not know if he did. Things were done down in Sonora, and under the Mexican Government, very loosely. Question 15. — In giving possession of a new mine, did not the Judge or Alcalde enter and examine the trial pit, and the inclination of the vein ? Answer 15. — No, sir. To fulfil the letter of the law, a pit ten varas must be- dug, but this pit is usually dug anywhere near the vein, and is very often filled up again as of no use. Question 16. — In measuring off the pert nmcia was not its length dependant on the dip or inclination of the vein ? Answer 16. — The length of the pertenencia is not made with refer- ence to the inclination of the vein. Question 17. — What was the object then, in ascertaining the incli- nation of the vein in giving possession ? Answer 17. — I suppose to comply with the law, which particularly describes that it should be observed. Question 18. — Are you sufficiently acquainted with the general cus- tom prevailing through the mining regions of the Mexican Republic, as to the whole mode of procedure and registering, denouncing and giv- 140 ing possession of mines, as to state with confidence that you know what that general custom is, or have you heretofore spoken of individual cases coming under your personal observation ? Answer 18. — I think I have sufficient knowledge of the customs as to enable me to state with confidence what they are in the State of Sonora. I only refer to these particular customs so as to show the general custom prevailing there. Things were done very loosely in the courts in Sonora. Question 19. — Have you any knowledge of the general custom pre- vailing in the registry and denouncement of mines in Upper California ? Answer 19.— I have none. JOHN P. BROIE. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th April, 1857. cutler McAllister, U. S. Commissioner. Endorsed : Filed, May 4, 1857, JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk, by W. H. Cheevers, Deputy. CROSS PETITION ON APPEAL. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 420. Andres Castillero, Appellant, ) vs. [ Transcript No. 366. The United States, Appellees. ) Lands of New Almaden, 2 Square Leagues, Santa Clara County. Your petitioner, Andre's Castillero, appealing from so much of the decision of the Honorable Board of Commissioners, as rejects his claim to a confirmation of two square leagues of land granted to him by the Mexican Government, respectfully shows to this Honorable Court : That in the year 1845, your petitioner discovered a mine of Cina- bar in the then jurisdiction of San Jose", and in the now county of Santa Clara, in this State ; that having formed a company for the pur- pose of working said mine, he made due registry of said discovery, and, on the 30th day of December, 1845, received, in due form, the judicial possession thereof, with the pertenencias to the extent of three thousand varas in all directions ; that his said mining right and pos- session was soon after submitted to the " Junta de Fomento y Admin- istrate de Mineria," of Mexico, and duly recommended by that body 141 to the Supreme Executive of the Republic, who, on the 20th of May, 1846, approved said mining possession in the terms in which it had been given by the local authorities of California, and at the same time granted to your petitioner, in colonization and for the use of said mine, two square leagues of land on said mining possession, the document of title for which land so granted was signed and delivered to your petitioner on the 23d of May, 1846 ; that your petitioner, and those associated with him and holding under him, have been in possession of said mine and tract of land ever since the year 1845, and have ex- pended large sums of money in improvements and costly structures, all of which is more particularly set fort in the petition and accompa- nying documents, and other evidence, in the transcript from the Board of Commissioners filed in this case. Your petitioner further shows, that on the 30th day of September, 1852, he presented his claim for said mine, mining possession, and tract of land, before the Board of United States Land Commissioners, ap- pointed under the Act of March 3d, 1851, to ascertain and settle pri- vate land claims in California, and that the said Board, on the 8th day of January, 1856, decided upon the validity of said claim, and con- firmed so much of said claim as related to the mine of New Almaden, together with the right of enjoying the privileges as mine-owner under the Mexican law ; but rejected it as to all other rights, properties and interests. Your petitioner further shows, that the mine and lands so claimed by him are situate in the Northern District of California, and within the jurisdiction of this Court ; that the transcript of the Report of the said Board of Commissioners on the claim so presented to them, was filed with the Clerk of this District on the 26th day of February, A. D. 1856 ; that on the 26th day of March, 1856, your petitioner filed with said Clerk a notice of intention to prosecute an appeal from so much of the decision of said Board as rejects any of the rights, pro- perty and interests of your petitioner, set out and claimed in his peti- tion presented to said Board. And your petitioner prays this honorable Court to review the de- cision of said Board of Commissioners, to reverse so much of it as re- jects any part of his claim, and confirm his title to all the rights, pro- perties and interests claimed by him in his said petition to the Board of Commissioners. And your petitioners will ever pray, &c. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Appellant. Endorsed : Filed May 4, 1857, JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk, by W. H. Ciievers, Deputy. 142 ANSWER OF APPELLEE. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The United States, Appellants, ) vs. No. 420. Andres Castillero, Appellee, ) Andres Castillero, Appellee, appears by his attorneys, and, for an- swer to the petition of the United States filed herein, says : That his titles to the mine and lands of New Almaden, as set forth and described in his petition to the Board of Commissioners, and in the documentary and other evidence filed in this case, are good and valid titles ^ that the land, property and interest so claimed by him are situate in the Northern District of California, and within the juris- diction of this Court. And he prays this honorable Court to affirm so much of the decision of the Commissioners as confirms his said claim, and to decree his titles to be valid. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Appellee. Endorsed : Filed, May 7, 1857. JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk, by W. H. Chevers. NOTICE. DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The United States ) vs. [ No. 420. Andres CastIllero. ) Gentlemen : — You will please take notice that at the examination of George M. Yoell, James W. Weekes, and Antonio Maria Pico, to take place at 12 o'clock M., of this day, in pursuance of notice heretofore given, and also on the hearing of this cause, you are required to produce the originals of the following papers, to wit : 143 1st. A petition dated Pueblo de San Jose, 19th of January, 1848, addressed to the Justice of the Paece (Juez de Paz) by Alexander Forbes in his own name and that of his associates, whom he calls own- ers of the mine called New Almaden, and in the name of the company formed for the working of said mine, praying him, the said Justice, with assisting witnesses, to inspect the works of said mine and ascer- tain the direction and inclination of the vein of said mine, for the pur- pose of reforming and correcting the terms of the former act of pos- session and correcting any mistake which might appear in it, and par- sicularly of deciding upon the augmentation of pertenencias which the owners of said mine ought to possess, and he who works it for himself and as their representative, and marking out the square correspond- ing to said pertenencias ; which original paper is in the Spanish lan- guage. 2d. The original order or decree of James W. Weekes, Alcalde, made on the 21st of January, 1848, upon the said petition, declaring the parties interested to have the right to four consecutive pertenen- cias along the direction of the vein, and also the right to have a connec- tion of the stakes — that is, from the mouth of the mine 50 varas to- wards the southwest, and 150 varas towards the northeast, and for the length of the four pertenencias 100 varas towards the southeast, and 700 varas towards the northwest; — which paper also is in the Spanish language. 3d. The map or plan of the four pertenencias spoken of in said decree, showing the position of the mouth of the mine and the direc- tion and length of the lines including said pertenencias. And upon your failure to produce the said original papers, evidence will be given in behalf of the United States of their contents. San Francisco, June 24th, 1857. WM. BLANDING, District Att'y. To Messrs. Halleck, Peachy & Billings, Attorneys for Andres Cas- tillero. Endorsed : Service of the within notice acknowledged, 11 1-2 o'clock, A. M., Jund 24, 1857. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Castillero. 144 DEPOSITION OF GEORGE M. YOELL. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. The United States 1 vs. > Andres Castillero. ) San Francisco, June 24th, 1857. On this day at 12 o'clock M., before J. Edgar Grymes, a Special Commissioner and Referee of the United States for the Northern Dis- trict of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, &c. &c, came George M. Yoell, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in case No. 366 on the docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows. Present. — H. W. Halleck, Esq., of counsel for claimants, and the U. S. District Attorney. Questions by U. S. District Attorney. Question 1. — What is your name, age and place of residence ? Answer 1. — My name is George M. Yoell, 34 years old, and I re- side in San Josd, Santa Clara Connty. Question 2. — Do you hold any office in the county of Santa Clara : if so, what ? Answer 2. — I am deputy Recorder of the county. Question 3. — Please examine the paper now shown to you, marked Exhibit " G. M. Y " purporting to be a copy of an instrument record- ed in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara county, and say, if you know in whose handwriting this paper is. (Exhibit attach- el to this deposition.) (Question objected to as irrelevant and incompetent, and the paper referred to in the question objected to as evidence on the ground of its being incompetent, it purporting to be a copy of an original which is not produced or its loss accounted for.) Answer 3. — This paper is in my handwriting, but the certificate is in the Recorder's. Question 4. — From what was this copy made ? 145 Answer 4. — It is made from Book No. 2, Records of Santa Clara County. Question 5. — Has any subpoena issued in this case been served up- on you, or upon S. A. Clark, County Recorder of Santa Clara Coun- ty, requiring him or yourself to bring that book and produce it on this your examination ? (Question objected to as incompetent.) Ansiver 5. — Yes sir, on myself and Mr. Clark likewise. Question 6. — Have you that Book with you, and will you now ex- hibit it? Answer 6. — I have not the Book. I did not bring it. Question 7. — Why did you not bring it ? Answer 7. — Mr. Clark refused to allow the book to go out of the office. Question 8 — For what reasons ? Answer 8. — That he, as the Recorder, had no right to let the Book go out of the office or out of the County ; that a certified copy would do just as well, the Book being one of the records of his office. Question 9. — What does that Book contain ? Answer 9. — It contains grants, petitions, concessions, denounce- ments, in the Spanish language, aud various other old records of the former Alcaldes. Questio?i 10. — Is it a book written in the office of the County Re- corder, or one which was transferred to that office from the Alcalde's office ? Ansiver 10. — It was transferred from the Alcalde's office to the Re- corder's of Santa Clara County. Question 11. — Is the copy marked Exhibhit " G. M. Y.," a cor- rect copy from that book ; if yea, how do you know it is so ? Answer 11. — This paper is a full, true and correct copy from the Book No. 2, Records of Santa Clara County, and made by myself. (Question and answer objected to as incompetent to prove the pa- per.) Question 12. — In whose handwriting is the entry in that Book from which you made this copy ? Answer 12. — It is in the handwriting of James W. Weeks, the former Alcalde. Question 13. — In whose handwriting is the signature to the instru- ment in that Book ? Ansiver. — James W. Weeks, Alcalde. Question 14. — Is the original from which the entry was made in 17 146 that book to be found in the office of the County Recorder's office in Santa Clara County ? Answer 14. — It is not. Question 15. — How do you know it is not ? Answer 15. — I have made a thorough and diligent search of all the records and did not find it. Question 16. — Do you know whether the instrument written in that Book, from which you have made the copy, Exhibit " G. M. Y., r ' is itself the original, or whether it is a copy from some other paper ? Answer 16. — To the best of my knowledge it is the original. Question 17. — Is the petition or request referred to in Exhibit " G. M. Y.," entered in that Book, or any other book in the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County ; or is that petition or request, or any copy of it, to be found in the office of the County Recorder ? Ansiver 17. — There is not on record anything of the kind that we can find ; I searched for it. We did not find the petition alluded to in that paper. • Question 18. — Is there any map or plan accompanying the instru- ment from which you copied Exhibit " G. M. Y.?" Answer 18, — There is none. Question 19. — Is there in the office of the County Recorder any map or plan appearing to be connected with that instrument, or any copy of such map or plan ? Answer 19.— Not that I know of. Question 20. — If there were any such, would you know it ? Answer 20. — I should. Question 21. — Does that Book No. 2 contain only the orders or de- crees of Alcaldes, or does it also in other cases than this contain the petitions or proceedings on w r hich such decrees or orders were founded ? (All parole evidence on subject of contents of that Book objected to.) Answer 21. — It contains, generally, denouncements, and almost in every case accompanied by a petition, together with the grants and concessions of the former Alcaldes. Questio?i 22. — Please examine the paper now shown to you, mark- ed Exhibit " E. G.," and purporting to be copy of an instrument re- corded in the office of the Recorders of Santa Clara County, in Book 3 of Deeds, page 174, and say whether or not it is a true copy, and how you know it to be so ? This paper attached to your deposition. (Question objected to as incompetent to prove the genuineness of the document by parole.) 147 Answer 22. — This is a true copy, made by myself and signed by myself as deputy Recorder of Santa Clara County. (Answer objected to as incompetent and irrelevant testimony, Question 23. — Please examine paper marked Exhibit " H. L.," purporting to be a copy of an instrument recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County in Book " G " of Dee'ds, page 257 to 267, which paper is hereto attached, and say whether or not it is a true copy of an instrument recorded in that office, and how you know it to be so. (Question objected to as incompetent, and the document as irrelevant and incompetent testimony.) Answer 23. — I made this copy myself in the Recorder's office. It is a full, true, and correct copy, certified and signed by myself as Dep- uty Recorder. The Recorder and myself compared it. Cross-Examination. ' Question 24. — How do you know that Book, referred to as No. 2, was tranferred from the Alcalde's office to the Recorder's office ? Answer 24. — I have no personal knowledge of it ; I only know it from their being used in the Recorder's office as coming from the Al calde's office. GEO. M. YOELL. Sworn to and subscribed before me, June 24, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. EXHIBIT " G. M. Y." CONCESSION — WEEKS, ALCALDE, TO LAQUIN — COPY. JUSGADO DEL PUEBLO DE SAN JOSE De GUADALUPE .* De conformidad con el pedimento que antecede yo al infrascrito Alcalde 1°. de esta Jurisdiccion con dos testigos de asistencia a falta de Escribano publico pase hoy veinte uno de Enero de mil ochocientos cuarente y ocho, a la espresada Mina de Nuevo Almaden : que no hu- viendo facultativo del Districto nombre a Clemente Laquin. Minero 148 practica para examinar el estado de dicha mina lo que se hallo traba- jado conforme a la ordenanza de urineria siendo firme las respaldas sus planes y obras en la mejor orden y tiempo de tepatale u otra estorbo, de manera que evita toda peligro a los operarios ; y a conservar la mi- na en buen estado. Y haviendo el citado perito practicado las medi- das y demas operaciones nesesarias para determinar el rumbo y hecha- da de la veta a su actual profundidad declara ser dicha rumbo de Nor Oeste y Sud Este, y su Echada ser Nordeste y que excede de varra por varra ; esto es que hace con el orizonte un angulo demas de cua- renta y cinco grados ; dando a los interesados derecho a la cuadra de dos cientos varras segun. Titulo VIII, Articulo 7 de la ordenanza. Y considerando que se trabaje esta mina en compaiiia concedo tambien el derecho que se me pide de cuatro pertenencias seguidas sobra el rumbo de la espresada veta en los planes de la mina conforme a la or- denanza Titulo XI, Art . 2. Concedo ademas derecho a la mejora de Estacas con respeto a la variasion del rumbo de la veta. Segun Titulo VIII, Art . II de la ordenanza ; y Esto en la orden siguiente : Es decir : desde la boca de la mina cincuenta varras hacia el Sur Oes- te y ciento cincuenta varras acia el U. E. y para la longitud de las cuatro pertenencias. cien varra hacia el Sudeste y siete cientos varras hacia el Nor Oeste sobre el mismo rumbo de la veta siendo constante el derecho y titulo de la mina a la gracia de terreno concedido en lo ori- ginal acto de possesion. Practicadas estas diligencias, ordene el citado perito procedera imediatamente a sacar las espresadas medidas y fijar en los estremos de los cuatro pertenencias y en cada lado de la cuadra de dos cientos varras. los Estacas conforme a la Ordenanza. Todo lo cual se hizo en presencia mia y de los testigos de asistencia de lo que doy fe\ JAMES W. WEEKS, Alcalde. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, California, March 28th, A. D. 1857. I hereby certify that the foregoing, on pages one and two of this, is a full, true, and correct copy of an instrument of record in this office, recorded in Book No. 2, on pages 41 and 42. , x Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San ] seal [ Jose, the day and year last written. < J S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. 149 EXHIBIT " E. G."— H. L. No. 2. DEED — A. CASTILLERO TO FORBES — COPY. En el Pueblo de San Jose* Guadalupe a los veinte y siete dias del mes de Deoiembre, del ano de mil ochocientos cuarenta y sieta, actu- ando por receptorio a falta de escribano Publico. Ante me James W. Weeks, Juez Constitutional y testigos de asistencia presente el M. R. P. Fr. J e . M a .del Refugio S. del Real, apoderado, del Sor. D. Andres Castillero, Capitan de Caballaria Permanente, residente en la ciudad de Mexico, cuyo persona de dicho R. P. doy fe conosco, y dijo, que teniendo legitimo poder que presente de dicho Sor. Castillero para po- der vender tres varas de la mina de plata con ley de oro y Azogue cituado en el rancho de Dn. Jose Reyes Bereyeza, en Jurisdicion del Pueblo de San Jose Guadalupe, del teritorio de la Alta California, en nl segundo Districto de Monterey : que con tal caracter por la presente y en la mas solemne forma que haya lugar en derecho otorgo por si y a nombre de sus herederos y sucesores, y los que sus derechos repre- sentosj, que vende en venta real y enagenacion perpetua al Sor. D. Alejandro Forbes, Consul de su Magistad Britanica y ahora residente en la Asienda de la Mina espresada, y en la Jurisdiction de este dicho Pueblo de San Jose Guadalupe, por el sus herederos y los que sus derechos representen ; a Saber Tres Varas de los diez que posee, en propiedad en la referida Mina de St\ Clara que truvo el Sor. Orto- gante como discubrador y con tal caractar, transfiere en el Sor. com- prador las esplicadas tres varras con toda sus usos, aprovochamientos. Servidumbres con cuanto mas de echo y de derecho le toca y perteni- ese : pues todo lo cede renuncio y traspasa en el mensionado Sor. Forbes y a quien sus derechos represente. Declaro que los repetidos tres varras se hayan libres de toda gravamen, censo y hipoteca especial en general, y asi se lo azegura por el precio y cuantia de cuatro mil quinientos pesos, que confiesa tener resibido en moneda de plata comun y corriente del cuno Mejicana a toda su satisfaccion. Sobre lo cual renuncia la eception, de la non numeratia pecunia la ley nueve titulo primero Partida quinta con las cuatro anos que consede para las pru- evas los queda por pasados, ortogando por la presente el mas firme y eficos resguardo que a la seguridad del comprador condusca. Azegura que el justo y legitimo precio de la esplicadas tres varras son las cuatro mil quinientos pesos, que confiesa tener recibidos pues no vale mas ni havido quien tanto lo ofresca ; pero si mas fuera su valor 6 con el tiempo fuere ecesion la bonanza de toda hace gracia y donasion, jura, mera y perfecta y inre vocable con incinuacion y renunciasion de la ley dos titulo primero libro diez de la novisima recopilacion que trata ; de los contratos, que hay lesjion en mas 6 menos de la mitad del justo precio fijando, cuatro anos para pedir su recision a suplemento al justo 150 / valor, los que da por pasados, y renuncia con la ley citada. Desde hoy para siempre se disapodera, quita y aparta, de toda accion propie- dad dominio y cuasi posesion que puedo tener a las esplicadas tres var- ras, y toda la sede, renuncia y traspasa en el Sor. comprador a quien le represente, para que como dueno de ellos disponga a su advidrio como de cosa suya adquierida con justo y logitimo titulo, huvil y trans- lativo de dominio cual es la presente escritura tomando por si 6 judiri- almente su pocesion y tenencia, constituyiendose en el interin por su enguelino, y precurio posedor en legal forma. Se obliga ha la eviccion seguridad y sancamiento de esta venta, asi como a que jamas servira de obstaculo el articulo segundo de la escritura de compania otorgante en la Mision de Sta. Clara a dos de Noviembre de mil ochocientos cua- renta y cinco pues se obliga a hacer pasar y concenter en ella a sus consocios asi como ha concentido y pasado el Sor. Ortogante, pues los que han echo sus compaiieros en la inteligencia que si esta no pudiese 6 si le mobiese al comprador algun pleito de que as su costo no lo pu- diese dejar en quieto y pacifica posesion le debolvera los cuatro mil quinientos pesos que confiese tener recibidos con las frutas de las tres varras de que es dueno y pagandole toda los danos perjuicios y menos cabos que se originen sin mas pruevas que el simple juramento de la parte, y para el cumplimiento de esta obligacion hipoteca espresa, espe- cial y senaladamente las espresadas tres vaaras que no podra vender, gravar ni de otra manera enagenar sin espreso consentamiento del Sor. Comprador, que podra en caso contrario reclamar los hasta de tercero, mas procedores para cubrirse con cuanto con arreglo a la presente es- critura se le adende los costos de esta escritura seran de cuento de ambos contrayentos por mitad, y siendo presente Dn. Alejandro Forbes, Consul de su Magistad Britanica a cuya persona mayor de edad doy fe conosco, y impuesta del contenido de esta escritura dijo : que por se y en legal forma acepta la presente, protestando para el efecto voz y convencion de gratu et ratu y por si mismo, se da por contento y sat- isfecho, con el presente instrumento, obligandose a complir lo que en el ha prometido, y le pertenece. Y al cumplimiento de todo lo espuesto el Sor. vendedor obliga a mi persona y bienes presentes y futuros, y con ellos se somete al fuero y Jurisdiccion de los Sores Juez es que de sus causas conforme a derecho pueden y devan conocer para que a ellos le compelan y apremien como por sentencia definitiva, consenti- da y pasada en autoridad de cosa Jusgada : renuncio su fuero dome- cilio y vecinidad, con la general del derecho y la que prohive su gral renunciasion, y por ante mi asi lo otorgo y firme su apoderado con el Sor. Don Alejando Forbes, siendo testigos Don Antonio Suool, Don Jose Noriega, y Don Dolores Pacheco presentes vecinos, de que doy fe. Y de que al firmar anadieron los Sores, contrayentes que esta venta y toda cuanta consta en la presente escritura no tendra en verificativo 151 hasta que el Sor. Don Alejandro Forbes esta en quieta y pacifica po- sescion de las tres varras bendidos ; y si por cualquiera personas, 6* por cualquiera motivo fuere pertunado entonces tendra todo su efecto la hipoteca que hase para ese caso de las dies varas de que se hablo, en la clausala de eviccion de la presente escritura reproduciend ante las misnios testigos la guarentigia para el cumplimiento de este ultimo y firmaron doy fe\ Como, apoderado, Fr. Jose M. del R. S. del Real de asis\ Antonio Sufiol, de asis a . Dolores Pacheco. (Signed) ALEX . FORBES. James W. Weeks, Alcalde. Certifico que el documento que antecede es copia fiel sacada a la letra, del Original Escritura de que dop fe (fecha ut sufra). JAMES W. WEEKS, Alcalde. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, California, May 11th, A. D. 1857. I hereby certify that the foregoing, on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, of this, is a full, true, and correct copy of an instrument of record in this office, recorded in Book 3 of Deeds, page 174. Note. — The words, " esception de la non numeration pecunia la," interlined on 2d page, 13th line from top, having been omitted in copy- ing from the Record. r — H^ ) Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San j seal | Jose*, the day and year last written. 1 — *• S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. EXHIBIT " II. L.," No. 1. En la Cuidad de Tepic a primero de Marzo de mil ochocientos cua- renta y siete, ante me el Escribano y testigos, el Senor Don Jose Cas- 152 tro transienste en esta y a quien doy fe conoser dijo : que es duefio en propiedad de cuatro varras en una mina de plata con ley de oro y aso- gue, situada en pertenencias del rancho de Don Jose Reyes Berreyesa en Jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe del territorio dela Alta California en el segundo Distrito de Monterey, segun consta en los archivos de aquel partido y de donde estrajo una copia estra- « judicial del contrato de esa Compania, cuyo documento presenta ya | rubricado por este oficio y en donde dando fe del tal papel dise este | a la letra lo que sigue. Documto de " Escritura de compania que el Senor Don Andres Cas- compania. tillero, Capitan de Caballeria permanente celebra con el Senor Comandante General Don Jose* Castro, los Seilores Secundino Robles, Teodoro Robles y una cesion voluntario que han heeho los Corn- pafieros perpetuam te - al R. P. Fr. Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real, de una mina de plata con ley de oro y asogue en el rancho de Don Jose Reyes Berreyesa en Jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe. Articulo primero. — El Senor Don Andres Castillero arreglandose en un todo a la ordenanza de Mineria hase formal compania perpetuamente con los mencionados Seiiores en esta forma. La mitad de la mina que es de la que puede disponer se dividira en tres acciones en esta forma cuatro varras al Senor Comandante General ; cuatro varras a los Seii- ores Secundino y Teodoro Robles, y las otras cuatro al R. P. Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real en clase de donacion per- petua. Articulo segundo. — Ninguno de los cornpafieros podra vender 6 en- agenar ninguna de sus acciones de manera que el que verificase dicha enagenacion perdera su clerecho, quedando renunciada en los demas cornpafieros. Articulo tercero. — Los gastos se haran en proporcion de las acciones llevandose, una cuenta formal. Articulo cuatro. — Arreglandose en un todo a lo que previene la or- denanza de mineria cualquiera diferencia se resolvera por los corn- pafieros. Articulo quinto. — Disigira las labores, gastos y trabajos de la mina Don Andres Castillero y en su defecto el R. P. Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real. Articulo sesto. — No se estrahera de los productos mas cantidad que - los que necesiten para el arreglo de la negociasion hasta que se arre- glen los trabajos ; y cualquier cantidad que se sague ha de ser con conosimiento de todos los Cornpafieros hasta que arreglada la nego- ciasion. Articulo septimo. — Estos convenios se autorisaran a presencia del Senor Prefecto del segundo Distrito Don Manuel Castro depositandose 153 el documento original en el archivo del partido, y dandose una copia certificada por S. S. a I03 interesados. Micion de Santa Clara dos de Novieinbre de mil ochocientos cua- renta y cinco. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Por el Senor Comandante General, Don Jose Castro. ANDRES CASTILLERO. FRAY JOSE MARIA del REFUGIO SUARES del REAL. Por Secundino y Teodoro Robles, FRANCISCO ARSE. Es copia fiel del original a la que un remito. Mision de Santa Clara, Diciembre ocho, de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco. MANUEL CASTRO. ANTONIO MARIA PICO. Es copia, Mexico, Diciembre cinco, cle mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. ANDRES CASTILLERO. sigue la Q ue P or 1° aun ex ^° J con tal caracter de accionista en esa venta. mina con las varras que le corresponden y en aquella via y forma que mejor haya lugar, en derecho, otorga : que por si y a nom- bre de sus herederos y susesores de quien de ellos hubiese titulo voz y causa da en venta real enagenacion perpetua al Senor Don Alejan- dro Forbes de esta vecinidad y convenio para si y para lo sullos una vare de las que le corresponden en la mina que se ha referido y se conose con el nombre de Santa Clara. Que trasfiere en el Senor com- prador el dominio util. y directo de la espresada varra, con todos sus usos aprovechamientos y servidumbres con cuanto mas en derecho le pueda tocar y pertenecer pues todo lo cede y traspasa en el mencion- ado Senor Forbes y declara el otorgante que esa varra que enagena esta libro de todo gravamen tacito y espreso, como asi lo asegura y que la venta la hase en cantidad de ochocientos pesos que confiesa te- ner recibidos a toda su satisfaccion y como que esta cantidad no parese de presente renuncia la ley 9, titulo 1°. partida 5 a . y las dos afios que prefiere para la prueva del recibo los que da por pasados como si lo estubieran otorgando desde ahora el mas firma y eficas resguardo que condusca a la seguridad del comprador. Ygualmente asegura que la cantidad de ochocientos pesos en que vende esa varra es lo que ella vale y q e . aunque mas valiese del exiso cualquiera que sea en poca mucha suma hase gracia y donacion en el comprador y-los suyos conforme a derecho y renuncia la ley 2, titulo 18 154 1°, Libro, lo de la Novissima Recopilacion y su beneficio de los cuatro afios para pedir la recision de este contrato 6 supleniento del Justo va- lor de la cosa vendida, cuyo termino da por pasada como si lo estubi- era. En consequencia de desapodera deciste y aparta, de cualquiera derecho que haya tenido y tener pueda a la mencionada varra para que como propia del comprador, y adquirida con legitimo titulo desem- pene la accion que en ella le corresponda y se posesione de ella en lo Judicial 6 estrajudicial en virtud de este instrumento. Ygualmente el Senor otorgante, se obliga a la eviccion y saniamento de esta venta asi como a que jamas servira de ostaculo para ella cl articulo segundo de la escritura de compania q e . ya queda inserta pues se obliga a haser pasar y consentir en esta venta a sus consocios, asi como a consentido y pasado el Senor otorgante por las que han hecho sus companeros, y a este efecto ratifica la eviccion y saniamiento que ofrese. Y siendo presente el Senor Don Alejandro Forbes a quien doy fe conosco e impuesto de esta escritura dijo que por si y para los suyos asepta la venta que se le hase bajo el senia- miento que se le ofrese y queda obligado a como accionista de la mina en la varra que se le vende a cumplir con los demas socios en lo que le demarque la ordenanza del ramo. Y al cumplimiento de lo espuesto obligan los Seiiores otorgantes sus bienes presentes y futuros con sumi- cion y renunciacion de las leyes y privileges que sean do su favor y defensa para ser estrechados como si fuera por sentencia pasada en au~ toridad de cosa Juzgada, y firmaron siendo testigos Don Ignacio Ma- riscal, Don Santos Gallegos, y Don Francisco de los Rios presentes doy fe\ JOSE CASTRO, ALEJANDRO FORBES, JESUS VEGAR. seRund En la Ciudad de Tepic a doce de Abril de mil ochoeientos Eseytura. cuaren t a y siete ante me el Escribano y testigos, El Senor Don Jose Castro, residente en esta, y a quien doy fe conosco dijo : que es dueno en propiedad de cuatro varras en una mina de plata con ley de de oro y a30gue cituada en pertenencias del Rancho de Don Jose Reyes Berreyesa en Jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose' de Gua- dalupe del territorio de la Alta California en el segundo Distrito de Monterey segun consta en los archivos de aquel partido y de donde estraja una copia estrajudicial del contrato de esa compania cuyo doc- umento presenta ya rubricado por este oficio y en donde dando fe del tal papel dise este a la letra lo que sigue. 155 Documento " Escritura de compania que el Senor Don Andres Cas- decompasia. t i ller0 Capitan de Caballeria permanente celebra con el Senor Comandante General Don Jose Castro, los Senores Secundino Robles y Teodoro Robles, y una cesion voluntaria que han hecho los companeros perpetuamente al R. P. Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Sua- res del Real de una mina de plata con ley de oro y asogue en el ran- cho de Don Jose Reyes Berreyesa en Jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose* de Guadalupe. Articulo primer o. — El Senor Don Andres Castillero arreglandose en un todo a la ordenanza de Mineria hase formal compania perpetua- mente con los mencionados Senores, en esta forma. La mitad de la mina que es de la que puede disponer se dividira en tres acciones en esta forma : cuatro varras al Senor Comandante General : Cuatro var- ras a los Senores Secundino y Teodoro Robles, y los otras cuatro al Reverendo Padre Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real en clase de donacion perpetua. Articulo segundo. — Ninguno de los Companeros podra vender ni enagenar ninguna de sus acciones de manera que el que verificase, dicha enagenacion perdera su derecho que dando reunida en los demas companeros. Articulo tercero. — Los gastos se haran en proporcion de las acciones llevandose una cuenta formal. Articulo cuarto. — Arreglandose en un todo a lo que previene la ordenanza de Mineria cualquiera diferencia se resolvera por los com- paneros. Articulo quiuto. — Disijira las lavores, gastos y trabajos de la mina Don Andres Castillero, y en su defecto el Reverendo Padre Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real. Articulo sesto. — No se estrahera de los productos mas cantidad que los que de necesiten para el arreglo de la negociasion hasta que se arreglen los trabajos, y cualquiera cantidad que se saque ha de ser con conosimiento de todos los companeros hasta que arreglada la negocia- sion. Articulo septimo. — Estos convenios se autorisaran a presencia del Senor Prefecto del segundo Distrito Don Manuel Castro depositandose el documento original en el archivo del Partido y dandose una copia certificada por S. S. a los interesados. Micion de Santa Clara dos de Noviembre de mil ochocientos curenta y cinco. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Por el Senor Comandante General Don Jose Castro, ANDRES CASTILLERO. FRAY JOSE MARIA del REFUGIO SUARES del REAL. 156 Por Secundino y Teodoro Robles, FRANCISCO ARSE. Es copia fiel del original a la que un remito. Micion de Santa Clara Diciembre ocho de mil ochocientos eurenta y cinco. MANUEL CASTRO. ANTONIO MARIA PICO. Es copia Mejico Diciembre cinco de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Que por lo incerto deja acreditado el Senor esponente, que en esa mina ha tenido una accion por cuatro varras, y ahora declara que de ellas ya tiene vendida una al Senor Don Alejandro Forbes, por escri- tura que le otorgo el primero de Marzo de este alio ante este oficio (se da fe consta asi en el registro) Que quedando pues en propiedad de tres varras a la vez le conviene a sus intereses vender otra de esas, y por tanto, y en aquella via y forma que mejor haya lugar en derecho otorga que por se y a nombre de sus herederos y susesores 6 de quien de ellos hubiese titulo voz y causa da en venta real y enagenacion, perpetua al mismo Senor Don Alejandro Forbes de esta vecinidad y comercio para si y para los suyos, una varra de las tres que aun le corresponden al otorgante en la mina que se ha referido y se conose con el nombre de Santa Clara. Que transfiere en el Senor comprador el dominio util y directo de la espresada varra con todos sus usosapro* vechamientos y servidumbres con cuanto usas en derecho le puede to- car y pertenencer, pues todo lo cede y traspasa en el mencionado Se- nor Forbes. Y declara el otorgante que esa varra que enagena esta libre de todo gravamen tacito y espreso como asi lo asegura y que la venta la hase en cantidad de un mil pesos, que confiesa tener recibido a toda sn satisfaccion y como esta cantidad no parese de presente, renuncia la, ley 9, titulo 1° partida 5 a y los dos anos que prefiere para la prue- ba del recibi los que da por pasados como si lo estubieran, otorgando desde ahora el mas firme y eficas resguardo que condusca a la seguri-' dad del comprador. Ygualmente asegura que la cantidad de un mil pe- sos en que vende esa varra es lo que ella vale, y que aunque mas valiere del exceso cualquiera que sea en poca 6 mucha suma hase gracia y do- nacion en el comprador y los suyos conforme a derecho y renuncia la ley 2 titulo 1° Libro 10 de la Novisima Recopilacion y su beneficio de I03 cuatro alios para pedir la recision de este contrato o suplemento del susto valor de la cosa vendida cuyo termino da por pasado como si lo estuviera. En consequencia se desapodera deciste y aparta de cual- quiera derecho que haya tenido y tener pueda a la mencionada varra, para que como propia del comprador y adquirida con legitimo titulo 157 desempefie la accion que en ella le corresponde y se posecione de ella en lo judicial 6 estrajudicial en virtud de este instrumento. Ygual- mente el Seilor otorgante se obliga a la eviccion y saniamiento de esta venta asi como a que jamas servira de obstaculo para ella el articulo segundo de la escritura de compafiia que ya queda incerta pues se ob- liga 4 haser pasar y consentir en esta venta a sus consocios asi como ha consentido y pasado el Senor otorgante por las que ban hecho sus compaiieros y a este efecto ratifica la eviccion y saniamiento que ofrese. Y siendo presente el Senor Don Alejandro Forbes a quien Aseptasion. -in » * > • , i , ° * •, . . - 1 doy ie conosco, e impuesto de esta escritura dyo ; que por se y para los suyos asepta la venta que se le hase bajo el saniamiento que se le ofrese y queda obligado a como accionista de la mina en la varra que se le vende, a cumplir con los demas socios en lo que le de- marque la ordenanza del ramo. Y al cumplimiento de lo espuesto ob- ligan los Senores otorgantes sus bienes presentes y futuros con sumici- on y renunciacion de las leyes y privilegios que sean de su favor y de- fensa para ser estrechados como si fuera por sentencia pasada en auto- ridad cle cosa Jusgada, y firmaron siendo testigos Don Ignacio Mariscal, Don Santos Gallegos, y Don Romon Ponse, presentes doy fe*. JOSE CASTRO, ALEJANDRO FORBES, JESUS VEGAR. 3a Escri- En la Ciudad de Tepic a deis y seis de Abril de mil ocho- tura. cientos cuarenta y siete. Ante me el Escribano y testigos, el Seilor Don Jose Castro residente en esta y a quien doy fe conosco dijo : que ha sido dueno en propiedad de cuatro varras en una mina de plata con ley de oro y asogue cituada en peftenencias del Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe del territorio de la Alta California en el segundo Distrito de Monterey Begun consta en los archivos de aquel partido y de donde estrajo una copia estrajudicial del contrato de esa compania cuyo documento presento y a rubricado por este oficio y en donde dando fe del tal papel dise esta a la letra lo que sigue. Documento " Escritura de compania que el Seilor Don Andres Cas- dc compania. tillero Capitan de Caballeria permanente celebra con el Seilor Comandante General Don Jose Castro, los Senores Secundino Robles, Teodoro Robles, y una cesion voluntaria que ban hecho los companeros perpetuam te al Reverendo Padre Fray Jose Maria del Re- fugio Suares del Real de una mina de plata con ley de oro y asogue 158 en el rancho de Don Jose Reyes Berrejesa en Jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose* de Guadalupe. Artieulo primero. — El Seilor Don Andres Castillero arreglandose en un todo a la ordenanza de Mineria hase formal compania perpetua- mente con los mencionados Senores en esta forma. La mitad de la mina que es de la que puede disponer se dividira en tres acciones en esta forma : Cuatro varras al Senor Comandante General : Cuatro varras a los Senores Secundino y Teodoro Robles y las otras cuatro al Reverendo Padre Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real en clase de donacion perpetua. Artieulo seeundo. — Ninguno de los companeros podia vender 6 ena- jenar ninguna de sus acciones de manera que el que verificase dicha enajenacion perdera su derecho quedando reunido los demas compa- neros. Artieulo tercero. — Los gastos se haran en proporcion de las acciones llevandose una cuenta formal. Artieulo cuarto. — Arreglandose en un todo a lo que previene la or- denanza de mineria cualquiera diferencia se resolvira por los compa- neros. Artieulo quinto. — Dirijira las labores gastos y trabajos de la mina Don Andres Castillero, y en su defecto el Reverendo Padre Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real. Artieulo sesto. — No se estrahera de los productos mas cantidad que las que se necessiten para el arreglo de la negociasion hasta que se arre glan los trabajos y cualquiera cantidad que se saque ha de ser con co- nosimiento de todos los compaileros hasta que arreglada la negociasion. Artieulo septimo. — Estos convenios se autorisaran a presencia del Senor Prefecto del segundo Distrito Don Manuel Castro, depositandose el documento original en el archivo del partido y dandose una copia certificada por S. S. a los interesados. Micion de Santa Clara dos de Noviembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Por el Senor Comandante General Don Jose Castro. ANDRES CASTILLERO. FRAY JOSE MARIA del REFUGIO SUARES del REAL. Por Secundino y Teodoro Robles, FRANCISCO ARCE. Es copia fiel del original a la que me remito. Micion de Santa Clara Diciembre ocho de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco. MANUEL CASTRO. ANTONIO MARIA PICO. 159 Es copia Mejico Deciembre cinco de mil ocho cientos cuarenta y seis ANDRES CASTILLERO. sipuaia Q ue P or 1° incerto deja acreditado el Senor esponente que escntura. en esa mma j ia tenido una accion por cuatro varras y ahora declara que de ellas ya tiene vendidas dos al Senor Don Alejandro Forbes por escrituras que le otorgo el primero de Marzo de este aiio y dose del presente mes ante este oficio (se da fe constar asi en el regis- tro) Que quedando pues en propiedad de dos varras a la vez le convi- ene a sus intereses vender otra de esas y por tanto en aquella via y forma que mejor haya lugar en derecho otorga : que por si y a nombre de sus herederos y suseros o de quien de ellos hubiera titulo vos y cau- sa, da en venta real y enagenacion perpetua al mismo Senor Don Ale- jandro Forbes, de esta vecinidad y comercio para se y para los suyos una varra de las dos que aim le corresponden al otorgante en la mina que se ha referido y se conose con el nombre de Santa Clara. Que transfiere en el Senor comprador el dominio util y directo de la espre- sada varra con todos sus usos aprovechamientos y servidumbres con cuanto mas en derecho le pueda tocar y.pertenecer puestodolo cede y traspasa en el mencionado Senor Forbes. Y declara el otorgante que esa varra que enagena esta libre de todo gravamen tacito y espreso como asi lo asegura, y que la venta hase en cantidad de un mil pesos que confiese, tener recibidos a toda su satisfaction y como que esta cantidad no parese de presente renuncia la ley 9, titulo 1° partida 5 a y los dos anos que prefiere para la prueba del recibo los que da por pa- sados como si lo estubieran, otorgando desde ahora el mas firme y efi- cas resguardo que condusca, a la seguridad del comprador. Igualmente asegura que la cantidad de un mil pesos en que vende esa varra es lo ella vale y que aunque mas valiere del exceso cualquiera que sea su poca o mucha suma hase gracia y donacion al comprador y los suyos conforme a derecho, y renuncia la ley 2 titulo 1° Libro 1° de la Novisima Recopilacion y su beneficio de los cuatro anos para pedir la recision de este contrato 6 suplemento del Justo valor de la cosa vendida cuyo termino da por pasado como asi lo estuviera. En consequencia se desapodera deciste y aparta de cualquiera dere- cho que haya tenido y tener puede a la mencionada varra para que como propia del comprador y adquirida con legitimo titulo desempene la accion que en ella le corresponde y se posesione de ella en lo judi- cial 6 estrajudicial en virtud de este instrumento. Yinialmente el Se- iior otorgante se obliga a la eviccion y saniamiento de esta venta asi como a que jamas servira de obstaculo para ella el articulo segundo de la escritura de compania que ya queda incerta pues se obliga a haser pasar y consentir en esta venta a sus consocios, asi como ha consentido y pasado el Senor otorgante por las que han hecho sus compafieros y a este efecto ratifica la eviccion y saniamiento que ofrese. 160 Y siendo presente el Sefior Don Alejandro Forbes a quien Aseptacion. \ n , ■ ■* •, i" /> doy fe conosco, e impuesto de esentura dijo, que por se y para los suyos asepta la vcnta, que se le liase bajo el saniamiento que se le ofrese y queda obligado como accionista de la mina en la varra que se le vende a cumplir con los demas socios en lo que le demarque la ordenanza del ramo. Y al cuniplimiento de lo espuesto, obligan los Senores otorgantes sus bienes presentes y futuros con suniicion y renunciacion de las leyes y privilegios que sean de su favor y defensa para ser estrechados como si fuera por sentencia pasada en autoridad de cosa jusgada y firmaron siendo testagos Don Ignaeio Mariscal. Don Santos Gallegos y Don Ramon Panse presentes doy fe. . . JOSE CASTRO, ALEJANDRO FORBES, JESUS VEGAR. 4» Escri- En la ciudad de Tepic a diez de Mayo de mil ochocientos tura - cuarenta y siete, ante me el Escribano y testigos el Senor Don Jose' Castro, residente en esta y en su persona que doy fe conoser dijo ; que era dueilo en propriedad de cuatro varras 6 acciones en una mina de plata con ley de oro y asogue cituada en pertenencias del rancho de Don Jose Reyes Berreyesa en Jurisdiccion del pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe del territorio de la Alta California en el segundo Distrito de Monterey segun cons,ta en los archivos de aquel partido y de donde estraja una copia estrajudicial del contrato de esa compania cuyo doc- umento presenta rubricado y a por este oficio por haberlo tenido a la vista en otros contratos y dandose f£ de esa constancia dise a la letra lo que sigue : Const< , (1(! Escritura de compania que el Senor Don Andres Castille- compania. r0 (} a pitan de Caballeria permanente celebra con el Senor Comandante General Don Jose Castro, los Senores Secundino Robles, Teodoro Robles, y una cesion voluntaria que han hecho los companeros perpetuam te al R. P. Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real de una mina de plata con ley de oro y asogue en el rancho de Don Jose Reyes Berreyesa en Jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose de Guada- lupe. Articulo primero. — El Senor Don Andres Castillero, arreglandose en un todo a la ordenanza de mineria hase formal compania perpetua- mente, con los mencionados Seilores en esta forma: La mitad de la mina que es de la que puede disponer se dividira en tres acciones en esta forma : Cuatro varras al Senor Comandante General ; Cuatro 161 • varras a los Seiiores Secundino y Teodoro Robles y las otras cuatro al R. P. F. Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real en clase de donaeion perpetua. Articulo segundo. — Ninguno de los eompaneros podra vender 6 en- agenar ninguna de sus acciones de manera que el que verificase dicha enagenacion perdera su derecho, quedando resumida en los demas eompaneros. Articulo tercero. — Los gastos se haran a proporcion de las acciones llevandose, una cuenta formal. Articulo cuatro. — Arreglandose en un todo a lo que previene la or- denanza de mineria cualquiera diferencia se resolvera por los eom- paneros. Articulo quinto. — Dirijira las labores, gastos y trabajos de la mina Don Andres Castillero y en su defecto el R. P. Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real. Articulo sesto. — No se estraera de los productos mas cantidad que los que se necesiten para el arreglo de la negociasion hasta que se ar- reglen los trabajos y cualquier cantidad que se saque ha de ser con conosimiento de todos los Companeros que qneda arreglada la nego- siasion. Articulo septimo. — Estos convenios se autorisan a presencia del Senor Prefecto del segundo Distrito Don Manuel Castro depositandose el documento original en el archivo del partido y dandose una copia certificada por S. S. a los interesados. Micion de Santa Clara dos de Noviembre de mil ochocientos cua- renta y cinco. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Por el Senor Comandante General Don Jose Castro, ANDRES CASTILLERO. FRAY JOSE MARIA del REFUGIO SUARES del REAL. Por "Secundino y Teodoro Robles, FRANCISCO ARSE. Es copial fiel del original a la que me remito. Micion de Santa Clara, Diciembre ocho de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco. MANUEL CASTRO. ANTONIO MARIA PICO. Es copia Mejico Diciembre cinco de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Btgueia Q ue P or lo incerto y con tal caracter de accionista en esamina venta. p 0r i ag cua tro varras " que le correspondieron, sigue diciendo 162 l el mismo Don Jose Castro que cle las dichas cuatro van-as," ya tiene vendidas tres al Seiior Don Alejandro Forbes de esta vecinidad segun las escrituras de venta que le ha otorgado ante este oficio el primero de Marzo dose y diez y seis de Abril de este ano, cuyas escrituras ra- tifica de nuevo como ventas legales que ha hecho, y que viendose por ellas que al que espone solo le queda una en esa mina ahora y por con- venirle a sus intereses trata de enagenarla quedando despendido en un todo de la accion que le pertenecia en la citada mina. Que por tanto y en aquella via y forma que mas firme sea, otorga el repitido Senor Castro ; que por si y a nombre de sus herederos y susesores 6 de quien de ellos hubiese titulo voz y causa, en manera alguna, da en venta real y enajenacion perpetua al mismo Senor Don Alejandro Forbes, de esta vecinidad y comercio para se y para los suyos, esa varra que aun ha correspondido al otorgante en la supra dicha mina que se conose con el nombre de Santa Clara. Y como unica propiedad que en ella le que- dava que transfiere en el Senor Comprador el dominio util y directo de la espresada varra con todos sus usos aprovechamientos y servidumbres y cuanto mas en derecho le pueda tocar y pertenecer pues todo lo cede y traspasa en el mencionado Senor Forbes. Y declara el otorgante que esta varra ultima que enajena esta libre de todo gravamen tacito y espreso como asi lo asegura y que la venta la base en cantidad de mil pesos que confiesa tener reqibidos en buena moneda a su satisfac- cion y que como esta suma no parese de presente renuncia la ley 9, titulo 1°, partida 5 a , y los dos anos que prefiere para la prueva del recibo, los que da por pasados como si lo estubieren, y otorga al com- prador el mas eficas resguardo que condusca a su seguridad. Ygual- mente asegura que la cantidad de mil pesos en que vende esa varra es lo que ella vale, y que aunque mas valiere del exceso cualquiera que sea hase gracia y donacion en el comprador y los suyos conforme a derecho renuncia la ley 2, titulo 1°, Libro 10 de la Novisima Recopi- lacion y su beneficia de los cuatro anos para pedir la recision del con- trato o suplemento de su justo valor, los que da por pasados como si lo estubieran. En consecuencia se desapodera deciste quita y aparta de cualquiera derecho que haya tenido y tener pueda a la mencionada varra y accion total en la mina p a . que como propia del comprador y adquira con legitimo titulo desempeile esa accion en lo que le corres- ponde y se posecione de ella en lo judicial 6 estrajudicial en virtud de este instrumento. Ygualmente el Senor otorgante se obliga a la evic- cion y saniamiento de esta venta asi como a que jamas scrvira de ob- staculo para ella el articula segundo de la escritura de compania que se ha incertado pues se obliga a haser pasar y consentir en esta venta a sus consocios asi como ha consentido y pasado el Senor otorgante por las que han hecho sus companeros, y a este efecto ratifica la eviccion y saniamiento que ofrese. 163 Siendo presente el Senor Don Alejandro Forbes a qui en Aseptacion. , «v * • . i • , -i • • * . doy fe conoser e impuesto de esta escntura dyo : que por si y para los suyos asepta la venta que se le hase bajo el saniamiento que se ofrese y queda obligado como accionista de la mina por la varra que se le vende a cumplir con los clemas socios en lo que le demarque la ordenaza del ramo. Y al cumplimiento de lo espuesto obligan los Se- nores otorgantes sus bienes presentes y futuros con sumicion y renun- ciaeion de las leyes y privilegios que sean de su favor y defensa para ser estrechados segun derecho como si fuera por sentencia pasada en autoridad de cosa jusgada. Asi lo otorgaron y firmaron siendo testigos Don Ramon Ponse, Don Francisco de los Rios y Don Santos Gallegos presentes doy fe. JOSE CASTRO, ALEJANDRO FORBES, JESUS VEGAR. E. R.— « de ellos "—vale. Concuerda con sus originales que obran desde la foja cuarenta y seis a la cuarenta y nueve la primera escritura, la segunda desde la foja ciento cuarenta y dos a la ciento cuarenta y cinco : la tercera desde la ciento cincuenta y una a la ciento cincuenta y cinco, y la Cuarta desde la ciento sesenta y siete a la ciento sesenta y una, todo del Libro pro- tocol del ano ultimo donde se saco y corrigio en estas dies y siete fojas del sello 1° y 4° y por segunda vez a peticion del Sefior compra- dor Don Alejandro Forbes. Y en fe de ello lo signo y firmo en Tepic a dies y siete de Agosto de mil ochocientos cuarenta y ocho. JESUS VEGAR. De las cuatro varras que se espresan en esta escritura se han ven- dido dos por el propietario a las Senores Barron, Forbes y compania segun la que ante mi pasien esta fecha. Tepic Abril once de mil ochocientos cuarenta y nueve. JESUS VEGAR. ' Alcalde 1° constitucional, y Escribano Publico que firmamos. Cer- tificamos y damos fe que el signo y firma que antecede el que usa y acostumbra el Escribano Don Jesus Vegar en todos los actos que ante el pasan. 164 Asi lo comprobamos en Tepic a quince de Marzo cle mil ochocientos cincuenta. LORETO CORONA. EUSEBIO FERNANDEZ. Consulate of the United States. I, George W. P. Bissell, Consul of the United States of North America, for this district, hereby certify that the signatures attached to the foregoing document, are in the hand writing of the subscribers, who legally hold the situations therein represented, and are worthy of all faith and credit. In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and seal of office, in the city of Tepic, this first day of December, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty. Consulate ) G. W. P. BISSELL Seal \ U. S. Consul. San Bias. The original of the foregoing document is written on Mexican sealed paper, and stamped, S. A. Clark, Recorder, by E. Lewis, Deputy. Filed for record, at 10g o'clock, A. M., April 1st, A. D., 1854, S. A. Clark, Recorder. Recorded by F. Lewis, Deputy. Recorded at re- quest of J. A. Forbes ; S. A. Clark, Recorder, by F. Lewis, Deputy. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, Cal., ) May 11th, A. D. 1857. \ I hereby certify that the foregoing, on pages 1, 2, 8, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument of record in this office, recorded in book G of Deeds, on pages 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264,265, 266 and 267. Note. — The word " vende " erased page 5, line 6 ; words " se saque " erased, page 7, line 9 from top ; " que " interlined page 9, line 5 from top ; " Castro " erased and " Pico " interlined on page 12, line from bottom ; " cuanto " erased page 13, line 14 from top ; " vende " interlined same page, 6 line from bottom ; " que le corres- pondieron sigue dicien doel mismo Don Jose Castro que de las dichas cuatro varras," interlined on page 17, line 15 from top ; " el" erased on page 20, line 10 from tho bottom. 165 Given under my hand and official seal, at office in the city of San Jose, the day and year last written. S. A. CLARK, i/-*-**-^ ^ County Recorder. seal [ By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. * Endorsed, Jose* Castro to Alex. Forbes, " 0. H. No. 28 1-2." DEPOSITION OF JAMES W. WEEKS. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ) Northern District of California. j The United States ) vs. > Andres Castillero. ) San Francisco, June 24, 1857. On this day, at 1 1-2 o'clock, P. M., before- J. Edgar Grymes, a Special Commissioner and Referee of the United States for the North- ern District of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, &c, &c, came James W. Weeks, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn, and testifies as follows : Present: — H. W. Halleck, Esq., of counsel for claimant, and the U. S. District Attorney, P. Delia Torre, Esq. Questions by U. S. District Attorney. 1st Ques. — What is your name, age and place of residence ? 1st Ans. — James W. Weeks, 44 years old, and I reside in the Pueblo of San Jose\ 2d Ques. — Who was Alcalde of the Jurisdiction of San Jose* on the 21st of January, 1848? 2d Ans. — I believe I was 1st Alcalde. 3d Ques. — Have you any recollection of an application having been made to you, as Alcalde, about that time, to make an examination of the New Almaden mine, and to mark out the perteneneias of the mine ? (Objected to as leading.) 3d Ans. — I have. 4th Ques. — Who made that application to you? 166 4th Ans. — James Alexander Forbes. 5th Ques. — What did you do upon that application ? 5th Ans. — I proceeded to the mine, and examined the mine, and saw the pertenancias marked out, and gave possession. (Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant testimony.) 6th Quest. — Bid you make any written order or decree upon the subject ? 6th An3. — Yes, sir. 7th Ques. — How did you enter that order or decree ? 7th Ans. — I entered it in the book of Archives in the office. 8th Ques. — Do you know where the book now is ? 8th Ans. — I believe it is in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County. 9th Ques. — Was the entry in that book the original? 9th Ans. — The original Mr. Forbes had ; that was a copy. I mean James Alex. Forbes. 10th Ques. — What was the custom in the Alcalde's office, in enter- ing orders and decrees ; was it to enter them in a book and retain the book as containing the original, and give copies from the book to per- sons interested, or was it to deliver the originals drawn on sheets of paper, and retain a copy in the book ? (Question objected to as leading.) 10th Ans. — It was customary to deliver the original and make a copy in the book, and make copies from the book when required. 11th Ques. — Do you know whether or not the book in which you entered the decree in that matter, is the same book which is designat- ed as " Book No. 2," in the office of the Recorder in Santa Clara County ? 11th Ans. — I believe it is. 12th Ques. — Please examine the paper now shown you, marked " G. M. Y." and say whether or not it is a copy of your decree in this matter. 12th Ans. — It appears to be a copy. (Question and answer objected to on the ground that it is incompe- tent to prove the contents of the original document by parole testimony.) 13th Ques. — Were you acquainted with Mr. Alexander Forbes of Tepic ? 13th Ans. — Yes, sir. 14th Ques. — Where were you acquainted with him ? 167 14th Ans. — In California. 15th Ques. — Where was he at the time you examined the mines on this occasion ? 15th Ans. — He was with us. 16th Ques. — What other persons were present at the mines on that occasion ? 16th Ans. — I had with me two assisting witnesses, Antonio Maria Pico and Pedro Sepeda ; both Mr Alexander and Mr. James Alexan- der Forbes were present, and I believe Mr. Walkinshaw was present, but I do not recollect. 17th Ques. — What was Mr. Alexander Forbes doing there ? 17th Ans. — I believe he was one of .he owners of the mine. 18th Ques. — Did you take these proceedings on a verbal applica- tion or a written one ? 18th Ans. — I do not recollect, but I think it was a written one. 19th Ques. — Please look at the paper now shown to you, marked "J. W. W." hereto attached, and say whether or not you recognize it to be a copy of the petition addressed to you in this matter, and upon which you made yonr decree. (Question objected to as incompetent, no proper foundation being laid by proving that any original ever existed, or if one existed, its loss has not been accounted for.) 19th Ans. — I have no doubt but this may be a copy of that which was presented to me. 20th Ques. — After having read the paper just exhibited to you, and refreshed your recollection on the subject, please state whether or not the written petition was presented to you, and whether or not this paper is a copy of that petition ? 20th Ans. — I am not certain whether this is the paper or a copy — this may be the paper presented to me or a copy. 21st Ques. — Is it either the one or the other ? Is it either the orig- inal or the copy ? 21st Ans. — It appears tome to be a copy. It says " copy " on top. This is in James Alexander Forbes' writing. 22d Ques. — In whose hand-writing was the original petition ? 2 2d Ans. — In James Alexander Forbes'. 23d Ques. — In whose hand-writing was the original decree that you made upon the subject ? 23d Ans. — I believe it was in James Alex. Forbes' writing likewise. He wrote it all. 24th Ques. — After making the decree and entering it in the book, what did you do with the original petition and decree ? 24th Ans. — I do not recollect to whom I delivered the petition ; I may have delivered it to James Alex. Forbes. I delivered the decree to him. 168 25th Ques. — Is it probable that you did deliver him the original petition also ? What would have been the usual and customary course in disposing of the original papers ? 25th Ans. — Sometimes they would retain the original memorials, and sometimes they would deliver them to the parties. 26th Ques. — When retained what was done with them ? 26th Ans. — Placed with other papers in the archives ; sometimes entered in the books, sometimes put away loose. 27th Ques. — Where are the archives of the Alcalde of the juris- diction of San Jose* ? 27th Ans. — I believe they are in the Recorder's office of Santa Clara County ; some of them in the mayor's office in the city of San Jose*. 28th Ques. — When you made that decree, did you make any map or plan of the pertenencias of the mine, as described in the decree. 28th Ans. — I have no recollection whether I did or not. 29th Ques. — What did James Alex. Forbes have to do with the mine (Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.) 29th Ans.. — I believe he was one of the partners. Cross-Examination. 30th Ques. — Are you certain that any written petition was present- ed to you in the case referred to in your direct examination ? 30th Ans. — I believe there was. It strikes me that there was : so long ago that I cannot remember. JAMES W. WEEKES. Sworn to and subscribed before me, June 24th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. EXHIBIT " J. W. W." COPIA. Senor Juez de Paz: Alejandro Forbes, a nombre de Simisuco, y de sus consocios dueno de la mina de plata, oro y azogue conocida con el nombre de 169 Santa Clara y ahora llamada Nuevo Almaden y a nombre de la com- pania formada para su laborio y avio de la misma. Ante V. como mas haya lugar en derecho expongo que la ordenanza de mineria en su titulo IX, Art . 10, previene que toda mina debe visitarse y examinarse por peritos nombrador por el Juez, a fin de cerciorarse si son trabajadas conforme a dicha ordenanza. Y deseando el que firma cumplir con las leyes, a V. como Juez competente (por falta del tribunal a quien le toca entender en la materia) le suplico se sirva de pasar con los tes- tigos de su asistencia a la expresada mina a imprecionar las obras y labores de ella, ahora en corriente, conforme la ordenanza de la mate- ria ; como tambien a reconocer el rumbo y echado de la veta de la enunciada mina, a su actual profundidad con el objeto de reformar y enmendar (pues hay lugar para ello) los terminos de la primera acta de posesion, y para corregir tambien cualquiera otra equivocacion que en ella paresca : segun el titulo VIII, Art . 11 de la misma ordenanza, particularmente a decidir el aumento de pertenencias que deben poseer los duenos de la citada mina, y su habilitador por si mismo y como representante de aquellos, y la cuadra que correspond© a las dichas pertenencias, conforme al verdadero echado de la veta. Por lo que. A. Y. suplico se sirva demandar proveer el presente escrito en los terminos expuestos, y practicadas que sean las diligen- cias, que se me devuelvan para el debido resguardo y fines que con- vengan a los interesados sirviendo de admitir este en papel simple, por falta total del sellado en este departamento. Pueblo de San Jose, 19 de Enero, 1848. DEPOSITION OF ANTONIO MARIA PICO. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ) Northern District op California. \ The United States ) vs. > Andres Castillero. ) San Francisco, June 24th, 1857. On this day, 3 o'clock P. M., before J. Edgar Grymes, a Special Commissioner and Referee jbf the United States for the Northern Dis trict of California, authorized to administer oaths, &c, &c, came An- tonio Maria Pico, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle private land claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and 19 170 was duly sworn and testified as follows — his evidence being interpret- ed, (by consent of attorneys) by J. Edgar Grymes, Commissioner. Present: — U. S. District Attorney, and H. W. Halleck, Esq., for Claimants. Questions by U. S. District Attorney. 1st Ques. — What is your name, age, and place of residence ? 1st Ans. — My name is Antonio Maria Pico, 48 years, and I reside in San Jose'. 2d Ques. — Do you know anything about an application made by Mr. Alexander Forbes, in January, 1848, to the Justice of the Peace or Alcalde, for an examination of the New Almaden mine, and the meas- urement of pertenencias, or the proceeedings of James W. Weekes, as Alcalde, upon such an application ? if yes, state what you know. (Question objected to.) 2d Ans. — Mr. Weekes was at the mine, and I was with him as a witness ; there was also another witness, whose name I do not remem- ber, and the two Forbes', the younger and the elder. They were measuring the mouth of the mine with a cord ; after that we went to the hacienda, and James Alexander Forbes wrote out a decree ; eve- rything was done that was necessary, and we signed the document. (Question and answer objected to as irrelevant and incompetent tes- timony.) 3d Ques. — Were any other persons present but those you have named ? 3d Ans. — There were some other persons, but I do not remember who they were. 4th Ques. — Was Mr. Robt. Walkinshaw there ? 4th Ans. — I do not remember if he was there — I think he was. 5th Ques. — Did you measure anything else beside the mouth of the mine ? 5th Ans. — Yes, sir : they measured 200 by 700 varas, that is what I think. 6th Ques. — What did they measure 200 by 700 varas for ? 6th Ans. — I do not know what they measured for — I believe it was for information. 7th Ques. — Do you know at whose request the Alcalde went there ? 7th Ans. — He went there at the request of the owners. 8th Ques. — Did you see any papers there ? 8th*Ans. — Yes, I saw those that Mr. Forbes was making. 171 9th Ques. — Who were present when Mr. Forbes drew up the decree ? 9th Ans. — Those who went there. I do not remember who they were. Their names ought to be on the paper. 10th Ques. — Did you read it ? 10th Ans. — Mr. Forbes read it in my presence. 11th Ques. — Look upon the paper marked " G. M. Y." now shown you, and say whether or not it is a copy of the decree to which you refer . 11th Ans. — Yes, sir, it appears to be the same. 12th Ques. — Examine the paper now shown to you, marked " J. W. W.", and say whether or not you ever saw the original of which this is a copy. 12tb Ans. — I do not remember if I ever saw this paper before. It is in the hand-writing of Forbes. I remember that Forbes was pres- ent, but I do not recollect this paper. I recollect the other paper. 13th Ques. — Did you ever know a man called Clemente Luquin or Laquin ? 13th Ans. — I do not recollect. (10th and 11th questions and answers objected to as incompetent to prove the contents of papers referred to : the other questions and answers severally objected to as having reference to matters which are irrelevant and incompetent testimony in this case.) Cross-Examination. 14th Ques. — Do you know of your own knowledge, who requested the Alcalde to go to the New Almaden, as stated in your direct ex- amination ? 14th Ans. — I know that it was Mr. Alexander Forbes. - 15th Ques. — Do you know of your own knowledge that he made the request"? 15th Ans. — I do. 16th Ques. — How do you know that he made the request ? 16th Ans. — Because I was there when he asked him. 17th Ques. — Where was he when he made the request ? 17th Ans. — I have said that it was at the mine ; Forbes was there also. 18th Ques. — Was the request made at the time the Alcalde was present at the mine, or before ? 18th Ans. — I am not certain if it was before or at the mine itself. 19th Ques. — Was it made verbally or in writing ? 19th Ans. — It was in writing. ANTONIO Ma. PICO. 172 Sworn to and subscribed bofore me, June 24th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. Endorsed : — Filed July 18, 1857, John A. Monroe, Clerk, By W. H. Ciievers, Deputy. [H. L., No. 3 ; " 0. H. No. 28."] DEED — S. & J. T. ROBLES TO FORBES. En la Mision de Santa Clara de la Alta California a las catorce del mes de setiembre de mil ochocientas cuarenta y siete. Ante mi Yg- nacio Alvisu Juez de Paz de esta Jurisdiccion y ante los testigos de un asistencia con quienes actuo, en forma divida a falta de Notario Publi- co comparecieron, en sus propias personas Don Secundino Robles y Don Jose* Teodoro Robles naturales de esta California, a quieres doy fe conosco y dijeron que por si y a nombre de sus hijos herederos y sucesores y de quienes de ellos hubiese titulo voz y cansa en cualquie- ra manera. Venden y dan en Venta Solemne y enagenacion perpetua I todos sus derechos y acciones en dos varras en cada una de las feres, [ pertenencias de la mina de Azogue de Almaden de Santa Clara con todos los privilegios gracias concesiones y premios cle cualquiera natu- ralesa que sean hechas a los socios de la citada mina por el Gobierno Mejicano, y en fin todo el derecho que anexo sea a las espresadas dos varras. D. Diego Alejandro Forbes vice consul de S. M. B. para Californias y declaran y aseguran los enunciados Don Secundino Ro- bles, Don Jose* Teodoro Robles no tener enaganadas ni bendidas las espresadias dos barras ni parte algunas de ellas, en la citada mina de Azogue de Almaden de Santa Clara, y que en su totalidad estan libres de todo gravamen perpetuo temporal general tacito y espreso vinculo tributo y fianaz y como tal se las venden con todo el derecho anexo a ello en precio y cantidad de tres mil ocho sientos sesenta pe- I sos, (3860 Pesos) que les tiene entregados el comprador y los otor- gartes ban resibido a su entera satisfaccion y asi mismo declaran que su justo precio y verdadero valor de las esperesadas dos varras, en ca- da una de las pertenencias con todos los derechos e acciones asesas a ellas segun queda esplicado son los mencionados. Tres mil ocho cien- \^ tos sesenta pesos (3860 Pesos,) y que no valen mas y que en caso de que mas valgan o valer puedan del exceso en poca 6 mucha suma, lo ceden en el comprador sus hijos herederos y sucesores, gracia y dona- cion pura perfecta 6 irrevocable que en derecho se llama intervivos con insinuacion y demas primeras legales, con la circunstancia de que desde hoy en adelunte : — para siempre jamas las enunciadas dos Varras, en cada una de las tres pertenencias de la citada mina de Azogue de Al- maden de Santa Clara con todos los derechos y acciones que les son 173 anexas, son de la legitima propriedad del espresado. Don Diego Ale- jandro Forbes y quien le represento. Y los enunciados Don Secundi- no Robles y Don Jose" Teodoro Robles renuncian las leyes que tratan de Contratos compras y ventas teneques y cambios y de otras en que hay4esion en mas o menos de la mitad del justo precio y desde hoy en adelante para siempre jamas se desapoderan quitan y apartan y a sua hijos herederos y sucesores y cualquiera de ellos del dominio propie- dad posesion titulo voz y recurso competar, a las enunciadas dos varas en cada una de las tres pertenencias (segun y conforme esplicada Ena, en este documento) en la citada mina de Azogue las renuncian ceden y traspasan en el comprador y en quien le represento, para que las posea trabaje use disfrute gose* cambio enagene y disponga de ellas a su elecion como de cosa suya adquirida con legitimo y justo titulo y le contiesen poder irrevocable con libre parroca y general administracion constituyendole procurador en su propia causa. Y para la exacta ob- servancia de todo lo referido y paja el sostenimiento del comprador y sus tienderos en el goze pacifico de la enunciada finca se obligan los otorgantes con sus bienes habidos y por haber y con ellos se someten a los tres Jueces y Justicias que de sus causas puedan y deran conocer conforme a derecho para que a su cumplimiento les compilan y apre- mien como por sentencia definitiva consentida y pasada, en cosa Jus- dado, que por el caso les favorescan, e cuyo testimonio asi lo ortogaron y por no saber firman hicieron la seilal de la Santa Clara ante mi el precitado jues y los testigos de que doy fe\ SECUNDINO ROBLES, IGNACIO ALVISU, x JOSE TEODORO ROBLES, Jues Auxiliar. AGUSTIN DESFORGES,Asistencia. As. EUSEBIO SALERIDON. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, California, ) May 11th, A. D. 1857. J I hereby certify that the foregoing, on pages 1, 2 and 3 of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an Instrument of record in this office, recorded in Book 2, of Deeds, on pages 269, 270 and 271. Given under my hand and official seal, at the City of San Jose", the day and year last written. S. A. CLARK, County Recorder, ) By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. seal ( J J H. L., No. 4 ; "0. H., No. 30 DEED S. & J. T. ROBLES TO R. WALKINSHAW. This indenture made and entered into this fourteenth day of ^ April A. D. one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight in the Mission of 174 Santa Clara, territory of California, by and between James Alex. Forbes of the same place in the name and stead of Jose Teodoro Robles and Secundino Robles of the territory of California aforesaid of the first part and Robert Walkinshaw presently residing at the mines of New Almaden of the second part Witnesseth, that the said James Alex. Forbes being fully authorized by letters of attorney to him duly granted by the aforesaid Jose* Teodoro Robles, Secundino Robles, bearing date the twenty-sixth of March, 1846, for and in con- sideration of the sum of Seven thousand Dollars lawful money to be paid to him by the said Robert Walkinshaw, of the second part, in the following manner to wit, one thousand Dollars in hand paid, the re- ceipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and six thousand Dollars in two installments or payments, one of which of three three thousand Dollars to be paid at six months, and one of four thousand Dollars to be paid at nine months — both from the date of these presents, has granted bar- gained sold and conveyed and by these presents doth grant bargain sell and convey unto the said Robert Walkinshaw party of the second part and to his heirs and assigns forever all the right, title and inter- est of the aforesaid Josd Teodoro Robles and Secundino Robles to two twenty-fourth shares or barras in the Quicksilver mines of New Almaden de Santa Clara, now in operation under contract of Alex- ander Forbes, Esquire, Sf. and under the immediate management of the said Robert Walkinshaw with all and singular the rights priv- ileges and Product thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining to the said two twenty-fourth shares or parts of the whole of the afore- said mine of New Almaden de Santa Clara of which the said Jose* Teodoro Robles and Secundino Robles became part proprietors in Nov. 1845, By grant from Andres Castillero as is fully set forth in a docu- ment under that date archived in the records of the town of San Jose'; To have and to hold the said two twenty-fourths of the whole of the said mine of New Almaden de Santa Clara the said Robert Walkin- shaw his heirs and assigns forever ; and the said James Alex. Forbes does hereby consent and agree one the part of the said Jose Teodoro Ro- bles and Secundino Robles to warrant and defend the said party of the second his heirs and successors in the use, benefit and behoof of the Product of the aforesaid and two twenty-fourths of the said mine of New Almaden de Santa Clara against all persons whomsoever. In testimony whereof the said James Alex. Forbes, attorney for the said Jose Teodoro Robles and Secundino Robles has hereunto placed his hand and seal the day and date above written. Witnesseth, JAMES ALEX. FORBES. Antonio Senas ; Massimore Fernandes. District of San Jose, SS. — On this tenth day of July, A. D. 1848, before me personally came James Alex. Forbes, to me known 175 to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing convey- ance, and exhibited to me his power of attorney authorizing him to make and execute the foregoing instrument, and at the same time he acknowledged the execution of the same for the purposes therein men- tioned. K. H. DIMMICK, 1st Alcalde. Recorder's Office, Santa Clara County, California, ) July 28th, A. D. 1857. j I hereby certify that the foregoing, on pages 1, 2 and 3 of this, contains a true and correct copy of an instrument now of record in this office, and recorded in Book 5 of Deeds, pages 137 and 138. Witness my hand and official seal, at office in the city of San Jose*, the day and date last written. S. A. CLARK, County Recorder, By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. SEAL (H. L. No. 5. " 0. H. No. 31.") DEED — J. M. REAL TO R. WALKINSHAW". En la Mision de Santa Clara, a las nueve dias del mes de Agosto, de mil ochocientos cuarenta y nueve ante mi Jorge Bellamy, Alcalde auxiliar de la jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose' de Guadalupe, y testigos de asistencia comparecio el Reverendo Padre Fray Jose' Maria del Refugio Zuares del Real, a quien dey fe conosco y dijo : que a virtud de un contrato de compania celebrado entre el S. D. Andres Castillero, Sr. Don Jose Castro, Don Teodoro y Don Secun- dino Robles, el dos de Noviembre, de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco le corresponden y pertenece en derecho de donacion perpetua cuatro barras en una mina de plata con ley de oro y azogue, cituacla segun se expresa en el espedieete de Registro, en pertenencias del rancho de Don Jose Reyes Berreyesa, en la misma jurisdiccion ties de cuyas cuatro varas el. Potorgante vendio y enageno al Sr. Don Alejandro Forbes per escritura de ventas del mes de Enero de mil ochocientos cuarenta y ocho. Que ahora y en su caracter de accionista en la dicho mina de la manera mencionada, y en la via y forma que mejor haya lugar en derecho otorga, que por si sus herederos y sucesores a virtud de cualesquier derecho caracter o titulo que fuera, da en venta y enagenacion real y perpetua a Dn Roberto Walkinshaw vecino de esta jurisdicion para si y para los suyos la citada una vara 176 que aim le pertenece en donacion perpetua, en la referida mina que en su titulo de registro, se conoce con el nombre de la de Santa Clara, y actualm te por la del Nuevo Almaden. Que trasfiere en el es- presado Dn Roberto Walkinshaw el derecho util y recto de la espresada varra con todos sus usos aprovachamientes y servidumbres : con los frutos y productos que a ella corresponden y pertenecen, desde y posterior a el diez y siete de Deciembre de mil ocho cientos cuarenta y seis con poder a reclamar los mismos en el poder de cual- quiera persona existen, con cuanto mas en derecho le pueda tocar y pertenecer pues todo lo cede y traspasa en el mencionado Sr. Dn Walkinshaw. Y declara el otorgante que la varra que enagena es libre de todo gravamen general y particular tacito y espres como asi la asegura, y la venta de ella, y de sus frutos y productos como arriba se espresa, se hace en la cantidad de cinco mil pesos en moneda cor- riente, que confiesa haber recibido a toda su satisfaccion. Que es- presamente renuncia el beneficio de la ley 9 tit. 1° partida 5 a d ig- ualmente la ley 2 a tit l a Libro 10, de la novisima Recopilacion como de cualquier otra ley que favoresca su derecho a pedir prueba del recibo del valor a la reversion de este contrato, brajo del protesto que fuera. En consequeneia se desapodera desiste y aparta de cualquier derecho que haya tenido y tener, pueda a la mencionada varra para que como propria del comprador y adquerida de legitimo titulo, des- empene la accion que en ella le corresponde ; y se posecione de ella en lo judicial 6 estrajudicial en virtud de este instrumento. Igualmente el otorgante se obliga a la eviccion y sanamiento de esta venta, como asi que jamas servira de obstaculo para ella el art se- gundo de citado contrato de compania. Y estando presente Dn Roberto Walkinshaw a quien doy fe conozco y impuesto de esta es- critura dijo que por se y para los suyos accepta la venta que se le hace bajo el sanamiento que se le ofrece y queda obligado como ac- cionista de la espresada mina en la varra que se le vende, a cumplir los demas socios en conformidad a las leyes. Y al cumplimiento de la esprusto obligan los otorgantes sus bienes presentes y futuros con sumision y renunciasion de las leyes y priveligios que sea en su favor y defensa para ser estrechados como si fuera por setencia pasada en autoridad de caso juzgada y firmaron siendo testigos, Dn Jesus Herre- ra y Dn Fran 00 Arce. Fr. J. M a del R. J. del Real. De as a Francisco Arce, De as a Jesus Herrera. GEO. W. BELLAMY, Alcalde. ROBERT WALKINSHAW. 177 Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, ) California, May 11, A. D. 1857. \ I hereby certify, that the foregoing, on pages 1, 2 and 3 of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument, of record in this office, recorded in book 5, on pages 178 and 179. Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San Jose" the day and year last written. S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. [H. L. No. 6. 0. H. No. 29.] POWER OF ATTORNEY — ALEX. FORBES TO JAS. ALEX. FORBES. (Duplicate.) — Know all men by these presents that I Alexander Forbes a British subject at, present residing in the city of Tepic in the Republic of Mexico in my own name and in the name of the com- pany established for the working of the mine of New Almaden or Santa Clara, in Upper California have made constituted and appointed and by these presents do make constitute and appoint James Alex. Forbes of Santa Clara in California my true and lawful attorney for me and in my name, and in the name and stead of the company afore- said to demand and receive possession of the said mine of New Alma- den, from whosoever may be in the management or possession thereof with all the ores utensils houses and all and everything thereto- ing appertaining hereby authorizing my said attorney to direct and work the same for my account and for account of the foresaid company in such manner as shall appear to my said attorney to be for the interest of all concerned, and in conformity with the instructions to that effect given and I hereby in my own name and in a name of the company aforesaid delegates to him my said attorney my full and entire power and authority in the premises, to demand accounts, re- cover debts receive all funds belonging to me or to the aforesaid com- pany or to the said mine to demand the same at law or equity to name and appoint managers and laborers to remove the same and to perform all such lawful acts deeds matters and things therein as may be requisite and necessary in as large full and ample a mariner as I myself might or could do were I personally present and acting there- in in my own proper person or as if my said attorney was thereto more fully and especially authorized with full and ample powers of substitution and revocation at his own will and pleasure, hereby en- gaging to ratify and confirm all and whatsoever my said attorney or his substitute or substitutes shall or may lawfully do or cause to be done in the premises under or by virtue of these presents. In testi- 178 mony whereof, I have set set my hand and seal to these presents this twenty-third day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-nine. ALEX. FORBES. seal Joaquin Andrade, Witness. Wm. E. Barron, Witness. Infras exitos escribanos publicos certificamos que las centeniones firmas son propias de los sessones Don Alejandro Forbes Don Joaquin Andrade y Don Guillenio E. Barren, las mismas que usan entodas sus negocios En cuya comprabasion sentamos la presente en Tepic a diez y nueve de Mayo de mil ochocientos cuarenta y nueve. PANFILO SOLIS. JESUS VEGAS. I hereby certify that the foregoing signatures are in the true hand- writing of the subscribers who held the situations represented and who are worthy of all faith and credit. Given under my hand and seal of office, in the city of Tepic, this 19th day of May, 1849. | seal | ESTACE W. BARREN, ' * Consul. The above is a true copy of the original, given under my hand this twenty. sixth day of September, A. D. 1849. C. T. RYLAND, Recorder. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, ) California, May 11, A. D. 1857. J I hereby certify that the foregoing, on pages 1,2, and 8, of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument, of record in this office, recorded in book 5, on pages 284 and 285. Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San Jose, the day and year last written. | seal I S. A. CLARK, * — — * County Recorder. 179 [H. L. No. 7. " 0. H. No. 36."] DEED — J. A. FORBES TO JOHN PARROTT. This indenture made and entered into this ninth day of August in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty, by and between James A. Forbes of Santa Clara in the State of California of the first part, and John Parrott of San Francisco, of the same State of the second part witnesseth. That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) lawful money of the United States of America to him in hand paid by the said party of the second part, at or before the en- sealing and delivery of these presents the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hath granted, bargained, sold aliened, remised, con- veyed, and confirmed, and by these presents doth grant, bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part and to his heirs and assigns for ever, One entire and un- encumbered "Barra" or Twenty-fourth part of the Quicksilver Mine of New Almaden in the County of Santa Clara State of California. Together with all and singular the lands tenements hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents issues and profits thereof. And also all the Estate right title in- terest property possession claim and demand whatsoever, as well in law as in equity of the party of the first part, of, in and to the party of the first part, of and to the above described Twenty-fourth part of the said Mine, with its appurtenances. To have and to hold all and singular the above mentioned twenty-fourth part of the said mine and its appurtenances unto the said John Parrott party of the second part, his heirs and assigns for ever. And the said James A. Forbes party of the first part and his heirs the said twenty-fourth part of the said Mine in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second part his heirs and assigns against the said party of the first part & his heirs, and against all and every person or persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same, shall and will Warrant and by these presents for ever defend. In witness whereof, the said party of the first part hath hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year above written. JAMES ALEX R . FORBES. Sealed and delivered in the presence of Wm. E. Barron, Bernard Peyton, Jr. 180 State op California, \ County of San Francisco, j ss On this ninth day of August, A. D. 1850, before me, a Notary Public in and for said county, personally came James A. Forbes, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing conveyance, and acknowledged that he executed the same freely and voluntarily, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Witness my hand and seal of office, J N0 McVICKAR, Notary Public, San Francisco Co. SEAL ' lied for record 6} o'clock, A. M., 17 Aug. 1850. J. T. RICHARDSON, Recorder, S. C. C. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, California, May 11, A. D. 1857. I hereby certify, that that the foregoing, on pages one and two of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument, of record in this office, recorded in book A. of deeds, on page 336. Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San Jose*, the day and year last written. S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. SEAL [H. L. No. 8. " 0. H. No. 39."] DEED — J. A. FORBES TO H. LAURENCEL. Know all men by these presents, that I, James Alexander Forbes of Santa Clara Upper California for and in consideration of the sum of Five Thousand Four Hundred Dollars, to me in hand paid by Henry Laurencel Esq. of San Francisco, the receipt of which sum I do hereby acknowledge, have granted bargained sold and quit-claimed and by these presents do bargain sell and quit-claim unto the said Honry Laurencel Esq. his heirs and assigns for ever, all my right 181 title and interest claim and demand, both at law and in equity, as well in possession as in expectancy of in and to, Three Twentieth parts of one share or one Twenty-fourth part of the Quicksilver mine of New Almaden situated in the County of Santa Clara, Upper California, with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging. In witness whereof I have placed my hand and seal this tenth day of September A. D. one thousand and Eight hundred and Fifty. JAS. ALEX R . FORBES. Witness : A. C. Campbell. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. \ s ' Be it remembered that on this the 25th day of September 1850, before me appeared James Alex. Forbes, personally known to me to be the person described in and who ' executed the foregoing Peed, and acknowledged that he executed the same freely, voluntarily, and for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my private seal, there being no official seal, the date last above written. JOHN T. RICHARDSON. By A. C. CAMPBELL, Deputy Recorder. SEAL Filed for record 7 o'clock, A. M., 27 Sept. 1850. T. J. RICHARDSON, Recorder. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, ) California, May 11, A. D. 1857. j I hereby certify, that the foregoing, on pages one and two of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument, of record in this office, recorded in book B, of deeds, on pages 118 and 119. Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San Jose*, the day and year last written. S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. 182 [H. L. No. 9. " 0. H. No. 38."] DEED — H. LAURENCEL TO BOLTON BARRON & CO. Know all men by these presents: that I, Henry Laurencel of the city of San Jose county of Santa Clara and State of California, for and in consideration of the sum of Three Thousand Dollars, to me in hand paid by James R. Bolton and William Barron, composing the firm of Bolton Barron & Company, in the city of San Francisco, State of California, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have bargained granted, sold released conveyed and transferred, and by these presents do grant bargain, sell, release, convey and transfer unto the said James R. Bolton and William Barron, their heirs and assigns Three twentieths of one "barra" or of one Twenty-fourth part, of the mine of New Almaden, situated in the said County of Santa Clara, together with all the lands tenements, hereditaments, privi- leges and appurtenances thereunto belonging : To have and to hold the above granted land and property unto the said James R. Bolton and William Baron their heirs and assigns to their use and behoof for ever. And I do, for myself, my heirs, executors and administra- tors, covenant and agree with the said Bolton and Barron, their heirs and assigns in manner and form following, that is to say : that the above described property is free from all incumbrances, had, made, done or suffered by me or by any person, claiming or to claim by, from or under me ; and that I will, and my heirs executors and administra- tors shall warrant and for ever defend the same unto the said Bolton and Barron, their heirs and assigns against any person lawfully claim- ing or to claim, by from or under me, or by any of my act, means, assent or procurement. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 22nd day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred tmd fifty-one. H. LAURENCEL. X seal ss. Signed sealed & delivered in presence of H. W. Halluck. State of California, County of Santa Clara. On this 22d day of March, A. D. 1851, before me John Flournoy, Deputy Recorder in & for the aforesaid county personally came H. Laurencel, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, & acknowledged that he executed the same, freely, voluntarily, and for the uses and purposes therein set forth. I testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 183 private seal, (there being as yet no official seal provided,) at office, this day and date last above written. r j JOHN FLOURNOY, J seal J Deputy Recorder, in and for * ' said County. Filed 9 35-60 o'clock, A. M., 22d March, 1851. T. J. Richardson, Rec. J. Flournoy, Deputy. Recorder's Office, Santa Clara County, Chlifornia, July 28, A. D. 1857. I hereby certify that the foregoing, on pages 1 and 2 of this, con- tains a true and correct copy of an instrument now of record in this office, and recorded in book C, of Deeds, on pages 330 and 331. Witness my hand and official seal at office, in the city of San Jose*, the day and date last written. S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. j j By GEO. M. YOELL, j seal ( Deputy. [H. L. No. 10. "0. H. No. 39."] DEED — BOLTON & BARRON TO J. E. FERNANDEZ. Know all men by these presents that We, James R. Bolton and Wm. Barron of the firm of Bolton Barron & Co., of San Francisco California for and in consideration of the sum of Six thousand Dollars, ($6000) to us in hand paid by Jose* E. Fernandez also of San Francisco, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged have bargained granted sold released conveyed and transferred, and by these presents do bargain grant sell release convey and transfer unto the said Jose E. Fernandez his heirs and assigns, three twen- tieths (3-20ths) of one Barrow r , or of one twenty-fourth part of the Quicksilver mine of New Almaden situated in the County of Santa Clara in this State, together with all the lands, tenements heredita- ments privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging. Also all and singular the Quicksilver now in possession or in expectancy which as owners of the three-twentieths of one barra of the said mine of New Almaden we now are or may become entitled to in any manner whatsoever, from the 10th day of September A. D. 1850, to the date of this Instrument, the aforesaid three-twentieths of one Barra of the said mine of New Almaden and appurtenances being the same conveyed to H. Laurencel by James Alexr. Forbes on the 10th day 184 of September, A. D. 1850, and by said H. Laurencel conveyed to us, on the 22nd day of March A. D. 1851, recorded in Book of Deeds "C," page 330, in the Archives of Santa Clara County, and confirmed by said James A. Forbes and his wife to us, as per Deed of the same date, 22d day of March, A. D. 1851, recorded in book of Deeds 'C page 368, in the same archives of Santa Clara county. To have and to hold the three-twentieths of one Bara of the said mine of New Almaden and appurtenances and all and singular the Quick- silver to the same belonging or appertaining unto the said Jose E. Fernandez his heirs or assigns to his and their own use and behoof for ever. And we the said James R. Bolton and Wm. Barron com- posing the firm of Bolton, Barron & Co., in this City do hereby cove- nant and agree to and with the said Jose E. Fernandez his heirs and assigns that the above described property is free from all incum- brances made incured, or suffered by us or any other person or persons whomsoever, by us authorised or empowered and we shall ours heirs executors or assigns warrant and defend the aforesaid property for ever unto the said Jose E. Fernandez, his heirs execu- tors and assigns against the lawfull claims and demands of all persons claiming or to claim, by through or under us, but against none others. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hand and seal at San Francisco on this thirtieth day of April A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two. JAMES R. BOLTON, [seal.] Wm. E. BARRON. [seal.] Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Luc. Herman. On this 30th day of April, A. D. 1852, before me a Notary public, duly commissioned & sworn for the County of San Francisco, personally came James R. Bolton & William Barron, known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing Instru- ment, & who acknowledged to me that they executed the same freely and voluntarily for the uses k purposes therein mentioned. Witness my hand and seal at office. LUC. HERMAN. Not. Pub. SEAL Filed 11 o'clock, A. M., May 10th, A. D. 1852. JOHN M. MURPHY, Recorder. Recorded at the request of Marcelo Carero. J. M. MURPHY, Recorder. 185 Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, \ California, May 11th, A. D. 1857. \ I hereby certify, that the foregoing, on pages 1, 2 and 3, of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument of record in this office, recorded in book D, of Deeds, on pages 507 and 508. Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San Jos6, the day and year last written. , } S. A. CLARK, J seal ( • County Recorder. [H. L. No. 11. " 0. H. No. 40."] DEED — J. E. FERNANDEZ TO J. F. DE LEON. Know all men by these presents that I, Jose E. Fernandez, of the city of San Francisco State of California, for and in consideration of the sum of ($6000,) six thousand dollars to me in hand paid by Jose Francisco Leon of the same place the receipt whereof is hereby ac- knowledged, have granted bargained, sold, released, conveyed and transferred, and by these presents do grant bargain, sell, release, con- vey and transfer unto the said Jose Francisco Leon his heirs and assigns (3-20ths) Three-twentieths of one "Barra" or of one twenty- fourth part of the Quicksilver mine of New Almaden, situated in the County of Santa Clara, and State aforesaid, together with all the lands, tenements, hereditaments, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, also all the Quicksilver now in possession or in expectancy which as owner of the said three twentieths of one" Barra" of the mine of New Almaden, I now am or may become entitled to in any manner whatsoever until this fourteenth day of April, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three. The aforesaid three twentieths of one "Barra" jo£ the said mine of New Almaden and appurtenances being the same conveyed to H. Laurencel by James Alexander Forbes on the 10th day of September, A. D. 1850, and by said H. Laurencel conveyed to J. R. Bolton and Wm. Barron on the 22d March, A. D. 1851, recorded in Book of Deeds 'C,' page 330, in the archives of Santa Clara County, and confirmed to them by said James A. Forbes and his wife as per deed of same date, 22d March, 1851, recorded in Book of Deeds 'C,' page 368, in the same archives of Santa Clara County, and conveyed to me the said J. E. Fernandez, by the said Bolton and Barron on the 30th day of April, 1852, as recorded in Book of Deeds D, page 507 by J. W. Murphy, Recorder. To have and to hold the Three twentieths of one "Barra" of the said mine of 20 186 New Almaden and appurtenances, and all and singular the Quicksilver to the same appertaining or to me as owner thereof in anywise belong- ing, up to the date hereof, unto the said Jose* Francisco Leon his heirs and assigns, to his and their sole and only proper use benefit and behoof forever. And I the said Jose* Eusebio Fernandez do hereby cove- nant and agree to and with the said Jose* Francisco Leon his heirs and assigns that the above described property is free from all incum- brances made incurred or suffered by me, or any other person or persons by me authorised or empowered and that I, my heirs execu- tors and assigns shall and "will warrant and for ever defend the afore- said property unto the said Jose* Francisco Leon his heirs and assigns against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming or to claim by through or under me or them, but against none other. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal at San Francisco this fourteenth day of April A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three. JOSE E. FERNANDEZ, j seal J Sealed and delivered in presence of FREDK. GOERLITZ. State of Calieornia County of San Fkanctsco. On this fourteenth day of April, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, personally appeared before me a Notary Public, in and for said County Jose E. Fernandez known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and who ac- knowledged to me that he executed the same freely and voluntarily, and for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year last above written. , } WILL M . NEWTON WEEKS, } seal [ Notary Public. Filed for record at 4 o'clock, P. M., July 15th, A. D. 1853. J. M. MURPHY, Recorder, By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. Recorded at the request of J. F. Leon. J. M. MURPHY, Recorder, By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. 187 Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, ) California, May 11, A. D. 1857. \ I hereby certify, that the foregoing on pages 1, 2 and 3 of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument, of record in this office, recorded in book F. of Deeds, on pages 216 and 217. Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San Jose*, the day and year last written. , j S. A. CLARK, j seal J County Recorder. [H. L. No. 12. " 0. H. No. 41."] DEED — J. F. DE LEON TO JAS. A. FORBES — COPY. Know all men by these presents, that I. Jose* Francisco Leon, of the city of San Francisco, State of California, for and in consideration of the sum of. Eight thousand dollars, to me in hand paid, by James Alexander Forbes, of the town and County of Santa Clara, State of California, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have grant- ed, bargained, sold, released, conveyed and transferred, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, release, convey, and transfer, unto the said James Alexander Forbes, his heirs and assigns (3-20th) three twentieths of one " barra," or of one twenty-fourth part of the quick- silver mine of New Almaden, situated in the County of Santa Clara, and State aforesaid, together with all the lands, tenements, heredita- ments, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging. Also all the quicksilver now in possession, or in expectancy, which as owner of the three twentieths aforesaid, of one " barra"- of the said mine of New Almaden, I now am, or may become entitled to, in any manner whatsoever, on this fourth day of August A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty three. The aforesaid three twentieths of one " barra " of the said mine of New Almaden and appurtenances, being the same conveyed to H. Laurencel, by James A. Forbes, on the 10th day of September A. D. 1850, and by the said H. Laurencel convey- ed to J. R. Bolton and Wm. E. Barron, on the 22d of March A. D. 1851, recorded in Book of deeds C, page 330, in the archives of Santa Clara County, and confirmed to them by said James A. Forbes, and his wife as per deed of same date 22d March 1851, recorded in Book of deeds C, page 368, in the same archives of Santa Clara County ; and by them the said Bolton and Barron conveyed to J. E. Fernandez on the 30th day of April 1852 as recorded in book of df -la D., page 507, and by him the said J. E. Fernandez, convey- 188 ed to me the said Jose Francisco Leon by deed dated the fourteenth day of April 1853, recorded in Book of deeds F., pages 216 and 217, in the archives of Santa Clara County, by J. M. Murphy, Recorder. To have and to hold the said three twentieths of one "barra" of the said mine of New Almaden and appurtenances, and all and singular the quicksilver and ores to the same appertaining, or to me as owner thereof, iu anywise belonging up to the date hereof, unto the said James Alexander Forbes, his heirs and assigns, to his and their sole and only proper use, benefit and behoof forever — And I the said Jose' Francisco Leon, do hereby covenant and agree to and with the said James Alexander Forbes, his heirs and assigns, that the above de- scribed property is free from all incumbrances, made, incurred or suf- fered by me, or any other person or persons by me, authorized or em- powered : and that I, my heirs, executors and assigns shall and will warrant and forever defend the aforesaid property unto tha said James Alex r Forbes, his heirs and assigns against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming or to claim by, through, or under me or them, but against none other. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this fourth day of August A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, in the city of San Francisco. J. FRAN C0 de LEON. f Seal) Sealed and delivered in presence of Thomas Bell. State of California, j County of San Francisco. ) On the fifth day of August in tne year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, before me Joseph Grant, a Notary Pub- lic in and for the said County, duly commissioned and sworn dwelling in the City of San Francisco, personally appeared Jose' Francisco de Leon, known to me to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same freely and voluntarily and for the purposes therein mentioned. In witness whereof I have hereto set my name, and affixed my of- ficial seal, the day and year above written. f Seal] JOSEPH GRANT, ^ ' Notary Public. Filed for record at 11| o'clock A. M., August 8, A. D. 1853. J. M. MURPHY, Recorder. Recorded by F. Lewis, Deputy. Recorded at the request of J. A. Forbes. J. M. MURPHY, Recorder, By F. LEWIS, Deputy. 189 Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, ) California, May 11, A. D. 1857 \ I hereby certify, that the foregoing, on pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument of record in this of- fice, recorded in Book F. of deeds, on pages 270 and 271. Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San Jose*, the day and year last written. [ Seal ] S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. [H, L. No. 13. " 0. H. No. 42."] DEED — J. A. FORBES TO W. E. BARRON — COPY. Know all men by these presents, that I, James Alex r Forbes, of the town and County of Santa Clara, State of California in consi- deration of the sum of Thirty-five Thousand dollars to me in hand paid by William E. Barron of the City and County of San Francisco, and State aforesaid the receipt whereof I hereby acknowledge have bar- gained sold and quit-claimed and by these presents do bargain sell and quit-claim unto the said William E. Barron and to his heirs and assigns forever, all my right title interest estate claim and demand, both at law and in equity and as well in possession as in expectancy of in and to one " Barra," or one twenty-fourth share of the Quick- silver Mine, of New Almaden, situated lying and being in the County of Santa Clara and State aforesaid with all and singular the heredi- taments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise apper- taining. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, the thir- tieth day of March, A. D. eighteen hundred and fifty-five. JAS. ALEX. FORBES. f SealI Sealed and delivered in presence of E. S. Benson. 190 State of -California, County of San Francisco. c On this thirty-first day of March, A. D. one thousand eight hun- dred and fifty-five, before me Edward S. Benson a Notary Public in and for said County personally appeared Jas. Alexander Forbes to me known to be individual described in and who executed the an- nexed instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my of- ficial seal the day and year first above written. E. S BENSON, Notary Public. Seal I Filed for record at request of Wm. E. Barron, at 10J o'clock A. M., April 2d, A. D. 1855. S. A. CLARK, Recorder. By F. Lewis, Deputy. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, j California, May 11, A. D. 1857. J I hereby certify, that the foregoing, on pages one and two of this, is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument, of record in this of- fice, recorded in Book G. of deeds, on page 498. Given under my hand and official seal, at the city of San Jose*, the day and year last written. , v S. A. CLARK, I Seal ] County Recorder, [H. L. No. 14.] DEED — J. A. FORBES TO W. E. BARRON — COPY. Know all men by these presents, That I, James Alex. Forbes, of the town and County of Santa Clara, State of California in considera- tion of the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars to me in hand paid by Wil- liam E. Barron of the city and county of San Francisco and State aforesaid, the receipt whereof I hereby acknowledge, have bargained sold and quit-claimed and by these presents do bargain sell and quit- claim unto the said William E. Barron and to his heirs and assigns forever, all my right title interest estate claim and demand both at law and in equity, and as well in possession as in expectancy of, in, 191 and to, One Barra, or one twenty-fourth share of the Quicksilver Mine-of New Almaden situate lying and being in the said County and State, including all my right title interest estate claim and demand both in law and in equity as well in possession as in expectancy to the tract of land granted by the President of Mexico to Andres Castillero, on the 20th day of May A. D. 1846, described in the order or de- cree issued by the Minister of Foreign Relations on the 23d May 1846, and directed to the Governor of California being two leagues of land situate in the County and State aforesaid ; the same one twen- ty-fourth share being that which was heretofore conveyed by me to the said William E. Barron, on the Thirtieth day of March 1855, with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto be- longing. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal the 29th day of May A. D. eighteen hundred and fifty-five. JAS. ALEX. FORBES. f Seal! I Seal j Sealed and delivered in presence of State op California, E. S. Benson. County of San Francisco. ' On this twenty-ninth day of May A. D. one thousand eight hun- dred and fifty-five before me Edward S. Benson a Notary Public in and for said County, personally appeared James Alex. Forbes, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the annex- ed instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year first above written. ^Seal] E. S. BENSON, ' Notary Public. Filed for record (at request of S. Hamilton) at 9^ o'clock A. M., June 8th, A. D. 1855. S. A CLARK, Recorder. By F. Lewis, Deputy. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, ) California, May 11, A. D. 1857. ) I hereby certify, that the foregoing, on pages one and two of this, 192 is a full, true and correct copy of an Instrument, of record in this of- fice, recorded in Book Gr. of Deeds, on pages 52S and 524. Given under my hand and official seal, at the City of San Jose', the day and year last written.. r Seal] S. A. CLARK, ^ County Recorder. [H. L, No 15. "0. H. No. 44."] DEED — YECKER TORRE & 00. TO BARRON FORBES & CO. En la ciudad de Mexico a siete de Diciembre de mil ochocientos cincuenta y dos, ante mi el Escribano Nacional y publico del numero y testigos, que se espresaran, comparecieron los Seiiores Yecker Torre y compania de esto comercio, de una parte ; y de la otra el Seilor Don Eustaquio Barron, en representacion de su casa de " Bar- ron Forbes y Compania," de Tepic por la que presta caucion de rato, et grato y a mayor abundamiento ofrece que se ratificara, alia este contrato, o bien presentara dentro de un mes poder bastante en esta capital, para efectuar la dicha ratificacion ; vecinos los Seiiores comparentes de esta misma capital a quienes doy fe conozco y dijeron ; que los Seiiores Yecker Torre y Ca. tenian en la mina y negociacion de azogue llamada el Nuevo Almaden, sita en la mision de Santa Clara de la Alta California, tres acciones y media aviadoras de la doce de esta clase en que esta dividida la propiedad, y cuatro acciones once decimas cuartas que forman el total de las acciones aviadas ; cuya propiedad consta de los respectivos, contratos 6 instrumentos y de los recibos de los pagos que han hecho, asi como de las cuentas del avio ; y que en conseqencia de su dominio y propiedad, hicieron en veinte y siete de Noviembre procsimo pasado a los Seiiores Barron Forbes y Ca. la venta de las espresadas acc : ones por el contrato que me exhiben en este acto, y es a la letra como siguie Contrate : Los Seiiores Yecker Torre y Ca. venden a los Sres Barron For-s bes y Ca. sus cuatro y once decimas cuartas partes (4JJ de accione aviadas y las tres y media (3J) acciones aviadoras de la mina de N. Almaden en la Alta California, y los dividendos que a dichas ac- ciones correspondan, y ademas su interes en la casa de comercio de los Sres Bolton Barron y Ca. de San Francisco de California, por la cantidad de trescientos ochenta mil pesos fuertes (380,000$) pa- gaderos en esta capital del modo siguiente : Ciento ochenta mil pesos (180,0001) al contado q e se compensaran 193 con igual cantidad qe poco mas 6 menos existe ya en manos de los vendedores pertenecientes k la negociacion de las espresada mina. Cien mil pesos (100,000$) a los tres meses, y cien mil pesos (100,000$ ) a los seis meses contados desde esta fecha. Los Senores Yecker Torre y Ca. daran cuenta a los Sres Bar- ron Forbes y Ca. de todo el azogue que les ha sido consignado ya sea poniendo a la disposicion de los segundos las existencias que hubi- ere en su poder 6 en el de sus corresponsales, 6* entregando las cuen- tas de las cantidades que ellos o aquellos hubiesen vendido con poste- rioridad a la ultima cuenta que tienen remitida a San Francisco, sea en fin en reales por las ventas de plazo vencido. Los Senores Yecker Torre y Ca. quedan mediante esta ventaescen- tos de saneamiento en cualquier caso, y sin responsibilidad de ninguna clase por lo pasado y por lo futuro tanto respecto de la mina de N. Almaden como respecto, de la casa de San Francisco, y solo eontri- buiran con su parte en los gastos de la mina hasta treinta de Septi- embre procsimo pasado conforme a la cuenta de avio qne los Senores Bolton Barron y Ca. les han pasado en la misma fecha. En este con- trato no se comprende las demas cuentas que existen entre la casa de San Francisco y los Sres Yecker Torre y Ca., quienes satisfaran el saldo de las mismas si fuese en su contra, 6 lo percibiran si resultare a su favor. Los Sres Yecker Torre y Ca. ceden a los Sres Barron For- bes y Ca. a costo y costas diez mil (10,000) frazcos para azogue que ienen pedidos a Ynglaterra. Al efecto los Sres Yecker Torre y Ca. entregaran en esta los conocimientos que tienen en su poder' ya por cinco mil (5,000) frazcos, y daran orden a sus corresponsales de Londres de entregar el resto k medida que se vaya, concluyendo. Por su parte los Sres Barron Forbes y Ca. encargaran a sus cor- responsales de pagar a los Sres Finlay Hodgson y Compania de Londres, el importe y demas gastos, relativos a dichos diez mil frazcos. Para seguridad de las partes interesadas se otorgard una escritura publica~ en las firmas legates y acostumbradas, cuya escritura servira de titulo de propiedad a los Senores compradores y a los Sres vendedores de documento para el cobro del importe de la venta. Cualquiera duda o diferencia que ocurriese sobre la interpretacion de los Articulos de este contrato, y de la escritura mencionada en el articulo anterior, 6 en la ejecucion de lo que uno u otro disponen, se decidira por dos arbitros nombrados uno por cada parte, y en caso de discordia por un tercero que eligiran dichos arbitros. Hecho doble a Mejico a veinte y siete de Noviembre de mil ocho- cientos cincuenta y dos. p. Barron Forbes y Ca. EUSTAQUIO BARRON. YECKER TORRE Y CA. 194 Articulo Adicional. Para mayor claridad se declara que por las palabras de una escn- tura en las formas legales y acostumbradas, queda entendido que las cosas vendidas estan especialmente hipotecadas a la seguridad del pa- go de su precio, asi como este al puntual cumplimiento de las obli- gaciones que contraen los Sres vendedores sin perjuicio de la hi- poteca general. YECKER TORRE Y CA. Sigue : Que debiendo en cumplimento del preinserto contrato proce- der al otorgamiento de la escritura segun en el se contiene poniendola en efecto, en aquella via y forma que mas en derecho haya lugar, y que mas firme y valedera sea, otorgan los espresados Senores, Yecker Tor- re y Ca. Que en los terminos y bajo las condiciones que quedan asentados en la insercion del mencionado contrato, de viente y siete de Novi- embre ultimo, venden a • los Sres Barron Forbes y Ca. para ellos y sus sucessores, y para los quede ellos tengan titulo 6 causa para si- empre y sin reserva alguna, las tres y media acciones aviadoras y las cuatro y once decimas cuartas partes de las aviadas, segun queda es- presado, asi como les venden, tambien la parte que tenian en la casa de comercio de San Francisco de la Alta California establecida bajo el razon de Bolton Barron y Ca. con el capital de sesenta mil mil pesos que pusieron por mitad la casa de los Sres Yecker Torre y Ca., y la de los Sres Barron Forbes y Ca. e* igualmente les venden diez mil frazcos para azogue todo en can ti tad de trescientos ochenta mil pesos, y ademas el costo y costos de los frazcos para azogue ; cuyas ventas comprenden todo lo que a la parte de los Senores Yecker, Tor- re y Ca. tocaba y pudiera tocar hasta fecha del contrato de veinte si- ete del mes pasado, sustituyendo los vendedores a los compradores en su lugar y cediendoles en los terminos espresados ; sus acciones tal como las poseen, sin prestar saneamiento, y sin responsibilidad de nin- guna clase por lo pasado y por lo futuro, tanto respecto de la mina de N. Almaden, como respecto de la casa de San Francisco. Que en consequencia de las respectivas obligaciones que por el repitido con- trato han estipulado, mutuamente los Sres Yecker Torre y Ca. se desisten, quitan y apartan del derecbo dominio, propiedad y possesion de las espresadas acciones aviadas y aviadoras del N. Almaden, del dominio, propriedad y posesion a la parte de la negociacion de San Francisco y del que tenian por compra de los diez mil frazcos, para azogue ; y traspasan todos los espresados derechos a los Senores Bar- ron Forbes y Ca. para ellos y sus succesores, con la plena propriedad y 195 posesion y con todos sus acciones reales, personales, utiles, mixtas, di- rectas, ejecutivas y demas que les corresponden, para que perciban to- do lo que de las espresadas negociacion 3S y cosas debieran percibir I03 otorgantes, si no hubieran hecho esta venta, incluso el procsimo divi- dendo cuya cuenta se esta haciendo, el producto de todas las ventas hechas y por hacia de los azogues esplotados beneficiados y por bene- ficiar hasta la fecha del contrato y de las utilidades habidas en la ca- sa de comercio de Bolton Barron y Ca. hasta la misma fecha y de alii en adelante quedando comprendido en esta cecion y venta de de- rechos, todo cuanto por los de los otorgantes les pudiere corresponder en las negociaciones sea raiz mueble y semoviente. Se obligan los re- feridos Senores Yecker Torre y Ca. a dar cuenta de todo el Azogue que han recibido para su venta y a entregar a los Sres Barron For- bes y Ca. todo el producto de las ventas con retencion de ciento ochenta mil pesos por el primer abono en pago del precio de la venta k que se contrae esta escritura, y a poner a su disposicion los docu- mentos de creditos procedentes de las ventas hechas a plazo de dicho azogue que les estaba consignado, y el azogue mismo no vendido exis- tente para lo cual declaran haber librado ya ordenes oportunas ee ob- ligan por ultimo a entregar a Barron Forbes y Ca. el importe de los gastos de la negociacion del Nuevo Almaden en la parte que en ellos les tocaba hasta treinta de Setiembre de este ano conforme a la cuen- ta que hasta esta fecha pasaion los Sres Bolton Barron y Ca. y el Sor Don Eustaquio Barron en representacion de los Sres Bar- ron Forbes y Ca. acepta la venta y cecion de las acciones del Nuevo Almaden, la del interes en la casa de California, y la de los diez mil frazcos para azogue en los terminos y y bajo las condiciones que van asentadas, y que por dicha casa se oblija a hacer el pago de los tres- cientos ochenta mil pesos en los terminos y plazos referidos y consien- te en que los Sres Yecker Torre y Ca., quedan libres de la evic- ciony sanemiento por todo lo pasado ylo futuro concerniente 41a com- pafiia y negociacion del Nuevo Almaden y a la casa de Bolton Bar- ron y Ca. de San Francisco sin perjuicio de la obligacion de^los Se- nores, Yecker Torre y Ca. de saldar y cubrir sus cuentas particulares pendientes con la misma casa de San Francisco, y a pagar el costo y costos de los frazcos para azogue, como se espresa en el contrato de veinte y siete de Noviembre procsimo pasado, cuyos pagos haran en esta ciudad sin falta, escusa, ni demora alguna y precisament en pe- sos fuertes de plata del cuno corriente mexicano ; y para su seguro y sin que se entienda que la obligacion general de bienes deroga ni perjudica la especial, ni por el contrario esta a aquella pues ^ los Sres Yecker Torre y Ca. podran usar de la que mejor les agrade, hipo- teca el Sor Barron por su casa de Barron, Forbes y Ca. las barras y acciones que ha comprado en la citada mina del Almaden y demas co- sas que se espresan en la presente escritura, queriendo que esta hipo- 196 teca especial surta todos los efectos legales para la siguridad de log vendedores con condicion de que 6 presentara poder en el termino de un de mes de su casa de Barron Forbes y Ca., 6 ratificara esta el contrato que aqui se contiene. Ya la observancia, guarda y cum- plimiento de lo relacionado se obligan los Senores Yecker Torre y Ca. con sus bienes presentes y futuros, y el Senor Barron con los de su casa a quien representa, habidos y por haber y con ellos 1 se someten al fuero y jurisdiction de los Sres Jueces que de sus causas, pue^ dan y deban conforme a derecho conocer para que a lo dicho les com- pelan y estrechan como si fuera por sentencia consentida y pasada en autoridad de cosa jusgada ; renuncian las leyes de su favor y defensa con la general del dereeho. Asi lo octorgaron y firmaron siendo testigos Don Crescencio Land- grave, Don Francisco Lara, y Don Antonio Ferreiro, de esta vecini- dad ; doy % YECKER TORRE YC A . EUSTAQUIO BARRON. Ramon de la Cueva, Escrib Nacional y Publico. Sacose parte de los Sres vendedores despues de sa otorgami- ento : y va en siete fojas, la primera del sello primero, y las demas del cuarto bienio corriente corregido : doy fe. RAMON de la CUEVA, E.N. y P. Los Ynfrascritos Escribanos, Certificamos y damos fe ; que Don Ramon de la Cueva es Escribano Nacional y Publico de los del nume- ro de esta Capital y suyos el signo y firma con que autoriza el ante- rior testimonio ; y a cuanto con ellos legaliza se le ha dado y da en- tera fe y credito en juicio y fuera de el. Y para que conste ponemos la presente sellada con el de nuestro Nacional Colegio, en la Ciudad de Mexico aonce de Diciembre de mil ochocientos cincuenta y dos. Seal t t t MM. FV. CL. Manuel de Mendarioma. Fermin Villa. Crescent Landgrave. 197 No. 1864. — Consulate of the United States of America, ) Mexico, December 15, 1852. J I, the undersigned, Consul of the United States of America for the city of Mexico, hereby certify, that the signatures of Manuel Muda- uaga, Crescent . Landgrave and Fermin Villa, subscribed to the fore- going certificate, are in theproper handwriting of said persons respec- tively, the same as used by them in all their like official acts, who are all well known to me, and were at the time of subscribing their respec- tive names, duly authorized Notary' Public of this city, and that all their official acts either jointly or separately, are entitled to full faith and credit as such. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal, the day and year first above written. JOHN BLACK, Seal J Consul. Register F, folio 288. Dis. 4 ps. Filed for record at 3.J o'clock P. M., January 18th, 1853. J. M. MURPHY, Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. Recorded at the request of R. Walkinshaw. J. M. MURPHY, Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. Recorder's Office, County of Santa Clara, ) California, July 30, A. D. 1857. J I hereby certify, that the foregoing on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and* 10 of this, centains a true and correct copy of an Instrument, now of record in this office, and recorded in Book F of Deeds, pages 42, 43, 44 and 45. Witness my hand and official seal, at office in the city of San Jose*, the day and date last written. Seal j S. A. CLARK, County Recorder ) "Rv fih&n. M. Yoell. Demitv Filed, August 20, 1857. By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. VV. II. CIIEVERS, Clerk. 198 NOTICE TO PRODUCE PAPERS. DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The United States, Appellants, vs. Andreas Castillero, Appellee. D. C. No. 420. L. C. No. 366. You will take notice that you are required to produce before the trial of this case, the originals of the following papers, to wit : 1. Four acts of sale each of one barra made at Tepic, by Jose* Castro to Alexander Forbes, and dated respectively, March 1, 1847; April 12, 1847 ; April 16, 1847 ; May 10, 1847 ; with all the certi- ficates and endorsements thereon, as appearing of record in the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara county. 2. Act of sale by Secundino Robles and Teodoro Robles, to Alex- ander Forbes, of two barras, before Ygnacio Alvisu, Justice of Peace, dated September 14, 1847. 3. Act of sale by Andres Castillero, by his attorney-in-fact Padre Real, .to Alexander Forbes, of three barras, dated December 27, 1847. 4. Another act of sale of two barras, by Secundino Robles and Teodoro Robles, by their attorney-in-fact, James Alexander Forbes, to Robert Walkinshaw, date April 14, 1848. 5 Act of sale of one barra, by Padre Real to Robert Walkinshaw, dated August 9, 1849. 6. Power of attorney of Alexander Forbes to James Alexander Forbes, dated April 23, 1849. 7. Act of sale of one barra, James Alexander Forbes to John Parrott, August 9, 1850. 8. Act of sale of 3-20ths of one barra, by James Alexander Forbes to Henry Laurencel, dated September 10, 1850. 9. Sale of 3-20ths of one barra, by Henry Laurencel to Bolton & Barron, dated March 22, 1851. 10. Sale of 3-20ths of one barra by Bolton & Barron to J. E. Fernandez, dated April 30, 1852. 11. Sale of 3-20ths of one barra, by J. E. Fernandez to J. F. Leon, dated April 14, 1853. 12. Sale of 3-10ths of one barra, J. F. Leon to James Alex- ander Forbes, dated August 4, 1853. 199 13. Sale of one barra, by James Alexander Forbes to Wm. E. Barron, dated March 30, 1855. 14. Same to same, dated May 29, 1855. 15 Sale of all the interest of Jecker, Torre y Compania to Bar- ron, Forbes y Compania, dated Mexico, December 7, 1852. And secondary evidence of the existence and contents of said papers will be given and used on the trial if you fail to produce said originals. San Francisco, August 20, 1857. P. DELLA TORRE, U. S. Dist. Att'y. To Messrs. Halleck, Peachy & Billings, Attorneys of Andres Castillero. Rec'd a copy of the within, August 20, 1857. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Claimant. Filed August 21, 1857. ' W. H. CHEVERS, Dep. Clerk. [0. H. No. 51.] CERTIFIED COPY OF BILL AND ANSWER FROM U. S. CIRCUIT COURT. To the Honorable, the Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California : Maria Zaede Bernel Berreyesa, widow of Jose Reyes Berreyesa, deceased, Maria del Carmen Berreyesa, and her husband, Lorenzo Penedo, Loreta Berreyesa, and her husband, Juan Bejoquis, Santiago Berreyesa, Jose de los Santos Berreyesa, Nemisio Berreyesa, Fran- cisco Berreyesa, Fernando Berreyesa, Magadina Berreyesa, and her husband, Mariano Fernandez, and Jose Encarnacio Berreyesa, heirs at law of Jose Reyes Berreyesa, deceased ; also, Richard Roman, James Hepburn, Charles Stuart and Isaac N. Thorn, citizens of the State of California, and residents of said Northern District, bring this their bill against Alexander Forbes, Eustace Barron, William Forbes and Eustace W. Barron, who are aliens — subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, and resident in the Republic of Mexico ; Isidoro de la Torre' and J. B. Jeckxier, who are also aliens, citizens of and resi- dents in the Republic of Mexico; Martin la Peidra and Francis 200 Maria Ortezy, who are aliens resident in the City of Mexico ; James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, who are also aliens, now resident in this State, in the County of Santa Clara, and John Parrot, who is a citizen of the State of Virginia, now in the City of San Francisco, in this State. 1st. And thrcupon your orators and oratrixes complain and say : 1st. That the said widow and the said Maria, Loreta, Santiago, Josd, Nemisio, Francisco, Fernando, Magdalina and Jose* Encarnacion, the children and heirs of said Jose* Reyes, deceased, are lawfully seized and possessed of a certain tract of land in the State of California, situate in the County of Santa Clara, known as the Rancho de la Canada de los Capitancillos, alias, Rancho of San Vicente, and bounded on the north by the low hills near the lands of the Pueblo of San Jose* ; on the south by the Sierra ; on the east by the Laurel hills, and on the west by the Rancho of Justo Larios, which western line commences at the angle formed by the junction of the Arroyo Seco and Alamitos Creek, and runs thence south by the eastern slope of the hills in the centre of the valley, to the Sierra : the whole of said tract of land within said boundaries was duly granted to the said Jose Reyes Ber- reyesa during his lifetime, viz : on the 20th day of August, 1842, by Juan B. Alvarado, then Governor of California ; said grant was also duly recorded ; for five years previous to said grant, said Jose* Reyes had been in continued possession of said tract of land, was then, and ever afterwards until the time of his death, in the year 1847, contin- ued to be in the actual possession thereof, as the absolute owner in good faith. 2d. That sometime in the year 1847, the said Jose Reyes departed this life, leaving his said widow him surviving, and his said children heirs at law, seized and possessed of the said lands and appurtenances by descent. 3d. That your orators, the said Roman, Hepburn, Stuart and Thorn, became and are the lessees of all the quicksilver minerals and mines, with the appurtenances, on said tract of land, for a term of twenty years from and after the 12th day of July, A. I). 1850, by a written contract of lease duly made and delivered on that day, by said widow and heirs of the said Jose* Reyes, deceased, to said lessees ; in which contract, however, the name of your orator, Thorn, was, by mistake omitted ; all which will more fully appear by refer- ence to said written contract of lease herewith filed, marked Exhibit A., and prayed to be taken as part of this bill. 4th. Your orators and oratrixes further show that on the — day of , 1847, the defendants did wrongfully and forcibly enter upon and take possession of a large and valuable portion of said tract of land, viz : all that portion thereof lying west of the Arroyo de los Alamitos, with a tract east of and along said Arroyo of half a mile in 201 width to the Sierra, on both sides of said Arroyo ; a map or diagram whereof is herewith filed as part of this bill, marked Exhibit B. That the defendants have erected buildings, lime-kilns, forges and furnaces thereon, wrongfully, and without the consent of your orators and oratrixes, or any of them ; they have in like manner cut down and destroyed large numbers of valuable growing trees thereon ; they have opened quarries and removed therefrom large quantities of lime, of great value, and converted the same to their own use ; they have opened .extensive mines of cinnabar, and have removed therefrom large quantities of quicksilver, of great value, and have sold the same, to the great damage of your orators and oratiixes, in the sum of at least one million of dollars. 5th. Your orators and oratrixes further show that in the District Court of this State, of the third Judicial District, fcr the County of Santa Clara, they did on the day of September, 1850, institute suit against the defendants to recover possession of that part of the tract of land aforesaid so wrongfully seized and upon which the trespasses as aforesaid had been committed by the defendants, and to recover damages for said trespasses : That on the day of , 1852, upon the application of the defendants therein previously presented, an order was made by said District Court of said State to remove said cause therefrom to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, sitting as a Circuit Court in the Town of San Jose, in the County of Santa Clara ; that the Federal District Court aforesaid now has jurisdiction of said cause, and that the same is still pending and undetermined. 6th. Your orators and oratrixes are informed, believe, and charge to be true, that said defendants having formed a company to work said mines ( u New Almaden Mines") ; that, disregarding the rights of your orators and oratrixes in the premises, they have continued to the present time to commit trespasses as aforesaid upon said land, in the destroying of timber, in opening the earth, and in taking there- from cinnabar in large quantities, viz : sufficient in amount to produce at least two thousand pounds of quicksilver daily. 7th. That said defendants, well knowing that they have no just right to said land, or to the timber, stone, and mines thereon, have been using exertions by various pretences and subterfuges to produce delay, and have succeeded in producing great delay in the progress of said action of ejectment and fcr damages, and in the mean time they are assiduously engaged in their mining operations as aforesaid, and in the most secret but expeditious manner practicable, they are removing the quicksilver taken therefrom, and through the assistance of each other, thair agents and confjd crates, are conveying the s; m3 out of the limits of this State, and beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, and selling the same. 21 202 8th. Your orators and oratrixes are informed, believe, and charge that the proceeds of the sales of said quicksilver amounts to about the sum of $1000 per day, and that said defendants are fraudulently retaining said proceeds beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, or con- cealing the same ; that the defendants have not, as your orator and oratrixes are informed, believe, and charge to be true, visible property within reach of the process of this Court, or subject thereto, sufficient to satisfy and discharge the damages which the complainants are justly entitled to recover in their said action at law, or even one-fourth part thereof ; and that unless the defendants are restrained by the inter- position of your Honor from the commission of further trespasses as aforesaid, and from removing, selling, or otherwise disposing of the products of said mines now within the jurisdiction of this Court, they will sustain great and irreparable injury in the premises. 9th. Your orators and oratrixes are informed, believe, and charge, that there is now in the possession of said defendants, or under their control, within the Counties of Santa Clara and San Francisco, about 500,000 pounds of quicksilver, of the value of fifty cents per pound, the products of said mines, ready to be shipped, and which the de- fendants are preparing to ship to some foreign country to be sold, and that they will so do, unless restrained therefrom by injunction. 10th. The premises considered, your orators and oratrixes pray that said Alexander Forbes, Eustace Barron William Forbes, Eustace W. Barron, Isadoro de la Torre, J. B. Jeiker, Martin la Piedra, Francis Maria Ortezy, James A. Forbes, Robert Walkinshaw and John Parrott, be made parties defendant to this Bill of Complaint, and as such, be required upon their corporal oaths, full, true, and per- fect answers to make, according to the best of their and each of their knowledge, information and belief, to all and singular the severrl alle- gations and charges in this Bill contained ; particularly that they answer and say : 1st. Whether the allegations firstly set forth in this Bill are not true ; 2d. Whether the allegations secondly set forth in said Bill are not true ; 3d. Whether the allegations thirdly set forth in said Bill are not true ; 4th. Whether they did not enter upon said lands as is fourthly al- leged in said Bill, and if so, when ? and, 5th. Whether such entry was not made without any right or lawful authority on their part ; and if under any pretended authority, let them produce and show the same ; and, 6th. Whether they have not opened quarries and mines, and re- moved limestone and cinnabar therefrom, also cut down and destroyed trees upon said land, as is stated in the fourth allegation, and, 203 ♦7th. Whether . said trees, limestone, and quicksilver have not been of the value of one million of dollars, as charged in the Bill; and, 8th. Whether the complainants have not instituted an action at law, as set forth fifthly in said Bill, and whether said action has not been removed to the Federal Court, as therein stated ; and, 9th. Whether the allegations sixthly set forth in said Bill are not true ; and, 10th. Whether the allegations and charges seventhly set forth in said Bill are not true ; and, 11th. Whether the proceeds of said mining operations have not amounted to the sum of one million of dollars, and if not, then what is the aggregate sum ? and, 12th. Whether the proeeeds of said mines are not of the value of about $1000 per day, and if not, then what ? and, 13th. Whether they have not in their possession or under their control, in the City of San Francisco, a large quantity of quicksilver, and if yea, how much, and of what value ? and, 14th. Whether they h-eve not, in like manner, a large quantity of quicksilver in the County of Santa Clara, and if yea, of what value ? and, 15th. Whether they are not preparing to convey the same abroad for sale. Your orators and oratrixes pray that, if necessary, an account may be taken of the value of the timber so cut and destroyed upon said land, also of the lime and quicksilver taken from the quarries and mines thereon, as your Honor may order and direct ; that the de- fendants, their agents and confederates, may be enjoined from commit- ting any further trespasses on said land, and from removing, selling, or otherwise disposing of the Cinnabar or quicksilver now in this State and in their possession or under their control, until the action at law aforesaid can be heard and determined, or until the order of your Honor to- the contrary : That a receiver may be appointed to take charge of the said mines and all the products thereof, now within the jurisdiction of this Hon- orable Court, together with all the appurtenances belonging thereto, with such powers, orders, and instructions in the premises as to your your Honor may seem proper in that behalf. May it please your honor to grant a writ or writs of injunction, issuing out of and under the seal of this Honorable Court, to be di- rected to the said defendants, their agents, confederates, &c, to restrain them from removing, selling, or otherwise disposing of the products of said mines, and all further trespasses, &c. ; also, that a writ or writs or writs of subpoena commanding them at a certain day, and under a certain pain, to appear and answer as aforesaid. 204 And your orators and oratrixes pray for any and all other such fur- ther relief in the premises, as to your Honor may seem meet. CHS. V. STUART, ISAAC N. THORNE. DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ) For the Northern District of California. ) Before John A. Monroe, a Commissioner of said Court, in the City of San Francisco, the above named complainants, Charles V. Stuart and Isaac N. Thorne, being duly sworn, depose and say, that the matters and things set forth in the foregoing Bill, as of the knowledge of the complainants, are true, and those stated as upon their informa tion, tbese affiants believe to be true. Jno. A. Monroe, Here follows Exhibit B. (Endorsed.) Filed March 12, 1852. Filed July 25, 1856. U. S. Commissioner. Jno. A. Monroe, Clerk. Geo. Pen. Johnston, Clerk. I, Geo. Pen. Johnston, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true, full and corect copy of the original Bill in the above entitled cause on file in my office. Witness my hand and the seal of said Court, this 21st day of August, A. D. 1857. Attest : GEO. PEN. JOHNSTON. n Per seal Cutler McAllister, D. C. In the Circuit Court within and for the Northern Distnct of Cali- fornia, United States of America. In Equity. The answer of Alexander Forbes, Eustace Barron, William Forbes, Eustace W. Barron, Isidoro de la Torre, Juan B. Jecker, Martin la 205 Peidra, Francisco Maria Ortez, James A. Forbes, Robert Walkinshaw and John Parrott, (whose citizenship and plaees of residence are cor- rectly stated in the complainants' Bill,) to the Bill of Complaint of Maria Z. Bernal Berreyesa, widow of Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, de- ceased, Maria del Carmen Berreyesa, and others, complainants. These defendants, and each of them, now and at all times here- after saving and reserving unto themselves all benefit and advantage of exception which can or may be had or taken to the many errors, uncertainties, and other imperfections in the said complainants' said Bill of Complaint contained, for answer thereunto, or unto so much and such parts thereof as the defendants are advised is or are mate- rial or nscessary for them to make answer unto, these defendants, answering, say : 1. They are informed, and believe it to be true, that the said Maria Z. Bernal Berreyesa, alleged to be the widow of Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, is such widow, and the said Maria, Loreta, Santiago, Jose', Nemisio, Francisco, Fernando, Magdalina and Jose* Encarnacion, alleged to be the children of said Jose Reyes Berreyesa, are such children, and together are the heirs of said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, now deceased ; but they are informed, and believe that it is not true, and deny, that said widow and children are lawfully seized and pos- sessed of a certain tract of land in the State of California, situate in the County of Santa Clara, known as the Rancho de la Canada de los Capitancillos, alias Rancho of San Vicente, and bounded '' on the north by the low hills near the lands of the Pueblo of San Jose* ; on the south by the Sierra ; on the east by the Laurel hills, and on the west by the Rancho of Justo Larios, which western line commences at the angle formed by the junction of the Arroyo Seco and Alamitos Creek, and runs thence south by the eastern slope of the hills in the centre of the valley to the Sierra." And they are informed, and believe that it is not true, and there- fore deny, that the whole or any part of said tract of land was duly granted to the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa during his lifetime, viz : on the 20th day of August, A. D. 1842, by Juan B. Alvarado, then Gov- ernor of California. They are informed, and believe it to be true, that Jose* Reyes Ber- reyesa was in the occupation of a portion, and claimed possession of a tract of land called Canada de los Capitancillos, alias San Vicente, from the year 1845 to the time of his death, in 1847 ; but they are informed, and believe it is not true, and deny, that during said period, or any part thereof, he was in the possession or occupation, or claimed possession of any portion of the land now alleged by the complainants 206 to be wrongfully in the possession of the defendants, and a part of the said San Vicente tract. And the defendants further answering, say that they do not know, and have not been informed, save by the complaiuants' bill, and can- not set forth as to their belief or otherwise, whether the said Jose* Reyes was in possession of said San Vicente tract, or any portion thereof, previous to the said year of 1845. And the defendants further answering, say, that the document pre- tended to be a grant by which the complainants pretend that the said San Vicente tract was granted to said Jose* Reyes by Juan B. Alva- rado, was exhibited to the counsel of the defendants in the suit at law referred to in said Bill, who are the counsel of these defendants ; and these defendants are informed and believe, and so charge, that at the time the same purports to have been executed by Juan B. Alvarado, as Governor of California, he had no authority to make such grant, and was not Governor of California ; that the said pretended grant had never been confirmed by the legislative body of the Department of California, nor by the Supreme Government of Mexico ; that such confirmation was required by the laws of Mexico in force in California at the time said grant purports to have been made, and was one of the conditions incorporated in said grant, as a condition precedent to its validity ; that the said pretended grant is otherwise incomplete and wholly void in law. And the defendants further answering, say, that they are not in- formed whether the boundaries of the said San Vicente tract men- tioned in the said pretended grant are correctly stated and named in the first section of the complainants' Bill ; but they are informed and believe, and so charge, that the said boundaries as stated in said bill are not correctly traced and laid down in the map or plan attached to said bill ; that they are made to include not far from five square leagues of land, while the defendants are informed and believe, and so charge, that the said pretended grant is only for one square league ; that the complainants, for the purposes of litigation, and to annoy the defendants — arbitrarily doing violence to the terms and construction of said pretended grant to Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, and as defendants are informed and believe, to the natural land-marks of the region, to the possession of the said Josd Reyes Berreyesa, his construction of the said pretended grant, and his declarations concerning the same, and the possession, construction, and declaration of his widow and children, up to the time of bringing the suit at law in said Bill mentioned, and the declarations of said widow and some of the children since the conveyance of said suit — have assumed and laid down the boundary lines of said San Vicente tract where in law and in fact they are not, and particularly have done" so by making the boundaries of said 207 San Vicente include any of the land alleged in the Bill to be in pos- session of the defendants. And of the said so called Vicente tract of land, as set forth in the said plan or map attached to said bill of complaint, or as including the land alleged to be in the possession of the defendants, the defendants are informed and believe it is not true, and deny, that the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa was ever seized of the same either in law or in fact. 2. The defendants are informed, and believe it to be true, that, as stated in said Bill, the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa departed this life sometime in the year 1847 — leaving his said widow and children him surviving ; but they are informed and believe it is not true, and deny that he left them seized and possessed, either in law or in fact, of any tract of land called San Vicente, as attempted now by the complainants to be located and bounded, or of any tract of land including within its limits the lands now alleged to be in possession of the defendants ; though they are informed and believe that he left them seized and pos- sessed in fact of a tract of land called San Vicente, separate and dis- tinct from the land alleged to be in the possession of the defendants and called New Almaden. . 3. The defendants further answering, say that they have been in- formed and believe that the said complainants, Roman, Hepburn, Stuart and Thome, have pretended to make some agreement with the widow and children of the said Jose* Reyes, deceased, relative to the tract of land called San Vecinte, or Canada de los Cajritancillos, but whether the said pretended agreement is a lease, whether the same is correctly stated and set forth in Exhibit A., of complainants bill, whether the same was ever executed by the said widow and children, and whether thereby the said Roman, Hepburn, Stuart and Thorne became and are the lessees of all the quicksilver minerals and mines, with the appurtenances, on said tract of land, for the term of twenty years from and after the 12th day of July, A. D., 1850, they are not informed save by the said complainants' said bill : But they are in- formed and believe it to be true, and so charge, that the said Roman, Hepburn; Stuart and Thorne, by said pretended agreement, have ac- quired and can acquire no right, title or interest to the land alleged to be in the possession of the defendants, or to the quicksilver minerals or mines thereon, because they say that the said San Vecinte tract is separate and distinct therefrom. Further, they are informed and be- lieve that on the said 12th day of July, A. D. 1850, and at the time the said pretended agreement is alleged to have been made and de- livered, some of the said children were infants and incapable of duly making and delivering such an agreement as is alleged in said Bill to have been made and delivered by them, and that the same would be and is inoperative tn law. Further, the defendants are informed and believe, and so charge the fact to be, that at the time when the said 208 agreement is pretended to have been made, the said widow and chil- dren did not claim that the said Vicente tract embraced the lands al- leged to be in possession of the defendants, called New Almaden, nor did they intend to set up any right to the latter ; and since the com- mencement of the suit at law in said bill mentioned, the widow and some of the said children who have not been allured by the arts and devices of the said Roman, Hepburn, Stuart and Thorne, to engage with them in their conspirings to harass the defendants in the enjoy- ment of their just rights, have frequently declared that the said Ro- man, Hepburn, Stuart and Thorne, in attempting to use said pretended agreement as giving them any rights to the tract of land alleged to be in the possession of the defendants, called New Almaden, were, as the defendants now charge they are, practising a fraud ; that the said Vecinte tract did not include the said New Almaden, and that in said pretended agreement they referred to minerals on the San Vicente tract, claimed by them to be separate and distinct from New Almaden. 4. And in answer to the allegations contained in the 4th section of said bill, the defendants say they are informed and believe it is not true, and therefore deny, that they wrongfully, unlawfully and forcibly, on the day of 1847, or at any other time, did enter upon and take possession of a large and valuable portion of said tract of land called San Vicente, viz.: all that portion thereof lying west of the Arroyo de los Alamitos, with a tract east of and along said Ar- royo of half a mile in width to the Sierra on both sides of said Ar- royo, or that they have ever entered upon and taken possession of any portion whatever of said Vicente tract. They admit that from the year 1847, and for a long time previous, they, or those whom they now represent and under whom they claim, have been in the posses- sion of the tract of land called New Almaden, a plan of which is here- to attached, marked Exhibit A — the said tract being upon the said Arroyo de hs Alamitos and adjacent to the said San Vicente, but dis- tinct therefrom ; but the possession of New Almaden, the defendants say, was acquired and has been maintained lawfully and peacably by them and those under whom they hold ; that they were, have con- tinued to be, and now are entitled to such possession of right, first by the denouncement of a quicksilver mine upon said tract, and subse- quently by a grant of the said tract direct f.om the Su rime Govern ment of Mexico, previous to the acquisition of California by the United States of America, and that it is against equity and good conscience that the heirs of the said Jose Reyes Rerreyesa, or those associated with them, should, under their said pretended title known to be incom- plete and imperfect, and believed to be fraudulent and void, be allow- ed to interfere with the long and continued possession of the defend- ants under titles which they allege to be complete and absolute. And the defendants further answer, that they are informed and be- 209 lieve, and so aver the fact to be, that in the month of November, A. D. 1845, one Andres Castillero, a citizen of Mexico, at that time resi- dent in California, in accordance with the laws of Mexico and the forms in such cases made and provided, denounced the quicksilver or cinnabar mines now called the New Almaden Mine, in the county of Santa Clara, and mentioned in said bill of complaint ; and thereafter, viz : on the 30th day of December, of the same year, juridical possession of the same was given to him, by the proper judicial authority, in due form of law, with a tract of land three, thousand varas in all direc- tions, which tract of land corresponds, or nearly and substantially so, with that now claimed, possessed, and occupied by the defendants, and alleged by the complainants to be wrongfully possessed by the defend- ants ; which tract of land the said Castillero, and the defendants as holding under him, have possessed and occupied uninterruptedly from the said 30th day of December, A. D. 1845, to the present time. That a writing or agreement for a company for working the said mine was made out, and, together with the said denouncement, filed in due form in the Archives of the Alcalde of San Jose', on or about the 2d day of November, A. D. 1845. That the said denouncement of the said mine, and the juridical pos- session given in December, A. D. 1845, were approved and confirmed by the " Junta de Fomento y Administracion de Miyieria" the high- est mining tribunal in the Government of Mexico, on the 5th day of May, A. D. 1846, and by the President of Mexico on the 9th day of the same month. That by these proceedings of denouncement the said Castillero and his then associates acquired a title full, complete, and absolute, so long as they worked or caused the mine to be worked, to the minerals of the mine thus denounced, and within the mining possession as afore- said, and a right to the use of the surface of the land and everything thereon, so far as it might be necessary to the working of the mine ; and this without reference to the fee of the land, whether the same was still in the Mexican Government or in private individuals. The" defendants admit that the said Castillero, in his denounce- ment of the mine, ignorant of the boundaries of the ranchos in Cali- fornia, and indifferent whether the mine denounced was on public or private land, and simply for the purpose of fixing the identity of the mine by reference to some rancho in the vicinity, mentions the mine in some papers connected with the proceedings of the denouncement as on the land pertaining to the rancho of Jose Reyes Berreyesa ; and in some others as on lands of the Mission of Santa Clara ; but this was only for the purpose of description, and even, if not descriptive, and if true, would not affect the rights of the defendants in the premi- ses, but were mistakes, as shown — so far as the rancho claimed by said Berreyesa is concerned — by the subsequent action of the Mexican 210 Government, of said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa and his heirs, and of said Castillero, his associates, and those holding under them. And the defendants further answering, say, that on the 14th day of said May, the said tribunal of the Government of Mexico, recom- mended the President of Mexico to grant to the said Castillero, in fee, for the use of the said mine, the land surrounding it, and of which juridical possession had been given as aforesaid ; and on the 20th day of May, 1845, the President of Mexico, in virtue of authority in him vested, granted to the said Castillero two square leagues on his mining possession. That by virtue of the juridical possession given as aforesaid, in De- cember, A. D. 1845, the said Castillero, and those holding under him, had and held, at the giving of the said grant in fee, the legal and actual possession of the two leagues of land so granted, or nearly all of it, and that no further act was required to make said grant full, per- fect and absolute. That nevertheless, in order the more particularly to mark out and define the boundaries of the said grant, and to avoid all questions of boundary with any of the claimants of the neighboring lands, the agents of said Castillero and those holding under him, procured the survey of the said lands and the marking of the boundaries, which survey and marking of boundaries were executed by the authorised Surveyor of that district, in the early part of the year 1848, and which survey was so made and the grant so located as to leave the said mine of New Almaden in the centre, or nearly so, of said grant so located, and to include little or no land on the side next the tract of San Vicente claimed by the Berreyesa widow and heirs, but on the contrary to leave out a large portion of land included in the said ju- ridical possession on the side next the Berreyesa claim — this being done to avoid all dispute respecting boundaries ; that during said sur- vey and marking of boundaries, the widow of the said Berreyesa and his other heirs named in the bill, were present ; that they pointed out the boundaries of the rancho claimed by them called San Vicente, and mentioned in this Bill ; assisted in marking the boundaries of said New Almaden land ; assented thereto, and agreed that they did not conflict with or interfere with the boundaries of the said San Vicente tract claimed by them. That the tract of land then marked off, and to the marking off of which, being present, they agreed, amounted to two square leagues exactly, was, on the side adjoining the Berreyesa claim, within the ju- ridical possession given in 1845 as aforesaid, and is precisely the tract of land now called " New Almaden," and claimed, possessed and actually occupied by the defendants, and which is alleged by the com- plainants in the said bill to be wrongfully in the possession of the de- fendants. That the said mine of New Almaden was never worked 211 until denounced by the said Castillero, but from the time of said de- nouncement has been workedby him and those associated with him and holding under him, to the present time, he having from time to time associated other persons with him for the working of said mine, audi transferred to others his right, title, interest and estate in and to the said land of New Almaden, so that the persons made defendants in this bill are now the owners and w r orkers of said mine, and the owners in fee and occupants of said tract of land. That the defendants have succeeded to all the rights of said Castil- lero ; that the rights acquired under his denouncement have continued uninterrupted until the present time, and now are vested solely and wholly in the defendants. And that by the working of the mine from its denouncement as aforesaid, and by the succession of the defendants to all the rights of Castillero, they have acquired by the laws of Mex- ico a perfect title to the minerals of said mines and a perfect title to use the said land for said mining purposes, even should the fee be in others, which the defendants deny and aver to be in themselves by virtue of the aforesaid grant in fee, and especially to be in them .as against the said pretended title under which the complainants profess to claim, and which, as the defendants are informed and believe and have already said, is only for one league, and never embraced the tract of New Almaden, and is incomplete, fraudulent and void. The defendants further answering, admit that on this tract called New Almaden, they have erected buildings, lime-kilns, forges and fur- naces ; have opened extensive mines of cinnabar and extracted there- from large quantities of quicksilver — the amount and value of which will be more particularly set forth hereinafter — and in the prosecution of their great undertaking of working the said quicksilver mine, have cut down trees — but not in large quantities — for fuel and other pur- poses, and opened lime quarries to obtain lime ; but they deny that they have done these things wrongfully, or to the damage of complain- ants in the sum of one million dollars, or in any sum, or even without the implied consent of the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa up to the time of his-death, and of his widow and heirs up to the commencement of the suit at law in the complainants' bill mentioned, and of the widow and some of the heirs to the present time. For the defendants aver that ever since the denouncement aforesaid, and during all the time the defendants, and those under whom they claim, have been in the possession and occupation of the land included in the said denounce- ment and grant, which is the land alleged in the complainant's bill, to be the land wrongfully in the possession of the defendants, the widow and heirs of the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa, or most of them, have resided in the vicinity of the said mine and land of New Almaden, and daily seen the defendants, their agents and servants, at work in in the said mine and on the said land, without protest or objection, un- 212 til the bringing of said suit at law ; have seen and been fully cogni- zant of the immense expenditures of the defendants, amounting to nearly a million of dollars, in works and improvements on said mine and land ; have witnessed the opening and working of the mine ; the quarrying and burning of limestone ; the cutting of wood for fuel ; the erection of costly buildings, furnaces and smelting works, and the ex- traction and exportation of quicksilver ; and all this for a term of nearly five years, without advancing a claim to the land, or once questioning the ownership or possession of the defendants. Moreover, during this time some of them have frequently been in the employ of the defend- ants, and labored for them on the very lands which the complainants now pretend are wrongfully in their possession and pretend to claim, and for this work they have been paid by the defendants. And in this acquiescence in the defendant's title and possession they have done no more than the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, as the defendants aver, did up to the day of his death. And the defendants attach hereto and make a part of this their an- swer, a copy (Exhibit B.) of an original paper in their possession, dated November 7, 1849, signed by the widow and children of said Jose Reyes Berreyesa, in which they say " the lands of the mine of New Almaden, the mine itself, and the site of its works, which do not belong to us by any title." And to show still further the conduct of said widow and children in the premises, the defendant?, further answering, aver, that in a pur- chase for a valuable consideration made by them of the interest of said widow and children to certain land adjacent to said tract of New Almaden, by a conveyance in writing, it is expressed therein that the land is bordering on the land belonging to New Almaden ; the same lands which the complainants now allege do not belong to New Alma- den ; and in the same conveyance, the right, title and interest of said widow and children, if any they have, to the lands of New Almaden, now alleged to be wrongfully in the possession of the defendants, is, as the defendants believe, to them conveyed ; and this the defendants contend and aver had been previously done by virtue of a certain con- veyance of said widow and children to one Theodore Shillaber, who had transferred the same to the defendants ; all of which took place before the making of the pretended agreement of said Roman, Hep- burn, Stuart and Thorne. And the defendants further answering say, in answer to the allega- tions contained in the 4th and 6th articles of the complainants' bill of complaint, as to the cutting down and destroying timber and quarry- ing and removing large qnantities of lime, that they have never taken sold or removed from the said tract of land, which they say to them belongs, any wood, timber, limestone or lime ; and the timber and wood which they have cut, and all the limestone which they have 213 quarried and burned, have been used in the working of the said mine and in the erection of buildings and permanent improvements on the land itself, for the purposes of the mine. 5. As to the matter contained in Article 5, of complainants bill of complaint, the defendants further answering say, that they admit that in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of this State, for the county of Santa Clara, these complainants — save that Jose* Encar- necion Berreyesa, appears therein by his tutor, William R. Bassham, and the name of Isaac N. Thorne is not among the plaintiffs — com- menced their suit against Isidoro de la Torre, of Mazatlan in Mexico, Alexander Forbes, William Barron and Eustachio Barron, of Tepic, in Mexico, John Parrott, of San Francisco, and James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, of Santa Clara county, State of California, to recover possession of the lands and mines of New Almaden, being the same land and mines alleged in the complainants' bill to be wrongfully in the possession of the present defendants, and to recover damages for the alleged wrong possession and detention of said lands and mines. And the defendants admit that the order of removal of said cause was made as stated in the said bill, and that the same, in pur- suance of the said order, has been removed, and is now pending in the Circuit Court of the United States, for the Northern District of California ; but these defendants deny that any suit against them, as made defendants in the complainants' bill of complaint, was ever in- stituted in said State Court, or ever removed to, or is now pending in, this Court. 6. The defendants further answering, admit that they constitute a company possessing, working and claiming the lands and mines of New Almaden, and that they and those under whom they hold and claim the same, have possessed the said land and worked the said mine for a term of years, as has hereinbefore been more particularly set forth ; but they deay each and every allegation in said complainants' bill, that they have committed trespass in the destroying cf timber, in opening the earth and in taking therefrom cinnabar in large quantities, viz : sufficient in amount to produce at least two thousand pounds of quick- silver daily, or any other quantity, or committed any trespass upon any land of the complainants or either of them. 7. As to the matters set forth in Article 7 of complainants' bill of complaint, the defendants deny that they have caused any delay in the progress of said action of ejectment for damages, for the purposes al- leged in said 7th Article, or for any other purposes, and they aver and charge the truth to be, that *if there has been any unnecessary delay in the progress of said action, such delay has been caused by the complainants alone. And they refer to the record of the suit now pending in this Court. And further, they deny that they are secretly carrying away quicksilver beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, and 214 aver that all quicksilver conveyed away is so conveyed openly and publicly, in the regular course of their business. They admit that they ship away a large portion of the quicksilver obtained from the mine, but only for want of sufficient market for the same in Califor- nia, and because the works and improvements of the mine and lands of New Almaden, requiring now, as they have always done, so large and constant an outlay of capital, make such shipments and sales abroad absolutely necessary. 8. As to the matters set forth in Article 8 of complainants' bill of complaint, the defendants, further answering, deny that the proceeds of the sales of said quicksilver amount to about the sum of $1,000 per day, and that they are fraudulently retaining said proceeds be- yond the jurisdiction of this Court or concealing the same. Further, they deny that they have not visible property within the reach of the process of this Court, or subject thereto, sufficient to satisfy and dis- charge the damages which the complainants would be justly entitled to recover in their said action at law, if, in the judgment of this court, they should be entitled to recover at all ; or that, unless they are restrained, by the interposition of this Court, from the commission of what the complainants style trespasses, and from removing, selling, or otherwise disposing of the products of said mines now within the juris- diction of this Court, they, the complainants, will sustain great and ir- reparable injury in the premises, or any injury at all. The defendants aver and charge the truth to be, that they have, within reach of the process of this Court and subject thereto, proper- ty visible, well known, large and valuable, immensely more than suffi- cient to satisfy any damage which the complainants may sustain by reason of anything in their bill contained ; that those of the defend- ants who do not reside in California are constantly remitting to their agents here, for the purpose of carrying on the works and improve- ments of the land and mine of New Almaden, much mt>re than their proportion of the amount received from the sales of the quicksilver — the sole product of the mine here and elsewhere ; that the Value of the said New Almaden mine and land has been, and is, and will be for a long time to come, enhanced, day by day, by the labor and capi- tal and enterprise of the defendants, who, in full faith that they are the true and lawful owners thereof, by just and legal title, obtained in good faith and in due form of law, have undertaken and carried on, under great discouragements and at a vast outlay, their works of per- manent utility, with no expectation^ immediate reimbursement. And now if the complainants seek to test in a court of law the title of de- fendants, they pray that meanwhile their works may not be suspended, the value of the mine depreciated, and themselves ruined by an in- junction upon their operations. 9. As to the matters set forth in Article 9 of complainants' bill of 215 complaint, the defendants deny that they have in their possession or under their control, within the counties of Santa Clara and San Fran- cisco, 500,000 pounds of quicksilver, the produce of. the said New Almaden mine, or anything like that amount ; but the amount which they actually have on hand in the said counties as well as the sales of the quicksilver produced by the said mine will be more particularly hereinafter set forth. 10. And the defendants further answering, say that the entire proceeds of said mining operations since the first denouncement and working of said mine in 1845, to the first day of the present month of May, have amounted to the sum of $192,945 78, received from the sales of quicksilver, the sole product of said mine and lands of New Al- maden, viz, that the defendants and their agents have received from sales of quicksilver in California, consumed or to be consumed in this coun- try, the sum of $30,323 20 ; from sales in California of quicksilver shipped to foreign countries, the sum of $33,729 37 ; from sales of quicksilver in foreign countries the sum of $428,893 19 — making in all as the receipts of the sales of the produce of said mine and lands of New Almaden, since the said month of November, 1845, the sum of $492,945 78, and no more ; and that the sales of the produce of the said mine mid lands, which have been made and are unpaid for, being now due, amount to just $43,594 50, and no more ; thus mak- ing the entire amount of sales of the produce of the said mine and lands, received and expected to be received, $535,540 28, and no more. That since the said month of November, A. D. 1845, the defend- ants and those under whom they hold, have expended a large sum of money in the working of said mine and improvements on the said land of New Almaden, in the construction of furnaces, roads, buildings, machinery, etc., viz., the sum of $978,114 11 ; that from the said time up to the present, they have received and sold quicksilver as the produce of said mine and land to the amount of $535,540 28, and no more, And even of that sum there is now due and unreceived, $42,- 594 50, making the amount of money expended on said mine and lands in labor and permanent improvements over and above the amount received therefrom equal to $485,168 33 over and above the entire amount of sales of the produce of said mine and lands, including all monies due and unpaid and to become due, equal to $442,574 83 : That, moreover, in the above amount of expenses no allowance is made for interest on the capital expended on said improvements several years ago, and which capital is still unreturned and unpaid, nor for the the time and labor which the defendants have personally given and devoted to the works and improvements on the said mine and lands. That the defendants are now engaged in erecting large buildings of 216 brick and stone, in constructing a road and opening a tunnel or adit into said mine, which works they expect to complete within the next few months at a cost of not less than from 160,000 to $80,000. 11. And the defendents further answering say, that the average sale of the proceeds of said mine and land have been from the month of November, A. D. 1845, to the first of the present month of May, of the value of $ 227 88-100 per day, and no more ; and that the average expenditure in improvements and works in said mine and land during the same period, have been of the value of $416 21-100 per day ; and that the entire proceeds of said mine and land, during the same period, including all the quicksilver sold and unpaid for, and all on hand and unsold, allowing a fair estimate for the prices likely to be received for the quicksilver to be sold, and deducting the probable losses and expenses in making such sales, will be of the average value of $319 74-100 per day, and no more ; while the average daily expenses for the works, buildings, etc., erected and constructed, and for materials purchased and used, for labor employed in producing the quicksilver and transporting it to market, of the value of $416 21-100 per day ; thus leaving the defendants losers of a considerable sum of money each day, which sum amounts in all at the present time to not less than $226,713 10 ; a sum of money which they can only expect to receive back after a long term of years, when labor shall become less expensive in California, when the consumption of quicksilver shall in- crease in this country, and when the necessary works and improve- ments on the mine and land shall be completed. And the defendants say that they have in their possession and under their control in the city of San Francisco, 55,275 pounds of quicksil- ver, and no more, which, after paying the cost of flasks, storage and commissions of sale, will not yield the nett sum of more than $20,000 ; that the amount in their possession and under their control in the coun- ty of Santa Clara is not of greater value than $25,000, and if imme- diately brought into market, would not, in all probability, yield any- thing like that sum. 12. The defendants, in their answer foregoing, having answered all and singular the allegations and interrogatories of the complainants' bill, submit to the Court with what equity, the premises considered, the complainants ask for the production of the title papers and docu- ments of the defendants, especially before the production and filing of any on the part of the complainants. And they further submit, that all the pretensions of the complain- ants set up to the lands and mines in the possession of the defendants, are against equity and good conscience, and even scandalous and im- pertinent ; that the said Roman, Stuart, Hepburn and Thorne have obtained the said pretended agreement from the said widow and chil- dren, and instituted the said suit at law, and filed this their bill in 217 equity, and circulated stories prejudicial to the defendants' title, and in various ways attempted to interfere with their operations, hoping that the defendants, most of whom reside in a foreign country, rather than endure these things, will purchase a peace, and thereby enrich the said Roman, Stuart, Hepburn and Thorne. And these defendants deny all and all manner of unlawful combina- tion and confederacy, wherewith they, by the said bill, are charged, without this, that there is any other matter, cause or thing in the said complainants' said bill of complaint contained, material or necessary for these defendants to make answer unto, and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered, confessed, traversed and avoided or de- nied, is true to the knowledge or belief of these defendants ; all which matters and things these defendants are ready to aver, maintain and prove, as this Honorable Court shall direct, and humbly pray to be here dismissed with their reasonable costs and charges in this be- half most wrongfully sustained. By their Attorneys, HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS. District Court of the United States, ) Northern District of California. \ Before Henry B. Janes, a Commissioner of said Court, in the City of San Francisco, I, John Parrott, one of the defendants named in the foregoing answer, being duly sworn depose and say that the mat- ters and things set forth in the foregoing answer, as of the knowledge of the defendants are true, and those stated upon their information and belief, I believe to be true. JOHN PARROTT. Sworn to this 4th day of May, A. D. 1852, before me, HENRY B. JANES, U. S. Commissioner. Here follows "A,"— (Map.) B. Know all men by these Presents : That the undersigned, Dona Za- carias Bernal, Jose* Ygnacio Berreyesa, Carmen Berreyesa, Loreto 22 218 - Berreyesa, Nemisio Berreyesa, Encarnacion Berreyesa, Fernando Ber- reyesa, Magdalena Berreyesa, for themselves, and Jose* Ygnacio in the name of his brothers, Jose' de los Santas Berreyesa, Francisco Berre- yesa and Santiago Berreyesa, do give ample, full and sufficient power to James M. Jones, attorney, and resident in the town of San Josd, to the end that he, as our attorney adlitem, may institute a suit in our name, in the proper court of law, against a certain Shillaber and others, in order to annul a fraudulent sale of lands of the Rancho of San Vicente, belonging to us, in which pretended sale the said Shilla- bar and his agents have caused persons not thereto authorized to sign a doed of sale declaring that we have sold not only the said portion of the Rancho of San Vicente, but likewise the lands of the mine of New Almaden, the mine itself and the site of its works, which do not be- long to us by any title. And in consideration of the heavy responsibility which the said Shil- laber and his agents have endeavored to fix upon us, and the serious injuries which fall upon us in this fraudulent sale, we declare that it is null, false and illegal in all its clauses, for the reasons already set forth, and for others : And in virtue whereof we give this power of attorney for the purposes above mentioned, and we ratify and confirm all the legal acts of our said attorney ; signing these presents at Santa Clara on the 7th day of November, 1849. Carmen Berreyesa, x Encarnacion Berreyesa, x Zacarias Bernal, x Loreto Berreyesa, x Magdalina Berreyesa, x Fernando Berreyesa, x For my brothers, Jose Santiago Santiago Berreyesa and Francisco Jose Santos Ber- Witness : Robert Birnie, reyesa, Francisco Berreyesa, Witness: Macsimo Z. Fernando, Ygna6io Berreyesa, Jose S. Berreyesa, Nemesio Berreyesa. I, Geo. Penn Johnson, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Districts of California, do hereby certify the fore- going to be a true copy of the original answer in above cause on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of said Court, this 21 August, 1857. SEAL, GEO. PEN JOHSTON, Attest, Cutler McAllister, D. C. Filed, Aug. 21, 1857. W. H. Chevers, Dep. Clerk. . 219 [" 0. H. No. 50."] CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT FROM THIRD JUDICIAL DIS- TRICT COURT. Maria Y. Bernal de Berreyesa, ET ALS. vs. James Alexander Forbes, and Robert Walkinshaw. j Proceedings had in the District Court of the Third Judicirl District of the State of California in and for the countp of Santa Clara. Before the Hon. J. R. Watson, Judge of said Court. State op California, ) County of Santa Clara, j . District Court, August Term, A. D. 1850. To the Hon. J. H. Watson, Judge of the Third Judicial District, for the County of Santa Clara State aforesaid. The complaint of Maria Y. Bernal de Berreyesa, wife of Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, of I. Ignacio, Santiago, Jose* de los Santos, Nemesio, Francisco and Fernando Berreyesa: and of Maria del Carmen Berreyesa and her husband, Lorenzo Pinedo, of Lore to Berreyesa and her husband Juan Bojorguez and of Magdalena Berreyesa and her husband Maximo Fernandez, and of Encarnacion Berreyesa, by his guardian, William R. Bassham, all residents of said county and State, and heirs of their father Jose* R. Berreyesa, de- ceased, respectfully shows : That your complainants are in actual possession as owners of a certain tract of land in said county of Santa Clara, known as the Canada de los Capitancillos, or Rancho de San Vincente, and bounded and described as follows, viz. on the north by the low hills near the lands of the Pueblo de San Jose, on the south by the Sierra Azul, on the east by the Laurel Hills, and on the west by the Rancho de los Capitancillos, or of Justo Larios, which boundary commences at the junction of the Alamitos and dry creeks, and runs thence south- wardly, passing the hills or lomita in the centre of the valley towards the east, to the Sierra : That said tract was granted with said bound- aries to the said Jose" R. Berreyesa, by Governor J. B. Alvarado, on the 20th day of August, A. D. 1842, was immediately taken posses- sion of by the said Berreyesa, who remained in quiet possession as >wner until his death, when your complainants, his heirs, took and 220 * have ever since retained actual, peaceable, public and uninterrupted possession thereof as owners. And now your complainants aver that James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, also of the said county and State, with divers other persons unknown to complainants, on or about the 15th day of August, 1845, and at divers other times between the said date and the day of filing this complaint, went with force and arms, and trespassed upon the said land, by cutting and carrying away the wood, timber and limestone of your complainants, without their knowledge or consent, whereby they have been damaged to the amount of the said wood, timber, and limestone, to wit, in the full sum of twenty thousand dollars ; for which sum your complainants pray judgment against the said Forbes and Walkinshaw jointly and severally, who they also pray may be summoned to appear and answer this complaint and that they be enjoined and prohibited from farther trespassing within said boundaries. JONES, HESTER & VOORHIES, For Comprnts. Filed August 26, A. D. 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk, 0. H. Allen, D. C. DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. State op California, County op Santa Clara. The People of the State of California : To James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw. You are hereby summoned to appear in the District Court of the Third Judicial District, held in the city of San Jose* and county of Santa Clara, to answer unto the complaint of Maria Y. Bernal Berreyesa and others filed in this Court, within ten days after service of this writ. * Witness the Hon. John H. Watson, Judge of the Third ] seal | Judicial District, under my private seal, there being no ' ' official seal yet provided at office, this 26th day of August, A. D. 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk, 0. H. Allen, D. C. Came into my hands this 27th day of August, 1850. JOHN YONTZ, Sheriff. 221 Served by leaving a copy of this summons, also a copy of the com- plaint, with Jas. A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, personally. August 28th, 1850. JOHN YONTZ, Sheriff. S. fees, service, $6 00 Mileage . . 7 50 ,3 50 State of California, County of Santa Clara. DISTRICT COURT OF THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Maria Y. Bernal Berreyesa, Wife of Jose Reyes Berreyesa, AND OTHERS. V. James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw. The defendants appear in Court and demur to the complaint of the complainants, and for cause of demurrer set forth : 1. That the boundaries and description of the land upon which the complainants allege a trespass to have been committed by the defendants, are, as stated in said complaint, so uncertain and indefi- nite as to render it impossible for the defendants to identify the same and to answer said complaints. 2. That.the said complaint is otherwise informal, insufficient and defective. The defendants therefore pray this Hon. Court whether they are bound in law to answer said complaint. W. B. ALMOND, PEACHEY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Defendants. Filed Sept. 5, 1850. H. C. Melone, Clerk. 222 Berreyesa et al. ) vs. > Ejectment. A. Forbes, et al. ) The Plaintiffs in this case move the Court for an order of survey, and the County Surveyor of Santa Clara county be appointed to run the lines of the tract of land granted by the Mexican Government to the ancestor of the plaintiffs, and that he make a true survey of the same and return a certified plot thereof to this Court at the earliest practicable moment. Ordered accordingly, Sept. 6, 1850, and that defendants counsel be notified that the Surveyor will proceed to the premises on Monday the 9th of Sept. inst. JOHN H. WATSON, Judge 3d Judicial Dist. Cal. Filed, Sept. 6, 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. Maria Y. Bernal Berreyesa, ^ AND OTHERS. vs. > James A. Forbes, and Robert Walkinshaw. j The Defendants move the Court to order the Plaintiffs herein to furnish said defendants or their attorney, with a copy of the title, grant, or patent, under which, by an order of this Court, it is pro- posed to have a survey made by the County Surveyor, at least one day before said survey shall be commenced. ALMOND, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Defts. Filed, Sept. 6, 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SANTA CLARA CO. Maria Y. Bernal Berreyesa, AND OTHERS. vs. James Alex. Forbes, and Robert Walkinshaw. j In this case the Defendants move the Court to set aside the order of Survey made herein for the following reasons. 223 1. That said order was made without any notice to, and in the absence of defendants or either of them, or of their attorney. 2. Said order does not set out the grant, or title, or patent, of the Mexican Government, or even describe the same, so as to apprise defendants of the limits intended for survey. ALMOND, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Defts. Filed Sept. 6, 1850. H. C. MELONE. Set aside. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. Maria Bernal de Berreyesa, ^ Wife of Jose* Reyes Berreyesa et al. vs. y James A. Forbes AND Robert Walkinshaw. And the said defendants come and for answer say that they are not guilty of the said supposed trespass, as charged against them in the complaint of the said complainants, or of any or either of them ; and the said defendants therefore deny all the allegations and charges made by the said complainants in their said complaint against them the said defendants, and of this the said defendants put themselves upon the county, &c. PEACHY, HALLECK & ALMOND, Attorneys for Defies. And for a further answer to the said complaint, the said defendants say that the said plaintiffs ought not further to have or maintain their aforesaid action thereof against them, because they say that the said close in the said complaint mentioned, and in which the said supposed trespasses are charged to have been committed by the said defendants, now is and at the said several times when said supposed trespasses are charged to have been committed, was the close, soil and freehold of the said defendants Robert Walkinshaw, to wit, at the county of Santa Clara aforesaid. Wherefore the said Robert Walk- inshaw in his own right, and the said James A. Forbes as his servant, and by his command, and with his permission, at the said several times, when, &c, committed, if any trespasses at all were committed, the said several supposed trespasses in the said complaint mentioned, 224 in the said close, in which, &c, so being the close, soil and freehold, of the said Robert Walkinshaw, as they lawfully might for the cause aforesaid, which on the said several supposed trespasses if any, whereof the said complainants have complained against them. And this they are ready to verify, &c. HALLECK, PEACHY & ALMOND, Filed, Sept. 19, 1850. Attorneys for Defts. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Maria Y. Bernal de Berreyesa, Wife of Jose Reyes Berreyesa, of Ignaoio, and others. vs. James A. Forbes, AND Robert Walkinshaw. > In Trespass. And now come the plaintiffs by their counsel, and move the Court for a survey by the County Surveyor of this county, of the bounda- ries of the tract of land described in the plaintiffs' declaration in this suit, the said tract of land containing the following boundary, to wit, on the north by the low hills near the lands of the Pueblo de San Jos6, on the south by the Sierra Azul, on the east by the Laurel Hills, and on the west by the Rancho de los Capitancillos, or of Justo Larios, and which boundary commences at the junction of the Alamitos and dry creeks, and runs thence southwardly, passing the hills or Cormeta in the center of the valley towards the east to the Sierra, and being the same land granted to said Jose R. Berreyesa by Governor J. B. Alvarado, on the 20th day of August, 1842, and that the said Surveyor proceed upon the premises on next Monday morn- ing, for the purpose of making said survey, and report his survey together with a plot of the ground to this Court as soon as the same shall be completed, for the purpose of evidence for the plaintiffs in the above entitled cause upon the trial thereof in this court. JONES, VOORHIES & HESTER, For Plaintiffs. Sept. 7, 1850. Filed Sept. 7, 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. 225 IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. State of California, Berreyesa et al. } vs. > August Term, 1850. Forbes & Walklnshaw. \ The Defendants and their attorneys, Allman & Halleck, in this cause, will take notice that the trial of this cause, upon an issue of law will be had by the Court in the Court House of said County, at 3 o'clock on the 16th day of Sept. 1850. JONES, VOORHIES & HESTER, For Plaintiffs. Filed Sept. 16,1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Maria Y. Bernal de Berreyesa, n Wife of Jose Reyes Berreyesa, ET AL. vs. y James A. Forbes AND Robert Walklnshaw. The plaintiffs by their counsel now move the Court for a rule re- quiring the defendants on next Monday the 16th inst., to produce in Court, and file amongst the papers in the above entitled cause, for the inspection of the counsel of the plaintiffs, certain papers of a pretended denouncement, made in 1845 or thereabouts, of the Alma- den mines, upon the land in the plaintiffs complaint herein mentioned, pretended to be made by one Castearas, a military officer. Also cer- tain papers .of a pretended denouncement of said mines made by said Forbes, or made by said Forbes and others, in 1848, or thereabouts ; also all the pretended papers of a confirmation of either or both of said denouncements, pretended to be made by the Mexican Govern- ment ; also all the papers of a pretended grant made by the Mexican Government to him the said Forbes, or to him and others, of two leagues of land more or less, upon which said mines are situated, to- gether with all other paper or papers, connected with the title to said Almaden mines, or the land upon which the same is situated, upon 226 which the said defendants intend to found their claim to said land, or to said mines, or their right to commit the trespasses in said com- plaint mentioned, as a defense in said suit ; the inspection of the same by the counsel for said plaintiffs being necessary to enable them to prosecute the suit. And which motion is granted by the Court, and the said papers or copies thereof are ordered to be produced accord- ing to said motion. State of California, County of Santa Clara. James M. Jones, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the suit within mentioned, states on oath, that he believes that facts mentioned in the within rule are true, and that the exhibition of of said papers in Court, if any such exist, as required by the within mentioned rule, are necessary to the prosecution of said suit for the said plaintiffs. J. M. JONES. Sworn and subscribed before me this 13th day of September, A. D. 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Rule granted. JNO. H. WATSON, Judge. Filed, Sept. 13, 1850. H. C. MELONE, DISTRICT COURT OF THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. ss. State of California, County of Santa Clara. James A. Forbes, Robert Walkinshaw, ads. J And the said defendants for a further answer in this behalf say as to so much of the said supposed trespasses, in the said complaint mentioned, as are therein alleged to have been committed by the defendants at a time ariterior to one year next preceeding the passage of the act entitled u An Act defining the time for commencing civil actions," that the complainants ought not to have or maintain their aforesaid action thereof against them the defendants, because they say that by the laws of California before the passage of the said act, 227 all suits for trespass were barred by the expiration of one year from the day on which the trespass was committed, unless suit was insti- tuted therefor within said year. And this the defendants are ready to verify, wherefore they pray judgment, &c. flALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, For Defendants. Filed Sept. 19, 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. M. Z. Berreyesa, et als. vs. IiSIDORO DE LA TORRE, ET ALS. To the Hon. JOHN H. WATSON, Judge of the Third Judicial District Court. The complaint of Maria Zac de Bernal Berreyesa, widow of Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, of Maria del Carmen Berreyesa and her husband Lorenzo Pinedo, of Loresa Berreyesa and her husband, Juan Bojor- ques, of Santiago, Jose de los Santos Berreyesa, Nemesio Berreyesa, Francisco Berreyesa, of Magdalena Berreyesa and her husband Maximo Fernandez, and of William R. Bassham, tutor of Jose' Encarn Berreyesa, all children and heirs of said J. R. Berreyesa, and of Richard Roman, James Hepburn and Charles V. Stuart, all which complainants reside in said county of Santa Clara; Respectfully shows : That your complainants, the widow and heirs of said J. R. Berrey- esa, are the lawful owners and possessors of a certain tract of land situate in said county of Santa Clara, known as the Rancho de la Canada de los Capitancillos, alias Ranch of San Vicente, and bounded on the north by the low hills near the lands of the Pueblo of San Jose*, on the south by the Sierra, on the east by the Laurel hills, alias lomeria, and on the west by the Rancho of William Wiggins, formerly of Justo Larios, which western line commences at the angle formed by the junction of the arroyo seco, or dry creek, and Alamitos creek, and runs thence south by the eastern brow or slope of the hills in the center of the valley to the Sierra. That the whole of said tract within said boundaries was granted to Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, on August 20th, 1842, by Governor Juan B. Alvarado, which grant 228 was duly recorded, and the said J. R. Berreyesa was then and during five years previous, and has ever since remained in actual, peaceable, public and uninterrupted possession, in good faith as owner of said tract. That the said J. R. Berreyesa, died in said county in the year 1847, leaving his children as heirs, and his widow retaining half the tract as her share of the community, the same having been ac- quired during marriage. That said R. Roman, Jas Hepburn, and C. V. Stuart, are the lessees from said widow, and heirs of all the minerals and mines, hacienda, &c, on said tract of land. And now your complainants aver that one Isidoro de la Torre, of Mazatlan, in Mexico, Alexander Forbes and William Barron, and Eustacho Barron, of Tepic in Mexico, John Parrot of San Francisco, and James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, of Santa Ciara county, State of California, defendants, are in the unlawful possession, and have been since February 1st, 1845, of a large and valuable portion of said tract of land, and refuse to deliver the same to your com- plainants, though duly requested so to do. That the said persons have taken since the said 1st of February, 1845, and still retain, un- lawful possession of all that portion of said tract lying west of the Arroyo de los Alamillos, alias Alamitos, with a tract east of and along said Arroyo de los Alamitos, of half a mile in width, running to the Sierra on both sides of said Arroyo. That the said defendants with- out the consent of your complainants, have erected a hacienda of buildings, furnaces, forges, and appurtenances, on the banks of said Arroyo, in the middle of said complainants tract, and have tresspassed upon said land, by opening thereon and working quicksilver, lime, and other mines, and more particularly the mine of New Almaden, on the western portion of said Rancho. That the portion of said Rancho thus unlawfully taken possession of by defendants, is worth one million dollars, and your complainants have been damaged by the trespasses and wrongs of defendants, in the full snm of one million dollars. That the rents and profits accruing from the said mine of New Alma- den and appurtenances, of which your complainants have been unjust- ly deprived, and which have been enjoyed by the defendants since Feb. 1st, 1845, amount to seven hundred thousand dollars, and that the use of the hacienda and appurtenances, with the wood, water, lime, land and other property and privileges of these complainants during that time, is well worth three hundred thousand dollars. Wherefore your complainants pray that the said defendants may be duly cited, and ordered, and adjudged to deliver forthwith to your complainants, the possession of all the aforesaid portions of the said tract, by them unjustly witheld as aforesaid ; that any pretended claim said defendants may set up thereto be annulled, and that said defend- ants be jointly and severally condemned to pay to your complainants the said sum of one million dollars, as rents, profits, and damages for 229 the unlawful detention of said premises, and for such other relief as the nature of the case may demand &c. WELLER & JONES, Att'ys for Complainants. Personally came Richard Roman, one of the above complainants, who being duly sworn deposes and says that Isidoro de la Torre, Alex- ander Forbes, William Barron and Eustachio Barron are non-resi- dents of, and deponent believes are not now in the State of Califor- nia, and that the said non-residents are parties interested necessary and proper to said suit, and a cause of action exists against said non- residents in favor of complainants. RICH. ROMAN. Sworn to and subscribed at San Jose, this 30th day of September, 1850, before me, H. C. MELONE, Clerk. It is ordered in this case that notice be given to the non-resident defendants by publication in the " Pacific News," a newspaper pub- lished in the City of San Francisco, at least once a month for six months in succession and that a copy of the summons and complaint (if their residence is known) be forthwith deposited in the Post office and sent to them. Oct. 2, 1850. JOHN H. WATSON, Judge 3d Judicial Dist. Cala. Filed October 5, 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. State op California, County of Santa Clara. The people of the State of California, To Isidoro de la Torre, Alexander Forbes, William Barron, Eustachio Barron, John Parrot, James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw. You are hereby sum- moned to appear and answer unto the complaint of M. Z. Berreyesa et als. filed in this Court, within ten days after service of this writ. Witness, Hon JNO. H. WATSON, Judge of the third Judicial District with with my J seal [ private seal there being no official seal yet provided at < ) office this 11th day of October, A. D. 1850. Test. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. 230 Served by leaving a copy of the complaint with Robert Walkin- shaw & Jas. A. Forbes, personally. JOHN YONTZ, Sheriff. Oct. 21, 1850. S.fees . . $6 00 Mileage . . 7 50 113 50 DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN AND FOR THE STATE AND COUNTY AFORESAID. State of California, County of San Francisco. M. Z. Berreyesa ET ALS. vs. ISIDORO DE LA TORRE ET ALS. James A. Forbes and Robert "Walkinshaw, appear and demur to the said complaint and for the causes of demurrer set fotth. I. That this Court has no Jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action, so far as it involves the question of title to the minerals being on, under or within the lands specified in said complaint. II. That this Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action so far as it relates to the question of title to the lands spe- cified in said complaint. III. The Defendants do further take objection by the following answer to matters which are causes of demurrer not appearing on the said complaint. That is to say, they show and aver that the proprie- tors of the land in the complaint mentioned as that which the com- plaint alleges to be wrongfully witheld from complainants are Alex- ander Forbes, Eustace Barron, Wiiliam Forbes, Eustace W. Barron, all of Tepic, in the Republic of Mexico, Isodoro de la Torre of Mazatlan, J. B. Jecker of the City of Mexico, James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw of Santa Clara County, in this State, John Parrot of San Francisco City in this State, Martin La Piedra and Francisco Maria Ortez, both of the City of Mexico, and that the Lessees of the said land who now hold occupy and enjoy the same under a written contract of lease for a term of years to expire on the 231 twenty-eighth day of November A. D. one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, are Alexander Forbes, Eustace Barron, William Forbes and Eustaee W. Barron of said City of Tepic, Isidoro de la Torre of Mazatlan, J. B. Jecker of Mexico, William Gibbs & Co. of Lima in Peru, and Theodore Shillaber of the City of San Francisco in this State. The said Defendants further show that the said Alexander Forbes Eustace Barron, William Forbes, Eustace W. Barron, Isidoro de la Torre, J. B. Jecker, James A. Forbes, Robert Walkinshaw, Martin la Piedra, Francisco Maria Ortez and William Gibbs are foreigners (the other partners in the firm of William Gibbs & Co. being unknown to the said Defendants) and not citizens of the United States, or of any State or Territory or possession thereof and that their right and title to the said land and the minerals therein con- tained was derived by grant and denouncement from the Supreme Government of Mexico, and in accordance with Mexican law prior to the late declaration of War by the United States against the Repub- lic of Mexico. The said defendants therefore take the following objec- tion to this action : 1. That this Court has no jurisdiction -of the subject of this action. * 2. That there is a defect of parties defendant. 3. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 4. That the complaint is in other respects informal insufficient and defective. The Defendants therefore pray judgment whether they are bound to answer said complaint further than they have already answered it. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, & WM. B, ALMOND, Defts. Attys. Filed Oct. 21st, 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. State of California, ) , County of Santa Clara. J sc ' The People of the State of California. To Isidore De la Torre, Alexander Forbes, William Barron, Eustachio Barron, John Parrot James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, Greeting — You are hereby 232 summoned to appear and answer the complaint of M. Z. Berreyesa et als filed in this Court, on the fourth Monday in April A. D. 1851. Witness Hon. JOHN H. WATSON, n Judge of the third Judicial District Court with my L s ( private Seal, there being no Official Seal yet provided at — > office this 21st day of October, A. D. 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Red Nov. .7, 1850. Returned served personally on Defendant Parrott in the City of San Francisco on the 7th day of November 1850, by delivering him a copy of this summons and a copy of complaint. K J.C.HAYS, Sheriff County of San Francisco. Nov. 7, 1850. J/ A. FREANOR, Dept. Shffsfee H 00 DISTRICT COURT OF THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, IN THE STATE AND COUNTY AFORESAID. State op California, County of Santa Clara. Jambs A. Forbes, Robert Walkinsham ads. Maria Bernal de Berreyesa et ALS. The Defendants in this cause in answer to the order of Court made on the 13th day of September A. D. 1850, requiring the Defendants to produce in Court certain papers upon which they intend to rely as a defence in this cause answer and say : That they have exercised all due diligence to procure and produce the said papers in Court, by writing immediately on the receipt of the above mentioned order, to the parties in Mexico, who hold them, but to this date the Defendants have not received them, this delay having been caused, as Defendants verily believe by the failure of the Mail Steamers running from Panama to San Francisco, to touch, as here- tofore has been their custom at the Port of San Bias in Mexico, from which place the Defendants have expected, and still expect, to receive said papers. The Defendants therefore ask of your honorable Court such further 233 time as may be necessary to procure said papers and comply with the said order of Court. And the Defendants further aver that the said papers and other documents which they have sent for in Mexico, and which they are daily expecting to receive, are absolutely necessary to tnem in the above entitled cause and that they cannot proceed with the trial of this cause without said papers and documents. And the Defendants specify among others, the following papers and documents as absolutely necessary to them before they can proceed with the trial of this cause, viz.: (1) The original Denounce- ment of the Mine of New Almaden and the Judicial possession given of the same in the year 1845. (2.) The confirmation of said De- nouncement and possession by the Supreme Government of Mexico in the year 1846, and prior to the late declaration of War by the United States against the Republic of Mexico. (3.) The original grant of land including said mining possession, made by the Supreme government of Mexico (prior to the Declaration of War as aforesaid) to the owners of said mine. (4.) The original documents showing the ownership of said mine and land in the parties from whom the Defendants derive title : the Defendants verily believing that the land referred to in said documents is the same land as that upon which the pretended trespass is alleged in Plaintiffs complaint to have been committed, and that these documents are absolutely necessary for their defence. The Defendants therefore pray a continuance of the above entitled cause to the April term of this Honorable Court. State of California, County of Santa Clara, Henry W. Halleck, one of the attorneys in the above entitled suit states on oath that he believes the facts mentioned in the fore- going answer and petition are true, that all due dilligence has been exercised to produce in Court the aforementioned papers, that further time is necessary to Defendants in order to enable them to produce said papers, and that Defendants cannot go to trial in this cause till said papers are procured. H. W. HALLECK. Sworn to and subscribed before me. JOHN H. WATSON, Judge. Filed Deer. 23, 1850. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. 23 2U Maria Zac de Bernal Berreyesa, Widow of Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, et al. j vs. Isidore de la Torre, ET AL. \ > The defts are notified that the Plaintiffs will at 3 o'clock on thurs- day 23d day of Jany 1851 at the Court House of the County of Santa Clara, State of California move the Court for the appointment of a receiver in said cause, to take charge of the rents and profits accruing from the mining operations, mentioned in the complainants complaint. VOORHIES & HESTER, Jany 23d 1851. For plffs. Filed Jany 23d 1851. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. DISTRICT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. December Term, A. D. 1850. State op California, ) County of Santa Clara. \ To the Honorable Judge of the District Court of said County : — Your complainants, Maria Zac. de Bernal Berreyesa, widow of Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, Maria del Carmen Berreyesa and her husband Lo- renzo Pinedo, Loreta Berreyesa and her husband Juan Bojorques, Santiago Berreyesa, Jose de los Santos Berreyesa, Nemesio Berre- yesa, Francisco Berreyesa, Fernando Berreyesa, Magdalena Berreye- sa and her husband Maximo Fernandez, William Bassham, tutor of Jose Encarnacion Berreyesa, children and heirs of Jose Berreyesa, Richard Roman, James Hepburn, and Charles V. Stuart, residents of said county, represent to your Honor, that there is a suit now pending in said Court in their favor against Isidoro de la Torre, of Mazatlanin Mexico, Alexander Forbes, William and Eustachio Barron, of Tepic in Mexico, John Parrot, of San Francisco, James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, of said county of Santa Clara ; which said suit has been instituted by your complainants to recover possession of a large and valuable tract of land known as the Rancho de la Canada de 235 los Capitancillos, alias Rancho of San Vicente , and also for a large amount of damages, on account of the trespass and wrongs mentioned in the complaint therein, and upon which tract of land is situated the Quicksilver mine known as the mine of Nueva Almaden, and which mine is an appurtenant of said land. They further represent that the said defendants in said suit have been and are engaged in working said mine and taking therefrom large quantities of valuable mineral ore, to wit, four thousand pounds per day, which they allege is of the value of two thousand Dollars ; that they the said defendants are oth- erwise using and working said mine and appropriating the rents and profits derived therefrom to their own use, in fraud of the rights of your complainants, who charge and believe they are able to establish upon the trial of the suit aforesaid, that said defendants are trespassers upon them, and that the Rancho aforesaid, together with the said mire thereon situate is their rightful property as hereinafter stated, and that all the benefit and advantages, rents and profits arising therefrom just- ly and rightfully accrue to them. They further represent, that many of the defendants are non-resi- dents of this State, ag will appear by reference to the admissions of the defendants in their pleading and affidavits in said cause, and your com- plainants believe that they will withdraw from said State their propor- tion of the profits accruing to them from the working of said mine as fast and whenever the same arises, and that the same thing will be* done, as your complainants believe, of the profits accruing to the said defendants who are residents of said State ; and your complainants believe that said defendants have not sufficient property or other means in said State to satisfy the Judgment which may be rendered in said suit ; so that whatever Judgment which may be rendered in said suit will be unavailing unless the profits accruing from the working of the said mine be safely kept and retained in the hands of an honest careful person. Your complainants further allege, that the defendants have used, and your complainants believe they will continue to use, all the means in their power to prevent said suit from coming to a trial, and that said suit on account of such resistance may be much delayed before the trial thereof. They further allege that said defendants, as they be- lieve, fraudulently setup a claim to said land, without, as they believe, having any valid title thereto. The plaintiffs are the owners of said land, in fee simple, except the said Hepburn, Roman and Stewart, who have a joint interest with the other plaintiffs by a lease from them made last July to said Hepburn, Roman and Stewart for the term of twenty years from and after the said time of making said lease. The said complainants allege that the said Berreyesas have been in the peaceable possession of said land for at least nine years next before the said defendants first occupied the same and wrongfully obtained 236 possession thereof. The said plaintiff, James Hepburn, states on oath the facts stated in the above complaint are in substance and mat- ter of fact as he believes. Your complainants therefore pray that a Receiver be appointed to take charge of the accruing profits, and re- tain them subject to the order of said Court until said suit shall be be determined, and then to be subject to the order which the Court may make therein, and that your Honor grant such other relief as may comport with justice. Jany 23d, 1851. VOORHIES & HESTER for Complainants. JAMES HEPBURN. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 23d day of January, 1851. II. C. MELONE, Clerk. Filed, January 23, 1851. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Berreyesa, et. al. ) against > Forbes, et. al. ) Upon a motion by Plaintiffs to appoint a Receiver to take charge of the proceeds of the Quicksilver mine of New Almaden. And now comes the parties by their attorneys, viz, the plaintiffs ap- pearing by their attorney John B. Weller, and the defendants by their attorney, Wm. H. Rumsey, and the plaintiffs produce and file their affidavit herein. Whereupon the argument of counsel being heard, it is ordered by the Court that John W. Geary be appointed a Receiver whose duty it shall be to take charge of the Quicksilver which may be obtained by the defendants in working the mine in the pleadings mentioned, over and above what shall be necessary for the expenses incurred in prosecuting the mining operations. Said Geary shall re- ceive said quicksilver as fast as the same may be smelted at the fur- naces of the defendants, and said defendants are ordered to account to and turn over to the possession of the said John W. Geary the quick- silver aforesaid as often as called upon by hirn to do so, they taking the receipt of the said Geary for the amounts so turned over from time to time, and the said Geary shall execute and deliver to the de- fendants such receipts when demanded. The receiver will, as fast as the said mineral is received by him, or as often as is necessary, trans- port the same to the city of San Francisco or other suitable point of depot, and sell or ship the same as will be most conducive to the inter- est of these parties, and the monies arising from the sale of the said 237 mineral shall be held subject to the order of the Court upon the final adjudication of the matters in this suit. Said Receiver before enter- ing upon the duties of his office shall take and subscribe an oath before the Clerk of this Court well and truly to discharge his duties, and shall execute a bond to be approved by this Court or the Clerk thereof in vacation, in the sum of Two hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars, conditioned to account for and pay over upon the order of the Court, the sums of money which he may receive in pursuance of this order. He shall produce and file in this Court, on or before the sixth day of each regular term thereof, a sworn statement of his accounts, and shall show in such statements the amount of money or the quantity of ore remaining in his hands, and the Court reserves the power of increas- ing the amount of said bond, and of requiring additional security upon the same at discretion. And the said Receiver shall be allowed such compensation as shall be adjudged reasonable and just by the Court. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. J DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, in the state and county aforesaid. Alexander Forbes, & als. ads. Maria Berreyesa, & others, James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, defendants in this cause, move that the order made by the Hon. Wm. Robert Turner, on the 24 January, 1851, appointing a Receiver for the purposes in said order mentioned, be revoked and set aside, the said order having been im- providently made, and being contrary to law. PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Defendants. Filed, Feb. 22, 1851. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. 238 DISTRICT COURT OF COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. February Term, 1851. Berreyesa, et. al. ) vs. > Alex. Forbes, et. al. ) Be it remembered, that on the 22d day of February, 1851, the Court being in session, the defendants by their counsel moved the Court to set aside an order which the said Court had made herein, at the December term thereof, 1850, on the 24th day of January, 1851. and which order is as follows : (" see pages 27 and 28 of this tran- script, for said order,") (here the clerk will set it out,) which motion the Court sustained and set aside said order. To which opinion the plaintiffs by their counsel except and pray that this their Bill of Ex- ceptions may be signed, sealed, and made a part of the record in this cause, and which is accordingly done. JNO. H. WATSON, Feb. 22, 1851. Judge. Filed, Feb. 22, 1851. H. C. MELONE, Clerk, IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. M. Z. Berreyesa, et. als. ^ vs. V James A. Forbes, et. als. J and M. Z. Berreyesa, et. als. vs. YSIDORO DE LA TORRE . als. ) , et. als. ) Interrogatories Propounded by Defendants In the above entitled Causes, to Manuel Castanares in the City of Mevico. 1. — What is your name, age and profession ? 2. — Have you ever resided in California, and if so, at what time, and how long ? 239 3 — Did you ever hold the office of Prefect or Secretary of the Prefectura of the first District of California ; if so, at what time and how long ? 4. — State if you know who was the Prefect and who was the Secre- tary of the Prefectura of the first District of California on the twenty- second day of September, 1842. 5. — State, if you know, whether your brother, Jose Maria Casta- nares, was Secretary or acting Secretary of the said Prefectura in the year, 1842 ? 6. — State, if you know, whether there was in California, in the month of September, 1842, any person other than your brother named Jose Maria Castaiiares ? 7. — State, if you know* whether any person by the name of Jose Maria Castanares was Secretary or acting Secretary of said Prefectu- ra in the month of September, 1842 ? Translation of the foregoing Interrogatories into the Spanish Language. 1. — Diga, como se llama el declarante, su edad, y profesion ? 2. — Diga, se ha sido residente en Californias, en que punto, en que fecha, y por cuanto tiempo. 3. — Diga, si fue Prefecto 6 Secretario de la Prefectura del primer Distrito de Californias, y en que fecha, y por cuanto tiempo ? 4. — Diga, si sabe quien fiie* Frefecto, y quien fiie* Secretario de la Prefectura, del primer Distrito de Californias en el dia veinte y dos de Septiembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y dos ? 5. — Diga, si sabe el declarante, si el hermano Jose Maria Castana- res fue Secretario en propriedad o en interinato de la precitada Pre- fectura en todo el aiio mil ochocientos cuarenta y dos. 6. — Diga, si sabe que habia en Californias en Septiembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y dos otra persona que amas del hermano del de- clarante se-llamase Jose Maria Castanares ? 7. — Diga, si sabe que en Septiembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y dos el Secretario en propriedad o interinato de la precitada Prefectura se Uamaba Jose Maria Castanares ? halleck; peachy & billings, Attorneys for Defendants. Filed, April 8, 1851. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. 240 IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. M. Z. Berreyesa, et. als. ) vs. > James A. Forbes, et. als. ) and M. Z. Berreyesa, et. als. ) vs. [ YSIDORO DE LA TORRE, et. als. ) Interrogatories Propounded by Defendants, In the above entitled Causes, to Jose Maria Castanares, in the City of Mexico, Mexico. 1. — What is you name, age and profession ? 2. — Have you ever resided in California ; and if so, in what place or places, at what time, and how long ? 3. — Did you ever hold the effice of Attorney General of the Supe- rior Tribunal of California ; and if so, at what time, and how long ? 4. — State whether by the laws of Mexico you could, while Attor- ney General of said Tribunal, hold any other office, and whether, while such Attorney General, you ever did hold any other office in Cal- ifornia, either temporary or permanent. 5. — State whether, while you were such Attorney General in Cali- fornia, you ever was acting Secretary of the Prefectura of the first District of California. 6. — State whether at any time you have been acting Secretary of said Prefectura. 7. — State whether as such acting Secretary of said Prefectura you ever recorded any title of a grant of land in California. 8. — State whether in the month of September, A. D. eighteen hun- dred and forty-two, you recorded in said Prefectura a title of a grant of land made by Governor John B. Alvarado to Sargent Jose Reyes Berreyesa. 9. — State whether you ever wrote on any such title of grant to Jose Reyes Berreyesa a certificate of such record. 10. — State whether you ever signed such certificate. 11. — State whether your recollection on this subject is clear and positive. 12. — State, if you know, whether there was any other person living in California, in the year eighteen hundred and forty-two, named Jose Maria Castanares. 13. — State, if you know, whether any person by that name was 241 acting Secretary of the aforesaid Prefectura in the year eighteen hun- dred and forty-two. 14. — Have you a brother named Manuel Castanares ? Translation of the foregoing Interrogatories into the Spanish Language. 1. Diga como se llama el declarante, su edad y profesion ? 2. Digo si ha sido residente en Californias, en que punto, en que fecha, y por cuanto tiempo ? 3. Diga si fiie* ministro fiscal del tribunal Superior de Justicia de los Californios, y esprese la fecha en que tomo posesion de ese destino, y el dia en que ceso en el ? 4. Diga si es cierto que por estar prohibido por la ley de Mexico k los fiscales de los tribunales superiores de justicia el tener otro em- pleo y si el que contesta turo otro en propriedad en interinato 6 en comision, en Californias mientras que fue fiscal ? 5. Diga si el que contesta turo 6 no el de secretario interino de la Prefectura del primer Distrito de Californios en el tiempo que fue fiscal del Snperior Tribunal en Californios ? 6. Diga si ha sido Secretario interino de, dicha Prefeotura en algun tiempo ? 7. Diga si, como tal secretario de dicha Prefectura tomo razon de algun titulo de concesion de tiersa en Californias ? 8. Diga si tomo razon el que contesta en Septiembre de mil ocho- cientos cuarenta y dos en la precitada Prefectura de algun titulo de concesion de tierra dado al Sargento Jose Reyes Berreyesa ? 9. Diga si estendio en tal titulo de concesion a Jose Reyes Ber- reyesa, un certificado de toma de razon ? 10. Diga si ha firmado tal certificado ? 11. Diga si hace recuerdo fijo y positivo de ese asunto. 12. Diga si habia en Californias en el aiio de mil ochocientos cua- renta y dos otra persona que amas del declarante se llamase Jose Ma- ria Castanares ? 13. Diga, si sabe que en todo el ano mil ochocientos cuarenta y dos el secretario interino de la precitada Prefectura se llamaba Jose Maria Castanares ? 14. Diga, si tiene el que contesta un hermano que se llama Ma- nuel Castanares ? HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Attorneys for Defts. Filed, April 8th, 1851 H. C. Melone, Clerk. 242 IN THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. M. Z. Berreyesa et al. } vs. > Jas. A. Forbes et al. ) & M. Z. Berreyesa et aL 1 vs. > YSIDORO DE LA TORRE et al. ) Messrs. Weller & Jones, Atty'sfor Pltfs. Gentlemen : — Take notice that Interrogatories have this day been filed to be propounded to Jose Maria Castanares and Manuel Castana- res of the City of Mexico, Mexico, their answers to be used in the above entitled causes. San Jose, April 8th, 1851. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS. I acknowledge the service of the within notice, this 9th day of April, 1851. Wm. CLAUDE JONES, Att'y for Berreyesa et al. Filed, April 9, 1851. H. C. Melons, . Clerk. DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. ) Maria Z. B. de Berreyesa ^i & others vs. James A. Forbes Robert Walkinshaw. J . It is agreed by the parties that the interrogatories and cross interro- gatories filed in the above case, to be propounded to Jose Maria Cas- taneras and Manuel Castaneras, shall be sent to the American Consul, at Mexico, and the testimony shall be taken and returned by him the 243 same as by a Commissioner of Deeds duly appointed ; and the parties waive all objection so the depositions or testimony arising from the fact that they are taken by the Consul, instead of a Commissioner of Deeds or other officer named in the Statute. Should the Consul be absent from Mexico or unable to take the tes- timony, the above agreement applies to the acting Consul. April 28, 1851. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Atty's for Dfts. JONES & WALLACE, of Counsel for Pltfs. Filed, April 28, 1851. H. C. Melone, Clerk. DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. State of California, County of Santa Clara. ss. Maria Z. B. de Berreyesa^ & others vs. > YSLDORO DE LA TORRE & others. J It is agreed by the parties that the interrogatories and cross inter- rogatories, filed in the above case to be propounded to Jose Maria Castaneras and Manuel Castaneras, shall be sent to the American Consul at Mexico, and the testimony shall be taken and returned by him the same as by a Commissioner of Deeds duly appointed ; and the parties waive all objection to the depositions or testimony arising from the Tact that they are taken by the Consul, instead of a Commissioner of Deeds or other officer named in the Statute. Should the Consul be absent from Mexico or unable to take the tes- timony, the above agreement applies to the acting Consul. April 28, 1851. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Atty's for Defts. JONES & WALLACE, of Counsel for Pltfs. Filed, April 28, 1851. H. C. Melone, F Clerk. 244 DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. State of California, County of Santa Clara. ' Maria Z. B. de Berreyesa^i & others vs. YSID0R0 DE LA TORRE & others. J And now on this fourth Monday of April, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, in obedience to the Summons by publication made by order of this Court, on the day of October last, parties defendant in the above entitled cause do here by their Attor- neys enter their appearance in said cause : and the said Defendants and also the Defendants James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw do say, that the Plaintiffs in this cause are, and were at the time of the institution thereof citizens of the State of California, and that the Defendants Ysidoro de la Torre, a resident of Tepic in the republic of Mexico, is an alien and a subject of the Kingdom of Spain, that Alexander Forbes, another defendant, is an alien and subject of the Kingdom of Great Britain, that Eustachio Barron, James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw are also aliens and subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and that said Defendants were aliens at the time of the institution of this suit, and that Defendant John Parrot is, and was at the institution of this suit a citizen of the State of Virginia, that William Bar- ron of Tepic is unknown to the said Defendants, that they do not be- lieve that such a man exists, and that there is no person of the name William Barron who is in any way interested in the land in contro- versy. Therefore the above named Ysidoro de la Torre, Alexander Forbes, Eustachio Barron, James A. Forbes & Robert Walkinshaw, and John Parrot, averring that the matter in dispute in this cause ex- ceeds the value of five hundred Dollars, exclusive of costs, pray for the removal of this cause for trial, into the next District Court of the United States to be held in this District, and that this cause may pro- ceed no further in this Court, and Defendants offer good and sufficient security for their entering in said District Court on the first day of its next Session in this District, copies of the process against them in this cause, and also for their appearing in said Court on that day. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Atty's for Defendants. 245 DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. J On this, the twenty-eighth day of April, A. D. 1851, in open Court personally appeared Henry W. Halleck, one of the Attorney's subscribing the above petition, and made solemn oath that the facts set forth therein are true. Before me H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Presented and filed in open Court. H. C. Melone, Clerk. DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. State of California, \ County of Santa Clara. \ Maria Z. de Berreyesa' & others vs. James A. Forbes & Robert Walkinshaw. J On this, the twenty-eighth day of April, the year eighteen hundred fifty-one, the defendants by their Attorneys appear in open Court and say, that the plaintiffs in the cause are, and were at the time of the institution thereof citizens of the State of California, and that they, the Defendants James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw are now, and were at the time of the institution of said suit, aliens and subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Therefore the said Defendants James A. Forbes and Robert Walk- inshaw, averring that the matter in dispute in this cause exceeds the value of five hundred Dollars exclusive of costs, pray for the removal of this cause for trial into the next District Court of the United States to be held in this District, and that this cause may proceed no further in this Court. And this they pray pursuant to the provisions of the Statute of the United States, entitled "An act to provide for extending the laws and the judicial system of the United States to the State of California," approved September 28, 1850 ; the said suit at which time was pending in this Court. By their Atty's HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS. 246 DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT. State op California, County of Santa Clara. On this, the twenty-eighth day of April, A. D. 1851, in open Court personally appeared Henry W. Halleck, one of the Attorneys subscribing the above petition, and made solemn oath that the facts set forth therein are true. Before me H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Presented and filed in open Court, H. C. Melone, Clerk. CROSS INTERROGATORIES BY COMPLAINANTS. M. Z. Berreyesa et als ) vs. > James A. Forbes et als ) AND M. Z. Berreyesa et als ) vs. > YSLDORO DE LA TORRE et als ) The Complainants reserving to themselves the benefit of all legal objections to each and every of the interrogatories in chief propound- ed by the Defendants in the above entitled causes to Manuel Castane- ros of the City of Mexico, and more particularly reserviug the benefit of all legal objections to the interrogatories in chief numbered as " 4th," « 8th," " 9th," and "10th," propound to the said Manuel Castanaro3 the following cross interrogatories : 1st. Are you related to any of the parties claiming any part of the mine of Nueva Almaden, or interested in the same under the claim of the Defendants, and if so related, in what degree ? 2nd. Do you claim any interest in said mine, or have you ever claimed any interest in the same, and have you ever sold any interest in said mine to the Defendants or to either of them ? 3d. Since what time has Jose R. Berreyesa been in possession of the Rancho of San Vicente, granted to him by Governor Juan B. Alvarado, in the year 1842 : Was he (Berreyesa) not in possession of said Rancho immediately after said grant was made ? 4th. Was not Jose R. Berreyesa publicly known as the owner of said Rancho ? 247 M. Z. Berreyesa, ) vs. > Diego A. Forbes et als. ) Y M. Z. Berreyesa et als 1 vs. > YSIDORO DE LA TORRE ET ALS. J Los Actores reservando el derecho de toda objeccion legal que haya en los interrogaciones que se proponen por los Demandados (en las causas arriba) al Senor Don Manuel Castenara y mas particular- mente reservando el derecho de toda objeccion legal que haya en las interrogaciones como * 4°" " 8°" '« 9°" y " 10°" propuestas al dicho Senor Don Mannel Castanaro preguntan las contra interrogaciones siguientes : 1° i Es Vmd pariente de alguno de los partes que reclaman parte de la mina de Nueva Alraaden 6 de persona cualquiera inter- esada en la misma mina bajo el reclamo de los Demandados ? y si lo es diga vmd en que grado. 2° i Reclama Vmd interes alguno en la dicha mina, 6 tuvo Vmd en algun tiempo reclamo alguno en la dicha mina, y havendido Vmd. en algun tiempo algun interes en la dicha mina a los Demandados 6 & cualquier de ellos ? 3° i Desde cuando tra tenido el Senor Don Jose R. Berreyesa la posesion del Rancho de San Vicente, el cual le concedio por el Gober- nador Juan B. Alvarado en el ano 1842 tenia Berreyesa la posesion del dicho Rancho luego despues de hecha la dicha concesion ? 4° i No estaba el Senor Don Jose R. Berreyesa reconocido por todos y publicamento como dueno del dicho Rancho ? Filed April 23d, 1851. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. M. Z. Berreyesa et als. vs. James A. Forbes et als. and M. Z. Berreyesa et als. vs. Ysodoro De la Torre et als. The Complainants reserving to themselves the benefit of all legal objections to the interrogatories in chief propounded by the Defend- 248 ants in the above named causes to Jose Maria Castenaros of the City of Mexico and more particularly reserving the benefit of all legal ob- jections -to the interrogatories in chief numbered as " 4th," " 8th," " 9th," and " 10th," propounded to the said Jose Maria Castanaros, the following eross interrogatories. 1st. Are you related to any of the Parties claiming any part of the Mine of Nueva Almaden or interested in the same under the claim of the Defendants, and if so related in what degree ? 2d. Do you claim any interest in said mine or have you ever claimed any interest in the same, and have you ever sold any interest in said mine to the Defendants or to either of them ? 3d. Since what time has Jose R. Berreyesa been in possession of the Rancho of San Vicente granted to him by Governor Juan B. Alvarado in the year 1842 : Was he Berreyesa not in possession of said Rancho at the time of said grant, or did he not go into the pos- session of said Rancho immediately after S'dd grant was made ? 4th. Was not Jose R. Berreyesa publicly known as the owner of said Rancho ? TRANSLATION OF THE FOREGOING CROSS INTERROGATORIES BY COM- PLAINANTS. M. Z. Berreyesa } vs. > Diego A, Forbes et als. ) Y M. Z. Berreyesa et als ) vs. \ Isidoro De la Torre et als ) Los actores, reservando el derecho de todo objeccion legal que haya en las interrogaciones que se proponen par las Demandados (en las causas arriba) al Senor Don Jose Maria Castenara y mas particular- mente reservando el derecho de toda objeccion legal que haya en las interrogaciones numerados como " 4°" " 8°" " 9°" y " 10°" propues- tas al dicho Senor Don Jose Maria Castenara, preguntan las contra, interrogaciones siguentas. 1° i Es vmd pariente de alguno de los partes que reclaman parte de la mina de Nueva Almaden 6 de persona cualquiera interesada en la misma mina bajo el reclamo de las Demandados 1 y si lo es diga vmd en que grado. 2° i Reclama Vmd. interes alguno en la dicha mina 6 tuvo vmd. en algun tiempo reclamo alguno en la dicha mina ; y ha vendido vmd en algun tiempo algun intere3 en la dicha mina a los Demandados 6 a cualquier de ellas ? 249 3° j Desde cuando ha tenido el Senor Don Jose R. Berreyesa la possession del Rancho de San Vicente, el cual le concedio por el Gobernador Juan B. Alvarado en el ano 1842, tenia Berreyesa la posesion del dicho Rancho al tiempo mismo de la dicha concesion, 6* tomo el la posecison del dicho Rancho luego despues de hecha la dicha concesion ? 4° i No Estaba el Senor Don Jose R. Berreyesa reconocido por todos y publicamente como dueno del dicho Rancho ? Filed by consent of the parties April 28th 1851. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Know all men by these presents, That we, Isidoro de la Torre, Alexander Forbes, Eustachio Barron, James A. Forbes, Robert Walk- inshaw and John Parrott, principals and Henry W. Halleck, Fred- erick Billings, William E. Barron, sureties are held and firmly bound jointly and severally unto Maria Z. de Bernal Berreyesa, widow of Jose Reyes Berreyesa, Maria del Carmen Berreyesa and her husband Lorenzo Penada, Loreto Berreyesa and her husband, Juan Bojorques, Santiago Berreyesa, Jose de los Santos Berreyesa, Nemecio Berre- yesa, Francisco Berreyesa, Fernandez Berreyesa, Magdalena Berre- yesa and her husband Marcio Fernandez William Bassham Tutor of Jose Encarnacion Berreyesa, Richard Roman, Charles V. Stuart, and James Hepburn in the sum of One Million Dollars to the payment whereof well and truly to be made we bind ourselves our and each of our executors administrators firmly by these presents jointly and sev- erally. Witness our hands and seals this twenty-eighth day of April A. D. eighteen hundred fifty-one. Whereas on the fifth day of October A. D. One thousand eight hundred and fifty a suit was instituted in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara by said Maria Z. de Bernal Berreyesa and the others above named as obligees against the above bounden principals for the recovery of certain lands known as the Rancho de la Canada de los Capitancillos situate in said County, and whereas the above bounden principals have filed their petition in said District Court for the County of Santa Clara praying for the removal of said cause into the next District Court of the United States to be held in the District where the said suit is pending. Now therefore if the above bounden principals shall enter copiesof the process against them in this cause, in the United States District 24 250 Court next to be holden in the District where the said cause is now pending, and shall also enter their appearance in said United States District Court in said cause at its next term, then these presents shall be null and void, otherwise in full force and effect. Executed the day and vear aforesaid. I. DE LA TORRE, by his Atty in fact WM. E. BARRON, [seal ALEX. FORBES, by his Atty in fact WM. E. BARRON, [seal EUSTACE BARRON, by his Atty in fact WM. E. BARRON, [seal JAS. ALEX. FORBES, [seal ROjBERT WALKINSHAW, [seal WM. E. BARRON, [seal JOHN PARROTT by his Atty Jn fact H. W. HALLECK, [seal \ H. W. HALLECK, [seal FREDERICK BILLINGS, [seal Witness to all signatures on this page. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Presented and filed in open Court April 28th, 1851. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. M. Z. Berreyesa et als. ) vs. > Ysidoro de la Torre at als. ) It is hereby agreed by and between the undersigned that the peti- tion of the Defendants in the above entitled cause for removal into the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, presented and filed in this Court on the 28tb day of April 1851, be granted and that the District Judge of the said Third Judicial District order the removal of the said cause in accordance with the prayer of the said petition. And it is further agreed by and between the undersigned that the following order of Court be entered up in this case, viz. The petition of Ysidoro de la Torre, Alexander Forbes, Eustachio Barron, Jas. A. Forbes, Robert Walkinshaw, and John Parrott, De- fendts. in the above entitled cause having been presented to and filed in this Court on the 28th day of April, A. D. 1851, simultaneously with their appearance by the entry thereof on the calender of this Court praying for the removal of the above entitled cause from this 251 Court into the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California (sitting as a Circuit Court) in conformity with the act of Congress of the United States made and provided, and the said defendants having having filed a bond with good and sufficient security which has been accepted by this Court, and it appearing that the matter in dispute exceeds the^ sum of five hundred Dollars ex- clusive of costs, and that said Defendants have complied in all res- pects with said act of Congress ; It is ordered that the prayer of said petition be granted and that the said Defendants do appear in the said District Court of the U. S. for the Northern District of Cali- fornia (sitting as a Circuit Court) to be held in th? town of San Jose & County of Santa Clara in this State on the 15th day of April next on the first day of said term & that they do file in said Court copies of the process and complaint in this case together with copies of all other papers of file in this Court in the above entitled cause. WILLIAM T. WALLACE, Feby 5, 1852. Atto for Plaintiffs. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS, Atty's for Defendts. Filed Feby 5, 1852. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. \ ss. I John B. Hewson County Clerk of Santa Clara County and Ex- officio Clerk of the District Court of the 3d Judicial District of the State of California, in and for said County, do hereby certify, that the foregoing pages, numbered from one, to forty-nine inclusive con- tain a full, true, and complete Transcript, of all the papers filed, and the proceedings had thereon, in the aforesaid District Court, in the suits of Maria Z. Bernal de Berreyesa et als, vs. James Alexander Forbes & Robert Walkinshaw, and Maria Z. Bernal de Berreyesa et als, vs. Isidoro de la Torre et als, as taken from the files and Records in said Court. In Testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the Seal of Said Court this 15th day of August A. D. 1857. JOHN B. HEWSON, Clerk. SEAL Filed Aug. 21, 1857. W. H. CHEVERS, Dep. Clerk. 252 DEPOSITION OF GEO. M. YOELL. United States District Court, Northern District of Calieoknia. The United States vs. Andres Castillero.J San Francisco, August 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 George M. Yoell, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the dockat of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present — U. S. District Attorney represented by Edmund Ran- dolph, Esq., and Frederick Billings, Esq., for claimants. Questions by Edmund Randolph, Esq. 1st Question. — What is your name, age, occupation, and place of residence ? 1st Answer. — My name is George M. Yoell ; 34 years old ; I am Deputy Recorder of Santa Clara County, and I reside In San Jose, Santa Clara County. 2d Question. — Have you been subpoened in this case ? 2d Answer. — I have, and have been ordered to bring certain docu- ments with me. 3c? Question. — Please produce that document ? 3c? Answer. — The witness here produced a document. 4th Question. — What document is that ? (Question objected to by claimant's attorney, as being incompetent and immaterial.) 4th Answer. — This is a document filed among the records of Santa Clara County, and also of record in the same office. (Answer objected to — same grounds as the question.) 253 5th Question. — Can this document be filed in this case ? 5th Answer. — I cannot part with it, as I am in duty bound to return it to the records of Santa Clara County. 6th Question. — Look at the document marked " Exhibit R., No. 1," attached to your deposition, and please state if it is a copy of the original produced by you, and if it was made by you. 6th Answer. — This is a certified traced copy made by myself, as the County Recorder's Deputy of Santa Clara County. (The attorney for the claimant objects to the introduction of " Ex- hibit R. No. 1," first, because the original has not been duly proved ; 2d, because it is secondary evidence ; 3d, because the evidence is im- material and irrelevant.) 1th Qvestion. — Please look at the words in red ink, on the first page of Exhibit R., No. 1 — state what those words are and explain what they mean. 7th Answer. — The words are, " The above is written in pencil. S. A. Clark, Recorder, by Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy ; " that alludes to the filing which is traced above, on the original document, purporting to be signed by J. T. Richardson, the former Recorder of Santa Clara County. 8^ Question. — Look at the 9th page of the same exhibit — state what the words are written at the foot of the page, in red ink, by whom they were written, and what they mean. 8th Answer. — The words are " ' Blots, &c.' S. A. Clark, Record- er, by Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy ;" it was made to give as correct a copy of the original as possible, by myself, and to show that the blots were on the original at the time it was made by me. 9th Question. — Look on the last page of the paper which you first produced, and which you say is on file in the County Recorder's office, in Santa Clara county — read what words are written on said page, and say whose hand writing they are in. 9th Answer. — They words are, " Filed (for) February 25th, A. D. 1853, at 11 o'clock A. M. J. M. Murphy, Recorder, by S. 0. Houghton, Deputy." That is in the handwriting of S. 0. Houghton, a former Deputy Recorder of Santa Clara County, whose hand writing I am familiar with. 10th Question. — Look at the first page of the same document pro- duced by you, and please read the first words written thereon, and state with what it is written, whether with ink or pencil. lth An*.— The words are, " Filed 3 o'clk P. M., 18 Jany, 1851. J. T. Richardson, Recorder S. C. C." It is written with a lead pencil, in the hand writing of J. T. Richardson, Recorder of Santa Clara Co. 11th Ques. — Please take the original document which you have 254 stated to be on file among the records in the office of the County Re- corder of the county of Santa Clara, and examine carefully what water marks, or manufacturer's marks are to be found upon it upon each page and each sheet thereof, so as to make it appear in your answer what marks of said nature exist upon each sheet and page separately, of which the said original document is composed. (Question objected to by claimant's attorney, on the grounds that the evidence sought to be obtained is secondary, incompetent, irrele- vant, and immaterial.) 11th Ans. — I find on the first page the following : G B F E M Vedova and also another figure would I could not make out. On the second page, P s On the third page, GIORMAGNANIEE. On the fourth page there is a water mark with the " scale of justice " on in the center. On the fifth there is " Fleur de Lis " as water mark. On the sixth page is P s - On the seventh the same as on the third. On the eighth the same as on the sixth. On the ninth the same as on the third and seventh. On the last page is FABI NI 12. (Answer objected to by claimant's attorney as follows ; each and all the answer given by the witness to question eleven are objected to for reasons stated in objection to the question, and also for the reason that the answers are vague and uncertain, and give no definite intelligible description of the marks in question.) Ques. 12th. — Are the water marks, or manufacturer's marks, to which you have just testified, marked on the traced copy marked " Exhibit R., No. 1 ? " Ans. \2th. — They are not ; it would be very difficult to trace them. Ques. 13th. — Will you please to state in what manner this original document is put together, and of how many sheets it is composed ? Ans. 13th. — This original document is composed of five sheets of paper — four sheets inside of one sheet — each sheet of two leaves — the outside leaf appearing to have formed one sheet, but I cannot say for certain, as they are torn or very much worn. The first page contain 255 the words, in pencil mark, " Filed 3 o'clk P. M. 18 Jany, 1851. J T. Richardson, Recorder S. C. C. ;" and in ink, the following : " Po- sesion de la Mina de Santa Clara, Ano de 1845." On the last page are the words, in ink : " Filed (for) February 25th, A. D. 1853, at 11 o'clock A. M. J. M. Murphy, Recorder, by S. 0. Houghton, Deputy ; " and those two leaves compose the outside of said document. The first sheet inside purports to be a petition, signed by Jose' Castro, as representative of Andres Castillero, and addressed to the Alcalde of the first denomina- tion of the Pueblo of San Jose' de Guadalupe, and on the margin there is an order, purporting to be signed by Pacheco. That is all on that sheet. On the next sheet there is a petition, purporting to be signed by Andres Castillero, addressed to the Alcalde of the first denomination. That is all there is on the second sheet. The next sheet contains a petition from Andres Castillero, to the Alcalde of the first denomination, and is all that is contained on the third sheet. On the fourth sheet purports to be a grant and possession to Andres Castillero, from Antonio Maria Pico, and witnessed by Antonio Sunol and Jose* Noriega ; that is all, except the County Recorder's certifi- cate, which is contained on this sheet. (The foregoing question and answer, and all questions and answers relative to words, marks, appearances, characters or contents, of the document spoken of by the witness, as on file in the office of Santa Clara County, objected to by claimant's counsel, for the reason that the said original document is not introduced in evidence, and because the testimony is secondary and incompetent, and immaterial, and also vague and uncertain.) Qites. 14. — Please state how the pages of the traced copy corres- pond with the sheets of the original, which you have been just testify- ing to. * Arts. 14. — Page No. 1 of the traced copy corresponds with the first outside leaf of the original. Pages 2 and 3 of the traced copy correspond with the first inside sheet of the original. Pages 4 and 5 of the traced copy correspond with the second inside sheet of the original. Page 6 corresponds with the third inside sheet of the original. Pages 7, 8, and 9 corresponds with the fourth inside sheet of the original document. And page 10, of the traced copy, corresponds with the last outside leaf of the original document. 256 Ques. 15. — Piease look at the third inside sheet of the original doc- ument, and state whether all the writing on the said sheet is in the same hand. Ans. 14. — I should not say it was. (Question and answer objected to on same grounds as question and and answer No. 13, and for the further reason that the witness has not been proved to be an expert.) Ques. 16. — Will you please state the words which you think are written in a different hand writing from the rest ? Ans. 16. — After the word " presentacion," on this sheet, the words " no llendo en papel del sello p r no haberlo " appear to me to have been written in a different handwriting. (Question and answer objected to for same reasons as the question and answer above.) Ques. 17. — How is the writing on said sheet signed, and how ad- dressed ? Ans. 17. — Signed with the name of Andres Castillero, and address- ed to the Alcalde of the first denomination of the Pueblo San Jose Guadalupe, dated Santa Clara, December 3d, 1845. Ques. 18. — What is your knowledge of the general subject of hand writing ? Ans. 18. — I can tell a good hand writing from a bad one ; I am a clerk by profession, and I can generally tell two different hand writ- ings when I see them on one sheet of paper. Cross-Examination. Ques. 19. — State as to the words which you say appear on the 3d inside sheet, of which you have been testifying as a different hand writing from the balance of the page, wherein they appear to differ from the words going before and the words coming after. Ans. 19. — They appear to be written in a heavier hand than the words going before ; that is all the difference I can find. That ap- pears to me to be the only difference I can find on the page before and after. Direct Resumed. Ques. 20. — Look again at the writing referred to, and see whether the words which appear to you to be a different hand writing from the rest of the writing, present any difference as to spaces between the lines of the writing. 257 (Question objected to, because the witness was examined in chief upon this point, and the examination closed ; second, because it was a leading question ; and third, because the witness stated all the differ- ences he could perceive.) Ans. 20. — The words " del sello p r . no haberlo " appear to be writ- ten a little closer to the lines above and below than the rest of the doc- ument. (Page 6, of the traced copy, corresponds with the third inside sheet of the original document.) GEO. M. YOELL. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 18th day of August, A. D. 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. EXHIBIT R., No. 1. (act of possession — almaden mine.) (Copy.) Filed 3 o'clk P. M. 18 Jany, 1851. J. T. RICHARDSON, Recorder S. 0. 0. " The above is written in pencil. " S. A. CLARK, Recorder, By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. POSESION DE LA MINA DE S TA . CLARA, A^O DE 1845. Sor. Alcalde de 1\ Nominacion de el Pueblo de S. Jose de Guadalupe pueblo de s. jose Jose Castro Ten te coronel de caball a . de ejercito Me- a junio 22 D e ji can0j natural de este Departam t0 ante la notoria justi- ce™ 10 pide ia ficacion de V. comparesco y digo : que representando y Atcwb c ar. llase este no y l a persona y derechos, de el Capitan D. Andres Cas- pac'heco. tillero y demas individuos q. forman la compania (sien- 258 do jo uno de los acsionistos) en la mina de asoge q. demmcio dho Sor. Castilleros el dia tres de Diciembre de mil ochocientos cuarento y cineo y se nos dio la pocesion el dia treivo la de el mismo mes y ano arreglandome en todo k las leyes de mineria titulo sesto articulo pri- mero en q. consede a los descuhridores de minerales nuevos, tres perte- nencias continuas 6 interrumpidar con las medidas designadas por ley ; y por combenir asi al derecho que tiene la compania da hoy por dedu- cidas ante V. las tres pertenencias 6 continuacion de la primera, me- reciendole que se sirva unir este escrito al espediente de denuncio para q. quede archivado y conste en todo tiempo. No Uendo en papel de el sello correspondiente por no haberlo. A. V. Suplico provea de coniformidad en lo que recibire merced y justicia. S ta Clara Junio 27 de 1846. JOSE CASTRO. Sot Alc\ de 1 a . Nomin on Andre's Castillero, cap n . de cab a Perm te . y residente hoy en este Departam t0 ante la notoria justificacion de V. hace presente : Que ha- biendo descubierto una veta de plata con ley de oro en terreno del Rancho perteneciente al Sarg te . retirada de la compania Presidial de S. Fran c0 . Jose Reyes Berreyeza ; y queriendo trabajarla en compania, suplica a V. q. araeglada a la ordenanza de mineria de sirva fijar rot- ulones en los parages publicos de la jurisdiccion pa. q. llegada el tiempo de la posesion juridica, asegure mi derecho segun las leyes de la ma- teria. A. V. suplica, provea de conformidad, en lo que recibire merced y justicia : admitiendo este en papel comun por falta de sellada corres- pondiente. Mision de Santa Clara Nov e 22, de 1,845. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Sr. Alcalde de 1 a nominacion del Pueblo de S N Jose Guada- lupe. Andres Castillero Capitan de Caballeria permanente ante la notoria justificacion de V. compareno y digo : que envallando el mineral que con anterioridad denuncia a en Jusgado he vacar a mas de plata con ley de oro Azogue lo qu3 de en primeria de algunos concurrentes que podre cilar en caso oportuno, y por combenir asi a mi derecho le he de mereria k V. que unia al escrito de denuncien se archive esta presen- tacion no llendo en papel dol sello p r . no haberlo. 259 A. V. Suplico provea de conformidad en lo q. recivire merced y Justicia. Santa Clara Diciemb 6 3 de 1845. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Ne encontrandose en el Depart de California Diputacion de Mine- ria y siendo esta la unica vez desde la poblaeion de la Alta California que se trabaje con arreglo a las leyes un mineral, y carviendo ademas de Juez de letras el Segunda Distrito Yo, el Alcalde de l a nominacion C. Antonio M a Pico he benido acompafiado de dos testigos p a . actuar por reseptoria, a falta de escrivano publico que no le hay, para dar po- yerian juridica de la Mina conocida con el nombre de Santa Clara en esta jurisdiccion situada en el Rancho del Sargente Jose Reyes Ber- reyesa, por que habiendo teniendo el tiempo que seiiala la ordenanza de mineria para deducir en accion el C. Andres Castillero y que otros pudieren alegra mejor derecho desde el tiempo del denuncia a la fecha y encontrandose dicho mineral con abundancia de metales esplutadas, el paso echo con las reglas del ante, y produciendo la elaboracion de la mina abundancia de Azogue liquid segun las muestras que tiene el Jusgado, y utando tan recomendado por leyes sigentes la proteccion de un articulo tan necesario para la amalgamacion de oro y plata en la Republica he benido en consederle tres mil varas por todos rumbus a reserva de lo que seiiale la ordenanza Gen 1 de Mineria por sea traba- jara en comp a de lo que doi fe ; firmando con migo los testigos y que- dando agregado este acto de posesion al cumulo del espediente que quedo depositado en el archivo de mi cargo no yendo puesto en el pa- pel del Sello respectivo que no le hay en los terminos de la ley. Juzgado de S n Jose Guadalupe Diciemb e de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco. ANTONIO M A PICO. De asta. De asta. Antonio Sunol. Jose Nokiega. Recorded (at request of J. Alex. Forbes) at 12 o'clock M., March 16th, A. D. 1855, in Book G. of Deeds, on pages 484, 485 and 486, Records of the County of Santa Clara. S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. By F. Lewis, Deputy. "Blots &c." S. A. CLARK, Recorder. By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. Filed (for) February 25th, A. D. 1853, at 11 o'clock A. M. J. M. MURPHY, Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. 260 Recorder's Office, Santa Clara County, California, July 25th, A. D. 1857. I hereby certify that the foregoing, on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of this, is a full, true, correct, and exact traced copy of an instrument at present in this office, and which said instrument is also of record, and recorded in Book G. of Deeds, pages 484, 485, and 486. / ^ Given under my hand and official seal, at office, in the j seal [city of San Jose', the day and year last written. ( > S. A. CLARK, County Recorder, By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. DEPOSITION OF H. C. MELONE. United States District Court, Northern District of California. The United States vs. Andres Castillero. San Francisco, Aug 19, 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 H. C. Melone, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows. Present: — U. S. District Attorney represented by Edmund Ran- dolph, Esq., and Frederick Billings, Esq., for claimant. Questions by Edmund Randolph, Esq. 1st Ques. — What is your name, age, and place of residence ? 261 1st Acs. — My name is H. C. Melone, fifty years old, and I reside in Santa Clara County since September, 1849. 2d Ques. — Heve you held any public office in Santa Clara County, or what is now Santa Clara County ; and if so, when, and what ? 2d Ans. — I was clerk of Court of First Instance, from Oct. 1st, 1849, until April, 1850, when the State Government was formed. I was then elected County Clerk of Santa Clara County, and held that office until October, 1853. 3d Ques. — During the time that you were Clerk of First Instance was there any litigation in that court respecting the quicksilver mine known as New Almaden ? 3d Ans. — There was. 4th Ques. — Please look at the papers now shown you, and say what they are. 4th Ans. — The first paper is a petition of Robt. Walkinshaw to Judge R. M. May, of the Court of First Instance, asking to be put in possession of the quicksilver mine; now marked " Exhibit R, No. 3." The second paper is a citation and injunction restraining James Alexander Forbes from working the mines, now marked " Exhibit R, No. 4." The third paper is the bond of Robt. Walkinshaw and Antonio Go- mez ; now marked " Exhibit R, No. 5." The fourth paper is a notice from Robert Walkinshaw to James Alex. Forbes ; now marked " Exhibit R, No. 6." The fifth paper is a sworn answer of James Alexander Forbes, in the hand-writing of J. M. Jones, attorney for Forbes, now marked " Exhibit R, No. 7." The sixth paper is the transcript of proceedings in the same matter, before Peter H. Burnett, President of the Superior Tribunal of Cali- fornia ; now marked " Exhibit R, No. 8." 5th Ques. — Are the above some of the original papers in the suit referred to in your answer ? 5th Ans. — They aie. 6th Ques. — In whose hand-writing are the bodies of those papers ? 6th Ans. — " R, No. 3," is in the hand-writing of Horace Hawes, attorney for Robt. Walkinshaw. " R, No. 4," I think is in the hand-writing of C. T. Ryland, a law. yer of San Jose\ " R, No. 5," is in the hand-writing of Horace Hawes. " R, No. 6," I think is in the hand-writing of C. T. Ryland. " R, No. 7," is in the hand-writing of J. M. Jones, attorney for James Alexander Forbes. "R, No. 8," I do not know the hand-writing of the body, but the order is in the hand-writing of Peter H. Burnett, and that is his own signature. 262 7th Ques. — Do you know the signature of Robert Walkinshaw, and is this his signature which is appended to "Exhibit R, No. 3 ? " 7th Ans. — Mr. Walkinshaw's name is signed twice on said docu- ment, and they are both his genuine signatures. 8th Ques. — Do you know the signature of R. M. May, judge of the 1st Instance ? if so, state if the signature appended to " Exhibit R, No. 4," is his genuine signature. 8th Ans. — I know his signature, and it is his genuine signature. 9th Ques. — Do you know the signatures of " Exhibit R, No. 5 ? " if so, state whose signatures they are, and whether they are genuine or not. 9th Ans. — I know them all ; the signatures of Robt. Walkinshaw and Antonio Gomez, they are both genuine ; the witnesses signatures are also genuine. 10th Ques. — The same question as to signatures of " Exhibit No. 6." 10th Ans.— The signature to " Exhibit R, No. 6," is Robert Walk- inshaw's genuine signature. 11th Ques.— The same of" R, No. 7." 11th Ans. — The signature is James Alex. Forbes ; it is his genuine signature. 12th Ques.— The same of « R, No. 8." 12th Ans. — Has already been testified to. 13th Ques. — During the time that this litigation was pending, have you heard the parties plaintiff and defeudant converse on the subject of their right and title and claim in the New Almaden mine ? and if yea, what declarations have you heard them make ? (Question objected to by claimant's counsel on the ground that the testimony sought is immaterial, incompetent, irrelevant, and hearsay.) 13th Ans. — I have conversed with both of the parties on the sub- ject, about their right to the possession of the mine, and controlling it. I never heard Mr. Walkinshaw say anything about what title he held under, but I have heard Mr. Forbes on several occasions say he held it under a denouncement. (Answer objected to on same ground as the objection to the ques- tion, and also because it is not responsive.) 14th Ques. — Did you ever hear either Forbes or Walkinshaw, at the time mentioned above, claim to hold the mine by any other right than that of denouncement ? (Question objected to on same ground as preceding question, and also because it is leading.) 263 14th Ans. — Not to my recollection. 15th Ques. — Did you ever hear, at that time, either Forbes or Walkinshaw speak of having any right to the land in which the mine is situated, by grant from the Government at the City of Mexico, or from any other source ? (Objected to for same reasons as 14th question.) 15th Ans. — I do not recollect of having ever heard either of them claim it under a grant of any kind. 16th Ques. — Did you ever hear them or either of them, at the time mentioned, speak of having received from the President of Mexico, or from the Junta de Fomento y Administrativa de Mineria, any confirm- ation of their mining rights and mining possession under their de- nouncement ? (Same objection as to question preceding.) 16th Ans. — It was about that time, but I cannot say that it was exactly at that time, Mr. Forbes told me that they had got their right to the mine from the City of Mexico established about three days be- fore the treaty of peace was ratified. 17th Ques. — Did you charge your mind particularly with these statements of Mr. Forbes ? (Same objection as the preceding question.) 17th Ans. — I did somewhat, sir. 18th Ques. — Do you remember anything else stated by Forbes or Walkinshaw, about that time, upon the subject of their right to this mine ? (Same objection as preceding question.) 18th Ans. — I do not think I ever heard any more that what I have stated. I never heard Mr. Walkinshaw say anything of the right of the mine more than the right of possession amongst the owners. 19th Ques. — What were your opportunities to hear either of these parties speak on this subject ? were they frequent or not ? (Same objection as preceding question.) 19th Ans. — My opportunities were very good at that time. I saw them almost every day, and held conversations with them frequently. 20th Ques. — Were there any other proceedings about that time that 264 you have spoken of taken in reference, to the mine of New Almaden ; if so, what were they, and by whom ? (Same objection as preceding question.) 20th Ans. — There was another proceeding had by Horace Hawes. 21st Ques. — Who was Horace Hawes ? What connection, if any, did Horace Hawes have with the litigation at that time pending be- tween Walkinshaw and Forbes, and of which you have just testified ? (Same objection as preceding question.) 21st Ans. — Horace Hawes was the attorney for Walkinshaw in the suit of which I have been speaking. 2 2d Ques. — Do you mean to say that Horace Hawes was attorney for Walkinshaw in said suit against Forbes, at the same time at which he took the proceedings in reference to the mine of New Almaden, of which you have just spoken in your answer to the 20th question ? (Same objection as preceding question.) 22d Ans. — It was about that time. 23d Ques. — Was that litigation still pending at the time when any part of the proceedings of Horace Hawes was taken ? (Same objection as preceding question.) 23d Ans. — It was. 24th Ques. — A paper is now shown to the witness, and he is asked what it is. 24th Ans. — He says that it is a paper purporting to be a denounce- ment of the mine of New Almaden by Horace Hawes ; a certified copy of the original examined and compared by himself, and says that it is a true and correct copy. 25th Ques. — Where is the original of that paper ? 25th Ans. — It is in the clerk's office in San Jose. 26th Ques. — In whose hand-writing is the original there, if you re- member ? 26th Ans. — In the hand-writing of Horace Hawes, with his genuine signature attached to it. 27th Ques. — Before whom does the paper purport to have been ex- ecuted ? 27th Ans. — Before R. M. May, First Alcalde of the District of San Jose, and witneessed by myself and John T. Richardson, and I saw the paper executed. 265 28th Ques. — By whom is the order which follows on the above pa- per signed ? 28th Ans. — It was signed by R. M. May, First Alcalde of the Dis- trict of San Jose', and witnessed by myself and James F. Reed. 29th Ques. — And the writing which follows the above, by whom was that signed ? 29th Ans. — R. M. May, First Alcalde, and Judge of the First In- stance. 30th Ques. — Did you post up the notices of this denouncement of Horace Hawes, in pnrsuance of the order of the Alcalde ? 30th Ans.— I did. 31st Ques. — For how long a time did you post up those notices ? 31st Ans. — I posted three notices three consecutive Sundays upon the church door of the Pueblo of San Jose*, the Juzgado, and the church at Santa Clara. 32d Ques. — Were you paid for your labor ? 32d Ans. — I was paid by Mr. Hawes. 33d Ques. — During the pendency of these proceedings and de- nouncements, did you hear any conversations of Walkinshaw, Forbes or Hawes, on the subject of the title and ownership of the New Alma- den mine ? (Question objected to for same reason as 14th question.) 33d Ans. — I had frequent conversations with Mr. Hawes about the title, but I do not recollect if I had any with Forbes or Walkinshaw. Mr. Hawes contended that Forbes and Walkinshaw, and all the company, had abandoned the mine long enough to have it denounced. (Answer objected to for same reasons as answer 14, and for further reason that it is not responsive.) 34th Ques. — During these proceedings of Hawes, did you or did you not at any time see Hawes and Walkinshaw together in your office on any business connected with the suit against Forbes pending, or any other matter in which Hawes was acting as the attorney of Walkin- shaw? (Question objected to for same reasons as preceding question.) 34th Ans. — I saw him there frequently talking with Mr. Walkinshaw during the pendency of this suit and the denouncement. I do not remem- ber of ever seeing him in the office when the subject matter of the denouncement was before the court or Alcalde. 35th Ques. — After the institution of the proceedings and denounce- 25 266 ment, did there appear to be any difference in the deportment of Walkinshaw towards Mr. Hawes, and what seemed the character of their relations towards one and other ? (Question objected to for same reasons as preceding question.) 35th Ans. — I saw no difference in their deportment, and their rela- tions seemed to be the same as they were before. Exhibits marked H. H. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, now filed and offered in evidence, and objected to for reasons to be found at the end of the deposition. Ques. 36. — Please state what papers these are, if you know ; of what papers they are copies ; whether they are true and exact copies ; whether you know the signatures on the originals from which they are copied, and whether those signatures are genuine. 36th Ans. — All these papers, from No. 1 to 13 inclusive, are true and exact copies which I myself compared with the originals, now in the office of the County Clerk of Santa Clara County, and the signa- tures are all genuine. Those pencil marks appearing on said copies, do not belong to the copies, but were put there as memorandums for myself. 37th Ques. — During the pendency of the suit of Walkinshaw against Forbes, and of the proceedings of Horace Hawes in denouncements, was there offered in evidenee or exhibited to you, any document purporting to be a record of the original denouncement of the New Almaden mine, and of possession of said mine, given by any Alcalde in the year 1845? (Question objected to for same reasons as 14th question.) 37th Ans. — There was none that I know of. I should have re- membered it if I had seen it. 38tb Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you, which is the same which was yesterday in your presence produced by G. M. Yoell, De- puty Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, then under examination, and which the said Yoell testified was a paper now on file among the records in the office of the Recorder of said County, which paper is endorsed, " Posesion de lamina de Sta. Clara, Alio de 1845," and say whether this paper was offered in evidence in either the aforesaid suit of Walkinshaw against Forbes, or the denouncement by Horace Hawes of which you have spoken, or was exhibited to you or seen by you at any time during the said proceedings, or either of them. (Question objected to for same reasons as 14th question.) 267 38th Ans. — I think not. I do not remember to have ever seen this paper until a short time since. It was shown me in the Recorder's office of Santa Clara County. 39th Ques. — What opportunities have you ever had for making your- self familiar with the records and papers, books and documents, contain- ed in the office of the First Alcalde of the Pueblo of San Jos6, and of obtaining a clear knowledge of what papers were there recorded, filed or kept ? (Question objected to for same reasons as 14th question.) 39th Ans. — I was clerk for Judge May both as Alcalde and Judge of the First Instance, and had the custody of all the books and papers in the office, and did the recording. After the resignation of Judge May, which took place some time in November, 1849, and the appoint- ment of J. C. Conroy as First Alcalde and Judge Richardson as Judge of the First Instance, I continued to do most of the recording, and had access to the papers and books, and had the custody, in a manner, of said papers and books, until some time in- April, 1850, when the state government went into operation. At that time I took all the re- cords, of every description, and the books and the papers belonging to all the suits in the court of the First Instance, and carried them to my office as County Clerk, and delivered such of those as I thought prop- erly belonged to the County Recorder's office, to John T. Richardson, the then County Recorder. 40th Ques. — During all this time of which you have just spoken, and all your connection with the records of which you have just spok- en, did you ever see among them, or in any of the offices of which you have spoken, or anywhere else, the paper described in the 38th ques- as " Posesion de la mina, &c." ? (Question objected to for same reasons as 14th question.) 40th Ans. — I do not recollect of ever having seen it until a short time ago in the Recorder's office. 41st Ques. — In view of the suit between Walkinshaw and Forbes, and the denouncement by Horace Hawes, and the general interest felt on the subject of the mine of New Almaden, if you had seen such a paper would you not have remembered it ? (Question objected to for same reasons as 14th question.) 41st Ans. — I think I should have remembered it had I seen it at the time, owing to the suits then pending, but not from the general inter- est taken, for there seemed none except by the contending parties. 268 42d Ques. — Do I understand you to say that there was no general interest in and about San Jose' felt on the subject of the mine of New Almaden, in the Fall of 1849 ? 42d Ans. — I think there was no general interest felt except by the contending parties. 43d Ques. — When you made the division and separation of the re- cords of the Alcalde and Judge of the First Instance among the prop- er offices, in April, 1850, was it not necessary to examine all the doc- uments carefully ? 43d Ans. — I thought so, and so acted to the best of my ability. 44th Ques. — Paper marked " Exhibit R, No. 9," was here shown to the witness and he was asked to state what the paper is. (Question objected to for the reason that the paper will show for itself, and the evidence sought is incompetent and immaterial.) 44th Ans. — This paper is a true and correct copy, compared by myself, of a record in Book No. 2, which was kept in the Alcalde's office, and removed by me to the County Recorder's office of Santa Clara. (The objection to the filing of this paper will be found at the end of the deposition.) (The paper marked " Exhibit R, No. 9," now filed and offered in evidence by the counsel for the U. S.) Cross-Examination. 45th Ques. — State the whole time you were in any way connected with the archives of Santa Clara County, or the District of San Jose. 45th Ans. — I went in the office of tne Alcalde and Judge of the First Instance of the District of San Jose', about the 1st of October, 1849, and continued there until April, 1850, when the state govern- ment went into operation, when I was elected County Clerk, and had nothing farther to do with the records, farther than the judicial part of them. 46th Ques. — During this period state what were the extent, num- ber and condition of the archives. 46th Ans. — I cannot state the number of the papers, but there were quite a number of them, and in a very bad condition, thrown about loosely. I could not read Spanish at that time, and cannot state the various papers. The papers were kept in a press about four or five feet wide, by six feet in height, and about eighteen inches deep. 269 47th Ques. — Do I understand you to say that during the whole of this period you could not read the Spanish language ? 47th Ans.— -Yes. 48th Ques. — Did you make yourself acquainted with the titles or contents of the documents in the Spanish language in the archives ? 48th Ans. I had an interpreter to look over them and to inform me what papers were to go to the office I was taking them to, and through him I became partially acquainted with the contents and na- ture of the papers. 49th Ques. — Did you yourself personally or otherwise examine the Spanish documents previous to this preparation for removal in April, 1850, when you say you had an interpreter examining them ? 49th Ans. — I did not thoroughly ; partially so. 50th Ques. — Did the interpreter, in dividing the papers to go to the different offices, make a memorandum of the individual documents, or call them off separately to you, or did he make a general division, put- ting in one class the judicial documents, and in the other the docu- ments belonging to the County Recorder's office ? 5th Ans. — I requested him to look over and see what papers re- lated to suits in the Court of the First Instance, and what deeds and mortgages there was there, and he did so, but made no memorandum that I know of. I think he called them off individually. I carried over nothing but what belonged to the Court of the First Instance and some deeds. The rest of the papers belonged to the office of the mayor, and were left in charge of the mayor. 51st Ques. — Were there not some papers in Spanish which were transferred to the County Recorder's office, which were not called off to you, and which you did not personally examine ? 51st Ans. — There was not. I examined every one that was taken to the Recorder's office. 52d Ques. — Is your recollectian at this time of the Spanish docu- ments in the archives sufficient to enable you to identify every paper that was -there before they were removed from the archives ? 52d Ans. — It is not. 53d. Ques. — Might there not have been documents called over to you and transferred to the Recorder's office which now being shown you would not recollect ? 53d Ans. — I think not, for I feel confident that no Spanish docu- ments went to the Recorder's office at that time. There might have been documents called over that remained in the office which I do not now recollect. 54th Ques. — Were all those Spanish papers which, at the time of this separation, were not transferred and left in the office, called over to you? 54th Ans. — I could not say whether they were all called ovlr or 270 not. Probably they were not, because there were a good many letters and other papers of no value, as I supposed. 55th Ques. — In this examination of papers was it not your sole ob- ject to get the papers relating to suits to go to the County Clerk's office, and deeds and mortgages to go to the County Recorder's office, and to leave all the balance, whatever that balance might be ? 55th Ans. — It was ; so far as the Recorder's office was concerned, I was not so particular except so far as those I had recorded myself. 56th Ques. — After this separation did you ever examine the docu- ments and papers left in the Mayor's office ? 56th Ans. — I never did. 57th Ques. — Did you at that time know particularly the individual papers making up the balance left behind ? 57th Ans. — I did not. 58th Ques. — Might not the document referred to in question 38 have been in the Archives and left with the balance in the Mayor's office and you not have known it ? 58th Ans. — It is very possible. Direct Resumed. 59th Ques. — Did you know a man by the name of Dolores Pache- co ? if you did, is he dead or alive ? Do you know his hand writing and signature well ? if you did, in what manner did he sign his name — as Dolores Pecheco or Pacheco alone ? At what time was he Alcalde? 59th Ans. — I knew Dolores Pacheco ; he is dead ; I know his hand writing and signature ; he signed his name Dolores Pacheco ; I never knew him to sign Pacheco alone. I do not know of my own knowledge when he was Alcalde ; the records do not say. I have heard him say that he was xllcalde in 1845, and possibly heard him say in 1846 also. 60th Ques. — Is that his signature on the margin of the paper Po- sesion de la mina, &c, the same referred to in question 38, and which you have now before you ? 60th Ans. — The formation of the letters are very similar to his sig- nature, but the signature is in a better hand than his, and this is the only instance that I have seen it signed without " Dolores." 61st Ques. — During the suit of Walkinshaw and Forbes and the denouncement by Horace Hawes, of which you have testified, or at any time before the division of the archives of which you have also testified, did you ever hear Forbes or Walkinshaw say that there was any record of the denouncement and possession of the mine of New Almaden among the archives in your charge ? Did they never ask you to search for such record amongst such archives, or ask your per- mission to search there for it themselves ? 271 61st Ans. — I do not think that they ever did. I think they never asked me to search, or asked permission to search for them. (The counsel for claimant objects to questions 59 and 60 as intro- ducing new matter not called for by the cross examination, and objects to question 61 as leading to hearsay evidence and therefore immaterial and incompetent. 52d Ques. — Where was the press which contained the archives be- fore the removal kept ? 62d Ans.— In the Alcalde's room where I had my office. (The questions relative to the character or contentsjof the papers shown to the witness and marked respectively Exhibits R., No. 3 ; R. No. 4 ; R., No. 5 ; R., No. 6 ; R., No. 7 ; and R., No. 8, were ob- jected to by attorney for claimant, as they were put, and the answers objected to as they were given, on the grounds that the papers must explain themselves and that the evidence is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The questions thus objected - are from numbers four to twelve inclusive.) (The papers attached as Exhibits and numbered respectively Exhibit R, No. 3 ; R., No. 4 ; R., No. 5 ; R., No. 6 ; R., No. 7 ; and R., No. 8, were severally objected to by attorney for claimant, as they were offered, on the ground that they were not properly proven, and for the further reason that each and all of them are incompetent, ir- relevant, immaterial and impertinent to the issue.) (The Exhibits marked respectively H. H., No. 1 to No. 13 inclusive and also Exhibit R. No. 9, were severally objected to by attorney for claimant, as they were offered, because the originals were not pro- duced nor duly proven ; also because they are copies not duly certi- fied nor proven ; are secondary evidence, and incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.) H. C. MELONE. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 19th day of August, A. D. 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. Filed, Aug. 29, 1857. W. H. Chevers, Deputy. 272 EXHIBIT R. No. 3. WALKINSHAW VS. FORBES — PETITION. To the Honorable Richard M. May, Judge of First Instance in and for the District of San Jose : Ths Petition of Robert Walkinshaw of said District respectfully showeth unto your Honor that he is and has been from the month of April 1847 hitherto in lawful possession of the Quicksilver mine sit- uated in said District known by the name of New Almaden, and that by title derived under the original act of registry he is the owner of one-eighth part thereof. That while so in possession by virtue of his own right and interest and and the consent and agreement of all parties interested, there has been extracted by him and under his direction a large quanty of val- uable ore which still lies at the mouth of the said mine with the ex- ception of such parts and parcels thereof as have been unlawfully car- ried away as hereinafter mentioned, and a portion which has been bene- ficiated by your petitioner. And your Petitioner further showeth that James Alexander Forbes without licence from your petitioner but contrary to his express pro- hibition has unlawfully seized and carry away a larga quantity of the said ores and still threatens to repeat the said trespass and to inter- rupt and disturb your Petitioner in the possession of said property without any right to do so, and without due and legal process, and that your petitioner justly fears that without a restraining order in this behalf great and irreparable injury will result to your Petitioner. Wherefore your Petitioner, alledging that as against the said James Alexander Forbes, he has the legal right to remain in peaceable pos- session of the said property, and that he ought not to be deprived thereof without the adjudication of the Competent tribunals, and inas- much as the Courts of the Country are open to the said Forbes, prays that your Honor will cause the said James Alexander Forbes to ap- pear at a certain day to answer this Petition, and that in the meantime he may be restrained and required to desist from the Commission of the unlawful acts aforesaid, and that such other and further relief may be granted in the premises as may be just & lawful. ROBERT WALKINSHAW. Oct. 18th, 1849. Territory of California, ) gg District of San Jose. ) Robert Walkinshaw being duly sworn says that the facts set forth 273 in the foregoing Petition are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. ROBERT WALKINSHAW. Sworn and subscribed before me Oct. 18th, 1849. R. M. MAY, 1st Alcalde of Dis. Jan Jose*. Endorsed : Filed, Oct. 18th, 1849, at 1-2 past 12 o'clock, M. EXHIBIT R., No. 4. walkinshaw vs. forbes — citation. Territory of California, A District of San Jose. r Robert Walkinshaw having by petition verefied by oath represented to the undersigned Judge of first Instance in and for the said District that he is and has been since the month of April 1847 hitherto in lawful and peaceable possession of the Quicksilver mine situated in said Dis- trict known by the name of New Almaden and that he still claims the right of possession and of a large quantity of ore upon the premises and having also made complaint that James Alexander Forbes is threat- ening to tresspass upon and illegally interrupt his possession and to take and carry away the said ore as he has actually done upon a for- mer occasion praying that said J. A. Forbes may be cited to answer the complaint and that in the meantime he may be prohibited from the re- petition of these unlawful acts Now therefore said Walkinshaw hav- ing entered into sufficient bond with good security to answer all damages that the said Forbes may sustain from the execution of this restrain- ing order, it is ordered that the said James Alexander Forbes do ap- pear before the undersigned Judge of the First Instance of the said District at the Juzgada in the Pueblo de San Jose on the 6th day of November 1849 to answer the said complaint and that in the mean- time the said James Alexander Forbes and all persons acting by his command do absolutely refrain and desist from interrupting or in any manner interfering with the possession of the said mine without licence of the said Walkinshaw, and from conveying away any part of said ores, or any property pertaining thereto or in any other manner tress- passing upon the property in the said Walkinshaw's possession, but this order is without prejudice to any legal right or remedies that the said 274 James Alexander Forbes or other parties interested may think proper to insist upon or pursue before the proper Tribunal. R. C. Keys Sheriff of said District is charged with the execution of this order. Given under my hand and seal at the Pueblo of San Jose' in said District this I8th day of October 1849. R. M. MAY, Judge 1st Instance. Attest : H. C. Melone, Clerk. * L. S. Endorsed : Executed this Citation by giving to J. A. Forbes, on the 20th of Oct. 1849 a true copy of within. R. C. KEYES, Sheriff. Fees, 81,75. EXHIBIT R., No. 5. WALKINSHAW VS. FORBES — BOND. Know all men by these presents that We Robert Walkinshaw and Antonio Gamies are held and firmly bound unto James Alexander Forbes in the sum of Twenty-five thousand dollars conditioned to indem- nify and make good to the said Forbes all and any injury damages and costs that may accrue and be adjudged to him to him in consequence of the issuing of a certain restraining order of this date by the Judge of First Instance of the District of San Jose* on said Walkinshaw's application prohibing the said Forbes from trespassing upon the mine called New Almaden and from carrying away the ores thereof till the further order of said Court of first Instance, in case the said Walkin- shaw shall fail to sustain his said complaint. Witness our hands and seals, Oct. 18, 1849. ROBERT WALKINSHAW, [seal.] ANTONIO be GAMIEZ, [seal.] Witness : Alcalde. Interlineation in 8 & 9 & 11th line from top & erasure in 10th. John T. Richardson. Horace Hawes. Endorsed : Filed 18th Oct-, 1849. 275 EXHIBIT R., No. 6. To James Alexander Forbes : Sir : — You will please take notice that on the twentieth day of Octo- ber 1849 at the hour of 10 A. M., I shall apply to the Juzgado of the pueblo of San Jose* to Richard M. May Judge of the First Instance in the District of San Jose* Upper California to supersede and annul a certain order issued by K. H. Dimmick 1st Alcalde dated the 8th day of August 1849 requiring all persons having possession of the mine of New Almaden and its appurtenances, to deliver the same to James Alexander Forbes ; on account of the illegality of the same. Your ob't s't, ROBERT WALKINSHAW. San Jose*, Oct. 19, 1849. Endorsed : Executed this notice by delivering a copy of it with J. A. Forbes, on the 20th of Oct. 1849, at 6 o'clock. R. C. KEYES, Sheriff. [" R. No. 7."] In the Court of 1st Instance, ) Pueblo de San Jose, 12. M. May, Judge. \ Robert Walkinshaw, \ vs. > Jas. Alex. Forbes. ) James Alexander Forbes, Defendant in the above suit, being duly sworn, deposes and says : That the allegations in plaintiff's petition and affidavit that he (Plff ) is and has been in peaceable possession of the mine and ores of New Almaden, since the month of April 1847, and that affiant is threatening illegally to interrupt his said possession, are wholly false. That, true it is that, in the said month, the Plaintiff took possession of the said mine by virtue of a power of attoiiiey given him as agent by Alexander Forbes of the city of Tepic, Mexico, the principal owner and sole " Habilitador" or authorised contractor for the work- ing of the said mine, and that the said Plaintiff, by virtue alone rf the said power, continued to work the said mine as the agent of the said Alex. Forbes and his name, until the month of August, 1849. That, on April 23d 1849, the said Alexander Forbes, by public 276 and notarial act passed at the said city of Tepic, revoked all authority previously given to the Plaintiff, as his attorney in fact, to work the said mine ; & empowered affiant as his agent, to take possession of, administer and elaborate the same. That, on the arrival of affiant, about August 10th 1849, he exhibited the said notarial act & power to the Plaintiff in the presence of K. H. Dimmick, Esq., (now at San Fran- cisco) and the Plaintiff acknowledged the same to be correct, and that said Alex. Forbes had full power to execute the same ; and that the Plaintiff thereupon or immediately after, in acknowledgment of the revocation of his powers, voluntarily, and peaceably delivered to affiant the full, legal, and actual possession of said mine and its ap- purtenances. That this affiant, by virtue of the power of attorney aforesaid, re- mained in peaceable, public and uninterrupted possession of the said mine and appurtenances, and continued working the same with the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff, until Sept. 25th 1849, when the said plaintiff, without any notice or citation whatever to this affiant, obtained an order from the Court of 1st Instance of San Jose de- claring him, the said Plaintiff, to be the legal possessor of the said mine, and ordering this affiant to refrain from interfering with the pos- session thereof without license from the said Plaintiff. That affiant protested against the proceeding as unjust and ex parte ; whereupon, on Oct. 8th 1849, the said Court, without any notice to affiant, issued another order commanding the sheriff to remove this affiant and the persons in his employment from the said mine, and to arrest thi3 affiant. That this affiant being thus forcibly and illegally ousted from his possession, presented a petition to Peter H. Burnet, President of the Superior Tribunal, praying that the said illegal orders should be suspended, and affiant placed in his former possession ; whereupon the smd Burnett ordered the R. M. May, judge of 1st Instance, to place this affiant in his former posession of the said mine, ores &c; and that the case should remain in this situation, that is, that affiant shoud have full and peaceable possession thereof as formerly, until the appeal taken by affiant from the said illegal orders should be de- cided by the court above. That the said R. M. May, issued his order, on the 19th day of October, commanding the sheriff to place affiant in possession, in accordance with the said order ; but that, on the 18th, and, as affiant is informed, on the 20th of Oct., the said May issued a counter order, in direct disobedience and entire reversal of the order of Judge Burnet, whereby he again recognised the said Walkinshaw as the actual possessor of the said mine and appurtenan- ces, and ordered this affiant, without citation, notice, or hearing what- ever, to refrain from interfering with the said mines without the license of the said Waikinshaw, until the final decision of this suit ; thereby changing and reversing a situation ordered to remain the 277 same by Judge Burnet, until the decision of the appeal. That this suit is between the same parties, brought upon the same allegations, contemplates the same object, and is accompanied by the same order, as that upon which the two first orders were issued and counter- manded by Judge Burnet, and which is now pending in the superior court on the appeal of this affiant. And now affiant deposes that himself as part owner, and the par- ties for whom he is the legal agent, will suffer great and irreparable injury if these illegal and ex parte proceedings be continued. That Horace Hawes, the attorney of the said Walkinshaw in this and the aforesaid suits, and pretending to act therein for the interest of his client, denounced the said mine in his own proper name on Oct. 6th, 1849 ; thus seeking not only to deprive this affiant and those to whom he is responsible as agent of all right and title thereto, but apparently striving to divest his own client, Walkenshaw, of his entire right of ownership therein. That this denouncement by] said Hawes, made with the knowledge and connivance of his client, who now owns but two shares in the said mine, and accompanied by statements the most false and proceedings the most arbitrary, has induced this affiant to believe that a fraudulent conspiracy exists between the said Hawes and Walkinshaw, with others, to deprive this affiant and those for whom he is acting as agent of their just rights of ownership in and to the said mines ; and that it is to effect this fraud and conspiracy that the said Walkinshaw and his attorney are attempting to oust this affiant in this arbitrary and illegal manner. Of the truth of all which this affiant most solemnly swears. And affiant further deposes and Fays that the bond given by the Plaintiff, and which pretends to secure this affiant against all damage, is wholly insufficient. That it is signed by, as affiant believes, an ir- responsible foreigner who is not and does not claim to be a citizen of the United States, who has no property, as affiant believes, sufficient to secure the* amount of the bond. Nor does this affiant believe his principal to possess that solvency necessary to secure him against the probable injury resulting from the order aforesaid. JAS. ALEX. FORBES. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 20th day of October 1849, at San Jose. H. C. MELONE, Clerk of Court First Instance. Filed Oct. 22d, 1849. Fee $2 00 i 278 [R. No. 8.] To the Hon. Peter H. Burnett Chief Justioe of the Superior Tri- bunal in and for the territory of California in vacation. The petition of James Alexander Forbes of the Mission of Santa Clara in the District of San Jose* respectfully sheweth : That in pursuance of the authority delegated to your Petitioner by Alexander Forbes of Tepic Mexico principal owner and manager of the mine hereafter mentioned your petioner on the 10th day of August last received from Robert Walkinshaw (former agent appointed by the said Alexander Forbes) possession of the quicksilver mine known by the name of New Almaden in the District of San Jose' & of the ores & other property thereof, & that on the thirteenth day of said month of August the keys of the buildings attached to the mine were deli- vered over to your Petitioner's Clerk by said Walkinshaw except the key of a certain dwelling house thereon in which the family of said Walkinshaw resided and which your Petitioner authorised him tempo- rarily to retain possession. That from the said 13th day of August until the time when your Petitioner and his servants were disposessed of said mine and ores under the orders of Judge May copies of which are hereunto annexed your Petitioner was in the full free and unterrupted possession of the said mine & ores and exercised exclusive control over the same. That on the 26th day of September last your petitioner received a copy of a certain peremptory order issued by Judge May of which order a copy is hereto annexed marked B. That no copy of the petition on which the same was granted was ever served on your petitioner nor any notice given to him of the ap- plication for such order. That your Petitioner thereupondrew up and presented a protest complaining of the ex parte character of the proceeding and the injus tice of the order & exhibited to Judge May his authority as agent. That your Petitioner in the belief that he had done all that was requisite in the matter and that the order aforesaid was illegal and void for want of notice continued in the prosecution of his business until the issuing of the second order a copy of which is hereunto an- nexed marked D, which was also issued without any notice of an ap- plication therefor being given to your Petitioner. That a copy of the second order was received by your Petitioner on the 8th day of October inst. and he thereupon by' his Counsel on the 10th and 11th days of October inst. applied to Judge May on the affidavits marked E & F to set aside the said orders & the proceed- ings thereon, & that after hearing Counsel for and against the applica- tion it was denied. 279 Your Petitioner further avers that no bond or security was required or taken from the said Walkinshaw on granting either of the ex parte orders hereinbefore mentioned. That copies of the affidavits petitions orders & returns of the Sheriff before Judge May are hereto annexed & petitioner prays may be taken as a part of this petition. That your Petitioner on the 15th day of October inst upon notice to the opposite party applied to said Judge May to grant an appeal to the Superior Tribunal from the said two orders and to suspend and supersede all proceedings under them until the decision of such appeal, & offered to give any security that might be required, which application was granted as to the appeal but denied as to the other relief asked for. And your Petitioner further sheweth that great & irreparable in- jury will be sustained as well by your Petitioner as by the other persons interested in said mine should such orders be continued in force ; & that said Walkinshaw has no right to the possession of the said mine or of the ores thereof. And further that your Petitioner is a part owner of said mine and ores. Your Petitioner therefore prays your Honor to suspend and super- sede all proceedings under the said orders and for such further or such other relief as to your Honor may see fit. And your Petitioner will ever pray, &c. JAS. ALEX. FORBES. Lor. Cal. \ Dist San Jose\ '49. ] ss * Sworn and subscribed to before me the 15th Oct. 1849. R. M. MAY, 1st Dist Alcalde San Jose*. [ A. ] To the Honorable Richard M. May first Alcalde and Judge of first Instance in and for the District of San Jose*. The petition of Robert Walkinshaw of said District respectfully sheweth unto your Honor that he is and has been from the month of April 1847 hitherto in the lawful possession of the Quicksilver mine known as New Almaden situated in said District of San Jose* that while he has been so in possession by virtue of his own right and interest and the consent and agreement of all other parties interested therein there has been extracted from the said mine a large quantity of valuable ore under his direction, which still remains lying at the mouth of the said mine with the exception of such parts and parcels 7 280 thereof as have been unlawfully carried away as hereinafter men- tioned and a portion which has been beneficiated on the premises by your petitioner. And your petitioner further showeth unto your Honor that James Alexander Forbes of said District, without license from your Peti- tioner and contrary to his expressed prohibition, and as your Petitioner believes without any legal right or authority is attempting to interrupt your Petitioner in the possession of the said mine and ores and is now in the act by means of servants in his employ and under his orders of taking and carrying away the said ore and without the due and legal process prescribed by the constitution of the United States but by force and violence depriving your said Petitioner of his property and possession. Wherefore your petitioner alledges that as against the said James Alexander Forbes he has the legal right to retain posses- sion of the said property and that he ought not to be deprived of his rights without the adjudication of the competent courts therein and inasmuch as the said Courts are open to the said James Alexander Forbes if he will submit himself to their judgment prays that your honor will grant a peremptory order commanding and requiring him and all other persons trespassing as aforesaid upon the premises to desist from so doing & from taking or carrying away any ores or other property therefrom leaving the said James Alexander Forbes to insti- tute and prosecute such legal proceedings as he may think proper and without prejudice to the rights of any parties interested who may seek redress in the manner prescribed by law. And your Petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. ROBERT WALKINSHAW. Territory of California, District of San Jose. Robert Walkinshaw being duly sworn deposeth and saith that the facts set forth in the foregoing petition are true to the best of his knowledge & belief. ROBERT WALKINSHAW. Sworn and subscribed before me Sept. 25, 1849. R. M. MAY, Judge of first Instance & Alcalde of San Jose*. [B. ] Territory of California, District of San Jose. Robert Walkinshaw having by petition verified by oath represented to the undersigned first Alcalde & Judge af first Instance in and for 281 said District that he is and has been since the month of April 1847 hitherto in lawful and peaceable possession of the Quicksilver mine situated in said District known by the name of New Almaden and that he still claims the right of possession thereunto and of a large quantity of ore upon the premises, and having also made complaint that James Alexander Forbes is trespassing upon and attempting il- legally to interrupt his possession and to take and carry away the said ores praying a prohibition in this behalf against the said Forbes and all other persons acting under his order. It is therefore ordered that the said James Alexander Forbes and all persons acting under his command do absolutely desist from interrupting or in any manner entering upon the possession of the said mine without licence of the said Robert Walkinshaw and from carrying away any part of the said ores or other property pertaining thereto or in any other manner tres- passing upon the property in said Walkinshaw's possession, but this order is without prejudice to any legal rights or remedies that tne said James Alexander Forbes or other parties interested may think proper to insist upon or pursue before the proper Tribunal. R. C. Keyes Sheriff of said District is charged with the execution of this order. Given under my hand and seal at the Pueblo of San Jose" in said District this 25th day of Sept. A. D. 1849. R. M. MAY, Judge of first Instance & Alcalde of San Jose\ Attest : C. T. Ryland. James W. Weekes. (Sheriff's Return.) Executed this order by leaving a correct copy thereof with the wife of the said James Alexander Forbes the defendant in the Mission of Santa Clara this 26th day of September Anno Domini 1849. R. C. KEYS, Sheriff, By J. T. RICHARDSON, D. S. Executed this order by reading & explaining to the men in the employ of James A. Forbes they refused this 8th day of October 1849. R. C. KEYES, Sheriff. 26 282 [C. ] To the Honorable Richard M. May first Alcalde and Judge of first Instance for the District of San Jose*. The petition of Robert Walkinshaw respectfully sheweth that on the 25th instant your Honor on application on oath of this petitioner issued a peremptory order to James Alexr Forbes and all persons acting by his command absolutely to desist from interrupting or in any manner entering upon the possession of the mine of New Alma- den without licence of the petitioner and from carrying away any part of ore lying at the mouth of said mine. That notwithstanding that said peremptory order was formally intimated to the said James A. Forbes and his servants acting under his orders on the morning of the 26th inst. and was moreover on the same day intimated to him by a copy of said order being served on him by the officer of Court at his dwelling house he the said James A. Forbes continues and persists in retaining his illegal possession of said mine and in removing there- from said ore with greater activity even than heretofore having actu- ally removed subsequent to the intimation of said peremptory order, 36 mules load and that in utter disregard and contempt of your Honor's said order. Wherefore your petitioner thus agrieved and deprived of the pro- tection of his rights to be afforded him by his application and your Honor's order consequent thereon prays that you will immediately cause to be taken against the said James A. Forbes and all persons acting by his commands such legal compulsory measures as may be necessary to enforce due & instant obedience & observance of your Honor's said order. And farther that you will ordain the said James A. Forbes to re- turn to the month of the mine all the ore he has caused to be removed therefrom in defiance and contempt of your Honor's order aforesaid. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. ROBERT WALKINSHAW. [D. ] Territory of California, ) gg District of San Jose, j The annexed order having been disobeyed by James Alexander Forbes and those acting under his orders as appears by the return of the Sheriff verified by oath you are hereby commanded to put the 283 same into full force and execution by removing from the premises the said James Alexander Forbes and all other persons whomsoever acting under his orders, and you are further commanded to arrest the said James Alexander Forbes and all other persons who shall further disobey or in any manner interfere with or hinder the execution of the said order, and bring them forthwith before me to be dealt with ac- cording to law. Given under my hand this 9th Oct 1849. R. M. MAY, 1st Alcalde. Witnesses — John T. Richardson, Isaac Branham. Oct. 9th, 1849. — Executed in full excepting the arrest of J. A. Forbes. R. C. KEYES, Sheriff. [E.] IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN THE DIST : OF SAN JOSE, IN THE TERRITORY OF CALIFORNIA. Robert Walkinshaw. ) vs. > James Alex'r Forbes. ) Dist. of San Jose, ss. James Alex Forbes being duly sworn saith that as agent of Alex'r Forbes leading & managing member of the mining company of New Almaden he was placed by a competent or legal letter or power of attorney in the full possession of all the mining interest of said Com- pany known and designated by the name of New Almaden on the 10th day of August 1849 by the former agent the said Robert Wal- kinshaw in the hearing and presence of Judge Dimmick now absent at Monterey as a member of the territorial convention and that the keys were in pursuance of the general possession aforesaid formally turned over to him or to his clerk on the 13th of said month by said Walkinshaw thereby recognizing the revocation of his own agency and the regular and legal appointment of your deponent as his suc- cessor. Deponent further states that said Walkinshaw has within the last few days in contravention of his former voluntary act of surrender as aforesaid caused process to issue from this Court the effect of :hich has been to arrest the operatives or hands interrupt the business 284 of the mine and create a state of confusion perplexity and loss to the great detriment of the parties interested and of this deponent. Deponent further states that from the said tenth day of August last until the time of such last mentioned interference he has been in the full free and uninterrupted possession of the mine aforesaid & of the ores thereof without any claim disturbance or interference of the said Robert Walkinshaw or any other person. Deponent further avers that Judge Dimmick now a member of the Territorial convention as aforesaid and absent at Monterey was pres- ent and a witness to the acknowledgement on the part of the said Walkinshaw of all the material facts (viz) the validity of the instru- ment giving to deponent legal right and authority to take possession & the management of the said mine and his the said Walkinshaw's voluntary surrender to him. Deponent further saith that the loss arising from the continuance of the provisions and prohibitions contained in the orders heretofore made on the petitions of said Walkinshaw would be great & irreparable — and deponent expressly denies that at the time of the presentation of the first application said Walkinshaw was in the possession of the said mine and ores or either of them. (S d ) JA S . ALEX R . FORBES. Sworn before me this 10th day of October, 1849. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 11th day of October, 1849. (S d ) R. M. MAY, 1st Alcalde Dist. San Jose'. [F. ] IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE DISTRICT OF SAN JOSE. Robert Walkinshaw J vs. > James Alex b . Forbes & others. ) District of San Jose, ss. Robert Birnie and Ferdinand Alden of the said District being duly and severally sworn do depose and say and each of them for himself doth depose and say, that he has been in the employment of the de- fendant in this cause at the New Almaden mine from the fourteenth day of August last up to the present time — that the said James Alex r Forbes has during the whole of that time held the exclusive possession 285 of the said mine and of the ores thereof paying the workmen and exercising in all respects exclusive supervision management and con- trol over the same — and that during the period aforesaid the said Robert Walkinshaw has not had possession of the said mine or of the ores thereof or any control over the same nor has he to the best of deponents' knowledge claimed or pretended to control govern own or possess the same or any of the ores thereof nor has he interfered in the management thereof. (S d ) ROBERT BIRNIE. FERNANDO ALDEN. Sworn before me this 10th day of October, 1849. Jurado ante mi esta dia 10 de Octubre de 1849. (S d ). AGUSTIN DESFORGES, Alcalde. To Horace Howes, Esq., AtCy for It. Walkinshaw. Sir : — Please to take notice that on the 16th day of October inst. we shall move before the Hon. Peter H. Burnett Chief Justice of the Superior Tribunal at his chambers in the Pueblo de San Jose* at the hour of 10 A. M. for an order to suspend and supercede the two orders granted on the petitions of Robert Walkinshaw within men- tioned, until the decision of the appeal in the within matter. That such motion will be grounded on the fact that such orders were granted improperly and ex parte and will be based upon a petition of Jas. Alex. Forbes, of which the within is a copy and upon papers of which the within are copies. Yours, &c, W. H. RUSSELL & A. CAMPBELL, Att'ys for Jas. Forbes* Oct. 15, 1849. United States op America, Territory op California. The foregoing application, based upon the foregoing papers, having been argued by counsel for both parties, before the undersigned, in vacation, on the 16th and 17th days of October, A. D., 1849 ; and the same having received an attentive consideration : It is therefore ordered, that the Court below cause all proceedings under the said two orders of the Court, to be superceded ; and that the said Court, 286 command the sheriff to place the said James Alexander Forbes in the same possession of the mine, ores, and other property belonging to said mine, as he, the said Forbes, had before the execution of the sec- ond order issued by the Court below ; and that the case remain in this situation, until the same can be heard in the Court above. From which order the said Walkinshaw by his counsel prayed an appeal to the First Bench of the Superior Tribunal, which was refused by the Judge. Given under my hand this 17th day of October, A. D., 1849. PETER H. BURNETT, President of the Superior Tribunal of California. EXHIBIT R., No. 9. appointment — james w. weeks to clemente laquin. (Traced Copy.) Juzgado del Pueblo de San Jose De Guadalupe. De conformidad con el pedimento que antecede yo al infrascrito Al- calde 1\ de este Jurisdiccion con dos testigos de asistencia a falta de Escribano publico pase hoy viente uno de Enero de mil ocho cientos curente y ocho, a la espresado Mina de Nuevo Almaden ; que no hu- riendo facultativo del Districto nombre a Clemente Laquin Menero practica para examinar el estado de dicha minas lo que se hallo traba- jado conforme a la ordenanza de mineria siendo forme las respaldos sus planes y obras en la mejor orden y tempios de tepatate u otra estorta, de manera que evita toda pelegro a los operarios ; y a conservar la mina en buen estado. Y huviendo el citado perito practicado las me- didas y demas operaciones nesesarias para determinar el rumbo y he- chada de la veta a su actual profundidad declara ser dicha rumbo de Nor Oeste y Sud Este y su Echada ser Nordeste y que excede de varra por varra ; esto es, que hace con el orizonte un angulo de mas de cuarenta y cinco grados : dando a los interesados derecho a la cua- dra de dos cientos varras segun Titulo VIII Articulo 7, de la orde- nanza. Y considerando que se trabaje esto mina compania concedo tambien el derecho que se me pide de cuatro pertenencias seguidas sobre el rumbo de la espresado veta en los planes de la mina conforme a la ordenanza Titulo XI Art . 2. Concedo ademas derecho a la me- jara de Estacas con respeto a la variasion del rumbo de la veta Segun Titulo VIII Art . 11 de la ordenanza y Esto en la orden siguiente : 287 Es decir : desde la baca de la Mina cincuenta varras hacia el Sur Oeste y ciento cincuente varras acia el N.E y para la longitud de las cuatro perteniencias cien varras hacia el Sudeste y siete cientos varras hacia el Nor Oeste sobre el mismo rumbo de la veta siendo constante el derecho y titulo de la Mina a la gracia de terreno concedido en la original acto de posesion. Practicadas estas delegencias, ordene el citado perito procediera imediatamento a sacar las espresadas medidas y fijar en los estremos de los cuartro perteniencias y en cada lado de la cuadra de dos cientas varras los Estacas conforme a la Ordenanza. Todo lo cual se hizo en presencia mia y de los testigos de asistencia de lo que doy fe. JAMES WEEKES, Alcalde, Recorder's Office, Santa Clara County, California, July 27th, A. D. 185 1 . 4 I hereby certify that the forgoing, on pages 1 and 2 of this, con- tains a full, true, correct, and exact traced copy of an instrument now of record in this office, and recorded in Book 2 of Deeds, on pages 41 and 42. — > — . j "Witness my hand and official seal, at office, in the city of seal ( San Jose*, the day and year last written. I S. A. CLARK, County Recorder. By Geo. M. Yoell, Deputy. EXHIBIT H. H., No. 1. To the First Alcalde of the District of San Jose, Guadalupe : Horace Hawes, native of the State of New York now residing at San Francisco, District of San Francisco California, being a citizen of the United States of America in full exercise of his rights appears before you as by law entitled and with all due formality as prescribed by the " Ordinancas de Mineria" (mining laws,) solemnly denounces for desertion the quicksilver mine situated in the said District of San Jose Guadalupe, and in the lands of the Rancho of Jose* Reyes Ber- reyza, within this Jurisdiction known in its original title of registry as that of Santa Clara, and now by the name of New Almaden the same 288 having been left by its possessors without having been worked for four consecutive months and by which act itself they lost all right to the to the said mine, as declared by Art. 13, Tit. 9, of said Ordinan- ces of Mineria ; of which mine so far as known, the last possessors were Andres Castillero a citizen of Mexico, Alexander Forbes a Brit- ish subject, resident in the City of Tepic in the Republic of Mexico, James Alexander Forbes resident at Santa Clara within this jurisdic- tion, Robert Walkinshaw residing at the said mine, Theodore Robles and Segundo Robles natives of California residing in the neighbor- hood of the Mission of Santa Clara within this Jurisdiction, all and each of the said individuals according to the rights and interests they may have had in the possession of said mine respectively ; all of whom may you be pleased to cause to be cited for their respective rights and interests aforesaid in conformity to Art. 8, Tit. 6, of said Ordi- nances, and on expiring the terms assigned and the publication of this denouncement, to proceed in the as prescribed by the said Ordinances, Art. and Tit. first above cited. HORACE HAWES. San Jose, 6 Oct., 1849. Done in the presence of the undersigned First Alcalde, October 6th, 1849. R. M. MAY, First Alcalde, District San Jose*. Subscribing witnesses : H. C. Melone, John T. Richardson. Pueblo de San Jose, Oct. 6th, 1849. Being presented and admitted without prejudice to any third party who may exhibit a better right let notice be posted in the places ac- customed for the purpose in this Jurisdiction and notices be given to the parties interested and after this shall be done the further decis- ion will be pronounced. I the undersignad Alcalde of this Jurisdic- tion decide and order this to be done and sign with the assisting wit- nesses according to law. R. M. MAY, 1st Alcalde Of District San Jose*. Witnesses : H. C. Melone, James F. Reed. Filed for record Oct. 10th, 1849. Recorded in Book 5, pages 325 and 27 and 28. 289 The cognizance of the foregoing proceedings pertaining to the Judge of first Instance and being received and admitted the undersigned will entertain the same in that capacity. R. M. MAY, 1st Alcalde And Judge of 1st Instance. Oct. 22d, 1849. State of California, County of Santa Clara. ss. I John B. Hewson County Clerk and ex officio clerk of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose, (in the present County of Santa Clara, aforesaid,) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes. The papers and records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my possession as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the Seal of said District Court this 24th day of July, A. D. 1857. JOHN B. HEWSON, seal J Clerk. EXHIBIT H. H., No. 2. Territory of California, District of San Jose. You are hereby cited to be and appear before the undersigned first Alcalde of the District of San Jose*, at the Jusgada in the Pueblo of San Jose* on the 22d day of October 1849 to answer to the de- nouncement for desertion of the Quicksilver mine, situated in said Dis- trict, called New Almaden, which denouncement has been duly pre- sented by Horace Hawes, conformably to Article thirteen in Title nine, and article eight, Title six of the Ordinances of Mineria, and admit- ted without prejudice, according to the said ordinances as of mineria, (mining laws.) Given under my hand at the Pueblo of San Jose*, this 10th day of October 1849 in presence of the witnesses who have subscribed their names hereunto. By order of R.' M. MAY, 1st Alcalde. H. C. MELONE, Clerk. Witnesses : John T. Richardson, Z. Jones. 390 " ENDORSEMENTS." I, Robert C. Keyes Sheriff or Commissario of the Court of First Instance of San Jose do certify and return that I delivered person- ally to James Alexander Forbes, Robert Walkenshaw, Segundino Ro- bles, and to each of them individually and respectively a notice or ci- tation directed to them respectively, of which the within is a true copy, ten days before the return day within mentioned, and that I had placed in my hands for service at the same time, the same citations for Alexander Forbes and Andres Castillero, but after the most diligent inquiry they (said A. Forbes and Castillero) could not be found and are reputed and believed to be at this time, and to reside out of the Territory of California, and that I sent the same notice to Theodore Robles by his brother Segundine. Sworn before me, Oct. 26, 1849. R. C. KEYES, Sheriff. Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the 26th October, 1849. R. M. MAY, 1st Alcalde, San Jose*. Fees of the Sheriff, $16 75. State of California, } County of Santa Clara. ] SS * I John B. Hewson County Clerk and ex officio clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose' (in the present County of Santa Clara aforesaid,) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Al- maden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Haws. The pa- pers and records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my possession as C.erk of the aforesaid District Court. In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said District Court this 23d day of July, A. D. 1857. [seal.] JOHN B. HEWSON, Clerk. 291 EXHIBIT H. H. No. 3. BEFORE THE FIRST ALCALDE OF THE DISTRICT OF SAN JOSE, GUADALUPE. The answer of James Alexander Forbes of Santa Clara, and Alex- ander Forbes of Tepic, Mexico, by James Alexander Forbes his Attorney and Agent, to the denunciation of the mine known by the name of New Almaden in the District of San Jose filed by Horace Uawes. These Respondents, saving and reserving to themselves the right of altering amending adding to and changing this their Answer to the aforesaid denunciation, and also specially excepting to the Jurisdiction of this Court and to the said denunciation by reason of the omission therein of the statement of any time when or persons by whom the said mine was left unworked, of the distinguishing land-marks of the place, and of the last occupants of the neighboring mines for answer thereto or to so much thereof as they are advised it is maintained to answer unto saith : That the said Alexander Forbes is the owner of one-half part or 12 shares in the said mine and its appurtetances, and the said James Al- ex. Forbes is the owner of one twelfth part or two shares therein. That the said Alexander Forbes has a contract of habilitacion with the other owners of the same by virtue of which he is entitled to and for a long time past has exerciseed exclusive control and management over said mine through his agents and attorneys by him appointed and that the said James Alex. Forbes is his present managing agent and attorney in relation thereto. That the statement contained in the said denunciation that the said mine has not been worked for four consecutive months is untrue. That this Respondent, James Alex. Forbes by virtue of his agency received the possession of the said mine iand its appurtenances about the tenth day of August last and worked the same with great industry and activity until the ninth day of October inst., when this respondent was forcibly ejected from the possession of said mine and its appurtenances under color of a certain ex parte order made by the Judge of first Instance, of the District of San Jose on the petition of Robert Walkinshaw for whom the said Horace Hawes acted as counsel and attorney, in said matter, which said order has since been appealed from and superceded. These Respondents further aver that the said Horace Hawes has filed the said denouncement in bad faith and that he has unjustly con- spired with Robert Walkinshaw therein named and who is a share- holder in the said mine for the purpose of defrauding the other share- holders of their interest in said mine and of obtaining possession and 292 control over the same. That in order to accomplish the object of such conspiracy the said Robert Walkinshaw falsely and fraudulently pre- tending to be in actual possession of the same has through the instru- mentality aid and connivance of the said Hawes applied for and ob- tained against this Respondent, James Alex'r. Forbes repeated ex parte orders from said Judge May, for the delivery of possession of . said mine to said Walkinshaw. That the said Hawes is thus ostensi- bly engaged en the one hand in vindicating the pretended claims of the said Walkinshaw to the said mine and on the other in endeavor- ing to subvert defeat, and annul any right or interest he claims therein. And these respondents aver that for two years and upwards immedi- ately prior to the 10th day of August last the said Walkinshaw had charge of the said mine the ores and other property thereof, and that if there was any neglect in regard to the working thereof it was the neglect of said Walkinshaw who is now conspiring with said Hawes to profit thereby to the great injury of these respondents and of the other persons interested in said mine. JAS. ALEX. FORBES, in person. ALEX. FORBES, By his Agent and Attorney, Jas. Alex. Forbes. Filed, Oct. 22d, 1849. State of Califoknia, County of Santa Clara. I, Jno. B. Hewson County Clerk and ex officio clerk of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose, (in the present county of Santa Clara, aforesaid) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes, the papers and records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my possession as Clerk of the afaresaid District Court. , N In Testimomy Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the seal of said District Court, this 12th day SEAL. ' ^ an J of August, A. D. 1857 Jl By Levi P. Peck, Deputy JOHN B. HEWSON, Clerk. 293 EXHIBIT H. H., No. 4. Territory of California, District of San Jose. To James Alexander Forbes and Alexander Forbes : You are here- by notified that I shall attend at the Jusgada in the Pueblo de San Jose on the 12th instant for the purpose of hearing proof concerning the denouncement by Horace Hawes of the Quicksilver Mine called New Almaden situated in said District of San Jose, when and where you can attend if you wish to do so. Given under my hand this 3d day of November, 1849. JOHN T. RICHARDSON, Judge of First Instance. Attest : H. C. Melone, Clerk. Delivered a true copy of the within James A. Forbes on this day 8th November 1849. H. C. MELONE. State of California, Country of Santa Clara. ' I Jno. B. Hewson County Clerk and ex officio clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose (in the present County of Santa Clara aforesaid) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes, the papers and records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my possession as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. ^ N In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, f ^ and affixed the Seal of said District Court this 12th day (, SEAL * J of August, A. D. 1857. v ' JOHN B. HEWSON, Clerk. By Levi P. Peok, Deputy. EXHIBIT H. H. No. 5. lo the Judge of First Instance of the District of San Jose : In the Matter of the Denouncement of the Mine of New « Almaden. Horace Hawes the Denouncer of said Mine, represents to your Honor, that on yesterday was completed the publication of the notices 294 to absent owners, as required by the mining laws and that one of those who lives within the district has appeared and put in his answer. Furthermore that the said Hawes has been prevented until to-day from being present within this District, in the first place by sickness, and also by the most urgent and necessary public business, he being the Prefect of the District of San Francisco. May it please your Honor therefore to postpone and fix the day for taking the proofs in this case until Monday the 26th day of November instant to be continued from day to day as long as may be necessary. To the truth of which facts as above stated and that his application is not made from malice, your petitioner solemnly swears to the best of his knowledge. HORACE HAWES. San Jose Nov. 12th, 1849. Filed 12th Nov., 1849. State of California, County of Santa Clara. I, Jno. B. Hewson, County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcaldes Court for the District of San Jose (in the present County of Santa Clara aforesaid) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes. The papers and records of said Alcaldes Court being now in my possession, as clerk of the aforesaid District Court. ^ In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal | affixed the Seal of said District Court, this 23d day of July, J A. D., 1857. JNO. B. HEWSON, Clerk. By Levi P. Peck, Deputy. EXHIBIT H. H. No. 6. Court of First Instance, Pueblo de San Jose. Horace Hawes : In the matter of the denouncement of the Mine of New Almaden. Jas. Alex. Forbes, in his own name and in that of the other Stock- holders of said mine comes into Court and, in addition to the answer 295 and exceptions filed in said suit, more especially excepts, that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the said cause either as 1st Alcalde or Court of First Instance, ratione materiae. Wherefore he prays that the same may be dismissed, and for gen- eral relief &c. J. M. JONES, Att'y for Defendants. Filed Nov. 12th, 1849. State of California, County of Santa Clara. I Jno. B. Hewson, County Clerk, and ex officio Clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcaldes Court for the District of San Jose* (in the present County of Santa Clara aforesaid) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes. The papers and records of said Alcaldes Court being now in my possession as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. t ^ In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and ] seal [ affixed the Seal of said District Court, this 23d day of July, I J A. D., 1857. * V JNO. B. HEWSON, Clerk. By Levi P. Peck, Deputy. EXHIBIT H. H. No. 7. Horace Hawes ) vs. > James A. Forbes and others. ) November 12th, 1849. R. C. Keyes sworn on the part of James A. Forbes states that he believes the value of the mine of New Almaden greatly exceeds one hundred thousand dollars. Robert Birnie sworn, states that he believes the value of the mine of New Almaden to be over one million of dollars. ROBERT BIRNIE. Subscribed and sworn to before me 12th Nov., 1849. H. C. Melone, Clerk Court first Instance. Filed 12th Nov., 1849. 296 State of Califoknia, County op Santa Clara. { I Jno. B. Hewson County Clerk, and ex officio Clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcaldes Court for the District of San Jose (in the present County of Santa Clara aforesaid) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes : The papers and records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my possession as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. St . n In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal [ affixed the Seal of said District Court, this 23d day of July, > A. D., 1857. JNO. B. HEWSON, Clerk. By Levi P. Peck, Deputy. EXHIBIT H. H. No. 8. I, H. C. Melone, Clerk of the Court of First Instance in and for the District of San Jose*, do certify, that notices or Edicts of which the within and annexed marked A. and B. are true copies written in Eng- lish and Spanish, and signed by the Judge of First Instance and Clerk of said Court, were conspicuously posted upon the doors of the Cath- olic Churches in the Pueblo of San Jose and Mission of Santa Clara within said District on three successive Sundays, beginning on Sun- day Oct. 28 1849, and ending Sunday Nov. 11th, 1849, each notice or Edict so posted and published having the corresponding num- ber and date ; and that the like notice in Spanish with one in English of which the annexed marked C is a true copy were conspicuously posted and affixed upon the door of the Juzgado or Court Room in the Pueblo of San Jose from the 27th day of October 1849, to the 12th day of November 1849, inclusive all of which is declared and certified upon oath. H. C. MELONE. Sworn and subscribed before me Nov. — 1849. James C. CoNnoy, First Alcalde of San Jose. 297 A. NOTICE. Juzgado of First Instance of the Pueblo of San JosS. The undersigned Judge of First Instance makes known to the Public, that the Quicksilver mine situated in this Jurisdiction, known by the name of New Almaden, has been denounced for desertion, in order that all parties interested may appear and defend their rights, within the time prescribed by law. This is the First Edict published this 28th day of Oct., 1849. B. • ANUNCIO. Juzgado de Primera Instancia de la ciudad de San JosS, El Juez que subscribe, pone en conocimiento del publico, que la mina conocida por el Nuevo Almaden, ha sido denunciado, y aunque algunos de los poseedores han sido citados otros son ausentes y se les cita por Edictos para su comparecencia conforme manda la ordenanza vigente. Es este Primer Edicto hoy 28 de Octubre de 1849. C. PROCLAMATION. Juzgado -of the District of San JosS, Pueblo op San Jose, Oct. 23d, 1849. The Quicksilver mine situated in the District of San Jose known and designated in its original act of registry as that of Santa Clara, and now known by the name of New Almaden, has been denounced for desertion according to the ordinances of Mineria (Mining Laws.) Some of the parties have appeared, some have not. All persons interested are hereby warned to appear before the Judge of First Instance, to defend against the said denouncement, if they think proper so to do. R. M. MAY, Judge First Instance. H. C. Melone, Clerk. 27 298 State of California, County of Santa Clara. f I, John B. Hewson, County Clerk, and ex officio Clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the First Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose* (in the present County of Santa Clara aforesaid,) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion by Horace Hawes. The papers and records of said Alcalde's Court, being now in my posses- sion, as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. x In Testimony Whereof,, I have hereunto set my hand and seal { affixed the Seal of said District Court, this the 15th day of > August, A. D., 1857. JNO. B. HEWSON, Clerk. EXHIBIT H. H. No. 9. In the Matter of the Denouncement of the Mine of New Almaden, by Horace Hawes. The defendants in the above case excepted to the jurisdiction of the 1st Alcalde and Judge of 1st Instance because the ordinance of mines establishes a special and exclusive jurisdiction in another Court, and provides that in default of such Court the party shall go before the Court of the nearest Territory having such jurisdiction. J. M. JONES, Att'y for Defendants. Filed 15th Nov., 1849. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. ) I Jno. B. Hewson County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose (in the present County of Santa Clara aforesaid,) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes. The papers and records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my posses- sion as Clerk of the aforesaid District. 299 In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal [ affixed the Seal of said District Court this 23d day of July, A. D., 1857. JNO. B. HEWSON, Clerk. By Levi P. Peck, Deputy. EXHIBIT H. H., No. 10. In the Matter of the Denouncement of the Quicksilver Mine called New Almaden, situated in the District of San Jose. Horace Hawes the Denouncer of said mine comes in his proper person and representing that his denouncement has been duly present- ed and admitted according to law and that the Citations of the parties and publication of the notices to absent possessors have all been made and completed in exact conformity with the laws of the land as will appear by reference to the Records and proceedings in the cause and averring further that the former owners or possessors of said mine have in every essential particular failed to comply with the conditions under which they first obtained possession of said mine, whereby they have lost all right thereto, and furthermore, that by reason of the insuffi- cient registry and non-compliance originally with the requisites pre- scribed by law they the said former owners and claimants defendants in these proceedings, never acquired any title whatever to said mine, all of which facts the said Horace Hawes now stands ready here in Court with the witnesses, records, and documents offering to prove and substantiate in due form of law, but the Judge of First Instance for the time being contrary to the orders heretofore made and entered of record, refusing to permit the said evidence to be given, the said Horace Hawes does hereby solemnly protest against such refusal and that having done all in his power to establish the right, but being pre- vented from proceeding further, he the said Horace Hawes or any other parties if there be any, interested in the just and legal termina- tion of the proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the refusal above mentioned, the said Horace Hawes solemnly declaring that the claim agaisnt the possessors of said mine is not in any manner aban- doned but that it will be in future insisted on and prosecuted together with any and all rights and advantages that may have been gained or may result from the proceedings had in the said Denouncement. HORACE HAWES. Witness : C. T. Ryland. Nov. 15th, 1849. J. C. CoNROY. 300 State of California, County of Santa Clara I, Jno. B Hewson County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose' (in the present county of Santa Clara ajoresaid) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes, the papers and records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my possession as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said District Court this 12th day of August A. D. 1857. , JNO. B. HEWSON, Clerk, ( o ) By Levi P. Peck, Deputy. EXHIBIT H. H., No. 16. IN THE 1st ALCALDE'S COURT OR COURT OF 1st IN- STANCE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SAN JOSE. In the Matter of the Denouncement of the Mine of New Almaden. Horace Haws, vs. J. A. Forbes, & others, In this case the parties appeared by their counsel on the 12th Nov. 1849, and the Defendants excepted to the jurisdiction of this Court, natione materia, either as Alcalde or Judge of First Instance on the ground that exclusive Jurisdiction was given by the Ordinances of Mines and another Tribunal. The Court adjorn over to the 15th inst., when the parties came into Court and Plaintiff moved the Court to require the Defendants or some one authorized for them to state the ground of their exceptions in writing, whereupon the Defendants filed the following, viz, In the matter of the denouncement of the mine of New Almaden by Horace Hawes. 301 The defendants in the above case excepted to the jurisdiction of the 1st Alcalde and Judge of 1st Instance because the Ordinances of mines establishes a special and exclusive Jurisdiction in another Court, and provides that in default of such Court the party shall go before the Court of the nearest Territory having such Jurisdiction. J. M. JONES, Atty for Def ts. By reference to the translation of the Ordinance of Mines, certified by the Interpreter the following provisions seem to me to be clearly established. 1st. That the act or decree of 1842 in title 10, which treats of the Administration of Justice in matters pertaining to mines, a Court of First Instance is established with exclusive Jurisdiction over all such mat- ters, composed of three Territorial deputies, whose functions, political and Judicial were the same as those of the Courts of Mines, established by the ancient Ordinance. 2d. That the Courts of Mines established by the ancient Ordinance are declared to possess exclusive Jurisdiction of discoveries denounce- ments and desertions &c. of mines. 3d. That he who discovered a mine or denounced it for abandon- ment, could only do so by the proper writing presented to the Court of of Mines of the Territory and in default of such Court the denounce- ment should be made before that of the nearest Territory. These Ordinances, upon whose validity the Plaintiff himself relies, have thus established an exclusive Jurisdiction over the matter in con- test in a special tribunal and provided for the case, where no such tri- bunal existed in the Territory. This exclusive Jurisdiction vested in one Court and was an (in the opinion of the Court,) an absolute pro- hibition of the exercise of that Jurisdiction by any other, and it seems this Court has no more right to claim such jurisdiction in the absence of the special tribunal than the Court of the Alcalde of the 2d or of the 3d Instance. It is therefore considered by the Court that this suit be dismissed at the costs of the plaintiffs for want of Jurisdiction, in conformity to the Laws of mining over the subject matter, at the same time Plaintiff asked for an appeal which was granted in open Court. November 15 1849. Attest : H. C. MELONE, Clerk. State of California, County of Santa Clara. I John B. Hewson County Clerk, and ex officio Clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, 302 in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct transcript of the original entry on the Records of the 1st Alcalde's Court or Court of First Instance for the District of San Jose', (in the present county of Santa Clara aforesaid,) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Almaden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Haws, as appears on the records of said Court, the papers and Records of said Court being now in my posses- sion as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said District Court thie 12th day of August, A. D. 1857. JNO. B. HEWSON, Clerk. \ Seal. EXHIBIT H. H., No. 12. S. JUEZ. Es la question de presente, q e el S. Juez de l a instancia no tiene jurisdicion o q e ni es competente en los negocios de mineria mi opinion fundada es del sig te modo. Mejico constituida en republica el ano de 24 declar6 soberanias cada estado terminaba sus cuestiones en los trales q e se crio ; asi es q e el Tral Real, sumenio, de q e ablar las ordenanzas concluyo" desde la fecha indicada. Los estados en uso de su soberania adoptaron, lo q e mejor les pere- ci6, unos, que no pasaron de cinco (entre veinte y cuatro) dejaron los Trates de mineria, es decir los diputaciones, o Jusgados de primera in- stancia, y los otros poco despues fueron modificado de tal modo, q e con- cluyeron con las diputaciones. El mismo Supremo g n0 con facultades estraordinarias estableci6 Jusgados de otra especie, en el ano de cuarenta y lo que, no tuvo efecto, o no se practic6. En el gno. central, o vaser Tacubaya, el gno. decretola abolicion de los Trales de mineria, y en consecuencia los Jueses de l a ins ta que daron expeclitos p a . denuncios asi como los Alcaldes a prevencion p a . registros ; mas vuelta la federacion, las estados podia disponer lo q c . mas conveinera, y casi ninguno adopto el sistema de diputaciones q e . previene la ordenanza, mas en consecuencia con la constitucion g'ral q e . daba la soberania a cada estado ; p a . consig te . los trates cstableci- dos en la ordenanza en nada eran necessarios, y quedaron los Jueses comunes, con la Jurisdiccion .privativa de ordenanza p a . q e . asi se les 303 declaraba, y por q e . a falta del Juez privilegiado ha de haber Jues, y este es el Juez comun, el Juez de primera inst a . Mas suponiendo q e . solo los Trales de Mineria conociera por disposi- cion de los estados, o departamentos de la Republica Mejicana, Califor- nia, ni como departamen t0 . ni como estado designo Tral de Mineria, y en seraijante caso debe occurrirse al Tral, comun es decir al Alcalde p a . un registro al Juez de primera inst a . p a . un denuncio en virtud de su autoridad en lo contencioso. Decir q e . no hay autoridad en el estado de California (como es su categoria constit 1 .) es ridiculo ablandose precisam te . de un denuncio, en el q e . p r . titulo de registro, conocio un Alcalde, p r q e ; si su autori- dad Cast6 p a . registrar, en calidad de autoridad comun el Jues de l a . inst\ debe conocer y determinar, p a . q e . sin agrabiar al estado de Cal- ifornia autoridad debe haber p a . decidir una contienda, y tal autoridad debe serlo solo el Jues de primera inst a . Suponer 6 querer q e . la ordenanza tenga Valides en el supletorio de Tral. de mineria siendo California de estados unidos, donde no se co- nocen reglamentos de mineria, seria tanto como decir q e . la question de denuncio fuera, ventilarse a Mejico, Peru, &, y esto ni es decente proponer a abogados de Norte America. J. LAYHI. Sworn and subscribed before me the 15th Nov. 1849. H. C. MELONE, Clerk of Court of First Instance. Filed Nov. 15, 1849. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. ] ' I, John B. Hewson, County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Dis- trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Santa Clara County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose (in the present county of Santa Clara aforesaid) in the matter of the Denouncement of the New Al- maden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes. The papers and Records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my possession as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. 304 In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed th© Seal of said District Oourt this 23d day of July, A. D. 1857. ■ JNQ. B. HEWSON, Seal > Clerk ' EXHIBIT H. H., No. 13. The laws of Mexico from the date of the treaty between that coun- try and the United States, cease in their operations so far as regards the acquisition of public lands, and also soj-far as thosejlaws conflict with the political and legal system of the U. States. Therefore no person can acquire a Grant of public lands, and as a matter of course no person can dispute the titles of the mines of New Almaden or that of Guadalupe. I have now to request of you to file a bill in Chancery to quiet title, and that an injunction be issued against those individuals who may be disposed to question our titles. J. A. FORBES. Santa Clara, 16th Nov. 1849. State of California, County of Santa Clara. ss. I, John B. Hewson, County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the Dis trict Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for Santa Clara county, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of an original paper filed in the 1st Alcalde's Court for the District of San Jose (in the present county of Santa Clara aforesaid in the matter of the. Denouncement of the New Al- maden Quicksilver Mines for desertion, by Horace Hawes. The papers and records of said Alcalde's Court being now in my possession as Clerk of the aforesaid District Court. In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said District Court this 15th day of August, A. D. 1857. JNO. B. HEWSON, a ) Clerk. Seal 305 NOTICE. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. The United States ) vs. [ D. C. 420. Andres Castillero. ) San Francisco, August 18, 1856. Gent : You are hereby requested to produce the original paper of which Ex- hibit "A," to the petition, is a copy, to be used in the examination of witnesses, now progressing before Specid Commissioner J. Edgar Grymes, Esq. Yours, &c. . P. DELLA TORRE, U. S. Attorney, Messrs. Halleck, Peachey & Billings, Attys. for Castillero. DEPOSITION OF JAMES W. WEEKES. The United States ) vs. > Andres Castillero. ) United States District Court, Northern District of California. San Francisco, August 18th, 1857. On -this day, before J. Edgar Grymes, a Commissioner of the United States for the Northern District of California, dnly authorized to administer oaths, &c. &c, came James W. Weekes, a witness pro- duced on behalf of the United States in Case No. 420, being an ap- peal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the pri- vate land claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows. Present: — United States District Attorney, represented by Mr. Edmund Randolph ; and Frederick Billings, Esq., for claimant. 306 Questions by Edmund Randolph, Esq. 1st Ques. — What is your name, age and place' of residence ? 1st Ans. — My name is James W. Weekes, 45 years old ; I reside in Santa Clara County. 2d Ques — How long have you lived in California ? 2d Ans.— Since 1831. 3d Ques. — Have you ever held any office in California ; if yea, what, when and where ? 3d Ans. — I was Alcalde in 1848, in San Jose*. 4th Ques. — Have you testified before in this case ? 4th Ans. — Yes, sir. 5th Ques. — Counsel for the United States here shows to the witness the paper produced by the counsel for the claimant in pursuance of a notice issued by the U. S. District Attorney, attached to this deposi- tion, and of which] paper a copy marked " Exhibit R., No. 2," is attached to this deposition, and he asked the witness whether he ever saw said paper before ? 5th Ans. — -I have seen it before, and it is my signature written on page No. 9. 6th Ques. — What writing is it that your name is signed to ? 6th Ans. — It is a certificate in Spanish, which being translated, is as follows : " Court of the Justice op the Peace, San Jose Guadalupe, Upper California. I certify in due form, that the foregoing is a faithful copy, made to the letter from its original, the espediente of the mine of Santa Clara or New Alraaden, which exists in the Archives under my charge, to which I refer. And in testimony whereof, I have signed this twenti- eth day of January, one thousand, eight hundred and forty-eight." 7th Ques. — Was this espediente in the archives at that time ? (Question objected to by claimant's counsel as incompetent, and as tending to vary or impeach the official certificate of the witness.) 7th Ans. — This is a copy of what remained in the archives at that time. 8th Ques. — Who recorded it in the Book ? 8th Ans.— Myself. 9th Ques. — Where did you get the paper from which you recorded in the book ? 9th Ans. — From Mr. James Alexander Forbes. 307 10th Ques. — When was you appointed Alcalde ? 10th Ans.— In 1848, I believe. 11th Ques. — Was you Alcalde when you recorded that paper in the Book? 11th Ans.— Yes. 12th Ques. — When you say that you got that paper from Mr. Forbes, do you mean to say that he brought it to you and asked you to record it ? (Question objected to as leading.) 12th Ans.— Yes. 13th Ques. — Did you ever see more than one Expediente of that mine in your office while you were Alcalde ? 13th Ans. — I have seen this, another on foolscap, and what I recorded in the book from this. 14th Ques. — Whether the paper now shown you is a copy which you made from the Expediente which you said you had recorded in the book ? 14th Ans. — This was made by Mr. Forbes and copied into the book. 15th Ques. — When was it that you first saw any of these papers of which you have spoken ? 15th Ans. — I saw the first book when Captain Burton was Alcalde. That was the book on foolscap paper, containing the first denounce- ment of the mine made in 1845. When I was Alcalde I saw them. This one I copied a part of. Since I come to consider it I cannot say whether it was the possession or this which I copied in a book. 16th Ques. — What possession do you mean ? 16th Ans. — The possession I mean is what I have already testified to, of giving Mr. Forbes possession of the mine of New Almaden, in my former deposition. 17 Ques. — Was it that possession that you copied in that book ? (Question objected to as leading.) 17th Ans. — I believe it was. Since I recollect, I believe the whole of this is a copy of the foolscap paper book which is] in the archives which I saw when Captain Burton was Alcalde, and that this is all made from it, I believe. 18th Ques. — The witness being shown the original document from the files of the County Recorder's office of Santa Clara Co., and pro- duced by G. M. Yoell, and referred to in his deposition of to-day, is asked whether this is the foolscap paper book from which the paper before him is a copy, and to the certificate to which his name appears. 18th Ans. — I believe this is the one. 308 Examination adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, August 19th, 1857, at 10 o'clock, A. M. Wednesday, August 19th, 1857. Counsel for both parties present. Examination adjourned to Thurs- day, August 20th, at 3 o'clock, P. M. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Commissioner §c. Thursday, August 20th, 3 o'clock, P. M. Counsel for respective parties present. 19th Ques. — Did you make the copy yourself that you signed at the request of James Alexander Forbes, as you testified ? 19th Ans. — I did not. 20th Ques. — Did you take the original it was copied from and com- pare this paper with that original to see whether it was correct ? 20th Ans. — I believe I did not. . 21st Ques. — What made you sign it, then ? 21st Ans. — I considered it was right, that it was a true copy of the original. 22d Ques. — What made you consider it so without comparing it ? 22d Ans. — I have no other reason than that I believed it right. 23d Ques. — Do you mean to say that you considered it so because Mr. Forbes told you so, and brought it to you ? 23d Ans. — I suspected that it was right or I would not have Bigned ; not particularly because he brought it. 24th Ques. — Did Mr. Forbes bring the paper already written out, or did he write it in your office ? 24th Ans. — I do not recollect. 25th Ques. — When he brought this paper, or when he showed you the paper which you have signed, did he show you any other paper as the original from which this was copied ? 25th Ans. — I believe not. 26th Ques. — Do you remember where you were when you signed this paper ? 26th Ans. — No, sir, I do not. 27th Ques. — The day after this paper was signed, you have before testified on your former examination, that you gave a possession of the quicksilver mine to Mr. Alexander Forbes ; — do you remember at what time of the day you went out to the mine, and at what time you returned ? 309 (Objected to because the question is leading ; because the witness has not stated that he gave the possession the day after the paper was signed ; the question argumentative.) (Question withdrawn by the U. S. District Attorney.) 28th Ques. — On your former examination in this case you testified that on the 21st day of January, 1848, which is the day immediately following the date of your certificate in the Expediente of the mine, as it is called, now before you, you gave possession of the mine to Mr. Alex. Forbes ; do you remember at what time of the day you went out to the mine to give to Mr. Alexander Forbes that possession, and about what time you returned ? 28th Ans. — I believe I left San Jose* at about 10 o'clock, and re- turned after sunset. 29th Ques. — Were there any papers executed, signed, while you were at the mine ; if so, what were they ? 29th Ans. — None to my recollection., 30th Ques. — Were there any executed that night when you re- turned ? 30th Ans. — No, sir. 31st Ques. — Where were you then when you signed the act of pos- session to Mr. Alex. Forbes ? 31st Ans. — I believe I signed it in the office. 31d Ques. — You did not sign it before you went to the mine, I sup- pose ? (Question objected to as leading.) 32d Ans. — No, sir. 33d Ques. — When did you sign it then ? 33d Ans. — I believe I signed it after. I have no recollection when I signed it, whether it was on that day, or any other day afterwards. 34th Ques. — Do you know any better on what day you signed this certificate, " R., No. 2," exactly ? 34th Ans. — I have no remembrance. I think it was after I gave possession. 35th Ques. — Do you know now what was in the old papers in your office when you were Alcalde ? 35th Ans. — I do not now know exactly what was in the papers. I know that the writings were relative to the mines ; there were the denunciation of Castillero, as also I believe there was a possession of Pico attached ; I believe so, but am not certain, it is so long ago. 36th Ques. — Did or did not Jas. Alex. Forbes return with you to the mine that day you gave possession to Mr. Alexander Forbes. ? 310 36th Ans. — He did not to the best of my knowledge. 37th Ques. — Do you know what time he returned ? 37th Ans. — I do not. I think he returned the next day, but I am not positive. Cross-Examination. 38th Ques. — Have you any doubt that you signed your certificate on " R. No. 2," on the day on which it purports to be figned ? 38th Ans. — I have. The papers may have been drawn out and dated before I signed them. 39th Ques. — Have you any other doubt than that which arises from the lapse of time, so that you cannot distinctly remember particular occurrences ? 39th Ans. — That is the only doubt I have. 40th Ques. — Is it not your belief that the certificate which you signed, was signed on the day it purports to be signed, and was true ? 40th Ans. — I believed it to be true, but I have no recollection of the day I signed it. I believe it to be true and signed on the day it purports to be. 41st Ques. — If you had signed papers about that time, would you be able to recollect now distinctly the days on which you had signed them? 41st Ans. — I could not positively. 42d Ques. — At the time you were Alcalde were there in the ar- chives an expediente or little book relating to the possession of the New Almaden Mine ? 42d Ans. — Yes sir. The possession that I gave was copied in a book, as also there was a possession of Pico in another which has been mentioned, according to the best of my belief, as I have stated before. 43d Ques. — The lilttle book relating to the possession of the mine which you say you saw in the archives when Captain Burton was Alcalde, was that in your possession when you were Alcalde ? 43d Ans. — It was. 44th Ques. — The witness being shown the original document re- ferred to in question 10, is asked if that is the book which he saw in the archives when Capt. Burton was Alcalde, and if it was in the archives when he was Alcalde. 44th Ans. — It appears to me to be the one ; I am not positive. Direct Examination Resumed. 45th Ques. — Do you remember whether in that old book that was in the office of the Alcalde in Burton's and your time, there was an 311 agreement of Partnership between Castillero, Father Real and the two Robles and Genl. Castro, to work the mine ? 45th Ans. — I have no recollection of that matter. It appears to me that I have seen the names, but I have no recollection. 46th Ques. — Where does it appear to you that you saw those names in writing of that sort ? 46th Ans. — I think I have read them in the documents in the old book. 47th Ques. — Did you or did you not see in that old book a petition of Genl. Castro about that mine ? 47th Ans. — I have no recollection. I may have seen. I cannot recollect all the old things that I have seen in books. 48th Ques. — To whom did you transfer the books when you left the Alcalde's office ? 48th Ans. — To Charles White, who is now dead. 49th Ques. — Did Mr. Forbes, before presenting to yon the copy which you signed, ask to see the old book that you had in the office ? 49th Ans. — I have no doubt he saw it before, and when Capt. Burton was Alcalde. 50th Ques. — Do you mean to say he got the old book to make the copy which you afterwards signed ? 50th Ans. — That I do not know. It is my opinion that he drew it from the same book ; but whether he drew correctly or not I cannot say. I do not remember that he asked me for the book. I have no recollection one way or the other. I have that opinion, because I believe that he had seen the book before and in Capt. Burton's time. 51st Ques. Being asked what were his habits in 1848, at the time he was Alcalde, whether he was a teetotaller, or sometimes took too much in those days when he was Alcalde : — 51st Ans. — I know that I could take my portion the same as a great many foreigners could in those days. JAMES W. WEEKS. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 20th day of August, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. Filed August 29th, 1857. W. H. CHEVERS, Deputy. EXHIBIT TO DEPOSITION OF JAS. W. WEEKS. This Exhibit, R. No. 2, is a copy of the document referred to in Jas. W. Weeks' deposition, produced by counsel for the claimants, 312 pursuant to notice of District Attorney, and is to serve in place of the document produced by said attorneys, which is returned to them. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. AftO DE 1845. expediente del denuncio, posesion, y c0mpania de la mina de t azogue n0mbrada santa clara, jurisdiccion de san Jose Guadalupe, en la Alta California. Senor Alcalde de 1 a . Nominacion : Andres Castellero Cap n . de Caballeria permanente, y residente hoy en este Depar t0 . Ante la notoria justificacion de V. hace presente, que habiendo descubierto una veta de plata con ley de oro, en terreno del Rancho perteneciente al Sargento retirado de la compania presidi- al de San Franc . Jose Reyes Berreyesa, y queriendo trabajarla en Comp a suplico a V. que arreglado a la ordenanza de mineria, se sirva de fijar rotulones en los parajes publicos de la jurisdiccion para que llegado el tiempo de la posesion juridica asegure mi derecho segun las leyes de la materia. A. V. suplico provea de conformidad, en lo que recibire* merced y justicia : advirtiendo este en papel comun correspondiente. Pueblo de San Jose Guad e . Nov Dre . veinte y dos de mil ocho cientos cuarenta y cinco. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Es copia a lo que me remito firmandola con dos testigos de asis- tencia. En el Pueblo de San Jose Guadalupe a 13 de Enero de 1846. PEDRO CHABOLLA. De asistencia P. Sainsevain. De as a . Jose Sunol. Senor Alcalde de 1 a Nominacion del Pueblo de San Jose Guadalupe : Andres Castillero, Capitan permanente de Caballeria, ante la no- toria justificacion de V. comparesco y digo : entablando el mineral que # 313 con anterioridado denuncio a ese Juzgado, he sacado a mas de plata con ley de oro ; Azogue liquido, en presencia de algunos concurentes que podre* citar en caso oportuno. Y por convenir asi a mi derecho le he de merecer a V. que unido al escrito del denuncio se archive esta presentacion no Yendo en papel del sello por no haberlo. A. V. suplico provea de conformidad : en lo que recibire merced y justicia. Sta Clara Dicbre. 3 de 1845. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Es copia a la que me remito firmandola con los testigos de mi asis- tencia. En el Pueblo de San Jose* Guadalupe a 13 de Enero de 1846. PEDRO CHABOLLA. De as a . P. Sainsevain. . De as a . Jose Sunol. No encontrandose en el Departamento de California, Diputacion de mineria : y siendo esta la unica vez desde la poblacion de Alta Cali- fornia, que se trabaja con arreglo a las leyes un mineral : y careciendo ademas de Juez de Letras el 2° distrito. Yo el alcalde de l a . nomi- nacion, C. Antonio M a . Pico, he venido acompanado de dos testigos para actuar por receptoria, a falta de escribano publico que no lo hay ; para dar posesion juridica de la mina conocido en el nombre de Santa Clara, en esta jurisdiccion, situada en el Rancho del Sargento retira- do Jose Reyes Berreyesa ; porque habiendo fenecido el tiempo que seSala la ordenanza de mineria para deducir su accion el C. D. Andres Castillero, y que otros pudieran a legar mejor derecho, desde el tiempo del denuncio a la ffia. Ye nanbrandose dho. mineral con abundancia de metales explotados, el pozo hecho con las reglas del arte ; y produ- ciendo la elaboracion de la mina, abundancia de Azogue liquido, segun las muestras que tiene el Juzgado ; y estando tan recomendado por le- yes vigentes, la proteccion de un articulo tan necesario para la amal- gamacion de oro y plata en la Republica, he venido en conceder tres mil varas de terreno por todos rumbos, a reserva de lo que senale la Ordenanza General de mineria por ser trabajada en compania, de lo que doy fe, firmando conmigo los testigos que dando agregado este acto de posesion al cumulo del expediente que queda depositado en este archi- vo de mi cargo no yendo en papel sellado por que no lo hay en los ter- minos de la ley. Juzgado de San Jose de Guadalupe y Diciembre 30 de 1845. ANTONIO M\ PICO. De as a . Antonio Sunol. De as\ Jose Noriega. 28 314 He recibido del Sr. D. Andres Castillero la cantidad de veinte y cinco „ nr pesos por cuenta de los derechos de posesion de la Mina de Con 25 pesos. \ r ,, ., . . ,. . r , , Azogue, que esta en esta junsdiccion de mi cargo, nombra- da de Santa Clara. Juzgado de San Jose' Guadalupe Diciembre 30 de 1845. ANTONIO M\ PICO. Escritura de compania que el Sr. D n . Andres Castillero Cap n . de Caballeria permanente celebra con el Sor. Comd te . Gral D n . Jose Cas- tro, los Sres Secundino Robles y Teodoro Robles, y una cesion volun- taria que hacen los companeros perpetuamente, al R. P. F. Jose M a . del Refugio Suares del Real, de una mina de plata, oro, y azogue, en el Rancho de D. Jose Reyes Berreyesa, en la jurisdiccion del pueblo de San Josd Guadalupe. Ar t0 . 1. — El Sor Don Andres Castillero, arreglandose en un todo a la Ordenanza de Mineria, hace formal compania perpetuamente con los mencionados Seiiores en esta forma. La mitad de la mina que es de la que puede disponer, se dividira en tres acciones en esta forma cuatro barras al Sor D. Jose* Castro, cuatro barras a los Sres Secundino y Teodoro Robles ; y las otros cuatro barras al R. P. F. Jose* M a . R. S. del Real en clase de donacion perpetua. Art . 2. — Ninguno de los companeros podra vender o enagenar nin- guna de sus acciones ; de manera que el que lo verificare perdera ser derecho quedando reunido en los demas compane"ros. Art . 3°. — Los gastos se haran en proporcion a las acciones llevan- dose una cuenta formal por un contador, que se pagara del fondo comun. Art . 4°. — Arreglandose en un todo a lo que previene la ordenanza de mineria, cualquiera deferencia se resolvera por los mismos com- paneros. Art . 5°. — Dirigera las labores gastos y trabajos D n . Andres Castil- lero ; y en su defecto el R. P. F. Jose M a . R. S. del Real. Art . 6. — No se extraera de los productos, mas cantidades que las que necesiten para el arreglo de la negociacion, hasta que se arreglen los trabajos : y cualquiera cantidad que sea ha de ser con consenti- miento de todos los companeros hasta que este arreglada la negocia- cion. Art . 7®. — Estos convenios se autorizardr por el Sor Prefecto del 2°. distrito, D. Manuel Castro depositandose el documento original en el archivo del partido ; quedando una copia certificada por S. S. inte- resados. 315 Mision de Santa Clara dos de Noviembre de mil ocho cientes cua- renta y cinco. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Por el Sr Comd te . Gra 1 . D n Jose Castro, ANDRES CASTILLERO. F. JOSE M\ del R. S. del REAL. Por los Sres Secundino Robles y Teodoro Robles. FRAN 00 . ARCE. Es copia fiel del original al que me remito. S te . Clara Diciembre ocho de mil ocho cientos cuarente y cinco. ANTONIO M\ PICO. MAN\ CASTRO. Juzgado de Paz del Pueblo ee San Jose Guadalupe, Alta California. Certifico en toda forma que lo que antecede es copia fiel sacada a letra de su original expediente de la mina de la mina de Sta Clara o nueva Almaden que obra en el archivo de mi cargo a que me remito y paro su debida constancia he firmado este hoy, veinte de Enero de mil ocho cientos cuarenta y ocho. JAMES W. WEEKES, Alcalde. British Consulate for Californias, S. Francisco. I hereby certify that the signature to the above certificate, is the true and proper hand writing of the person it represents, and that it is worthy of all faith and credit. ^ In witness whereof, I have hereunto placed my hand and L. S. ( official seal, this twenty-first day of January, one thousand * eight hundred and forty-eight. JAMES ALEX*. FORBES, Vice Consul. Jesus Vegar Escribano Publico, Certifico y doy fe que la a ultima firma que presede del Senor Vice consul Don James Alejandro Forbes es la propia que dicho Senor usa 316 y acorestumbra constandome asi cuando lo conoci a su tranata en esta Ciudad para la Alta California por varios actos que practico en la cosa de los Senores Rarron, Forbes y Compaiiia. Y a pedimento de los mismos Senores signo y firmo esta constancia en Tepic a quince de Marzo de mil ochocientos cincuenta. JESUS VEJAR. El Alcalde 1°. Constitucional y Escribano Publico que firmamos, Certificamos y damos fe que el Signo y firma que antecede es al que usa a y aconstumbra el Escribano Don Jesus Vejar en todos los actos que ante el pasan. Asi lo comprobamos en Tepic a quince de Marzo de mil ochocientos cincuenta. LORET . CORONA. EUSEBIO FERNANDEZ. Consulate op the United States. I, George W. P. Bissell, Consul of the United States of North America for this district hereby certify that the signatures attached to the foregoing Document are in the true hand writing of the sub- scribers who legally hold the situations therein represented and are worthy of all faith and credit. In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand and seal of office this first day of December in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty, in the city of Tepic. G. W. P. BISSELL, XI, S. Consul. DEPOSITION OF FRANK LEWIS. United States District Court, Northern District of California. The United States \ Andres Castillero. ) San Francisco, August 18th, 185T. On this day, before J. Edgar Grymes, a Special Commissioner and Referee of the United States for the Northern District of California, 317 duly authorized to administer oaths, &c, &c, came Frank Lewis, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California, in case No. 366 on the docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows. Present : — U. S. Disk Attorney, represented by Edmund Ran- dolph, Esq., and Frederick Billings for claimant. Questions by Edmund Randolph, Esq. 1st Ques. — What is your name, age, present occupation, and resi- dence ? 1st Ans. — My name is Frank Lewis, 29 years old ; I am clerking, and reside in Santa Cruz County, and formerly lived in Santa Clara Cuunty. 2d Ques. — Have you ever been employed in a public office ; if so, what office, and at what time, and where ? 2d Ans. — I have been employed in the Recorder's office as Deputy, in Santa Clara County. From about the 15th of August, 1853, to sometime in the fall of 1855. 3d Ques. — Are you the same person who testified before in this case, called by the claimant ? 3d Ans. — I am. 4th Ques. — Will you look at the deposition of Frank Lewis in Transcript No. 366 in this case, from the Board of Land Commis- sioners, and state whether that is your deposition as you testified on your former examination in this case ? 4th Ans. — The deposition is my own deposition, as nearly as I can recollect, having compared the copy in the transcript with the original in the archie ves of the Surveyor General's office, and I found two clerical errors in the transcript. In answer to 2d question, the year should have been 1853 in place of 1855, as the year when I went in the County Recorder's office. In the 3d question where the word "where" is written in the transcript, it is whence in the original. 5th Ques. — In your 3d answer upon your former examination, you state that you there had before you a certain paper endorsed " Pose- sion de la Mina de Sta. Clara, Ano de 1845," which you had obtained from the files of the County Recorder's office, of Santa Clara County. Please to state whether the paper that you now hold in your hands is the same paper. 5th Ans. — It is. 6th Ques. — In the answer to the 5th question on your former examination you state that a paper marked " A., P. L.," which you 318 then held before you, was the true and exact copy of the paper en- dorsed, " Posesion de la Mina de Sta. Clara, Ano de 1845," that you had carefully compared it at that moment with the original, and then held both original and copy before you. You will now please state whether the paper "A., P. L.," to which you then referred, is to be found in the transcript now shown you in this case from the Board of Land Commissioners. 6th Ans. — I find a part of that paper, but not the whole. 7th Ques. — Please look at " A., P. L.," annexed to the deposition of Antonio Suiiol, on page 125 of the transcript in this case from the Board of Land Commissioners, and compare it with the original paper now shown you from the original archievs from the Land Commission, now in the office of the U. S. Surveyor General, and say whether or not they are the same. The original paper above referred to is marked "A., P. L. Exhibit to the deposition of Antonio Sunol. March 19, 1855." 7th Ans. — They are the same. 8th Ques. — Are either of the papers which you have just com- pared, the true and exact copy of the original document from the files of the County Recorder, which on your former examination you held in your hand and to which you then testified ? 8th Ans. — They are not. 9th Ques. — In what do they differ ? 9th Ans. — They are not a full copy. There is an entire document wanted ; the first document being a petition of Jose* Castro, and the marginal note signed by Pacheco is wanting. That is the only differ- ence I know of. 10th Ques. — As to the endorsements which appear upon the ori- ginal from the Recorder's office from Santa Clara, do these appear upon either of the copies you have just examined ? 10th Ans. — They do not. I mean the following endorsements' First. "Filed 3 o'clock, P. M., 18th Jan'y, 1857. J. T. Richardson, Recorder S. C. C," on first leaf of the outside sheet. Also, " Recorded (at request of J. Alex. Forbes) at 12 o'clock, M., March 16th, A. D., 1855, in Book G of Deeds, on pages 484, 485 and 486. Records of the County of Santa Clara." " S. A. Clark, County Recorder, by F. Lewis, Deputy," on the last leaf of the fourth inside sheet. Also, — "Filed February 25th, A. D., 1853, at 11 o'clock, A. M. J. M. Murphy, Recorder, by S. 0. Houghton, Deputy." That is on the last leaf of the outside sheet. 11th Ques. — Were those endorsements on the original papers at the time you first testified ? 11th Ans. — They were. 12th Ques. — Please say whether those endorsements were on the copy which at that time you verified. 319 12th Ans. — To the best of my recollection there were none of those endorsements there. JThe copy was the copy of the body of the instrument. 13th Ques. — Please explain how it was that you testified on your former examination that the copy, which you then verified, was a true and exact copy of the original, upon which these endorsements appear, and yet were not contained in the said copy. 13th Ans. — I did not consider them as a part of the original docu- ment. I was not especially asked about them. One of them being in pencil, I would not have certified to it except as being in pencil, and when I recorded it I did not record the pencil marks, to the best of my recollection. 14th Ques. — Please look at Exhibit R. No. 1 attached to the depo- sition of G. M. Yoell, and say whether that exhibit is not an exact copy of the original paper from the files of the Recorder's office of Santa Clara County, which on your former examination you held in your hands, and as to which you then testified, and which you now have before you. 14th Ans. — It is a traced copy of the original paper, containing also the endorsements of the different recorders, also the following endorsements on the outside leaf in red ink the words, " The above is written in pencil S. A. Clark, Recorder, by G. M. Yoell, Deputy," and in black ink, " Posesion de la Mina de Sta. Clara, Ano de 1845." With the exception of those endorsements it is a true and exact copy of the papers which I verified before the Board of U. S. Land Com- missioners. The paper was recorded by the Recorder of Santa Clara County, as a matter of prudence, at the time that he was bringing the original to San Francisco. Cross-Examination Waived. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 18th day of August, A. D., 1857. FRANK LEWIS, Special Commissioner. Filed August 29th, 1857. W. H. CHEYERS, Deputy. 320 NOTICE OF MOTION, U. S. DISTRICT COURT, Nor. Dist. California. The United States ) v. [ D. C. 420 : L. C. 366. Andres Castillero. ) San Francisco, Nov. 16, 1857. Gentemen : Please take notice that on Monday, the 23d day of November instant, before the said District Court, at the opening of the Court, or as soon thereafter as the motion can be heard, I shall move the Court on behalf of the United States for leave to recall and further cross-examine Antonio Sunol and Jose Noriega, heretofore ex- amined in this case before the U. S. Land Commission as witnesses on behalf of Andres Castillero, and for such order as may be proper to procure the attendance of said witnesses for the purpose of such cross-examination. Yours, &c. P. DELLA TORRE, U. S. Atty. Mess. Halleck, Peachy & Billings, Attys for Claimant. Service of copy within acknowledged this 16th Nov. A. D. 1857. HALLECK, PEACHY & BILLINGS. Filed Nov. 16th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. ORDER TO RECALL WITNESSES. DISTRICT COURT OF THE U. S. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The United States ) vs. [ No. 420 D. C. 336 L. C. Andres Castillero. ) On motion of P. Delia Torre, Esq., U. S. District Attorney, here- tofore submitted and taken under advisement by the Court, it is or- dered that Antonio Sunol and Jose' Noriega, heretofore examined as witnesses in this cause on behalf of Andres Castillero, the claimant, be recalled for further cross-examination by tne United States ; but 321 that said witnesses, in respect to any further examination in this Court, shall not he considered the witnesses of either party, and that each party shall have the right to cross-examine or contradict or im- peach them as if they were introduced by the opposite party. And it is further ordered that either party may procure the attend- ance of said witnesses by subpoena, as in ordinary cases, and the party requiring their attendance and examination shall not be estopped there by from cross-examining said witnesses, and contradicting and impeaching them to the same extent as if they were offered as wit- nesses by the opposite party. OGDEN HOFFMAN, U. S. Dist. Judge. Filed Nov. 20, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. U. S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. DEPOSITION OF S. 0. HOUGHTON. The United States' vs. Andres Castillero. San Francisco, Oct. 23d, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the U. S. for the Northern District of California, duly authorised to adminis- ter oaths &c, &c, came S. 0. Houghton, a witness produced on be- half of the Claimants, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in case No. 360, on the Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present : The U. S. Dist. Atty., by A. P. Crittenden, for the United States, and A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. Questions by A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. Question 1. — Your name, age, and place of residence ? Answer. — S. 0. Houghton. I am 28 years of age. I live in San Jose. Ques 2. — What office do you hold ? Ans. — Deputy County Recorder, Santa Clara County. 322 Ques. 3. — Have you brought with you from said office any docu- ment ? if yea, produce it. Ans. — I have brought with me from said office a Spanish docu- ment called " Posesion de la Mina de Sta. Clara, Ano de 1845." (It is hereby agreed between the Attorneys for the respective par- ties, that the paper endorsed " Act of Possession," " Almaden Mine" " Copy" " Exhibit R. No. 1." which is attached and referred to in the Deposition of Geo. M. Yoell, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, taken on the 18th August, 1857, in this cause and filed on the twenty-ninth August, 1857, is a traced copy of the docu- ment produced by the witness S. 0. Houghton, and referred to in his answer to question 3d of this deposition.) Cross-Examination. Questions by Attorney for U. S. Ques. 1 — How long have you been employed in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County ? Ans. 1 — I went in the office first in 1852, either in October or November ; I remained there until sometime in the latter part of the summer, 1853. I was appointed Deputy again I think in August, 1856 ; that appointmenfaccording to my recollection ran untill March, 1857, altho' I was not in the office all the time. I think it was in March when the appointment was revoked. My present appointment is dated the 20th or 21st of October 1857. All this is according to the best of my recollection. Ques. 2 — When you went into the office in 1852, did you or not make yourself acquainted with the papers in the office ? Ans. 2 — I had the entire charge of the office from the fall of 1852 to the summer of 1853. I was well acquainted with the papers in the office. Ques. 3 — "Were there any documents, books, or papers in the Span- ish language in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County in the year 1852, at the time when you took charge of that office, and if yea, what ? Ans. 3 — There were some Spanish books of Record there, there were some few Spanish papers there, that were not considered of any value. There were but very few of these papers, they are all there still, my recollection about them is very indefinite, it was so long ago. Ques. 4 — Did you or did you not, in the year 1852, see in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, to the best of your recollection, the document in the Spanish language here pro- duced by you in evidence ? 323 Ans. 4 — I have no recollection of having seen it in 1852. Ques. 5 — Can you or can you not say whether that paper was in that office in the year 1852, to the best of your recollection, know- ledge and belief, founded upon your custody of the office and know- ledge of its contents, as you have stated ? Ans. 5 — I cannot state positively either way. It may have been there and it may not. The first recollection I have of the document is a few days before the date of this filing on the back of it, which is "Filed February 25th, A. D. 1853, at 12 o'clock, A. M., J. M. Murphy, Recorder, By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy." I think it was sometime in the month of February I think so from the time this filing is dated. Mr. James A. Forbes came to the office and desired to see the record of this paper, describing the paper to me. I examined the record and told him that it was not recorded there. He then looked for it himself and insisted that it was recorded there ; he did not find it. He was looking for the record of the paper, not for the paper itself. Some days after that I found the paper in the office. There was a safe in the .office, in the top of which were some papers ; there was also a desk with pigeon holes containing pa- pers, I found it in one or the other of them. I do not recollect which. Ques. 6 — When you found the paper, how did you recognize it ? Ans. 6 — By the description given of it by Mr. Forbes. Ques. 7. — If you had ever seen such a paper before in the office, would you not have remembered it ? Ans. 7 — I think that I should. Ques. 8 — Were you not surprised when you saw the paper ? • Ans. 8 — I was surprised that such a paper should be there without its being known. Ques. 9 — Did Mr. James A. Forbes appear to be making a tho- rough search, and about how long was he in searching for the record of that paper of which you have before spoken ? Ansi 9 — I think he and I together searched more than one day, he represented the paper to me to be of great importance, and I made a very thorough search for the record of it. Ques. 10 — Did you always keep your safe locked during business hours, and did you always keep a strict guard upon those pigeon holes, or was it possible to insert a paper into the top of that safe, or into those pigeon holes, without your observing when it was done ? Ans. 10 — The safe and the pigeon holes were generally open dur- ing business hours when I was in the office ; the books of record were kept in the safe, and the safe was kept open for the purpose of getting access to the books when persons came to examine them. There was no particular guard kept upon anything in the office. I never suffered any person there unless I was there. It is possible that anything 324 might be inserted into the top of that safe or those pigeon holes with- out my knowing it. Ques. 11 — After you found the paper what did you do with it ? Ans. 11 — I kept it there until Mr. Forbes came, and filed it at his request. Ques. 12 — In whose handwriting is that filing ? Aug. 12 — This filing, dated Feb. 25, 1853, is in my hand writing. Ques. 13 — In what sort of a building was the County Recorder's office kept during the period of which you have just been speaking ? Ans. 13 — From the fall of 1852 to the spring of 1853, it was kept in the second story of a wooden building. During a part of that time a family occupied the story below* There was a door opening on the street at the stairway. There were but two rooms up stairs in the building, the stairway led into one of them, the Recorder's Office was kept in the other ; there was a portico above in the front of the house. A door and two windows opened on it ; we had locks on the doors. I do not recollect now whether or not there was any fastening to the windows. Ques. 14 — What made you search for that paper ? Ans. 14 — I think I must have found it by accident, because no one ever asked me to search for it. Ques. 15 — About what number or bulk of loose Spanish documents were there in the office at the time when you discovered the paper of which you have spoken ; and about what length of time would it take to examine them all and see what they were ? Ans. 15 — There were but very few, they would not make the bulk of the paper which I brought with me from the office, and of which I have been testifying. Ques. 16 — Had you at that time a knowledge of the Spanish lan- guage ; could you read it readily or not ; were you familiar with the Spanish handwriting so as readily to read Spanish manuscripts ? Ans. 16 — I was well acquainted with the language at that time, and could read Spanish manuscript readily. Direct Examination Resumed. Ques. 1 — Had you ever made a search for this paper before Mr. Forbes came into your office on the occasion to which you have re- ferred, to look for the record of it ? Ans. 1 — I never looked for the record of it, or the paper itself, previous to that time. S. 0. HOUGHTON. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 23d Oct. 1857. CUTLER MCALLISTER, U. S. Comm'r. Filed Nov. 20th, '57. JNO. A. MONROE, Clerk. 325 DEPOSITION OF H. W. HALLECK. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DIS- TRICT OF CALIFORNIA. The United States vs. Andres Castillero. San Francisco, October 23d, 1857. On this day before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the United States for the Northern District of California, duly authorized to ad- minister oaths, &c, &c, came £L W. Halleck, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimant, in case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present : — The U. S. District Attorney, by A. P. Crittenden, for the United States, and A. C. Peachy for Claimants. Questions by U. S. Attorney. ( Witness put on Ms Voir Dire.') Ques. 1. — Are you in any way connected with this case, either as party or counsel ? Ans. 1. — In no way as party ; and as counsel in no way except as a partner in law business with Peachy & Billings, who are the counsel in this case. I do not receive and never have received any part of their fees as counsel in this case. Ques. 2. — Does not your name appear as one of the counsel of re- cord in this case ? Ans. 2. — It does, as a member of the law firm of Halleck, Peachy & Billings. Ques. 3. — Do you mean to say that you have no interest in the fees of the firm of Halleck, Peachy & Billings for their services in this case ; and do you mean to say that those fees are not to be allowed in your accounts with Peachy & Billings as partners ? Ans. 3. — I do mean so to say. Messrs. Peachy & Billings are and long have been the Attorneys for the mine of New Almaden, I have not, do not now, nor do I ever expect to have any part of the fees paid or to be paid for such services. Ques. 4. — Then the professional services which you have rendered, 326 and may hereafter render in this case are entirely gratuitous ? Is that so Ans. 4. — All professional services which I have rendered in this case have been for Messrs. Peachy & Billings, never having been em- ployed as counsel for the New Almaden Company. With respect to future professional services I am unable to answer further than to say that I am not employed, and do not expect to be employed in the case. I have not been and do not expect to be paid anything for the services rendered, by anybody. Ques. 5. — Does your name still stand as one of the Attorneys of record in this case, or has it been withdrawn ? Ans. 5. — The name of the law firm of Halleck, Peachy & Billings, I believe, still stands as of record in this case ; the name of the firm being used in the papers instead of Peachy & Billings, who are the parties employed as counsel. Ques. 6. — Why was that done ? Ans. 6. — I do not know, further than it has been and is the custom of our office to use the name of the firm where the members of the firm were not all interested as counsel. Ques. 7. — Were you not a partner of Messrs. Peachy & Billings when they were employed as counsel in this case ? Ans. 7. — Messrs Peachy & Billings were employed as counsel for the New Almaden Company in 1850, a short time after I became a member of the firm, and while I was in Oregon ; a*nd it was under- stood when I returned that the fees in that employment were to belong to them ; and in all their subsequent engagements with the Company they made their own contracts and received the fees, my name not being used in the contracts, and they alone receiving the fees — as I take it for granted they got their fees. Ques. 8. — Were there any special reasons for such an arrange- ment ? Ans. 8. — Yes, they were to perform the services and incur the res- ponsibilities of counsel in the case. Ques. 9. — As you were their partner at the time the contract was made, and should naturally have participated in its benefits and res- ponsibilities, why were you omitted in entering into this arrange- ment? Ans. 9. —When the arrangement was first made I was not here ; and in a number of other instances the fees of cases conducted in the names of the law firms of which I have been a member, have not been divided equally among the partners, the members who did the princi- pal business in those cases being entitled, by a private arrangement between ourselves, to most of the fees. Ques. 10. — In answer to question concerning professional services rendered or to be rendered in this case, you have spoken of the New 327 Almaden Company, what has that Company to do with this case in which the parties on record are the United States and Andres Cas- tillero ? (Question objected to by Attorney for Claimant, as being irrelevant and not proper to be put to a witness on examination upon his Voir Dire.) Ans. 10. — I mean that the New Almaden Company employ Messrs. Peachy & Billings to prosecute this claim of Andres Castillero, or, at least, as counsel for that Company they do so prosecute this claim. Ques. 11. — Who compose the New Almaden Company ? (Objected to on the same ground as question 10.) Ans. 11. — Mr. Parrott (John), Mr. Wm. E. Barron, Mr. J. R. Bolton, Mr. Escandon, Mr. Martinez, Mr. E. Barron, of the City of Mexico ; Mr. E. W. Barron and Mr. Wm. Forbes, of Mexico, and others have been and perhaps some others now are members of that Company. I cannot say positively that all the persons I have named are now members of the Company ; I mention them as persons whom I believe to be members of the Company. (Attorney for Olaimant objects to the answer of the witness as being incompetent to prove the existence of the Company or its mem bers.) Ques. 12. — Is Mr. Alexander Forbes, formerly of Tepic, a member, or was he ever a member of that Company ? (Question objected to on the same grounds as preceding question and answer.) Ans". 12. — I do not think he is, although I cannot say positively. I think he was a member, but I do not know when he ceased to be one. I have understood for several years that he had ceased to be a member. Ques. 13. — At the request of what members or agent of that Com- pany did the firm of Halleck, Peachy & Billings appear as counsel for the claimant in this case ? (Objected to as irrelevant.) Ans. 13. — I think the agreement with Messrs. Peachy & Billings was made by Mr. Wm. E Barron, as the agent of the Company. It 328 may have been by the firm of Bolton & Barron, of which Mr. Wm. E. Barron is a member, I do not recollect which. Mr. J. R. Bolton above spoken of is the other member of the firm of Bolton & Barron. Ques. 14. — Are you or have you ever been employed as counsel by the New Almaden Company in any other matter or proceeding involv- ing the title to the land and mine claimed in this case ? Ans. 14. — I have acted as counsel, as a member of the firm of Halleck, Peachy & Billings, in doing the law business of the firm, but individually or otherwise I have not been employed. As a member of the firm I have acted as counsel and have regarded myself as such. I have never received any fees for such services as Counsel. Ques. 15. — Are you in the employ of the New Almaden Company in any capacity ? Ans. 15. — I am ; as superintendent and general director of the operations and engineering at the mine, on a salary. Ques. 16. — Since what time ? Ans. 16. — I was employed by Mr. DeLa Torre in March, or April, 1850, and have continued in that employment ever since. Q ues . l7._What Mr. De La Torre ? Ans. 17. — Don Isidoro De La Torre. He was then a member of the Company, but I think is not now. He was of the house of Jecker, Torre & Co., but I think he is not a member of that house now. This firm has various establishments in Mexico : the principal one is at the City of Mexico. Ques. 18. — What were the terms of your employment as superin- tendent ? Ans. 18. — I was employed to superintend the operations at the mine on a salary. Ques. 19. — What salary, and how long was the contract to con- tinue ? Ans. 19. — It was on a monthly salary to continue as long as both parties were satisfied. What that amount was is my own business, and I decline to answer it. Examination adjourned until 1] P. M., Oct. 24, 1857. Examination Continued, Oct. 24th, 1857. Present : — A. P. Crittenden for U. S. District Attorney ; A. C. Peachy for claimant. Ques. 20.— What salary ? Ans. 20. — I decline answering this question. Ques. 21. — Do you own any shares or interest in the New Almaden Company, or in the property which they claim in the mine and lands which are the subject of this action ? 329 Ans. 21. — I do not now, and never have owned any interest what- ever. Ques. 22. — Are you not interested to the amount of your salary in sustaining the title of the New Almaden Company to the mine and lands claimed in this suit ? (Question objected to by attorney for claimant because it is directed to ascertain interest which does not affect the witness' competency.) Ans. 22. — I am not ; my employment is only from month to month, and is not by the Company which claims ownership to the mine and lands of New Almaden. It is by lessees of that company who work the mine, and does not. extend to the future. Ques. 23.— Did not I understand you correctly as saying, in answer to a former question, that your employment was indefinite in point of time, but could be terminated at the end of any month ? Ans. 23. — I do not think I have said so. What I meant to say was that I was employed by the month on a monthly salary, which employment could be terminated at any time by either party. Ques. 24. — Then I am not to understand that you make a new con- tract every month with your employers, but that you have worked heretofore, and are now continuing to work, under one contract which has extended over several years and many months ? Ans. 24. — My contract in 1850 was for that year, on a monthly salary, if both parties were satisfied to continue it through the year ; at the end of that time I was requested to continue in the same service on the same monthly pay from month to month, but no new contract other than the request alluded to, and my continuing to render the same services, was ever entered into. I continued and still continue to act and to receive my monthly salary. When absent from the State or not performing the duties I was not considered as entitled to the monthly salary. Ques. 25. — Under these circumstances are you not mistaken in say- ing that -your contract does not extend to the future ? Ans. 25. — I think I am not; for, if my services are not wanted to-morrow, I have no contract which would continue my employment. Ques. 26, — Do not tne lessees, by whom you are employed, neces- sarily hold under the same title with the lessors, the New Almaden Company ; and if the latter were ejected by a superior title, would not their lease and your employment and salary thereby be brought to an end ? Ans. 26. — I suppose they hold under the same title ; whether my employment by or salary from the lessees would cease or not is more than I can say. Ques. 27. — If lessors and lessees and all their servants were ejected 29 330 from the mines and the lands, do you conceive that there is a reason- able probability, or scarcely a possibility, that you could continue to re- ceive your salary as superintendent and director ? Ans. 27. — On the supposition made I think it most probable that the lessees would not desire to employ me any longer in their ser- vice. Ques. 28. — Do you conceive that the conclusion you have just stated may be classed among the certainties ef human affairs ? Bns. 28. — I do not. I do not think it as probable that my employ- ment by the lessees will terminate in the way indicated, as by my ceas- ing of my own free will to continue in such employment. Ques. 29. — Are not the lessees of the property in this suit the same persons, or to a great extent the same persons, who compose the Com- pany of New Almaden ; and, if yea, what persons are the same who are members of the Company and lessees in the lease ? (Question objected to by attorney for claimant, first, because the U. S. attorney has no right to propound that question to the witness upon his examination on his voire dire second, because it is not competent, and third, because it is irrelevant.) Ans. 29. — They are- not the same ; the only persons who, I believe, have an interest, both in the property claimed in this case and also in the lease or contract for working the mine, are Mr. E. Barron, of Mex- ico, Mr. William Forbes, of Mexico, and perhaps Mr. E. W. Barron, of Tepic, although I am not certain that he is a partner in the lease. Ques. 30. — Who are the other persons who are partners in the lease ? (Question objected to by attorney for claimant, on the same grounds as the objections to the preceding question.) Ans. 30. — I do not know who are at the present time. The house of Gibbs & Co., of Peru, the members of which I do not know, were and I think still are interested in the lease, also Mr. Escandon, of Mexico, whom I have mentioned, I think, incorrectly as one of the owners. My recollection now is that he claimed no interest in the title to the mine. Ques. 31. — Who was the person acting in behalf of the lessees with whom you contracted ? Ans. 31. — Don Isidoro De La Torre. The lessees employ me, and the owners of the mine employ the counsel ; we are employed by dif- ferent parties. Ques. 32. — In March or April, when Mr. De La Torre employed . 331 you for the lessees, was he not at that time one of those claiming title to the mine, &c — I mea*n a member of the New Almaden Company ? (Question objected to by attorney for claiment, on the same grounds of objection as to question 29.) Ans. 32. — He then claimed to be one of the owners, and also to have an interest in the lease. He employed me on the part of the lessees, and afterwards informed me that his act in employing me was approved by the majority of the other lessees. Ques. 33. — In your 11th, 12th and 1 7th answers you have mentioned as persons who are or have been members of the New Almaden Com- pany, those who follow, viz ; Mr. John Parrott, Wm. E. Barron, J. R. Bolton, Mr. Escandon, (corrected,) Mr. Martinez, Mr. E. Barron, of the City of Mexico, Mr. E. W. Barron, Wm. Forbes, of Mexico, Alexander Forbes, of Tepic, and Mr. Isidoro De La Torre, of the house of Jecker, Torre & Co.; should you not add to this list James Alexander Forbes, of the town of Santa Clara, county of Santa Clara, and Robert Walkinshaw, of New Almaden, county of Santa Clara ? Ans. 33. — I should add the name of James Alexander Forbes as one who has been an owner, and of Robert Walkinshaw as one who now is. Probably there are others whom I do not at this moment re- collect. Ques. 34. — Were not both of these persons last mentioned, mem- bers of the Company in the years 1849, 1850, 1851, 1852 and 1853 ? (Question objected to by attorney for claimant, on the same grounds of objection as those to question 29.) Ans. 34. — I believe that at the dates mentioned they were both members of the New Almaden Company which claimed ownership, but neither were of the company by which I am employed. Ques. 35. — What salary do you receive as superintendent and di- rector ?- Ans. 35. — I receive and have ever since I have been in the employ of the Company, $500 per month. (Witness objected by Attorney for the United States, on the score of interest.^) Direct Examination Commenced. Questions by Attorney for the Claimant. Ques. 1. — Have you seen the document which was produced by S. 332 . 0. Houghton, a witness examined on behalf of the claimant in this cause, on his examination taken on the 23d Oct., 1857 ? Ans. 1. — I have. I have it now in my hands. Ques. 2. — Please to state when and where you first saw that docu- ment? Ans. 2. — I first saw it in the winter of 1851, in the office of Josiah Belden, Mayor of San Jose*. Ques. 3. — Do you know whether that document was ever removed from the office of the Mayor of San Jose' ; if yea, state when, and by whom, and to what place ? Ans. 3» — A document which I think is the one I now hold in my hand, was taken by Mr. Belden in my presence from his office, and transferred to the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara coun- ty, in the winter of 1851, during the session of the Legislature, and I think in the month of January. This is the same document which Mr. Houghton produced yester- day. Ques. 4. — State why Mr. Belden removed that document as you have stated. Ans. 4.< — I asked him for a certified copy of it ; he said he had no power to give one, but would transfer it to the office of the Recorder, who could give a certified copy. He took it and we both walked round to the Recorder's office ; he gave it to Mr. Richardson, the Recorder, and either he or I told Mr. Richardson I wanted a copy of it. Ques. 5. — How came you to find that paper in the Mayor's office ? and state, if you remember, among what papers you found it. Ans. 5. — My recollection now is that I first went to Mr. Richard- son, the Recorder of Santa Clara County, and asked him for a copy of the papers connected with the New Almaden mine. On examination he told me the papers were not in his office, and referred me to Mr. Belden, who had the greater portion of the old Alcalde papers. Mr. Belden went with me to his office, and opening an old wooden desk he overhauled some old papers in the desk and found this among them. I don't recollect the character of the other papers, except that there were other papers connected with other mines in the same bundle, one I remember was endorsed " Expediente of Chaboya's mine." Ques. 6. — Did you look over or read the document that Mr. Belden discovered, and which was the object of your search ? Ans. 6. — I looked it over to see that it was the document we were in search of. I do not think that I read it all. I may and I may not have done so. Ques. 7. — State what is your belief as to the identity of that docu- ment with the one produced by Mr. Houghton yesterday. 333 Ans. 7. — I remember that the document so transferred purported to be the original " Expediente " of the mine of Santa Clara, containing the denouncement and juridical possession. I think this is the same, but I do not now remember the writing on the second leaf, being the third and fourth pages. I only remember the document from its gen- eral contents as I have mentioned, and the general appearance as com- pared with the one which I then saw, and which was then transferred to the Recorder's office. Adjourned until 11 o'clock, Monday, Oct. 26, 1857. San Francisco, Oct. 26, 1857. Deposition of H. W. Halleck, a witness produced on behalf of the claimant, continued. Present : — U. S. Attorney, by A. P. Crittenden, and A. C. Peachy for claimant. Cross Examination. Questions by U. S. Attorney. Ques. 1. — Have you this morning read over all questions which were put to you on your voire dire and your answers to the same, and do you now repeat the same answers to each and every of those questions ? Ans. 1. — I have read them over ; I think the answers are correctly taken down, except the 19th answer, on my voire dire. That an- swer should be " as long as both parties were satisfied during that year." I think I stated elsewhere that fact. With this correction I now repeat the same answers. Ques. 2.- In your fifth answer on your direct examination, you say that you first went to Richardson, the County Recorder, and asked him for the papers connected with the New Almaden Mine ; did you go alone ? Ans. 2.— I think I did. Ques. 3. — Will you reflect upon that answer and endeavor carefully to remember whether you wont alone or some one went with you ? Ans. 3. — I do not recollect of any one going with me, and my im- pression is that I went alone. Ques. 4. — How long a time did Richardson take to make the exam- ination for the papers of which you have spoken ? 334 Ans. 4. — -Not more than a couple of hours, if so long as that. Ques. 5. — Did you remain there with him and assist in that search? Did any one else assist in the seach, and, if so, who ? Ans. 5. — I think I assisted in looking over some of the old papers, which he laid on the table in his examination ; I do not recollect any- body else being present. Ques. 6. — Did you go alone from the office of the Recorder to the office of Belden the Mayor ? If any one went with you, who was it ? Did you go on the same day that you made the search in the Re- corder's office, and if not, on what day ? Ans. 6. — I think I went alone ; I have no recollection now of any one going with me. My impression is that I went the same day. My impression also is that I found Mr. Belden in the building where the Legislature was in session, and went from there with him to his office ; that is my present recollection of the matter. Ques. 7. — Is your recollection that you went on the same day, and with Belden alone, as you have just stated, clear and certain ? Ans. 7. — It is not that I went the same day. It is pretty clear that there was no one with Mr. Belden and myself when we went to his office ; but I cannot say positively. Ques. 8. — How long did it take Mr. Belden to make the search before he found the paper ? Ans. 8. — My recollection is, only a short time. It may have been ten minutes, and it may have been half of an hour. Ques. 9. — Did you assist Mr. Belden in the search. Did anybody else join you, or did you find any body else there who assisted in the search ? Ans. 9. — I think that I assisted Mr. Belden in looking over the papers, as he took them out of the desk. I don't think any one else assisted, or was present. Ques. 10. — Describe that desk. Ans. 10. — I think it was a pine desk, with doors in front, which were locked ; but I do not recollect particularly its appearance and shape otherwise than that. Nor am I certain that there were doors to it. My recollection is that I had to wait for Mr. Belden to go to his house to get keys, either to the desk or to the room. I do not recollect the size of it. My impression now is that it was not more than five or six feet wide, nor more than six or seven feet high ; it may have been larger or smaller. It was about the depth of the length of foolscap paper. I think it was not full of papers ; my recollection is it was partially full of old papers ; they were apparently assorted in bundles — at least a part of them. Ques. 11. — What made you go to the office of Richardson in quest of that document ? Ans. 11. — I was making translations of papers connected with the 335 mine, for the purpose of sending them to Mr. De La Torre, and I went to get a copy of those connected with the denouncement and juridical possession of the mine, in order to translate them. Ques. 12. — Why did you suppose that you would find those papers in the office of the County Recorder ? Ans. 12. — Because I supposed the papers of the old Alcalde's office would be found in the Recorder's office. Ques. 13. — Why did you suppose that you would find those papers in the old Alcalde's office ? Ans. 13. — Because I had seen a copy of such papers purporting to come from the Alcalde's office. Ques. 14. — Can you produce that copy ? Ans. 14. — I think I can. I think it was the copy which I have already produced in the case, at the request of the Counsel who asked the question. I think I had also seen a copy signed by Chabolla. Ques. 15. — Is the paper, which I now hand you, marked " Exhibit R. No. 2," attached to the deposition of James W. Weekes, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, taken before Special Com- missioner J. E. Grymes on the 18th of Aug., 1857, and on file in this cause, a traced copy of that copy which you had seen, and of which you spoke in your last answer ? Ans. 15. — I think that this is a traced copy of one of the papers of which I have spoken. I mean of the first one of which I have spoken* Ques. 16. — Have you any manner of doubt that this is a traced copy of the first copy of which you spoke ? Ans. 16. — I have none. It is endorsed in the hand-writing of Mr. Billings, and I have no reason to doubt but that it is a correct copy, although I do not recollect to have compared it myself. Ques. 17. — Is not a copy of a writing another writing with the same words in the same order ; and is this paper which you have just looked at, a copy of that which you found in the office of Mr. Belden ? Ans. 17. — The paper which I found in the office of Mr. Belden I only remember from the general subject matter of its contents, as pur- porting to be an original paper containing the denouncement and juri- dical possession of the mine. Whether it contained the same papers as in " Exhibit R. No. 2 " referred to, or more or less, I cannot now remember. My recollection is that I did not examine it very minutely, or compare it with any of those copies of papers, to which I have re- ferred. Ques. 18. — In whose possession had you seen that copy purporting to come from the Alcalde's office, of which you spoke first ? Ans. 18. — I think I first saw it in a tin trunk of papers connected with New Almaden, in the hands of Isidoro De La Torre ; but I cannot say positively that the original, of which " Exhibit R. No. 2," pur- ports to be a copy, was the first I saw, or the other copy to which I 336 have alluded. I may have seen them both at the same time, when he first showed me the papers. Ques. 19. — Did you see that other copy, to which you allude, in the same tin box in the possession of Isidoro De La Torre ? Ans. 19. — I cannot say. I have seen both copies, and also another copy purporting to have been made in Mexico ; but whether I saw them all there, or what one of them, when I first examined the papers in his possession, I do not now remember. Ques. 20. — Did you, or not, see the copy made by Chabolla in the possession of Mr. De La Torre ? Ans. 20. — I do not remember whether I did or not. Ques. 21. — In whose possession did you see it ? Ans. 21. — I have frequently seen it among the papers of the New Almaden Company, but I cannot say when I first saw it. My recol- lection is that I saw it as far back as 1850. Ques. 22. — In whose possession had you seen the third copy made in Mexico ? Ans. 22. — Among the same papers. My recollection is that that copy was a certified copy of the original, of which " R. No. 2 " pur- ports to be a copy. That is my present recollection of it. That is, that it purports to be a copy of a certified copy, made by Weekes as Alcalde. Ques. 23. — Then it purports to be a copy of " Exhibit R. No. 2," does it not ? Ans. 23. — I mean a copy of the same paper, of which " Exhibit R. No. 2 " purports to be a copy, certified to by somebody in Mexico. Ques. 24. — In whose custody were the New Almaden papers kept in the year 1850 and in the month of January, 1851 ? Ans. 24. — When I first saw them in 1850, they were in the pos- session of Don Isidoro De La Torre — this was, I think, in March. In the latter part of the year they were in the custody of Wm. E. Barron ; they were in his custody from the last of June. In the latter part of 1850, near the close of that year, I had them in our office, making translations, up to sometime in the latter part of the winter or spring of 1851. Ques. 25. — At what time did you receive the papers, and when did you make your translations ? Ans. 25. — I can not remember the exact time that I received them, but think it was in the latter part of December, 1850. I am not cer- tain, it may have been in November. I made translations at New Almaden, staying there most of the time for several weeks, and I remember that I was there on the first day of January, 1851. This is the only date by which I can now fix the time that I was engaged making the translation. Ques. 26. — Were you engaged in making the translations, at the 337 time when you went to Richardson, the County Recorder's office, to ask for the papers, and were you then staying at the New Almaden Mine? Ans. 26. — That is my recollection. Ques. 27. — Whom did you habitually see, when staying at the mine, of the persons interested in the mine, or engaged about it ? Ans. 27. — Mr. John Young, Mr. Bester, and the workmen at the Mine. Ques. 28. — Robert Walkinshaw ? Ans. 28. — Very seldom. He did not then often go to the Mine. Ques. 29. — Where did he then reside ? Ans. 29. — A couple of miles north of the Hacienda of the Mine. Ques. 30. — Did you see James Alexander Forbes? Ans. 30. — I do not recollect that I saw him during that time. He very seldom went to the Mine. Ques. 31. — Where did James Alexander Forbes then reside ? Ans. 31. — In Santa Clara. Ques. 32. — How far from the Mine ? And does not the road from the Mine to San Jose' pass through or near Santa Clara ; and does not the road from the Mine to San Francisco pass through Santa Clara ; and how far is Santa Clara from San Jose' ? Ans. 32. — About fifteen miles from the Mine. The road from the Mine to San Jose* runs no nearer to Santa Clara than when at San Jose*. The road from the Mine to San Francisco does pass through Santa Clara. Santa Clara is about three miles from San Jose\ Ques. 33. — In 1850 and 1851 where was your residence and place of business ? Ans. 33. — San Francisco, after February, 1850. Prior to that J n Monterey. Ques. 34. — Were your visits to the mine frequent in 1850 and 1851? Ans. 34. — They were. Ques". 35. — What were your relations with John Young, Robert Walkinshaw aud James Alexander Forbes, in 1850 and 1851 ? Did you see them frequently, and about how frequently ? Ans. 35. — My relations with John Young were intimate ; with Walkinshaw and Forbes, merely that of acquaintance and recognition when I met them on the street. I saw Mr. Young very frequently, as often as once a fortnight generally. I very seldom saw either Forbes or Walkinshaw. Ques 36. — Had you not on many occasions during the year 1850, and January, 1851, spoken to Mr. Forbes or Walkinshaw, on the sub- ject of the affairs of the mine ? Ans. 36. — I think very seldom. Ques. 37. — Did not Young, Forbes, or Walkinshaw, suggest to you 338 that you might find in the office of the County Recorder the paper which you went there to seek ? Ans. 37. — It is possible that one of them might have done so, but I do not think that either of them did, for the reason that I do not think Mr. Young had any knowledge whatever of the papers of the mine, and I have no recollection of conversing with Mr. Walkinshaw or Mr. Forbes, at that time, on the subject. I don't remember that at that time either of them ever came to see me, or that I ever went to see them at that time. I do not recollect to have been in the houses of either of them more than once or twice in my life. Ques. 38. — Was not Mr. John Young interested in the mine in the year 1850, or employed about it in a responsible position by the New Almaden Company or the Lessees ? Ans. 38. — I do not think he was ever interested in the mine. He was employed by the Lessees as an overseer in working the mine. He was the principal overseer or local superintendant, which is a responsi- ble situation. Ques. 39. — Is not Mr. John Young a man of intelligence, and in whose fidelity to his employers you had confidence in 1850 ? Ans. 39. — Yes, he is. Ques. 40. — When you were on your visits to the New Almaden mine, did you not lodge in the same house with Mr. John Young, or very near him, and see him daily and nightly ? Ans. 40. — Yes. Ques. 41. — Is it not strange under such circumstances that you had never communicated to Mr. Young any knowledge of the papers which constitute the title to the mine ? Ans. 41. — I probably had conversed with him somewhat in relation to them, but not very much, for I do not think he had, or has, ever read the papers, or has any particular knowledge on the subject. He is a sailor by profession, and has always manifested in conversation an ignorance of law matters, and a dislike of law subjects and lawyers. Ques. 42. — What knowledge had you of the Spanish language in March 1850 ? Could you read it ? Could you read Spanish manuscripts ? Ans. 42. — My knowledge of the Spanish language was imperfect, but I could read and translate Spanish manuscripts as well or better than I can now, being then more in practice reading Spanish. Ques. 43. — Was it in March 1850, that you saw the paper of which " Exhibit R. No. 2." is a copy, and the Chabolla copy, and the third copy made in Mexico, of all of which you have spoken ? Ans. 43. — I think it was in March 1850, that I saw the New Al- maden papers in the hands of Mr. De La Torre, and that I then saw one or more of the copies referred to ; it may have been the first of April, but I think it was the latter part of March. Ques. 41. — Did you not firstsee all of those copies about that time in 339 the possespion of Mr. De La Torre ? If you saw any one of them in possession of any body else, who was it ? Ans. 44. — I do not now recollect to have seen other copies than the three I have mentioned, or to have seen these except among the New Almaden papers, which I saw at that time in the possession of Mr. De La Torre, but I cannot say that all of these were then among those papers, or positively that either one of them, but I remember seeing a copy or copies of the denouncement and juridical possession of the mine at that time, and was reading it over with Mr. De La Torre. Ques. 45. — Did you understand it when you read it ? Did you read all the papers and understand them ? Ans. 45. — I understood the general purport of the papers and my recollection is that I read all those relating to Castillaro's title. I think I examined papers connected with contracts and transfers of shares, but I do not think that I read the latter all through. Ques. 46. — Was not Mr. De La Torre the same person whom you have said in 1850 and 1851, was a member of the new Almaden com- pany, and one of the lessees of the mine ? Ans. 46. — He was. Ques. 47. — Did he not then reside in the City of Mexico, or some- where in the Republic of Mexico ? Ans. 47. — I think that he resided either in Mazatlan or the City of Mexico, but having no family, he may not have had any fixed place of residence. He was a partner in a house in Mexico. Ques. 48. — The house of Mr. De La Torre was reputed to be very wealthy, was it not ? Ans. 48. — It was reputed to be very wealthy. (Question and answer objected to by Attorney for Claimant, on the ground of irrelevancy.) Ques. 49. — When did he arrive in California ? When did he leave this State ? and with whom did he leave the New Almaden papers ? Ans. 49. — I first saw him in California in the town of San Jose", I think in March 1850. I think he had arrived in California only a very short time before. He left the State I think on the first of July 1850, and left the papers in charge of Wm. E. Barron, as I have before stated, and from whom they passed to me, as I have before stated. Ques. 50. — Have you retained possession of those papers from that time to the present ? Ans. 50. — I have not. They have been deposited a part of the time in the safe of Halleck, Peachy & Billings, and a part of the time in the vault of Bolton & Barron. A part of the time the key of the box containing them has been in my possession, a part of the time in 340 Mr. Peachy's possession, and a part of the time in Mr. Wm. E. Bar- ron's possession. Ques. 51. — Where are they now ? Ans. 51. — A part of them are in the office of the Surveyor Gen- eral, coming from the Land Commission. Most of them in the vault of Bolton & Barron. Some of them I thtnk are in the safe of Hal- leck, Peachy & Billings. Ques. 52. — Have you not always had, and still have access to them when you desire it ? Ans. 52. — I have. Ques. 53. — Will you produce and file with your deposition the Cha- bolla copy, and the copy made in Mexico, of the papers of denounce ment and juridical possossion ? Ans. 53. — I will do so if requested, and the Counsel and Mr. Barron will consent to leave the papers on file. (The Counsel for the United States requires the production of the Chabolla copy, and of the copy made in Mexico, of papers of de- nouncement and juridical possession, of which the witness has tes- tified.) Ques. 54. — In September, Octeber, November and December, of the year 1850, where were the papers of denouncement and juridical possession of the mine of New Almaden, being the same paper pro- ducedby Mr. Houghton ? Ans. 54. — I do not know. Ques. 55. — Were they not to the best of your knowledge and be- lief in Mexico ? Ans. 55. — I have no knowledge of their being in Mexico, or of where they were. My belief is that they were in San Jose'. Ques. 56. — Have you a pretty good memory ? Ans. 56. — I have a pretty good memory of occurrences and of per- sons, but not a very good memory for names or dates. Ques. 57. — During the time of which I have just enquired, did you not verily believe that they were in Mexico ? Ans. 57. — I did not. I had no reason to believe that they were in Mexico, and my reasons for believing that they were in San Josd are, that I found them there in 1851, as I have stated. Ques. 58. — It is now seven years since the period of which I have questioned you. The human memory is treacherous. I therefore de- sire you to reflect well upon the answer you have just given. Do you answer in the same manner ? Ans. 58. — I have no change to make to my answer, except to say, as I have before said, that I cannot say positively that the paper pro- 341 duced by Mr. Houghton, is the same found in Mr. Belden's office. I believe it to be the same, as I have before stated. Ques. 59. — You regard the paper which you found in the office of Belden as the original denouncement and juridical possession of the mine of New Almaden, do you not ? Ans. 59. — I do. Ques. 60. — In reference to that paper you then repeat the answer which you have given above, do you ? Ans. 60. — I do. Ques. 61. — Did you not in the month of December, 1850, declare on oath, in a Court of Justice, that the original denouncement and ju- ridical possession of the mine was at that time in Mexico ? Ans. 61. — I may have dene so. I had copies or a copy of that original denouncement and possession, and may have supposed then that the original, which is usually delivered to the parties, was in Mex- ico. I understand, and always have understood it to be the practice of Mexican Alcaldes, to make two originals of their judicial acts, one of which is made of record in, their office, and the other delivered to the parties interested. I probably then supposed, as I have since, that a duplicate original had been given to Castillero and taken to Mexico. I remember to have written to Mexico to have such original sent to California, to be used in the litigation then pending. Ques. 62. — Will you look at the 20th page of the document now handed to you, being the " certified transcript from the 3d Judicial District Court," filed in this cause on 21st August, 1857, and read the paper beginning at the bottom of that page, and say whether the same is or is not your affidavit ? Ans. 62. — I have read the paper referred to and think it is a copy of the affidavit sworn to by me at the time indicated in the paper ; I think the affidavit was drawn by Mr. Peachy. Ques. 63. — Look at the 10th page of the same document, read what is there written, and say whether or not your affidavit was made in answer to that demand ? Ans. 63. — I think it was. Ques. 64. — What is the date of your affidavit, and what the date of the demand ? Ans. 64. — The date of the demand as it appears upon this paper, is the 13th Sept. 1850. And the affidavit purports to have been made the 23d December, 1850. Ques. 65. — Would not the production in Court of the original, which you supposed had been retained by the Alcalde, have in every respect as fully satisfied that demand, as could the production of the other original, which you suppose had been carried to Mexico ? Ans 65. — I do not remember what was the supposition at that time. I do not now in looking over the demand, think that it would. One I 342 regard as a record of title, and the other as a title paper delivered to" the party. I regard the demand as for the latter. Only copies of these papers, to the best of my recollection, were in the hands of the Counsel in San Francisco, certified to, if I remember aright, by No- taries Public in Mexico, and under that demand they were required to produce the originals. Ques 66. — Then you do not regard this paper produced by S. 0. Houghton as a title paper of the claimant ? Would it not serve as well for a title paper in one suit as in another ? (Question objected to by Attorney for Claimant on the gronnd that the questions asks the witness' opinion upon a matter of law.) Ans. 66. — I do not regard it as the title paper which is usually delivered to the party, and therefore as not being the party's title paper. I regard it as the original record of a judicial act, and as having in Mexican law the same force and effect as the one delivered to the party, and sometimes even of higher effect where the original which is delivered to the party is impeached. I understand that, by Mexican law, any one impeaching the original that is delivered to the parties may bring forward the record for that purpose. That in such a case the record is the higher authority, that otherwise they are equal. Ques. 67. — Do you not think this paper under Mexican, or any other law, would have had as much effect in 1850 as in 1857 ? (Question objected to on the same grounds as to the preceding question.) Ans. 67. — I do, of course. Ques. 68. — What paper in this case do you regard as the title paper of the claimant ? (Question objected to on the same grounds as to the preceding question.) Ans. 68. — I regard several papers in this case as title papers. Ques. 69. — I mean with reference to the denouncement and juridi- cal possession ? (Objected to as before.) Ans. 69. — I regard the original record as a title paper, and also any duly certified copy of that original taken by an officer properly in charge of it. I speak now of what I understand constitutes title 343 papers in Mexican law. I understand the duplicate original usually delivered at the time of the act. or a " testimonio," or certified copy copy afterwards made, as equally a title. Ques. 70. — Which paper in this case is a duplicate original, and which the " testimonio of which you speak ? Ans. 70. — I do not understand that there is any duplicate original in this case ; I never have seen one, and do not know whether or not one was issued to Castillero. I supposed that one had been issued, and have written to Mr. De La Torre and parties in Mexico to ascer- tain if there was not one there, and to send it to myself or the coun- sel in this case. I wrote to that eiFect in 1850. My recollection now is that the letters written at that time were never received by the parties to whom they were addressed ; that is, I believe so. (Attorney for United States withdraws the demand heretofore made to this witness for the production of the Chaballa Copy and of the copy made in Mexico of papers of Denouncement and Juridical possession of which the witness has testified.) Ques. 71. — You have not yet answered which particular paper in the case you regard as the testimonio you have described ? (Objected to as before.) Ans. 71. — I regard " Exhibit R., No. 2," before referred to, as a traced copy of a paper which would be called a testimonio. Examination adjourned until to-morrow, Oct, 27, at 11, A. M., 1857. San Francisco, Oct. 27, 11, A. M. Examination of H. W. Halleck, a Witness Produced on Behalf of the Claimant, continued. Present. — U. S. District Attorney, by A. P. Crittenden ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimants. Cross-Examination Continued. Questions by U. S. Attorney. Ques. 72. — When you found the paper in the office of Belden, were you not greatly astonished, and did you not speak of it to the parties interested in the mine as a great discovery ? 344 Ans. 72. — I do not remember that I was astonished. I probably spoke of it to Mr. Barron, and Messrs. Peachy & Billings. Whether I did to others or not, I do not remember. I may have done so. I do not think I spoke of it as a great discovery. Ques. 73. — Nor as a remarkable, and most unexpected occurrence ? Ans. 73. — I do not remember to have spoken of it in such a way, nor to have regarded it as such. I considered it an important record as evidence of title. Ques. 74. — Did the persons interested in the mine express aston- ishment or surprise at the discovery of that paper, or in any manner evince that they regarded it as a remarkable and unexpected occur- rence ? Ans. 74. — I do not remember of conversing with any of them on the subject further than I believe I told Mr. Barron and Mr. Peachy that there was an original record which I had had transferred to the Recorder's office. I have no distinct recollection of any particular conversation other than telling Mr. Peachy when I left the State, or reminding him of there being a record in San Josd, in case he should want to use it before the Land Commission. I have no doubt that I told him and Mr. Barron, at the time that I discovered it in San Jose', of the fact. Ques. 75. — Do you not positively remember that you did tell them the fact as soon as you saw them, after the discovery ? Ans. 75. — I am pretty confident that I did, but seeing them almost every day, and having conversed with them so often on matters con- nected with the mine, that I do not now recall to memory the partic- ular circumstance and time of telling them. Ques. 76. — Is your recollection and impression of having told them of this discovery in 1851, immediately after it was made, supported and confirmed by their recollections ? Ans. 76. — I have not asked either of them, and do not know what their recollections are. Ques. 77. — You have of course seen Mr. Peachy or Mr. Barron, one or both, since your examination yesterday ? Ans. 77. — I have seen them both. I see Mr. Peachy now. Ques. 78. — Did you obtain from Mr. Richardson, the Recorder, the certified copy you desired ? Ans. 78. — My recollection is that I did. Ques. 79. — What did you want with it ? Ans. 79. — I was translating the papers connected with the mining title for Mr. Peachy' s use, and also for the purpose of sending Mr. De La Torre copies of the translations. Mr. Robert Greenhow was employed by Mr. Barron about that time, or after that time, to look over the translations with me and correct them, and I think made separate translations of a portion. 345 Ques. 80.— As you already had three copies in a tin box, why did you want a fourth to make your translations ? Ans. 80. — I have not stated that we had three copies ; I have no recollection of having seen at that time more than one of the three which I described, but which one, or whether more than one, I do not remember. Ques. 81. — Will you look at your 43d and 44th answers of your cross-examination, and say whether you have not there stated that the only recollection you have of the first time when you saw any or all of these three copies, or any other copies, of a denouncement, and juridical possession, was in the possession of Mr. De La Torre, in March or April of the year 1850 ? Ans. 81. — I have looked at my answers 43d and 44th ; I do not think my answers are as stated in the question, as I understand them, and as I think I meant to say. They mean this, that in March or April, 1850, I saw among the New Almaden papers in the hands of Mr. De La Torre, a copy or copies of the denouncement and juridical possession of New Almaden, but whether or not it was one of the three mentioned, I could not remember, otherwise than I had no recollection of seeing other than these three copies mentioned among such papers. I did not mean to be understood that I then saw all the New Almaden papers, or all three of these copies. Many papers were afterwards received from Mexico, and put in the same tin box. Ques. 82. — I now repeat ; — have you any recollection whatever of first seeing these three copies, or either of them, in any other place, or at any other time ? Ans. 82. — I remember to have seen them among the New Almaden papers on various occasions, but cannot remember when I first saw them all, or any one of them, otherwise than that a copy, or paper purporting to be a copy, was shown to me and examined by me in March or April, 1850. I remember it from the fact that Mr. De La Torre wished me to purchase an interest, and showed the papers to me, that I might examine them with reference to the title. Ques. 83. — Please answer the 82d question Yes, or No. Ans. ~83. — I must answer as I already have done, that I do not remember the time when I first saw either of them. Ques. 84. — Will you answer Yes or No, without qualification ? Ans. 84. — I answer No, if I fully understand the purport of the question. Ques. 85. — Having already one copy certainly, and two others with no more doubt than appears in your answers 43, 44, and those just made, what necessity had you for any other copy in making your translations ? Ans. 85. — I do not remember of any particular necessity. My v*3ollection however is that Mr. Peachy at that time, or before, had 30 346 requested me to collect, and translate, all papers I could find con- nected with the Mine, for his use as Counsel ; and I now think it prob- able that I searched in San Jose' for papers for that purpose. Ques. 86. — Why could you not have made the translations which Mr. Peachy wanted, from* the copy, or copies, which you already had, without going to the trouble of the search which you made, to get another copy of the same documents ? Ans. 86. — I do not remember otherwise, than that Mr. Peachy wanted translations of all papers, that could be found, connected with the Mine. He may not at that time have had either the Weekes copy, or the Chabolla copy, of which I have spoken, or in addition to them, he may have wanted translations of whatever records there might be in San Jose' ; I do not now remember the circumstances parti- cularly. It is very possible that he requested me to examine in San Jose' for any records that might be found. Ques. 87. — You have not answered my question. I did not ask you what copy or copies Mr. Peachy may have had, or if he had any ; but why, having one or more copies yourself, you should have put yourself to the trouble of such a search for the purpose of obtaining still another copy from which to make your translations for Mr. Peachy ? Ans. 87. — I can give no other reasons than those already men- tioned, for I do not remember any other. Ques. 88. — Is it anything more than a guess that you wanted that copy for the purpose of making translations at all ? Ans. 88. — It is not a guess. It is my present recollection of what occurred years ago. Ques. 89. — What became of the copy which you obtained from Richardson ? Ans. 89. — I do not remember positively, but my recollection is that it was burned, with all the copies and translations of papers which I had made, and which Mr. Greenhow had made, and with some others, which I had received from Mexico, when our office, books, and papers were burned in May, 1851. Ques. 90. — Were all the papers of the New Almaden Mine burned at that time ? Ans. 90. — They were not. Most of them were in the vault of Bolton & Barron ; those in our office were all burned. Ques. 91. — Have those which were burned been since supplied ? Ans. 91. — I think most of the papers burned were copies and trans- lations of papers in Bolton & Barron's vault. I remember one paper, a map, which was burned in our office, and of which duplicates were afterwards procured from Mexico. Ques. 92. — When you say the papers burned were copies of others 347 in the vault of Bolton & Barron, do you mean to include that copy which you obtained from Richardson ? Ans. 92. — I mean to say that I think that copy was burned. And I do not remember that Bolton & Barron had in their vault a copy of the same paper, or the original. I think they had a copy or copies of the denouncement and juridical possession, but not one made by Mr. Richardson, nor the original denouncement itself. Ques. 93. — You say you think ; do you mean you are not certain ? Ans. 93. — I mean that I never saw it there, and never heard of its being there. Ques. 94. — Are you at all certain that that copy was burned at that time, or is it a mere guess ? Ans. 94. — I am not certain, nor is it a mere guess. My recollec- tion is that it was burned. If my memory serves me right, I had a copy of it, and that it was burned with my other papers, for I have no recollection of seeing it after the fire, and I know that all the pa- pers connected with New Almaden which I had in my possession at that time, were burned. Ques. 95. — Of the four copies of which you have spoken, to wit, — the Weekes copy, the Chabolla copy, the copy made in Mexico and Richardson's copy, the last only was burned ? Ans. 95. — I have seen the first three since the fire, but do not remember to have seen the other. My recollection is that it was burned. Ques. 96. — May it not have been sent to Mexico before the fire ? Ans. 96. — I have no recollection of its ever having been sent to Mexico. If it had been, I think I should remember it. Ques. 97. — Do you not remember saying, in conversation, that you procured that copy for the purpose of sending it to Mexico, or of using it in Court on some trial ? Ans. 97. — I may have said in conversation that it was procured to be used in some trial ; I do not think I could ever have said that it was procured to send to Mexico. I very probably have said that it was procured to send the translation and copy of it to Mr. De La Torre in Mexico. As I remember it was my intention in making these translations to send him copies of the translations and of the Spanish translated. Ques. 98. — As at the time when you were engaged in making trans- lations you believed that the parties in Mexico held the duplicate ori- ginal, as you have already testified ; your letters which you had written, asking for that duplicate original, having miscarried as you supposed, from receiving no answer to the same, and as good inter- preters abound in Mexico, and several of the persons most largely interested are Englishmen by birth, long established in Mexico, and undoubtedly entirely familiar with both languages, what motive could 348 you have had for desiring to send, or Mr. De La Torre for desiring to receive from California, a mere copy of that duplicate original, and an English translation of the same ? Ans. 98. — I was not then acquainted with any of the owners in Mexico, except Mr. De La Torre, nor was I in correspondence with any of them. My recollection of the letters written to Mexico for the original papers connected with the juridical possession to others than to Mr. De La Torre, were written by Mr. Barron, and that what I wrote to Mr. De La Torre on that subject was from a memorandum furnished me by Mr. Peachy. I do not remember that Mr. De La Torre asked for a copy or translation of any particular paper. I re- member his proposing to me to translate the papers, and I think with reference to his selling stock in the Mine. The particular object of sending him copies and translations at the time indicated, was for the purpose of his taking the advice of counsel in the United States with respect to litigation then pending. Ques. 99. — Did it not occur to you that he might sell stock and take advice of counsel, as well upon his duplicate original and upon translations which he could make himself, as upon the copy and trans- lation that you were sending him ? Ans. 99. — I do not remember what occurred to me at the time. As Mr. De La Torre had recently become interested in the Mine and had left copies of papers connected with the Mine here, I may have thought that he had himself had none in Mexico. I cannot now say what I thought at the time. Ques. 100. — Did you not suppose that he had obtained or could obtain this most valuable of all, of the same person or persons, from whom he got the tin box of papers, which he brought to California and left here ? And if not, why was it, that you were writing to him for it, and Mr. Win. E. Barron, at the same time, writing to others for it? Ans. 100. — I cannot now say what I supposed at that time. My recollection is that all of the papers which Mr. De La Torre had here were copies. I cannot now remember the circumstances of my writ- ing to him about it, otherwise than what I have usually written to Mexico about papers has been on a memorandum or copying a memo- randum, given to me by Mr. Peachy, the Counsel. Having written often from memoranda by Mr. Peachy, I cannot remember particularly what was written at the time, nor the supposition I may have had then, as alluded to in the question. Ques. 101. — Did it not look singular that you should furnish copies for him to sell stock and consult Counsel on, and he should furnish you originals to defend his title with, and all at the same time ? Ans. 101. — I do not think it did. His suggestion or request to me to make translations in California was, if I remember right, with refer- ence to his selling stock here and in New York. Moreover, Mr. De 349 La Torre was but one of the parties interested in the Mine, and I could not well have supposed that he had, from his suggestion, all the papers connected with it. Ques. 102. — Do you consider that answer any explanation ? Ans. 102. — Explanation of what ? Ques. 103. — I mean do you consider that answer any explanation of the circumstances stated in my question 101, and of which circum- stances I called for an explanation in that question ? Ans. 103. — I regard the question as asking my opinion, which I answered by the words, u I do not think it did." Ques. 104. — About what number or quantity of papers, which you call the New Almaden papers, did Mr. De La Torre bring from Mexico ? Ans. 104. — I should think ten or fifteen documents ; but as other documents were afterwards received from Mexico by Mr. Barron, and put with those left by Mr. De La Torre, some of which were duplicate copies of those left by him, I cannot remember them sufficiently well to distinguish in all cases, nor perhaps in most cases, between those I first saw in his hands and those which I have subsequently seen. Ques. 105. — What additional papers, not duplicates, — I mean what number or quantity of additional papers, not duplicates, have since been received here ; by whom sent ; at what time ; and what number or quantity at a time ? (Question objected to by Att'y for claimant, on the ground that it is examining the witness upon a point on which he was not examined in his examination in chief.) Ans. 105. — I am unable to answer the question, as to the quantity, or times ; I think all of them were received by Mr. Barron ; I have no recollection of any one of them being sent to me. I think all or most were sent to him, by, or through the house of Barron, Forbes & Co., and Mr. E. Barron in Mexico. I think they have been received by him on several different occasions, and at several different times. Ques. 106. — Among all these papers, brought or sent on different occasions during the last saven years, is it not strange that you have never seen the duplicate original which you consider the true title pa- per of the claimants, and for which you suppose you must have been writing, about the time you made your affidavit in 1850 (December,) and of the existence of which, or that such paper ever was issued, you have to this day no knowledge, as you have testified already ? (Question objected to on the ground that it asks the witness* opin- ion in regard to the strangeness of a certain state of facts ; because it is immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent.) 350 Ans. 106 — I do not think it strange that I have never seen it among those papers, because I think I should have seen it if it had been there. I have thought it strange that no such document has been found or produced, for I have supposed that such a document must have existed. Ques. 107 — Did you know J. M. Jones, whose name is signed as attorney to the demand for the production of the original denounce- ment and juridical possession of the mine, to which your affidavit was an answer, the said demand being that made on the 13th September, 1850, and your affidavit and reply dated 2'3d December, 1850, concerning both of which you were examined and testified on yesterday ? Ans. 107—1 did. Ques. 108 — Did you not become very well acquainted wit him as early as September, 1S49, when you were both members of the Con- vention which formed the State Constitution ? Ans. 108 — I first knew him as a member of the Convention alluded to, but never became very well acquainted with him ; our acquaintance was never more than a speaking acquaintance ; he is now dead. Ques. 109 — What was Mr. Jones' character for diligence, shrewd- ness, and general capacity, in his profession ? Ans. 109 — I have generally heard him spoken of as a shrewd law- yer ; with respect to diligence and capacity, I do not remember to have heard his character discussed sufficiently to form an estimate of it in my own mind. Ques. 110 — Do you not know that Mr. Jones was remarkably dili- gent, and considered of very good capacity ? Ans. 110 — I was not sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Jones to judge either of his diligence or capacity otherwise than as a debater in the Convention. Ques. Ill — Is he not the same person who was counsel for James Alexander Forbes, of Santa Clara, in a suit brought against him by Robert Walkinshaw, in the latter part of August or in September, 1849, and in which Horace Hawes was attorney for Walkinshaw, before Alcalde May, of San Josd, and the same person who was attorney for James Alexander Forbes, et als., of the parties then interested in the mine, in a proceeding .of the said Hawes denouncing the said mine be- fore the Alcalde of San Josd, which proceeding in denouncement was pending at the same time with the suit brought by Walkinshaw against Forbes as above stated, and which said suit was for the possession of the mine ? Have you not learned that he was, from himself, from Forbes, or Walkinshaw, or others interested in the mine, or from any other per- son, or in any other manner ? (So much of the preceding as asks the witness what he has heard other people say, objected to by attorney for claimant, on the ground that is hearsay. 351 And the whole question objected to by attorney for claimant, on the ground that it is immaterial.) Ans. Ill — I believe he was the same person ; I resided in Monte- rey at that time, and had no personal knowledge of the matter alluded to ; my rcollection is, that Mr. Jones came to Monterey sometime in the latter part of 1849, on some business connected with such suits ; I think he told me so himself ; I think I have heard Mr. James Alex- ander Forbes speak of his having been his counsel in such cases ; I do not remember who was the Alcalde, nor what information I had at the time on the subject, otherwise than general rumor. In a word, I have no doubt but that Mr. Jones is the same man. Ques. 122 — In your seventh answer on your direct examination, speaking of the paper which you found in Belden's office, vou say, " I remember that a document so transferred purported to be the original oxpediente of the mine of Santa Clara, containing the denouncement and juridical possession " — was that document endorsed " expediente" ? Ans. 112 — I do not remember what was the endorsement. Ques. 113 — What do you recollect about the endorsement ? Ans. 112 — I do not recollect about the endorsement ; I used the word expediente, in the seventh answer, as descriptive of the character of the document referred to, and not with respect to the endorsement. I used the word as I am accustomed to use it, and to hear it used, with respect to documents in the old " Archives " now in the possession of the Surveyor General. Examination adjourned until Friday, 30th Oct., 1857, at 11 A. M. San Francisco, October 30, 1857. Counsel for the respective parties not being present, examination ad- journed until to-morrow, Saturday, October 21, 1857, at 11 o'clock, A. M. San Francisco, October 31st, 1857—11 A. M. Present: A. C. Peachy, for claimant, and the witness, H. W. Halleck. The Attorney for the U. S. not being present, examination adjourn- ed until Monday, Nov. 2d, 1857, at 11 A. M. 352 San Francisco, Monday, Nov. 2, 1857 — 11 A. M. Cross-Examination of H. W. Halleck, a "witness produced on behalf of the claimant, continued. Present : U. S. District Attorney, by A. P. Crittenden ; A. C. Peachy for the claimant. Questions by U. S. Attorney. Question 114 — In your last answer, you speak of Mexican Archives, — relating to what subject ? Answer 114 — I mean the archives of the former government of Cal- ifornia, which are now in the possession of the Surveyor General, they mainly relate to land titles ; some relate to the proceedings in Courts, to matters connected with the Missions, Custom-house, &c. Ques. 115 — What do you understand by an expediente of a title? Ans. 115 — I understand the collection of papers connected with the application for a title, and the proceedings thereon. Ques. 116 — Then you regard the paper which you found in Bel- den's office, as the office record of the expediente of denouncement, and juridical possession of the Santa Clara mine ? Ans. 116—1 did. Ques. 117 — Do I understand that you do not so regard it now ? Ans. 117 — I regard it now the same as I did then. Ques. 118 — Why did you not file a copy of this paper with the claimant's petition in this case ? Ans. 118 — I do not remember any other reason than my filing a copy of papers in my possession at that time ; original papers were not usually filed with the petition. Ques. 119— Why did you not file a copy of the expediente of your title ; why did you file as the exhibit of your title, a paper which was not a copy of your title ; before filing exhibits of title, did you not usu- ally take some care to see that the paper filed was a copy of your titles ? Ans. 119 — I do not remember why a copy of the expediente was not filed ; sometimes copies of expedientes of titles were filed with the petitions, but more frequently I think they were not. Petitions were sometimes filed with the Board of Commissioners without my having seen the original titles, they being still in the hands of the claimants. I do not remember in this case the particular circumstances ; I did not have the general direction, charg e, or responsibility of thecase be- fore the Commission ; that belonged to Mr. Peachy. Ques. 120 — Can you give no explanation why u Exhibit A" to the petition filed as the exhibit of claimants' title, is not a copy of the pa- 353 per which you have just said was the expediente of the claimants' title, but an entirely different paper ? Ans. 120 — I did not know that there was any difference between the contents of " Exhibit A " and the expediente referred to, until after the case was appealed to this Court ; at any rate I do not recollect of having heard of a difference, or to have examined the papers before the case came to this Court. I was not in California when the expediente referred to was produced and proved in the Commission. Ques. 121 — What is the endorsement on " Exhibit A, " as now on file, being the paper produced by claimants, and put on file in pursu- ance of the stipulation thereon endorsed, to supply the place of the " Exhibit A," which has been lost from the record, being the Spanish, of which " B " in the transcript from the Board of Commissioners, is the translation ? Ans. 121. — The endorsement on first page of traced copy of" Ex- hibit A.," as referred to in the question, is as follows : " Ano de 1845. " Expediente del denuncio posesion y compaiiia de la mina de azo- gue nombrada Santa Clara Jurisdicion de San Jose Guadalupe en la Alta California." Ques. 122. — What was the endorsement on the paper which you found in Belden's office ? Ans. 122. — The endorsement on the first page of the paper here produced by Mr. Houghton, and which I believe to be the same which I found in Mr. Belden's office, is : " Posesion de la Mina de Sta Clara. " Ano de 1845." Ques. 123. — Do you know the hand writing of both of those endorse- ments ? Ans. 123. — I do not know the hand writing of the endorsement on the last named paper ; the ondorsement on the first named paper I be- lieve to be in the hand writing of James Alexander Forbes. Ques. 124. — Do you know the hand writing of the body of the last named paper, throughout, down to the signature of James W. Weekes ; if so, whose is it ? Ans. 124. — I believe the original, of which this last named paper is a traced copy, is all in the hand writing of James Alexander Forbes, to the signature of James W. Weekes. Ques. 125. — What is the first document in the paper which you 354 found in Belden's office ; what does it purport to be ; by whom signed ; what the marginal order in effect, and by whom signed ? Ans. 125. — It is a petition to the Alcalde of San Jose, purporting to be signed by Jose Castro, with an endorsement on the margin, pur- porting to be signed by Pacheco. The petition is dated June 27, 1846, and the marginal endorsement is dated, I think, June 29, 1846. Ques. 126. — Does that document, being the said petition and mar- ginal order, exist in the exhibit of the expediente of your title, filed with the petition ? Ans. 126. — It does not appear in the traced copy of the document " Exhibit A.," being the same produced and filed under stipulation aforesaid. Ques. 127. — What is the next document appearing in the paper which you found in Mr. Belden's office ? Ans. 127. — The next paper in the document produced by Mr. Houghton, and which I believe to be the same which I found in Mr. Belden's office, purports to be a petition from Andres Castillero to the Alcalde, dated November 22d, 1845. Ques. 128. — At what place ? Ans. 128. — At the Mission of Santa Clara. Ques. 129. — Is not the first paper in " Exhibit A.," produced as aforesaid, the same petition of Castillero ? Ans. 129. — It purports to be a copy of the same paper, down to the name Andres Castillero. Ques. 130. — At what place is it dated ? Ans. 130. — It is dated the Pueblo of San Jose* Guadalupe, Novem- ber 22d, 1845. Ques. 131. — After the signature of Andres Castillero, what follows next ? Ans. 131. — The words, " Es copia a la que me remito firmando la con dos testigos de asistencia en el pueblo de San Jose Guadalupe a 13 de Enero de 1846 — Pedro Chabolla=de asistencia P. Sainsevain de as a Jose Sunol." Ques. 132. — Are those words to be found in the document which you found in Belden's office ? ' Ans. 132. — I do not find them on that document. Ques. 133. —What is the next paper in" Exhibit A.," and the doc- ument from Belden's office, respectively ? Ans. 133. — The next paper in the latter purports to be a petition to the Alcalde, dated Santa Clara December 3d, 1845, and signed An- dres Castillero. The next paper in the first named document purports to be a copy of the same paper. Ques. 134. — In " Exhibit A." what follows next after the words Andres Castillero ? Ans. 134. — The words " Es copia a la que remito firmando la con 355 los testigos de mi asistencia en el Pueblo de San Jose* Guadalupe a 13 de Enero de 1846 — Pedro Chabolla=de as a P Sainsevain de as a . Josd Sunol." Ques. 135. — Are those words found in the document from Belden's office ? Ans. 135. — I do not so find them. Ques. 136. — What is the next paper in" Exhibit A.," and the doc- ment from Belden's office, respectively ? Ans. 136. — The next paper in both purports to be the juridical pos- session of the mine of Santa Clara by Antonio Maria Pico, dated, in the former, December 30th, 1845, and in the latter, December 1845. Each of them have "-de as a Antonio Sunol, de as a Jose' Noriega.' ' Ques. 137. — Then the act of juridical possession is not dated of any day, but only the month of December, 1845, as that act appears in the document from Belden's office ? Ans. 137. — It so appears in that document. Ques. 138. — And in " Exhibit A." the same act is dated the 30th day of that December ? Ans. 138. — It is so. Ques. 139. — In " Exhibit A." what follows next after the words, " Antonio Maria Pico, de as a Antonio Sunol, de as a Job6 Noriega ? " Ans. 139. — The words, " He recibido del Sr D Andres Castillero la cantidad de veinte y cinco pesos por cuenta de los derechos de po- con 25 sesion de la Mina de Azogue que esta en esta Jurisdicion de mi carga nombrada de Santa Clara Jusgado de San Jose* Guadalupe, Decembre 30 de 1845. Antonio Ma Pico." Ques. 140. — Are those words found in the document from Belden's office ? Ans. 140. — They are not. Ques. 141. — What paper comes next in " Exhibit A. ? " Ans. 141. — A paper purporting to be a copy of articles of partner- ship between Andres Castillero, Jose Castro, Secundino Robles, Teodoro RobleS, and Jose Maria del Refugio Suares del Real, in a mine of sil- ver, gold, and quicksilver, for working the mine. This paper bears date, Mission of Santa Clara, 2d November, 1845, and the copy to have been made atSanta Clara, December 8th, 1845, &c. Ques. 142. — Is that paper to be found in the document from Bel- den's office ? Ans. 142. — It is not. Ques. 143. — The papers you have examined in " Exhibit A.," and in the document from Belden's office, constitute the whole of that ex- hibit, and that document, with the exception of sundry endorsements, and of sundry certificates attached to " Exhibit A.," do they not. Ans. 143. — They do. I have not compared them with each other, 356 with respect to the contents of each paper, but they purport to be as I have mentioned. Ques. 144. — Of " Exhibit A.," and of the document from Belden's office, how much was put in proof before the Land Commissioners ? Was it any more than the first and second petitions of Castillero, and the act of juridical possession, dated without day, in December, 1845, as the said petitions and act of juridical possession appear in the docu- ment from Belden's office, omitting all else contained in " Exhibit A." or in the document from Belden's office ? To answer this question you may examine the transcript from the Land Commissioners, and I refer you to the depositions of Antonio Sunol and Frank Lewis, with the exhibits thereunto attached. (Question objected to as not being proper on the cross-examination.) Ans. 144. — I was not in California when the testimony referred to was taken, and I do not remember even to have examined the testimo- ny and papers referred to in the archives of the Land Commission ; the papers themselves referred to in the question will afford the an- swer. Ques. 145. — After the letters which you had written to Mexico, to Mr. De La Torre, or others, requesting them to send you the original denouncement of the Mine of New Almaden, and the juridical posses- sion given of the same in the year 1845, as you alleged in your affida- vit, filed in the District Court of the third Judicial District, December the 23d, 1850, in the suit then pending therein, between Maria Ber- nal de Berreyesa et als. vs. James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, concerning which affidavit you have been herein before questioned, did you write other letters of the same purport to Mr. De La Torre, or to other persons interested in tne mine ? Ans. 145. — I probably did ; but as my letters relating to matters connected with the titles to New Almaden, were written on memoran- da, or transmitting memoranda furnished by Mr. Peachy, as counsel for the mine, I did not very particularly charge my mind with the matter, and do not now remember what was written, or when. Ques. 146. — Then you are entirely uncertain whether you ever wrote any more such letters, or whether you ceased to write them af- ter the discovery in Belden's office ? Ans. 146. — I frequently wrote to the parties in Mexico respecting the operations of working the mine, and sometimes inserted in my let- ters the substance of memoranda furnished by Mr. Peachy, or trans- mitted them, in relation to the titles. I am very certain of having written after the time mentioned with respect to the titles, but 1 cannot now remember when or what I wrote. Ques. 147. — Have you no more specific recollection of the nature of 357 your correspondence on the subject of the papers you had written for, when you made your affidavit, or on the subject of the important dis- covery which you had made in Mr. Belden's office ? Ans. 147. — Perhaps I might remember more particular circumstan- ces if the questions were more specific, or if any particular matter were now brought to my mind. I think about 1851 I ceased corres- ponding with Mr. De La Torre, with respect to these matters, and I believe most of the correspondence with respect to titles or title papers was carried on through Mr. Wm. E. Barron, and the house of Barron, Forbes & Co., in Mexico, by Mr. Peachy. Ques. 148. — The specific question which I desire to ask, and the particular matter to which I would call your attention is, whether you did or did not continue to write to persons in Mexico letters of a like purport with those referred to in your affidavit aforesaid, after the date of that affidavit, and after the discovery of the document in the office of Belden ? Ans. 148. — I do not now remember that I afterwards wrote with respect to the particular matter or papers referred to. Ques. 149. — After your correspondence ceased with Mr. De La Tor- re, on the subject of the titles of the mine, did you enter into corres- pondence with any other of the parties interested in the mine on that subject ? Ans. 149. — I did not, except as incidentally in my correspondence, as connected with my own particular duties in working the mine. By incidentally, I mean in the manner I have before stated. Ques. 150. — Were you not cognizant of the nature of the corres- dence conducted by Mr. Peachy and Mr. Wm. E. Barron, with the house of Barron, Forbes & Co., as you have mentioned, on the subject of the title to this mine ? Ans. 150. — I was, generally, when in San Francisco. Ques. 151. — Did they continue to write letters of the purport of those referred to in your affidavit of December 23d, 1850. Ans. 151. — My recollection now is that no answers to the letters referred to in that affidavit were for a long time received, and it being supposed that the letters were miscarried or lost, other letters of the same purport were sent via New York, on account of the difficulties or disturbances on the western coast of Mexico. Ques. 152. — When and by whom were these other letters written ? Ans. 152. — I do not remember the time, but my recollection now is that such other letters were sent by Mr. Wm. E. Barron, or that I was so informed at the time. Ques. 153. — Were the letters sent by Mr. Barron before the date of your affidavit, or between that and the discovery of the document in Belden's office, or after that discovery ; were they of the letters writ- ten by you, or of those written by Mr. Peachy and Mr. Barron, after you had left the correspondence to them ? 358 Ans. 153. — I do not remember with respect to the time, nor do I remember to have written at that period, or near that period, to any one in Mexico with respect to the titles of the mine, other than to Mr. De La Torre, or, in the incidental way I have mentioned, in my reports to Barron, Forbes & Co. of the operations in working the mine. Ques. 154. — The letters which you supposed miscarried were re- ceived were they not, as you afterwards had reason to believe ? Ans. 154. — I do not remember ; documents connected with the title papers were afterwards received by Mr. William E. Barron, but whether in answer to the first or subsequent letters I do not remem- ber. I think that the documents received by him were in his posses- sion a long time before I read or examined them. Ques. 155. — As you had written for certain documents, and were so much connected at that time particularly w T ith the mine and its in- terests, was it not strange that Mr. Barron should receive documents, and keep them a long time without showing them to you, and espe- cially as you had filed an affidavit in so important a suit, declaring that you were expecting to receive documents, and implying a promise to produce them in Court ? Ans. 155. — He very probably informed me at the time of his hav- ing received the documents, and probably showed them to me, but I do not remember of examing them particularly at that time. Between the time that I translated the papers which were here in 1850 and 1851, and the time I translated papers to be filed in the Land Com- mission, I do not remember of particularly examining the papers in Mr. Barron's possession. As Mr. Peachy had charge of the litiga- tions pending, I may have read or translated for him some particular papers ; not charging my mind with it I do not remember. Ques. 156. — You have testified that you suppose that in your affi- davit, you must have referred to a duplicate original which you sup- pose must have been in Mexico, and which you regarded as the true title paper of the denouncement and juridical possession ; does it not seem to you strange that you should now be so entirely uncertain whether you continued to write for it or not, whether Mr. Peachy con- tinued to write for it or not, that you did not think it of sufficient im- portance to examine the papers received by Mr. Barron from the house of Barron, Forbes & Co., in order to ascertain whether it was among those papers or not, and yet your affidavit was on file in which you had entered under obligations to produce it if possible In the suit then pending in that Court, (the Third District Court of California,) and which suit continued pending for more than a year thereafter in the same Court, when it was transferred to the United States District Court, and in view that the orignal title paper has continued of the same importance and necessity to the interests of the claimants of the mine from December, 1850 up to the present day ? 359 Ans. 156. — The affidavit referred to was drawn up, to the best of my recollection, by Mr. Peachy, and sworn to by me because I was then frequently in San Jose. The matters sworn to were undoubtedly within my own knowledge, but not being the person charged with these matters I cannot now remember particularly what papers are referred to, or what papers I afterwards saw relating to the subject. It is by no means strange that I do not now remember circumstances with which I would not have been likely at the time to charge my mind. Ques. 147. — I do not well understand how this affidavit and the cir- cumstances connected with it, before and after, are matters with which you would not be likely to charge your mind. Will you ex- plain ? Ans. 157. — I do not see anything in this question requiring an an- swer. Ques. 158. — Was the affidavit to which I referred — I mean your affidavit of the 23d of December, 1850 — prepared in San Francisco, or in San Jose ? was it in your handwriting, or in that of some one else, to the best of your recollection ? To the best of my recollection it was prepared by Mr. Peachy in San Francisco ; if in my handwriting, it was copied by me from his draft. I think Mr. Peachy drew every paper connected with this lit- igation then pending. I am quite certain that I never prepared any one of the papers, although I may have copied some. Ques. 159. — When you carried the document from Belden's office to the County Recorder's office, did you leave it there ? Ans. 159.— I did, or Mr. Belden left it. Qus. 160. — When was the next time that you saw that document ? Ans. 160. — I have no recollection of seeing it afterwards until it was produced by Mr. Houghton in the Circuit Court, U. S., in this place, about a year ago, and then did not particularly examine it. Ques. 161. — Who was Governor of California in April 1848 ? Ans. 171. — Colonel Richard B. Mason. Ques. 162. — Where were you at that time ? Ans. 162. — To the best of my recollection I was on the coast of Lower California, or at Mazatlan, about the first of April, 1848. I arrived at Monterey some time during the month of April, 1848, or the first part of May, 1848. Ques. 163. — Were you not in Monterey in 1847 ? Ans. 163. — I was, part of the year. Ques. 164.— What time in 1847 ? Ans. 164. — From some time in January, to about October, the greater portion of the time. Adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday, November 3d, 1857, at 11 A. M. 360 San Francisco, November 3d, 1858, at 11 A. M. Cross Examination of H. W. Halleck, a Witness produced on BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT. Present : — The U. S. District Attorney, by A, P. Crittenden ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Ques. 165. — Who was Secretary of State for California in 1848. Ans. 165. — I was. Ques. 166. — At what time were you appointed Secretary of State, and how long did you hold the office ? Ans. 154. — I was appointed in 1847, in the summer. I think my commission dated in August. I acted as such some weeks before the commission was made, and continued to hold the office till the latter part of December, 1849. Ques. 167. 8- When did you first learn of the existence of the mine now called New Almaden ? Ans. 167. — I think in the month of March, 1847 ; I very likely may have heard of it before, but this was the first time I now recollect of hearing it talked about. Ques. 168. — From whom did you hear of it at that time, and what circumstances particularly brought it to your notice ? Ans. 168. — On the road between San Luis Obispo and Santa Bar- bara, I met Mr. Robert Walkinshaw, who told me he had landed at Santa Barbara, and was on his way to New Almaden to take charge of the quicksilver mine ; that a vessel with tools, &c, for working it was on its way to Monterey, or was expected at that place. I remem- ber the fact from his giving me some information connected with the war in Mexico, and he said he had dispatches for the Commodore of the American squadron. Ques. 169. — For whom was he going to take possession of the mine? Ans. 169. — I do not remember that he mentioned, or the particu- lars of his conversation. My impression is he said he was going as agent or superintendent. Ques. 170. — Did he not say as agent or superintendent for whom, or have you not since learned ? Have you not learned who sent the agent, or the vessel with tools ? Ans. 170. — I do not remember that he mentioned at that time for whom he was going as agent. I think I did soon afterwards learn, at Monterey, from him or from Mr. Alden, that they were acting for par- ties in Mexico, among whom I think were mentioned Castillero, Alex- ander Forbes, or the house of Barron, Forbes & Co. Ques. 171. — Who had charge of the mine as agent, or as superin- 361 tendent, in the year 1847, to the best of your information, knowledge and belief ? Ans. 171. — To the best of my information and belief, Mr. Robert Walkinshaw ; I do not remember that I had any positive knowledge of the matter. I do not think I was at the mine during that year. Ques. 172. — But you entertain in your own mind no doubt of the fact that he was ? Ans. 172.- I remember that Mr. Alexander Forbes was in Monte- rey about September, 1847, on his way to the Quicksilver mine. When he left California I do not know as I was absent from this part of the country in the latter part of 1847 and the forepart of 1848. He may have taken charge of the mine while he was in this country. Ques. 173. — Otherwise you have no doubt that during that time Mr. Walkinshaw was in charge. Ans. 173. — Perhaps James Alexander Forbes may have been in charge some portion of that time ; not knowing I cannot say as to the fact. Where one of the two persons mentioned were not in charge, I have no doubt that Mr. Walkinshaw was in charge. Ques. 174. — Is Mr. Walkinshaw the same person whom you have mentioned as one of the owners of the mine ? Ans. 174. — He is. Ques. 175. — Will you take the book now handed to you, entitled " California Message and Correspondence, 1850," and look at the let- ter in document 17, page 551, of said book, and state briefly what it is, from whom, to whom, apparently upon what subject &c? Ans. 175. — It is a letter dated Monterey, April 17th, 1849, signed by R. B. Mason, Col. 1st Dragoons, Commanding, and is directed to Charles White, Alcalde, Pueblo de San Jose, and purports to be an answer to a letter from the latter, and to have reference to the de- nouncement of some mine. Ques. 176. — Look under the 553d page and give me the words of the last paragraph ending on the 554th page. Ans. 176 — The words are : " The mining laws give to the de- " nouncer of a new vein in a ' known mountain,' that is a mountain " known to contain the named mineral, ' two appurtenances ;' and to " those who work in company, four new appurtenances — an appur- " tenance being 200 Spanish varas in length, and from 100 to 200 " varas in breadth, according to the dip or inclination of the vein. " This denouncement of the 17th of December being a new vein, if " any, in mountains known to contain quicksilver ore, entitled the par- " ty to but two appurtenances ; but working in company entitled them " to i four new appurtenances,' making six in all, (though it is said by " Mr. Walkinshaw, a practical miner of great experience and intelli- " gence, that in Mexico the law is so construed, and such the invaria- " ble practice there, that a company is only entitled to four appurte- 362 " nances in all.) Now, an appurtenance being two hundred varas long, " and its greatest width under the most favorable circumstances, two " hundred varas wide, it follows that six appurtenances cannot contain " more than 240,000 square varas. The magistrate put the party in " possession on the 2d of February of a given space of land, including " the hole they had dug, measuring, if I remember rightly your read- u ing from your record when I was at the Pueblo on the 12th, 600 " varas one way by 800 varas the other, making the area to contain " 480,000 square varas — -just 240,000 square varas more than he was " authorized by law to put them in possession of, even supposing that " they had fulfilled all the requirements of the law to entitle them to " possession. The possession given on the 27th of February was there- " fore illegal, the magistrate greatly exceeding his judicial powers. " The judicial acts of a magistrate can only confer rights on one party, " or take them from another, so long as he confines himself within the " limits of the law has assigned to him. As soon as he steps beyond those " limits his judicial acts are at once stripped of all binding force and " effect, and have no more legal force than if performed by any other " individual." Ques. 177. — Is not the Mr. Walkinshaw mentioned in that para- graph, the same of whom you have spoken in this examination ? Ans. 177. — I presume he is, but I do not know, as I was not in Upper California at the time this letter bears date, and I know noth- ing of my own knowledge as to what Walkinshaw the letter alludes. Ques. 178. — You have no reason to doubt that he is the same per- son Ans. 178.— I have known no other Mr. Walkinshaw in California, and therefore presume he must be the one alluded to. Ques. 179. — What is the extent of the juridical possession alleged in this case to have been given to the claimant in 1845 ? Ans. 179. — To the best of my recollection, it is 3,000 varas in all directions. Ques. 180. — Do not such words of description in Spanish grants or official concessions, when applied to land, signify a square on the double of the distance given ? Do you not understand the words in this case to mean the square of 6,000 varas ? Ans. 180. — I have so understood the words used. I must remark, however, that others to whom I have submitted the words for inter- pretation think they mean a circle. Ques. 181. — If they mean a square, would it not contain exactly 900 appurtenances, or pertenencias, each of 200 Castillian varas square ? If they mean a circle, would it not contain more than 700 appurtenances of the said description ? Ans. 181. — I have not made the calculation alluded to in the ques- tion, and therefore cannot answer it. Ques. 182. — A square of 6,000 varas contains 36,000,000 square 363 varas. A pertenencia or appurtenance 200 varas square contains exactly 40,000 square varas. Are not 40,000 contained exactly 900 times in 36,000,000 ? Ans. 182. — I have not made the calculation, but presume the coun- sel is a sufficiently good mathematician to divide one quantity by another, and to deduce a correct result, provided the quantities are not too large. • Ques. 183. — Your last answer is doubtless very good wit, and you have a right to make it ; will you now explain, if you can, how, in 1848, Mr. Robert Walkinshaw, an owner in the mine, Superintendent and Agent in possession, as this case alleges, of the enormous quantity of 900 pertenencias or appurtenances, should say to Col. Mason, u that in Mexico the law is so construed, and such the invariable practice there that a company is only entitled to 4 appurtenances in all ?" Ans. 183. — I do not know what Mr. Walkinshaw told Col. Mason in 1848, nor is it my business as a witness to reconcile any contradic- tions of Mr. Walkinshaw's assertions and conduct. Ques. 184. — As Secretary of State, did not your duties relate to the civil branch of the Government ? Did you, or did you not, have charge of the public Archives of the Government in Monterey ? Ans. 184. — They did. And I had such charge when in Monterey. Ques. 185. — You of course regarded the charge of the public ar- chives as a responsible trust, and kept them safely, did you not ? Ans. 185. — I did so regard them, and did so endeavor to keep them safely. Ques. 186. — Under no circumstances would you permit any person to carry away any of the papers constituting these archives, or to add new papers to them ; — did you ? Ans. 186. — Under no circumstances did I allow any one, except the Clerk in my office, to have access to the Archives, while I was in charge, (with the exception I will add of Wm. Carey Jones, and his Clerk, Bayard Taylor, in 1849, and then only by the order of Gov. Keilly, under some instructions from the Government at Washington.) I never allowed any person to move a document from the archives or to deposit one in the archives without endorsing upon it the date of filing and by whom deposited. Ques. 187. — The Clerk or Clerks whom you had employed in care of the archives in 1847 were honorable men and observed the same rule which you followed yourself, to the best of your knowledge and belief ? Is it not so ? Ans. 187. — They were, and did. Ques. 188. — When Mr. Alexander Forbes arrived in Monterey in the year 1847, did he lodge any document among the public ar- chives ? Ans. 188. — None, to my knowledge. 364 Ques. 189. — From the rules of your office and the character of your employees, as you have stated, have you any idea, even the least, that he did lodge in the public archives any document ? Ans. 189. — I have no recollection of ever seeing any document lodged by him, nor have I any knowledge that any was ever so lodged. My recollection is, that I left Upper California soon after his arrival at Monterey. Ques 190. — From anything which happened at the time of his ar- rival, and before your departure, or which came to your knowledge after you returned from the lower country, and resumed your duties aad the charge of the papers, have you any knowledge or belief whatever that Mr. Alexander Forbes did, when in California, lodge any document among the public archives at Monterey ? Ans. 190. — I have no knowledge that he did, and have no reason for believing that he did. My recollectien now is, that he called upon the Governor and the Commodore of the Squadron in Monterey, and exhibited to them some papers connected with the mine, or the use to be made at the mine of the contents of a cargo of a small vessel which had arrived at Monterey, and which was either seized or in- tended to be seized as Mexican property. I have no recollection of seeing the papers, or what was done about the cargo or the vessel. I think this was about the time I left for the lower coast. I am quite certain that I was not called in consultation in the matter, or I should now recollect more particularly. Ques. 191. — This Mr. Alexander Forbes was the senior partner of the house of Barron, Forbes & Co., of Tepic, was he not ? Ans. 191. — He was a partner of that house, but whether the sen- ior or not, I do not know. Ques. 192. — Does that house still exist? Has it always been reputed a very wealthy house ? Ans. 192. — The house of Barron, Forbes & Company still exists, but I believe Mr. Alexander Forbes ceased to be a member of it some years ago. It is reputed to be wealthy. Ques. 193. — When you became acquainted with Alexander Forbes was he not then a very old man ; and do you know whether he was alive or dead at the date of the last news concerning him ? Ans. 193. — When I first saw him in Monterey in the summer of 1847, he was quite an old man. I have never seen him since that period. I believe he is still living. Ques. 194.— Where ? Ans. 194. — I think somewhere in England. I am under the im- pression that he is now living with his brother, Dr. John Forbes, in the city of London. Ques. 195. — Did you ever see Andres Castillero, the claimant ? Ans. 195. — I never did to my knoAvledge. 365 Ques 196. — Did you ever correspond with him ? Ans. 196. — I have no recollection of ever writing to him, or of receiving a letter from him. Ques. 197. — Did the firm of Halleck, Peachy & Billings ever cor- respond with him ? Ans. 197. — Not to my knowledge or present recollection. Ques. 198. — You have not mentioned him as one of the owners or lessees of this mine. Does he, or not, still hold any interest in the mine ? If he has parted with his interest, when, and to whom ? Ans. 198. — I understand that he was the original lessor, and that he afterwards sold out the part or the whole of his interest in the mine. I do not know the particular times when, or the inwaediate persons to whom he sold. % Ques. 199. — Have you not good reason to believe, and long enter- tained the belief that he had sold all his interest to Alexander Forbes, or Barron, Forbes & Co., or others of whom you have mentioned as the owners of this mine, and before the year 1849 ? Ans. 199. — I have no positive knowledge that he did or did not, and I think that he had not at that time disposed of all his interest in the mine. Ques. 200.— Had he not before 1850 ? Ans. 200. — I think that he had either before or in the early part of 1850, but I do not know that he had legally conveyed it all away, nor whether he did not still have some interest in it or its produce. Ques. 201. — At or before what time do you believe he had legally conveyed away his interest ? Ans. 201. — Some time during the last year — 1856. (Numbers skipped to 206.) Ques. 206.— To whom ? Ans. 206. — A deed was made by him I think during last year to Frederick Billings, of San Francisco, conveying all his interest in New Almaden, as I understood, for the purpose of having Mr. Bill- ings' deed in the proper proportions to the parties who were then the equitable owners of such proportions, or interest. Ques. 207. — In your answer, No. 200 of cross-exsmination, you say, " I think that he (Castillero) had either before or iu the early part of 1850," sold all his interest, &c. Do you mean that the Deed to Mr. Billings was to carry out that sale ? Ans. 207. — I so understood it. Ques. 208. — Was the deed to Mr. Billings of all of his original interest, or of a portion only, and what portion ? Ans. 208. — My impression now is, that it was for all his original interest, or for what of that interest he then at the time of deeding 366 had, but I do not remember the wording of the deed. I do not re- member to have seen it since about the time it was received, or shortly afterwards. Ques. 209. — Why was not this claim presented in the name of the real parties in interest, instead of that of Andres Castillero, who so early as the beginning of 1850 had sold out all his interest? Ans. 209. — My recollection now is, that Mr. Peachy advised its presentation in the name of Castillero, for the reason that he had no proper deraignment of title to all the parties then supposed or believed to be the parties in interest ; and because he did not know what, if any, Castillero retained. Ques. 210. — Would* it not have answered as well to present the claim in the name of parties without deraignment of title, as in the name of a party who had sold out all his interest. Ans. 210. — My recollection is, that the Board of Commissioners required a complete deraignment of legal title from an original gran- tee to the claimant in whose name the claim was presented, but that parties in interest under an original title or grant could present it in the name of such grantee ; such was my understanding of the practice in the Board of Commissioners. Ques. 211 — Is not Andres Castillero a Mexican citizen ? And which of the persons whom you have named as owners of the mine are Mexican citizens ? and please state the nationality of each of the persons for whose benefit this claim is now prosecuted ? Ans. 211. — I do not know who were or who were not, of the per- sons named, Mexican citizens. My impression is, that Mr. Parrott (John,) and Mr. James R. Bolton, are Americans by birth ; that Mr. Wm. E. Barron was born in Spain ; Mr. James A. Forbes was an Eng- lishman by birth, and a Mexican by naturalization ; that Mr. Walkin- shaw was British by birth, and I think that I have heard that he was a naturalized Mexican. Mr. Martinez speaks the Spanish language, but I do not know whether or not he was born in Mexico. Mr. Escan- don, I believe, is a Mexican by birth, and also Mr. E. W. Barron. Mr. E. Barron, I think, is British by birth, and I suppose Mexican by naturalization, as I have seen his name as one of the Committee on Colonization of the Mexican Government or Congress, but I have no knowledge whether he was so or not. Mr. Wm. Forbes, I think, is British by birth, but whether a naturalized Mexican or not, I do not know. I have never seen him but once, and then but a moment in the road ; I judge him to be British by birth. Ques. 212. — Please look at the affidavit which you made in open Court on the 8th April, 1851, in the 3d Judicial District Court, for the purpose of obtaining a removal of a cause then pending between Berreyesa, et als, and De La Torre, et als, to the U. S. District Court, as the same appears in a certified transcript of the said cause from 367 the said Court, now on file in this case, and say whether your last an- swer corresponds with this affidavit. Ans. 212. — It is stated in that affidavit that Mr. James A. Forbes was a subject of Great Britain. He so claimed to be at that time, and I believe has been decided so to be by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, in and for the Northern District, notwithstanding that he was a naturalized citizen of Mexico, and resid- ed in California at the date of the Treaty. What information I had at that time as to the then citizenship of Mr. E. Barron, I do not now remember. My reason for thinking now that he must have been a naturalized citizen of Mexico, is the fact of his holding office under that Government. Ques. 213. — Upon the affidavit to which I have referred you, stating the nationality of James A. Forbes, amongst others, was not the suit of Berreyesa et als, removed from the State Courts to the United States Court ? Ans. 213. — My recollection now is, that the case was removed on stipulation, and after the affidavit. Ques. 214. — When James A. Forbes was held by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California, in and for the North- ern District, was it not on a plea in abatement to a suit brought by the same Berreyesa' s or some of them, in which James A. Forbes alleged that he was a citizen of the United States ? Ans. 214. — I think it was. And I think that Mr. Forbes at that time had changed the opinion which he held in 1851, as to the effect of the Mexican Treaty. I remember very distinctly that in 1851, he claimed to be a British subject, and said that he did not intend for the present, or until his land titles were settled, to become an American citizen ; and that I never knew or heard that he had been naturalized as a Mexican until about the time of the proceeding in the United States Circuit Court referred to. Ques. 215. — Have you visited the Republic of Mexico at any time since filing the petition in this cause ? Ans. 215. — I passed through the Republic of Mexico from San Bias to Vera Cruz on my journey from San Francisco to New York nearly three years ago, and at no other time. Ques. 216. — On what clay did you leave San Francisco ? Did you go by a sailing vessel, or by steamer ? When did you arrive at San Bias ? Ans. 216. — In January, 1855, I left San Francisco, near the first of the month. I went down to San Bias in a sailing vessel ; it took me about twenty days to make the passage. I arrived at San Bias after a passage of about twenty days. Ques. 217. — In San Bias did you see any of the owners, or lessees of this mine ; if so, which ? Ans. 217. — I did not. 338 Ques. 218. — Did you see none of the house of Barron, Forbes & Co.atTepic? Ans. 218.— I did not. Ques. 219. — Did you see any of the owners or lessees of the mine any where in the Republic of Mexico ? Ans. 219.— I did. Ques. 220. — Were none of the members of the house of Barron, Forbes & Co., in Tepic when you were there ? Ans. 220. — None of them to my knowledge. Ques. 221. — Which of the owners or lessees of the mine did you see in the Republic of Mexico, and at what place did you see them ? Ans. 221. — I met Mr. Wm. Forbes and Mr. E. W. Barron in the road about half way between San Bias and Tepic. I saw Mr. Martinez in the City of Guadalaxara, and Mr. E. Barron in the City of Mexico. Ques. 222. — Did you see Mr. De La Torre ? Ans. 222. — I did, in the City of Mexico, and went with him to visit the mines of Pachuco and Real Del Monte. Ques. 223. — And none of these persons gave you the duplicate orig- inal of the denouncement and judicial possession, for which you sup- pose you must have written at the time when you made affidavit, (De- cember 23d, 1850,) and you asked none of them for it ; and which paper you have said you regarded as the true title paper of the par- ties interested ? Ans. 223. — I have no recollection of any conversation with the par- ties interested, whom I then saw, with respect to the title papers of the mine, except with Mr. E. Barron. I think the substance of the con- versation with him was to the effect, that he had dispatched to Califor- nia papers connected with the title to the mine, which must have reached here after I had left. I have no recollection of any conversa- tion with respect to the particular character or contents of the papers. Ques. 224. — When in Mexico did you see Jose Maria Lafragua, the distinguished Mexican politician and former Minister of Relations, who by the transcript from the Board of Land Commissioners would appear to have come to California and testified in this cause for the claimant ? Ans. 224.— I did not. Ques. 225. — Did you learn from any of the parties interested in this mine, where he was at that time ? Ans. 225.— I learned, I think, from Mr. E. Barron, that Mr. La- fragua was then in California, or had gone to California. Ques. 226. — Where did you learn that he went from ? Ans. 226. — My recollection is, that he went originally from the City of Mexico, and immediately from the city of New Orleans, to California. Ques. 227. — What was the occasion of his leaving the City of Mex- ico, with whom did he leave, or what other distinguished Mexican 369 chaarcters left about the same time, for the same cause, and when did he leave ? Ans. 227. — I do not know when, or with whom he left the City of Mexico. I understood that he came to California to give his testimony in this case. I do not remember to have heard anything said about the circumstances of his leaving the City of Mexico, or with whom or how he left, or at what time. Ques. 228. — Did you not learn from Mr. E. Barron in Mexico, that Mr. Lafragua left that city and the Republic for political reasons, and that Mr. Olaguibel and other distinguished persons of the same party, had left for the same cause, and about what time they left ? Ans. 228. — I have.no recollection of hearing anything of the kind in Mexico. And it is my impression that Mr. Lafragua did not leave for political reasons. The only thing I now remember to have heard touching that subject was, that Mr. Lafragua had made remarks in New Orleans about Santa Anna, and that the latter had given orders, or threatened to give orders to arrest him on his return from California. And I learned either there or subsequently, that on investigation, Santa Anna had found that the remarks were of no importance. I think he did not arrest him on his return from California. Ques. 229. — On what day did you reach the City of Mexico, and on what day did you leave ? Ans. 229. — I do not now remember the dates. I think I reached there between the 5th and 10th of Febuary, 1855, and left about the 18th of the same month ; during that interval I was absent from the City of Mexico a portion of the time visiting other places. Ques. 230. — When did you reach San Francisco on your return ? Ans. 230.— The latter part of May, 1855. Ques. 231. — Lafragua was not here then ? When did he arrive in California, as you may have since learned, and when did he leave ? Ans. 231. — As I have since learned, I think he arrived here soon after I left, but I do not know the dates. I think he remained hore but a jfew weeks. Ques. 232. — Did he go by a steamer to Acapulco, or by a sailing vessel to Mazatlan ; which vessel was despatched by Bolton & Bar- ron of this city ? Ans. 232. — I do not know how he left ; nor do I now remember to have heard on what kind of a vessel he left. If I have so heard, I have forgotten it, and my impression now is, that he went on a steamer to Acapulco, but I have no recollection of how I got that impression. Examination adjourned until to-morrow, Nov. 4th, 1857, at 11 o'- clock, A. M. 370 San Francisco, Nov. 4th, 1857. Cross-examination adjourned until to-morrow, Nov. 5th, 1857, at 11 o'clock, A. M. San Francisco, Nov. 5th, 1857. Cro3s-Examinaticn of II. W. Halleck, a witness produced on behalf of the claimant, continued. Present : The U. S. Attorney, by A. P. Crittenden ; A. C. Peachy for claimant. Ques. 233. — In your answer, No. 209, on your cross-examination, you say, that yon understand the reason why the claim in this case was presented in the name of Castillero, to be the difficulty of design- ing title to the parties in interest. Were not there any title deeds among all the documents relating to the title to the mine, brought to to this country by De La Torre, or since sent by the house of Barron, Forbes & Co. of Tepic, and which you may have at any time seen in the tin box, of which you have spoken, or elsewhere ? Ans. 233. — My recollection is, that the greater part, or all of the papers which I saw in the hands of De La Torre, were copies. But I cannot now distinguish between those which I then saw and those which I have subsequently seen. Some of them purported to be con- veyances, but if I remember aright, it was Mr. Peachy's opinion at the time, that they were not properly executed for the conveyance of real estate in California, and that no deraignment of legal title from Castillero to those claiming shares, or interest, in the mine, and lands, of New Almaden, could then be established. Ques. 234. — What was the nature of the defect which rendered them insufficient to convey real estate, and to deraign title to land ? Ans. 234. — My recollection now is, that the papers were not signed and acknowledged'as required by the laws of California, and that they did not state with sufficient definiteness the interest intended to be conveyed. There may have been other defects which I do not at this moment re- member. Ques. 235. — Wherein were they indefinite in describing the interest conveyed ? Ans. 235. — I do not now particularly remember. But I think that i some of them it was not stated whether the interest intended to be onveyed was in the mine and lands, or only in the mine, and that the iterest was not sufficiently described. Ques. 236. — Have not some of the conveyances to which you refer, 371 been made of record in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara county? Ans. 236. — I think they have ; but whether subsequent or prior to the filing of the petition in this case I do not remember. Ques. 287. — Can you name some of those deeds which have been put on record in Santa Clara county ? Ans. 237. — I remember none except from Jecker, Torre & Co., or from Mr. De La Torre to Mr. Barron, or to Barron, Forbes & Co., and those not of my own knowledge, so far as I can remember. Ques. 238. — Did not some of the persons who claimed an interest in this property at the time the claim was presented before the Land Commission, derive that from Jose Castro, Padre Real, Secundino Robles and Teodoro Robles, and not from Castillero ? Ans. 238. — I think they did derive title from the parties mentioned, but my impression is that such titles, or at least a part of them, were ratified and confirmed by Castillero. Ques. 239. — Under the Esdritura de CompaTiia given in evidence on the part of the claimant, had not Jose Castro, Padre Real, Secun- dino Robles and Teodoro Robles, an interest in the property jointly with the interest claimed by Castillero, and were they not competent themselves to convey the several interests which they claimed, and had they not conveyed those interests to other persons prior to the pre- sentation of this claim before the Board of Land Commissioners ? Ans. 239. — My impression is, that with the exception of Padre Real the parties named had an interest jointly with Castillero, but that the legal title was in the latter. That the parties named had conveyed away their interests, whatever they were, prior to the presentation of the petition. My impression now is, that Padre Real found that he could not hold an interest under the Mexican laws, and that he either sur- rendered his interest to Castillero, or that the parties to whom he con- veyed obtained new conveyances or confirmations from Castillero ; my recollection on this subject is not distinct. Ques: 240. — Do you mean to say that under that writing of part- nership, and according to the law in force at its date, the legal title to the whole property claimed by Castillero was in himself ? Ans. 240. — I did not mean to give an opinion of the Mexican law, or of the legal effect of that writing ; I meant merely to give what I had heard said about the time of presenting this petition, or subse- quently, with respect to the difficulty of deraigning legal title from Castillero to those then claiming interest. Ques. 241. — Do you know what " Andres Castillero, Capitan de Caballeria permanente," was doing in California in 1845, and when he arrived here, when he left here, and for what place he left ? Ans. 241. — I do not. (Cross Examination concluded.) 372 Examination in Chief Resumed. Ques. 1. — State by what means you remember your visit to Bel- den's office, spoken of in your examinatien in chief, and state fully all the particulars you remember about that visit and your going to the County Recorder's office with the document referred to. Ans. 1. — I remember the circumstances of going to his office to look for papers connected with New Almaden very distinctly, from the fact that it was the only time that I ever was in his office ; I remember it also from the circumstance that Mr. Belden, in looking over the documents, found some papers connected with some other mine which he said had been much enquired for, and which he was glad to find. I remember pretty distinctly that it was at the time I was staying at New Alma- den making translations of papers, and passing New Year's day at that place, the only one I passed there. I also remember that Mr. Greenhow was examining my translations in the office of Halleck, Peachy & Billings, at the corner of Commercial and Montgomery streets ; that they occupied those offices from about October or November, 1850, to April, 1851, or a very short time previous to the May fire of 1851. They moved at that time to Merchant siieet, where they were burnt out. Ques. 2. — Why do you suppose the document produced by Mr. Houghton to be the same that you saw k in Mr. Belden's office, and with him carried to the County Recorder's office ? • Ans. 2. — I think I have already stated, from the subject matter of the contents being the same, that the one I there saw purported to be originals of the denouncement and juridical possession, and that the one presented by Mr. Houghton purported also to be made up of origi- nal papers. Ques. 3. — You have stated in your cross examination that in the year 1855, you visited the Republic of Mexico ; state the object of your visit, and by whom your expenses were paid. Ans. 3. — My expenses were paid by myself; the object of my visit was to see the country, and more particularly the battle fields in the vicinity of Mexico ; and to examine the manner of working mines in Mexico. Ques. 4. — In Mexico, did you hear anything said of the character of Jose Maria Lafragua, the person of that name concerning whom you testified ? if yea, state what you learned of his public and private character, and from whom. (Question objected to, on the grounds, first, that it is not an inquiry as to the general reputation of the witness in the community where he lives and is known ; second, that it does not appear that the witness knows the general reputation of Lafragua ; third, that the United 373 States not having attacked the general reputation of Lafragua, evi- dence in support of it on the part of the claimants is inadmissible ; fourth, that no question was asked the witness upon the cross examina- tion in to the regard general reputation of Lafragua.) Ans. 4. — After learning, as I have stated in my cross examination, that Mr. Lafragua had gone to California as a witness in this case, I did make some enquiries with respect to his character, and I was told by all persons of whom I enquired that no person in Mexico was more highly respected, and that his character was above all reproach. I remember hearing him compared as a statesman, lawyer and a gentle- man, with Mr. J. J. Crittenden and Mr. J. M. Berrien, of the United States. I cannot now remember the names of all the persons with whom I conversed on that subject, but among others I think I remem- ber General Gadsden, the American Minister in Mexico, Mr. Black, the American Consul, Mr. De La Torre and Mr. Jecker, Gov. De La Vega, of Sinaloa, the British Minister in Mexico, Mr. Manuel Escan- don, and Mr. E. Barron. Ques. 5. — State, if you remember, when you first knew that Mr. James Alexander Forbes had been a naturalized Mexican, and if you know when Messrs. Peachy & Billings were first made aware of that fact. Ans. 5. — I never knew it or heard of it until the time when the plea in abatement was put in in the LTnited States Circuit Court in the case of Tobin vs. Walkinshaw, et als, something more than a year ago. I think Messrs. Peachy & Billings first learned it at that time, as they expressed great surprise that Mr. Forbes told them that he had been naturalized as a Mexican. Ques. 6. — State, if you please, what was the opinion of Messrs. Peachy & Billings, or either of them, of Mr. Forbes civil status, formed from their knowledge of his former Mexican citizenship, and upon the fact of his not having declared within a year after the date of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, his intention to remain a Mexican citi- zen, and upon not having removed his domicil from the State of Cali- fornia. Ans. 6. — I remember hearing Mr. Peachy tell Mr. Forbes that hav- ing been a naturalized Mexican, the treaty and the law made him an American citizen, and that he could not of his own free will, while re- maining here, resume his allegiance as a British subject, and that he (Mr. Peachy) must so plead for him in the case. Ques. 7. — How were the archives kept before you went to Lower California, as you testified on your cross examination, and how, after you came back, and what endorsements were made upon documents filed in the office while you had charge of the archives, and when were the archives moved to Benicia ? 374 Ans. 7. — Before I went to Lower California in 1847, the archives were kept in Gov. Mason's office, most of them in boxes in one corner of the room, and a portion which had been assorted by Mr. Hartnell w T ere in an open closet in the same room. Gov. Mason himself kept the key of the office. When I returned to Monterey in 1848, those assorted, and I believe all those suppose to relate to land titles, were in a desk made for that purpose, and locked, the key of which I kept from that time, unless absent for a few days from Monterey when it was given to the Governor. I do not remember that any individual deposited any paper in the archives before I left for Lower California, but all deposited subsequently to my return, I am quite certain, were endorsed in the manner I have stated in my cross-examination. These archives were turned over by me to Major Canby in Monterey in Feb- ruary, 1850, and a few months afterwards were by him removed to Be- nicia. Cross Examination Resumed. Ques. 1. — Are the " Mr. De La Torre, Mr. Jecker, Mr. Manuel Escandon and Mr. E. Barron," mentioned in your answer to question 4 of direct examination resumed, the same persons of those names whom you have mentioned on the cross examination as having been in- terested in the Almaden mine, and were they interested at that time ? Ans. 1. — Mr. De La Torre, and Mr. Jecker were the persons whom I have mentioned as having been, as I understood, interested in the mine ; only Mr. E. Barron, I believe, was interested at that time. Mr. Escandon, whom I have mentioned as being interested in the mine, I did not see in Mexico, and is not the person whom I have mentioned in the answer alluded to. Ques. 2. — Is the Mr. Frederick Billings, to whom the deed of Cas- tillero, which you have spoken of, was made, in 1856, the same Mr. Frederick Billings who is a member of your firm of Halleck, Peachy & Billings ? Ans. 2. — He is. (It Avas stipulated by the Counsel for the respective parties to this cause, on the examination, that this deposition is taken subject to all objections, except as to the forms of questions and answers.) The witness, before signing the deposition, wishes to correct a state- ment made by him in his cross examination with respect to the date of his return from Lower California in 1848 ; on reflection he thinks he returned in the latter part of May or the fore part of June, 1848, but can remember no circumstance by which to fix the date. H. W. HALLECK. 375 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th Nov., 1857. cutler McAllister, U. S. Com. Filed Nov. 20th, '57. JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk. DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN DAVIDSON. United States District Court, ) Northern District of California. \ San Francisco, November 28, 1857. On this day before the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California;, came Benjamin Davidson, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in case No. 366, on the docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present : The District Attorney and the counsel for claimant. Questions by the District Attorney. Question 1. — Have you produced the box, as required by the sub- poena duces tecum t Answer 1. — I have. Question 2. — From whom did you receive this bo"x ? ^Answer 2. — From Mr. Laurencel and James Alexander Forbes. It was deposited, subject to their joint order, with me for safe-keep- ing. It has so remained ever since. (Papers produced and handed to the clerk to be marked.) Cross-Examined. This box was deposited with me about six or eight months ago by Mr. Laurencel ; Mr. Forbes came with him, I believe ; I am not pos itive. It was distinctly understood that I was not to give it up excep on their joint order. This was the distinct understanding. The bo: hss been taken away once or twice on the written order of the parties 376 I cannot say when it was last taken away ; one order was in writing ; cannot say whether I can produce it. DEPOSITION OF HENRY LAURENCEL. Henry Laurence!, sworn on his voire dire. Question 1. — Have you any interest in defeating the claim of An- dres Castillero to the land in controversy in this cause ? Answer 1. — Yes, sir. Q. 2. — What is the nature of your interest ? A. 2. — I have an interest in the claim of Charles Fossat, and the whole claim is under my control. Q. 3. — What claim is that ? A. 3. — For a part of the Rancho de los Capitanciilos. Q. 4. — Under what grantee ? A. 4. — Under Justo Larios. Q. 5. — How .long have you had this interest ? A. 5. — Since August, 1854. Q. 6. — Did you have no interest before that time ? A. 6. — I had no interest, but was managing the claim of Fossat. Q. 7. — When did he acquire his interest? A. 7. — I believe his first mortgage was in March, 1851. His next interest was in January, 1852. I bought for him at sheriff's sale three undivided fourths of the Rancho. Q. 7. — Where does he live ? A. .7 — In the neighborhood of Oroville. Q. 8. — To whom was the Rancho granted ? A. 8. — To Justo Larios. Q. 9. — What portion of Fossat's interest do you hold ? A. 9. — I nold one-half of the interest purchased at sheriff's sale in 1852. Q. 10. — Who holds the remaining half? A. 10. — James Eldridge. Q. 11. — From whom did he acquire his interest ? A. 11. — From Charles Fossat, in March, 1854. q \2. — What did you give him ? A. 12. — A large amount of money ; the amount is my private business. Q. 13. — Do you know the mine of New Almaden ? A. 13.— I do. Q. 14. — Do you claim that that mine is on your land ? A. 14. — According to my best knowledge and belief it is so. 377 Q. 15. — You have then a pecuniary interest in defeating this claim ? A. 15. — I have. (Testimony objected to on ground of interest ; taken subject to ex- ception.) Witness Sworn in Chief. Q. 17. — Look at those papers, (papers produced from box) ; by whom are they owned ? A. 17. — By James Alex. Forbes and myself. Q. 18. — How did you acquire an interest in them ? A. 18. — By paying for them. Q. 18. — What amount did you pay ? A. 18. — I paid a large amount ; I decline to say the amount. Q. 19. — When did you purchase them and for what purpose ? A. 19. — I purchased them between November 1856, and March 1857, when I finally bought and paid for them. My knowledge of their contents induced me to purchase them. Q. 20. — Please examine the papers, and state in whose hand- wri- ting they severally are. A 20.— I know the hand-writing of that marked "F. No. 27." It is the hand-writing of James Alexander Forbes. I know it well. I have seen him write. The endorsement is written by myself. u F. No. 26," is also in his hand-writing ; the endorsement is also in his handwriting. "F. No. 25." is also in. his hand-writing ; also the en- dorsement. (It is admitted that the box containing the papers was deposited with B. Davidson, March 4, 1857. " F. No. 24." is in the hand-writing of James Alexander Forbes ; the whole of it. So are also " F. No. 23," " F. No. 22" and " F. No. 21." " F. No. 16," " F. No. 20," and « F. No. 12 ;" these I believe to be in the hand-writing of Mr. William E. Barron — but I am not very positive about it ; my only means of information is from the comparison of these papers with a private letter of my own from Mr. Barron. Q. 20. — Have you conversed with Mr. James Alexander Forbes as to the circumstances under which those letters were written ? (Question objected to. Question withdrawn.) 32 37S Cross Examination. Q. 21. — What did you pay Mr. Forbes for those papers ? A. 22. — I have already declined to answer that question. (The Court requires the witness to answer.) I paid Mr. Forbes, twenty thousand dollars for the interest that I was acquiring in depositing these papers, and the engagement on his part to go to Mexico, when I should request him to do so, and procure for me the proof of the fraud committed in this case, which he assured me he could procure. I was also to pay, if necessary, his traveling expenses. Q. 22, — Did you pay in cash ? A. 22. — I paid one half in cash, and gave security for the other half. It is now due. The contract was verbal. I gave him a pledge before witnesses that I would pay him the money. The witnesses were Mr. Randolph, Mr. Crittenden, and Mr. Gould. I promised him not to sell or hypothecate my interest in my Bancho without pay- ing him. Q. 23. — Why did you not put it in writing ? A. 23. — I did not wish to ; Mr. Forbes, I believe, was satisfied ; Mr. Eldridge was not a party to the contract at the time it was made ; he subsequently assented to it ; I paid Mr. Forbes one-half of the $20,000 some time in March, 1857 ; Mr. Eldridge was then in Phila- delphia ; he assented to my contract on his return in May, 1857 ; he paid one-half; the whole amount was charged to the debit of our Bancho. Q. 24. — What then did you mean by saying he adopted the con- tract, and paid you one-half? A. 24. — I never had mentioned this contract to him ; I made it on my sole responsibility ; I paid to Mr. Forbes this money for the joint use of those papers. Q. 25. — What did you mean by "joint use"? A. 25. — I understood that they were to be used by the joint consent of both ; I did not understand that 1 purchased the sole use of those papers ; the papers are used on this occasion without his consent. Q. 26. — Did you ask Mr. Forbes' consent to use them on this occa- wm ! A. 26. — I did ; he said he would consult counsel ; after consulting he refused Q. 27. — How long did it take you to drive this bargain \ A. 27. — The first contract was made with him about Chis:ma3 379 time ; it was nearly in the same terms as the last, except that the pa- pers were to remain in Mr. Forbes' possession. Q. 28. — How much did he ask for these papers ? A. 28. — I did not bargain any ; I gave him the price he asked. Q. 29.— Do you think Mr. Forbes will accept the last half of this money ? (Objected to— withdrawn.) Q. 30. — Where is Mr. James Eidridge ? A. 30. — I don't know ; he is at home, or in New York, Philadel- phia, or Washington. Q. 31. — Did yon read those papers before yon bought their use ? A. 31. — I did. I have not requested Mr. Forbes to go to Mexico. Q. 32. — Do you know what were Mr. Forbes* pecuniary circum- stances? A. 33. — I did not then know what they were at that time ; I first learned that Mr. Forbes was a bankrupt from Mr. Peachy's amination of him in the case of the United States ts. Charles at the time he gave that deposition I had already made an agreement with him touching these papers ; I received an interest in the Alma- den mine in payment of a claim I had against him ; this was in Au- gust. 1850 ; I have sold this interest. I hare stated that I promised Mr. Forbes not to sell or mortgage my interest in the Rancho de los Capitancillos without paying him ; that pledge, or promise, was made last night. I hare been active in procuring testimony and employing counsel to defeat this claim ; I consider that by defeating it I will add greatly to the value of my Rancho ; I consider that by defeating it I will remove a cloud upon my title. Direct Resumed. I sold the interest I acquired in the Almaden mine, early in 1851. C-~33. — When you sold it, had you any knowledge of these papers? A. 33. — I had never seen any papers relating to the New Almaden mine. The oral agreement for the payment of the last $10,000, was the same as that I have stated to have been made in the presence of Messrs. Crittenden, Randolph and Gould. Cross-Examtsattox Resumed. I endeavored to procure a compromise by means of these papers, with the Almaden Mining Company; it was through Mr. Hall McAllister. They were also exhibited to Mr. John Parrott for die same purpose. 380 Direct. I spoke to Mr. Hall McAllister, both before and after his employ- ment in this case, as a proper person to approach as representing the interest of his client ; openly and without concealment. I desire to say that in the first agreement with Mr. Forbes, he imposed upon me the obligations to make an offer for a compromise ; I then sought an interview with Mr. Hall McAllister, sometime in January, 1857. When Mr. Parrott saw the papers it was not at my instance ; the ans- wer I received from Mr. Hall McAllister on behalf of Mr. Parrott being, that if Mr. Forbes or myself had such documents they were fraudulent ; I then ceased all negociation on this subject. Mr. Parrott inspected these documents at his request, as I understood, to Mr. Crittenden. • Q. 34. — Did you take the advice of counsel as to the expediency of making a compromise ? A. 84. — I did not ; it was a peremptory condition of the first con- tract that I should make the offer of compromise through Mr. Hall McAllister. Cross-Examination. The first contract was in writing ; it was cancelled at the time I made the second contract. The second contract was in writing ; I have destroyed my counterpart ; it was in duplicate ; I destroyed it by the advice of counsel ; I did not preserve a copy of either ; I thought it would be inconsistent with the object with which I destroyed the papers. H. LAURENCEL. Sworn to before me, OGDEN HOFFMAN. DEPOSITION OF G. W. P. BISSELL. Question. — Are you acquainted with Alexander Forbes, of Tepic ? Answer. — I am : or was, a few years ago. I know the handwriting of Alexander Forbes, William Forbes and Eustace Barron. Q. — Look at " F. No. 1," and say in whose handwriting it is. A. — It is the signature and handwriting of Alexander Forbes. Letter marked " F. No. 2," is in the handwriting and is the signa- ture of Alexander Forbes. Letter marked "F. No. 3," is also in the handwriting and signature of Alexander Forbes. " F. N. 4," is handwriting and signature of the same. 381 " F. No. 5," is handwriting and signature of the same. " F. No. 6," is handwriting and signature of the same. " F. No. 7," is handwriting and signature of the same. " F. No. 8," is the handwriting and signature of the same. " F. No. 9," is handwriting and signature of the same. " F. No. 10," is handwriting and signature of the same. " F. No. 11," is the handwriting and signature of the same. " F. No. 12," is a press copy signed in the name of Barron, Forbes & Co. The signature is in the handwriting of William Forbes. " F. No. 13," is the handwriting and signature of Alexander Forbes. " F. No. 14," is the same. " F. No. 15," is the same. "F. No. 16," is signed by Barron, Forbes & Co.: my impression is that it is the signature of Eustace Barron, a. partner in the house. " F. No. 17," is handwriting and signature of Alexander Forbes. " F. No. 18.," is signature of Barron, Forbes & Co.; handwriting of Eustace Barron. "F. No 19," is handwriting and signature of Alexander Forbes. " F. No. 20," is signed by Barron, Forbes & Co.; the signature is that of Eustace Barron. "F. No. 21," is a Spanish document ; do not know the handwrit- ing : it appears to be a copy. The Alexander Forbes I have spoken of was a partner in the house of Barron, Forbes & Co. in 1846 — 1847. He retired from the firm I think in 1848. Mr. Eustace Barron was at the head of the house. Mr. Alexander Forbes resided in Tepic, in 1847 and 1848, up to the time he left the country, which I think was at the close of 1848. He has since resid- ed in London. I am not certain as to the time he left. Subsequent to the time he left, a son of Mr. Eustace Barron was taken into the house. During my residence at Tepic, Mr. Alexander Forbes made two voy- ages to California. The last was in 1847. He was absent about six months. He must have been in Mexico nearly two years after his re- turn from California. I saw James Alexander Forbes in San Bias, in 1847. He passed through on his way to Tepic. It might have been in 1849 ; if so, it was before June, 1849, for I left at that time. San Bias is the seaport of Tepic ; it is on the direct road to Tepic. I saw Mr. James Alexander Forbes both going to and coming from Tepic. Cross-Examined . In 1846 I was at Mazatlan. I was there in 1845. My impression is he stopped there on his way to California. I would not like to swear that he was here in 1845-6. I feel almost morally certain that he was. I am certain he was here in 1847. 382 [F. No. 1.— J. A. Monroe. [0. H. No. 16.] Tepic, 11th May, 1846. My Dear Sir : I wrote to you at great length on the 15th ult. by the Rev. Mr. Macnamara, who intends visiting California, and who proceeded to Mazatlan in order to procure a passage ; but he is still there, and there is every probability that he will go by the vessel which takes this. I need not repeat what I have already said, but it may not be amiss, in case of my letter not reaching you, to state that its object was to request of you to procure as correct information as you could respect- ing the quicksilver mine, or mines, lately said to be discovered in Cali- fornia, one of which you mention as being worked by Mr. Castillero. If quicksilver mines of value are discovered, it would be of immense in- terest for Mexico, as owing to the scarcity and high price of this arti- cle, the poorer silver mines of Mexico cannot be worked. I therefore beg to request your kind attention to this letter. I am, my dear sir, Your most obedient servant, ALEX. FORBES. (Addressed) James A. Forbes, Esq., British Vice Consul, California. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, May 11th, '46, rel. to quicksilver mine. No. 1. F. No. 2.— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 17. ] 2p September, 1846. My Dear Sir : I am much obliged to you for your offer to procure for me more information respecting the quicksilver mines, and I hope they may turn out to be of value. Anything certain which you may give me about them will be very interesting, as our mining establishments in this country must greatly be benefitted by the abundance of quicksilver, and which is now scarce and dear here. I understand Castaiiedo is still in Mexico. Does not one of these mines belong to him, or has he disposed of it ? I am, my dear sir, Yours very trulv, ALEX. FORBES. J. A. Forbes, Esq. 383 I received your power of attorney to James Murray, Esq., and for- warded it by last packet. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, Sept. 2d, '46, rel. to Quicksilver Mine, No. 2. (In pencil.) A. Forbes, Private, 1st and 2d Sept. 1846. F. No. 3.— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 18. ] Tepic, 7th January, 1847. James A. Forbes, Esq., California, My Dear Sir : I had the pleasure to receive your very obliging letter of the 29th of October last, which chiefly relates to the mine of quicksilver about which I wrote you at so much length by Mr. Macnamara. I had pre- vious to the receipt of your letter been in treaty with D. Andres Cas- tillero, respecting this mine, and on the arrival of Mr. Macnamara with the powers from the other proprietors, the treaty was much facil- itated, and I am now happy to inform you that I have contracted for the " Habilitation " of the mine, and have also purchased a part of Mr. Castillero's " Barras," all of which will be made known to you by Mr. Walkinshaw, who goes to California as my attorney and agent for the examination and working of the mines. Mr. Walkinshaw will wait upon you as soon after his arrival as possible, and will show you all the doc- uments, and ask your advice and assistance in carrying out my views. It is needless for me to say more, than that I count on you as a friend who will lend your best assistance to bring this negotiation to a good account, and as you inform me that you are the proprietor of two " Barras," it will be for your interest, and that of all others con- cerned, that every means may be used to make the most of it. I have sent up a small sum of money to make a beginning, and if Mr. Walkinshaw is of opinion that the business ought to be carried on to a large extent, the necessary apparatus will be ordered, and ample funds sent to carry on the business properly. I have for the present only sent 114 iron bottles, but I can get a large quantity in this country when they may be required. Mr. Walkinshaw will inform you that everything is left open respect- ing the interest which he and others may take in this enterprise, and and I trust you will also leave to me the regulation of the affair which must depend on after prospects. For the present I wish no one to run any risk or to incur any expense but myself, which, however, you 384 must be aware will be very considerable ; but if the mine turns out well there will be sufficient for all. I, in conclusion, beg leave to recommend most strongly my friend Mr. Walkinshaw to your best attentions and assistance, and I am sure you will find him most worthy of your confidence. I am, my dear sir, Yours most sincerely, ALEX. FORBES. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, relative to mine of quicksilver, 7th Jan'y, 1847. No. 5. F. No. 4.— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 19. ] Monterey, 1st Oct., 1847. James A. Forbes, Esq., My Dear Sir : You will no doubt be surprised to hear of my being in Monterey, and I am so myself. I, however, resolved to take a trip to this coun- try, which I have so long wished to visit, and arrived last afternoon in the " William," where I have been kindly received by the authorities, and no difficulty of any kind thrown in my way. I have sent to Mr. Alden to come over here, if he can, and take some people to the mine which I have brought with me, and it is very probable I shall accompany him, when I shall have the pleasure to see you. Mr. Walkinshaw has come with me, but without his family. He has been very ill all the voyage, and is now on shore in a very weak state, but I hope he will soon recover. I have a thousand things to say to you, but must wait till I have the pleasure of seeing you. Please inform the good Padre Real of my arrival, and tell him I don't write him, as I am a bad scribe at Castillano, but that I shall soon be at his domicile. Believe me to be, my dear sir, Yours very sincerely, ALEX. FORBES. We have had 32 days passage. The American Army, under Gen. Scott, was within six leagues of the City of Mexico. 10,000 men — and a battle was daily expected. The Mexican say they have 32,000. 385 (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, on his arrival at Monterey, Oct. 1st, 1847. No. 3. (In pencil.) Alex. Forbes, Monterey. F. No. 19— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 21. ] Mina, 19th Nov., 1847. James A. Forbes, Esq., My Dear Sir : I wrote you the other day, which did not find you at home. I am still here preparing the appparatus for making a better trial of the ores, but as Mr. Wallis the artizan is unwell, we go on but slowly. I am also very anxious to have the mine cleared out and nut in a proper working state before I leave it, and for this purpose we have been sinking a " Plan " at the " Respaldo Alto " in order to run a " Tes- tero " across the vein, and to discover the value and abundance of the ores in its whole width. In doing this we have most unexpectedly found that in this " plan " there are no cinnabar whatever, although over it, in the upper part of the vein, there are ores. This puzzles us greatly, but we hope that in cutting across we will fall in again with ores towards the " Respaldo Bajo." Can this mine be a " Manto ?" I must verify that, and so must you and the Padre with your own eyes. I see very good ores in the upper part of the mine in all directions, but why does it get into Borra lower down ? The Plan is about five varas lower down than when you and the Padre wrought, and on the other side of the vein. The people will go on cutting across, and when they again get into " Metal " I will send you a man on purpose. I am confident we shall find them, but there will always be about two varas or more of the vein next the " Respaldo Alto " without ores ; at least I think so, and hope nothing worse may be the case. We still see good ores on the upper part of the vein near the " Respaldo Bajo," where you and the Padre took out your ores. I have been somewhat alarmed about this Borra, but I hope there will ultimately be no cause for this ; yet I have thought it right to in- form you and the Padre, and have no doubt but that my express car- rier will in a few days carry better news. I am, my dear sir, Yours very truly, (Endorsed) ALEX. FORBES. B. Alex. Forbes, Mine of Almaden, Nov. 19, 1847. (Addressed) Sr. D. Diego A. Forbes, Ausente, Al Sr. Padre Real, Santa Clara. 386 F. No. 5— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 23. ] Mine, 24th Nov., 1847. For Mr. J. A. Forbes ) and V Santa Clara : The Padre Real, ) We have at last found the vein or " cinta " of ores which we were looking for, so that I have now the pleasure to inform you and the good Padre of our luck as I promised I should do ; but I fear the mine will be reduced to this " cinta," and the great body of it will be " Tesse- tate Muerto." But perhaps this cinta may be wider below than it is above. To see whether this is so or not has been the object of our labors, since discovering the proper direction of the vein of the whole mine, which discovery makes everything more plain. This direction was before entirety mistaken, of which and other things, we will have a great deal to talk about when we meet. When Mr. Walkinshaw arrives and takes a look at the mine, I think we shall take a turn to the mission. I expect him to be at Bernal's Rancho this afternoon. I may say now, that it is impossible we can go off the main vein of the mine, as it is entirely different from the walls (Respaldos,) they being of hard rock of quite different character, whereas the vein is quite soft and easily distinguished. All we have to do is to look for the." cintas" which have got ores, which, in my opinion, will be reduced to one, not very wide. A. FORBES. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, Mine of Almaden, Nov. 24, 1847. No. 4. F. No. 6— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 20. ] N. Almaden, 19th Jan., 1848. My Dear Sir : I am very much obliged to you for your very prompt attention to the business in hand, and return the expediente immediately. I am much surprised at the result of your assay, and shall try what I have. It will of course be better to say nothing about it, particularly as I have already written to Monterey that there is no mine, nor does there appear to be any quantity of this kind of stuff. I hope soon to see the Alcalde. My dear sir, yours truly, A. FORBES. 387 (Directed) Jas. A. Forbes, Esq., &c. &c. &c., Santa Clara. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, New Almaden, 19th Jan., 1848. No. 6, No. 6. (In pencil) Suiiol 4}, Sainse 4J, Pena 4J, Narbaez 4J, Padre 4, Forbes 2. F. No. 25— J. A. Monroe. [ 0, H. No. 24. ] SENOR JUEZ DE PAZ. Alejandro Forbes a nombre de simismo, y de sus consocios duenos de la mina de plata, oro, y azogue, conocida con el nombre de Santa Clara ; y ahora llamada Nueva Almaden ; y a nombre de la compania formada para su laborio y avio de la misma, ante V. como mas haya lugar en derecho, espongo : que la Ordenanza de mineria en su titulo IX. art. 10, previene que toda mina debe visitarse y examinarse por peritos nom- brados por el Juez, a fin de cerciorarse si son trabajadas conforme a dha ordenanza. Y deseando el que forma cumplir con las leyes ; A. Y. como Juez competente (por falta del tribunal a quien le toca enten- der en la materia) le suplico se sirva de pasar con los testigos de su asistencia, a la espresada mina, a inspeccionar las obras y labores de ella, ahora en corriente, conforme la ordenanza de la materia ; como tambien a reconocer el rumbo y echado de la veta de la enunciado mina a su actual profundidad ; con el objeto de reformar y enmendar (pues hay lugar para ello,) los terminos de la primera acta de posesion y para corregir tambien cualquiera otra equivocacion que en ella parezca ; segun el titulo VIII. art. 11 de la misma ordenanza : particularmente a decidir el aumento de pertenencias que deben de poseer los duenos de la citada mina, y su habilitador por si mismo, y como reprsentante de aquellos ; y la cuadra que corresponde a las dichas pertenencias con- forme al verdadero echado de la veta. Por lo que — A. V. suplico se serva demandar proveer el presente escrito en los terminos espuestos ; y practicadas que sean las diligencias que se me devuelvan para el debido resguardo y fines que convengan a los intere- sados, sirviendo de admitir este en papel simple por falta total del sellado en este departmento. Pueblo de San Josd, 19 de Enero de 1848. (Endorsed) Copy of memorial to Alcalde for examination of mine and extension of pertenencias. 1848. [Translation of the Preceding Document.] TO THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. Alexander Forbes, in the name of himself and his associates, owner of the mine of silver, gold and quicksilver, known by the name of Santa 388 Clara, and now called New Almaden, and in the name of the company formed for the working and furnishing of the mine, before you, as may be most proper in law, represent that the mining Ordinance, in Title IX. Art. 10, provides that every mine ought to be visited and exam- ined by skilful persons named by the judge, for the purpose of ascer- taining if they are worked in conformity to said ordinance ; and the subscriber desiring to comply with the laws, prays you, as the compe- tent judge (for want of the tribunal to whom it belongs, to judge in the matter) that you will be pleased to go with your assisting witnesses to the said mine to inspect its works and labors now being carried on, in conformity to the ordinance upon the subject ; as also to determine the direction and inclination of the vein of the said mine to its present depth for the purpose of reforming and correcting (since there is occa- sion for it) the boundaries of the former act of possession, and to correct also such other mistakes as may appear in it, according to Title VIII. Art. 11, of the same ordinance, particularly to decide upon the in- crease of pertenencias which ought to be possessed by the owners of the said mine and its contractor for himself, and as the representative of the former, and the square which corresponds to the said pertenen- cias, in conformity to the true inclination of the vein. Wherefore, I beseech you that you will be pleased to have this writing carried into execution in the terms expressed, and when the proceedings are taken, that they may be returned to me for the just protection and ends which may suit the persons interested, you being pleased to admit this on common paper, from the total want of sealed paper in this department. Pueblo de San Jose', 19th of January, 1848. F. No. 8— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 22. ] New Almaden, 1st February, [1848.] James A. Forbes, Esq., My Dear Sir : I received an express last evening giving me all the news from Mexico, and informing me of the Natalia being about to sail for the Mexican coast and by which I have taken the opportunity to forward letters to Mexico. I have had the imprudence to open your despatch. They told me that it contained newspapers and as I knew Gen'l Millers hand, and it being a public letter, and that perhaps it might contain letters for me which I could not get if sent on, in time to allow me to write (if so re- quired) by the Natalia ; for all these reasons I broke open the packet. But although I know you will not be offended at what I have done, yet I would rather not have done so, as I think nothing whatever can jus- 389 tify one in opening directed letters to others without their previous sanction. You will find by the Alcanal of Guad* and the Iris, what is going on in Mexico, and what my friends in Monterey write is to the same pur- pose. The present party, Pena y Pena, Herrera, Otero, Bustamente & Co., are by far the most respectable party in the Republic, and there is a better chance for their doing something better, either for peace or war than ever that most infamous rascal, Santa Anna, and his party would have done. Now that they have got rid of that blackguard, there are better prospects than before, but the present party want en- ergy, and the third party, the Puros, (Democrats,) will most probably upset them, when greater confusion than ever will ensue. You will find that the American President is getting more courage in prosecuting the war than before, and has recalled Mr. Trist, desiring the Mexicans to send to Washington if they wanted peace. I have, as you know, always thought that on their getting possession of c great part of Mexico, and their volunteers covering themselves with glory, the war would become popular, and they would go ahead and possess them- selves of the whole of the Mexican Republic — particularly when they have got over the fears of European interference. You may now take my opinion a little farther, and set down Mexico as already, virtually, a part and portion of the Union, alias the U. S. It is said that Gen. Yanes goes to Tepic with 4,000 men, he is a su- perior kind of man, and a most intimate friend of ours, so that our in- terests there will be protected in as far as depends upon him. As Asconas letter gives a very good summary of the news, I send it for your perusal. This being a rainy day, and being desirous to communicate what I know in the shape of news, I inflict upon you this long epistle. I am my dear sir, yours very truly, ALEX. FORBES. Please explain all this news to my good friend the Padre. You will see by Gen. Millers list what a crash there has been in England. None of our friends are in this black list. Liverpool and Glasgow seem to suffer most. I am my dear sir, yours, &c, A. F. (Addressed) James A. Forbes, Esq., &c. &c. &c, Santa Clara. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, New Almaden, 1st Feb., 1848. No. 7, 390 F. No. 18— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 27. ] Tepic, 11th April, 1849. Jas. Alex. Forbes, Esq., San Francisco. Dear Sir: We beg leave to refer you to Mr. Alex. Forbes' letter of the 9th inst., respecting the arrangement of the affairs of the Mine of New Almaden, and beg to recommend that negotiation to your best care and management until we can forward the necessary instructions for your goverment. You may now rely on this Mine being worked to the utmost of its capabilities of production and sale of quicksilver on the arrival of the apparatus, and we hope to make up for the delay which circumstances have hitherto prevented this important concern from being productive. We shall soon have the pleasure of sending you a list of the company of which the " Habilitadores " are composed. The House of Jecker, Torre & Co., of Mexico and Mazatlan, and our .own are chiefly interested, and as Don Ysidoro de la Torre has gone to Europe, he will concert with Mr. Barron everything which can tend to the successful development of this enterprise. We are, dear sir, Your most obedient servants, BARRON, FORBES & CO. (Endorsed) Barron, Forbes & Co. C Relative to Habilitacion of New Almaden. April 11th, '49. F. No. 20— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 1. ] Tepic, 20th May, 1849. James A. Forbes, Esq., Sir: From certain circumstances which you have communicated to us, it may be necessary to purchase some lands in the vicinity of the Mine and Hacienda of New Almaden, in California. We hereby empower you to make such purchases as may be necessary to the secure pos- session of this Mine and Hacienda, or to effect such other arrange- ment as you may deem necessary for that purpose — the price of such purchase not to exceed five thousand dollars, without consulting with us upon the subject. We are, sir, Your most obedient servants, BARRON, FORBES & CO. (Addressed) James A. Forbes, Esq., California. (Endorsed) Barron, Forbes & Co,, Authorizing the purchases of land, J. 391 F. No. 21— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 2. ] Copia. Muy Reservado. Nota de los Documentos que Don Andres Castillero debera conse- guir en Mejico. 1° La plena aprobacion y ratificacion por el Gobierno Supremo de todos los actos del Alcalde del Distrito de San Jose', en la Alta Cali fornia, en la posesion dada por dicho funcionario, de la mina de Azogue ubicada en su jurisdiction, a Don Andres Castillero en Diciembre de 1845. 2° Un titulo de concesion absoluta y sin condicion, de dos sitios de ganado mayor, a Don Andres Castillero, expresando los linderos sigui- entes. Por el norte con terrenos del Rancho de San Vicente y los Capitan- cillos ; por el Este, Sur, y Oeste con terrenos 6 serranias baldias. 3, Las fechas de estos documentos deberan de ser arregladas por Don Andres : el testimonio de ellos tornado en debida forma, y amas, cetificados por el Ministro Americano en Mejico, y remitido a Califor- nia cuanto antes. Tepic, Mayo 27, de 1849. (Endorsed) Copy of memorandum left with Alex. Forbes for Castillero in Tepic, May 27, 1849. I. [Translation of the Preceding Document.] (Copy) Very Private. Memorandum of the Documents which Don Andres Castillero will have to procure in Mexico. 1st. The full approbation and ratification by the Supreme Govern- ment of all the acts of the Alcalde of the District of San Josd, in Up- per California — in the possession given by the said officer of the quick- silver mine situated in his jurisdiction, to Don Andres Castillero in December, 1845. 2d. An absolute and unconditional title of two leagues of land to Don Andres Castillero, specifying the following boundaries : On the north by the lands of the Rancho of San Vicente and Los Capitancil- los, on the East, South and West by vacant lands or vacant highlands- 3d. The dates of these documents will have to be arranged by Don 392 Andres. The testimony of them taken in due form, and besides cer- tified to by the American Minister in Mexico and transmitted to Cal- ifornia as soon as possible. Tepic, May 27, 1849. (Endorsed) Copy of memorandum left with Alex. Forbes for Castillero, in Tepic, May 27,1849. I. F. No. 23— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 3. ] (Copy) Private. San Francisco, Oct. 28th, 1849. William Forbes, Esq., Tepic. My Dear Sir . I have been detained at this place until the present moment, occu- pied in completing the arrangements explained to B. F. & Co., under the date of yesterday, having raised the sum of 127,180 fJJ dollars, from Probst S. & Co. and Webster alone. I must again call your attention to the importance of my sugges- tions relative to the perfecting the title of the Mine of New Almaden, and without entering now into the particulars already explained to yourself and to Mr. Alex. Forbes verbally, I desire only, to impress upon your mind the vast importance of securing from the Supreme Government of Mexico, the documents comprised in the memorandum left with Mr. Alex. Forbes, when I was in Tepic, for Castillero. By my other letters by this conveyance, you will be informed of all the particulars of the transactions that have occurred recently in the affairs of the Mine, and you will see the risk in which this valuable property is placed by the delay that has occurred in the acquisition of the documents referred to. I remain, my dear sir, Yours sincerely, JAMES ALEX. FORBES. (Endorsed) Copy letter to Wm. Forbes, Private, from San Francisco, Oct. 28th, 1849. III. 393 F. No. 22.— J. A. Monroe. [0. H. No. 4.] (Private.) copy. Santa Clara, Oct. 30th, 1849. Aeexander Forbes, Esq., My Dear Sir: By my letters to yourself and to B. F. & Co., from the 22d to this day, you will be informed of the great danger in which the mine of New Almaden has been thrown, and the disagreeable and vexatious proceedings caused me by Mr. Walkinshaw and his associates, in their denunciation of the mine for abandonment : You will however have the satisfaction of knowing also, that I am to be reinstated in the pos- session of that property, both Mine and Hacienda, in two or three days hence, by judicial process. Although I feel much gratified at my successful defence of the case, yet I am extremely apprehensive of furthur difficulties, in the event that those parties shoujd succeed in purchasing the part of the land of the Berreyesas that they have offered to purchase, (which embraces the mine and hacienda,) for twenty-five thousand dollars — just five time3 the amount you all authorised me to pay for the same identical tract ! Figure to yourself the position of the affair of the mine if I do not strike boldly at our opponents, by purchasing the land at a higher price than they have offered to pay for it, and by thus frustrating their plans, secure the mine and hacienda from further risk. You will now readily perceive the great importance of my advice to you to purchase a part both of the lands of Cook and of the Ber- reyesas. You were of the opinion that this measure would not be necessary, in view of the supposed facility of getting the title to the mine perfected in Mexico. It is now more than five months since it was decided that Castillero should procure the necessary documents in that city, and that they should be sent to me as soon as possible. On the one hand, I depend upon the precarious and illegal possession of the mine, granted by the Alcalde of this District to Castillero, who was in reality the Judge of the quantity of land given by the Alcalde ; and on the other side, I am attacked by the purchasers of the same land, declared by Castillero himself to comprise the mine. In the absence of the all important document of the ratification of the possession so given, I am compelled to purchase the part of the land of the Berreyesas which Walkinshaw and his party have offered to purchase, and you must not be surprised if I shall go far beyond the price that they have offered, because it is the only mode of securing the title to the mine and hacienda ; for if Castillero should fail in getting the desired documents from Mexico, it is the sole mode of safety of this property. 33 394 I shall endeavor to procrastinate as far as possible this purchase, and, moreover, to frustrate all the plans of Walkinshaw and his asso- ciates for accomplishing their purchase, and I do entreat you to use every eifort to send me the document of the ratification of possession of the mine, and the grant of land thereon, at the very earliest oppor- tunity, properly authenticated and certified as explained by me when I was in Tepic. In one of my pre cited letters I requested you to send me a certified power of attorney from B. F. & Co. to you, au- thorizing you, as the representative of the Compania de Abio, to appoint other attornies in fact under you. The object of this is to be able to refute the allegations of the law- yer of Walkinshaw, that|you had no power to authorize me to take charge of the mine. I remain, my dear sir, Yours truly JAS. ALEX. FORBES. (Endorsed) Copy of a letter to Alex. Forbes. Private. Oct. 28, '49. II. F. No. 16.— J. A. Monroe. [0. H. No. 5.] Tepic, 30th November, 1849. James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara, Dear Sir: We had the pleasure to write you on the 13th inst. by the steamer " Oregon," the chief object of which was to enclose a notarial copy of the grant of land by the Mexican Governmeut to Castillero, and which we hope has come safe to hand. We have perused with much interest and attention the whole, of your letters and documents received by the steamers, the " California' and " Panama," and we beg you will excuse us from minutely enter- ing into a reply to those valuable and important papers. Suffice it to say, that we not only approve of your proceedings, but have to give you our most sincere thanks for the most energetic and able conduct in the whole affair, and we have to request that you will not hesitate continuing to take such steps as may seem to you fit for securing the mine from all attempts made by evil minded persons to impede its being freely worked for its legitimate owners. We are glad to find that you had not been obliged to purchase Berriesa's land. This is certainly a most important point, and we trust that the document sent will be of great consequeuce in that res- pect, but you will of course take care that no risk is run, and you will ■do in this affair as your best judgment shall direct you, keeping in view that at all hazard and at whatever cost the property of the mine must 395 be secured. Castillero we expect will soon be here from Lower Cal- ifornia, and if anything can be done in Mexico he is the fittest person to procure what may be wanted. It is incredible that Mr. Walkin- shaw should lend himself to such proceedings when he considered the very large capital invested in this enterprise, and when he well knows that by the mining laws no " denuncio" could possihy be heard under the circumstances in which this mine has been occupied. We trust however that these vile machinations will be by your active proceed- ings be put ai> end to. We hope you will by the time this reaches you have got up at least a part of the apparatus, and that some of it will be soon at work. The price of quicksilver here still keeps up, and the supply as yet not abundant. Every body writes of the very high price it bears in Cal- ifornia, and we have no doubt you will in a short time be able to supply the demand and to send us the surplus to San Bias. Trusting to the continuance of your best exertions in behalf of all concerned in the mine of New Alinaden, We are, dear sir, Your most ob't servants, BARRON, FORBES & CO. (Endorsed) Barron, Forbes & Co., 30th Nov. 1849. No. 16. F. No. 7.— J. A. Monroe. [0. H. No. 6.] Tepic, 30th Nov., 1849. James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara. My Dear Sir: I have received your most valuable letters by the two last steamers, " California" and " Panama," the latest dates being up to the 13th of the present month, and which gives the agreeable notice of Walkin- shaw's most villainous proceedings having been upset. I hope you will forgive me for not entering minutely into all the proceedings. But I can assure you that we all feel the obligation we owe to you for the very able and decisive measures you have adopted in the whole of this affair, and I recommend you to proceed without fear of disapproval, or waiting for instructions, in taking such measures as shall preserve this valuable " negociacion" from any risk from those unprincipled claim- ants, who have lately given you so much trouble, or from any other proceedings which may take place ; being sure that such proceeding will be sanctioned by the company. We are quite of opinion with you that we should not be lulled into secority from the belief that other 396 proceedings will not be resorted to, and that principle will be acted upon, and every support from this will be given to what you may point out as necessary. As you will not I hope have now to employ the large sum you ex- pected to do in the purchase of the Berriesa's lands, you will have a large amount of funds for the object of the mines. All the drafts and orders for the value of gold have been honored. We are glad to learn that Mr. Probst has been so active in assisting you, and it gives me in particular much pleasure to find such a good understanding betweeu you. I most earnestly hope the same friend- ship will take place between you and Dr. Tobin. Notwithstanding the many difficulties you must have in transporting the cargo of the Vicar of Bray, yet I hope a part of the apparatus will soon be got up, to supply the demand of the Placeres as well as to send us some here. It is of much importance to realize as much as possible of the large capital which now lies in the mine, laid out by the Habilitadores, and to secure to the owners of Barrs something cer- tain against an evil day which may sometime or other overtake us. In new countries nothing is very certain, and I for one, (and in which I am sure you will agree with me,) am most desirous to be in possession, and to see others in possession of at least a part of the riches of this mine, which has cost me and others so much thought, and so much labor. This, I as an individual, and for the good of all, beg leave to impress strongly upon your attention. I am, my dear sir, Yours, very sincerely, ALEX. FORBES. (Endorsed) No. 8. F. No. 9.— J. A. Monroe. [0. H. No. 7.] Very Private. Tepic, 1st Dec, 1849. James A Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara — My Dear Sir : The document sent up to you by the last steamer for the grant of the lands to D. Andres Castillero, was, by mistake, not the one meant to be sent. I find now that the proper one was registered by me in Mon- terey, and the original deposited there. The one sent you was directed at foot to the Governor of California, and the one deposited at Monterey was directed to D. Andres Castil- lero. The difference is, that by one the delivery by the Governor was perhaps necessary to make the grant valid, whereas the other being addressed directly to D. Andres, did not require that formality, nor was any other proceeding necessary, thus making it a better document 397 than the greater part of the other titles for lands in California. I fear you may have made use of the notarial copy sent — if not, you will of course apply for the copy of the one at Monterey ; I however, have hopes that your well known cleverness will have enabled you to find out this mistake, which would show itself, if you had applied for the document from Monterey. And at all events you may be enabled to withdraw the one sent and substitute the other ; either however I take to be as good as the usual California titles, few of which have been officially delivered or sanctioned by the local authorities. Another difficulty however occurs. A document was made out in the City of Mexico when I purchased the Bars from Castillero, for the purpose of securing his consent and approval of the contract of Habilitacion ; in this document is also inserted the grant of the two sitios, being an exact copy of what has been sent you, and directed to the Governor. All this will show you how that matter stands. And as I think this document may be of use to you, I send a copy of the whole, leaving you to your own good judgment, to make such use of of this document, and of what I communicate, as you shall think proper. I shall send the document alluded to in a separate cover to Probst, Smith & Co. I am, my dear sir, Yours, very truly, ALEX. FORBES. There is an approval of the Habilitacion in all the documents of the sale of the other Bars. (Endorsed) No. 9. F. No. 10.— J. A. Monroe. [0. H. No. 8.] (Private) Tepic, 7th Jan y, 1850. James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara — •" My Dear Sir : I have received by Acapulco and Mexico along with your other correspondence, your private letters to me, of the 25th and 28th of November, and beg to refer you to the letters of B., F. & Co. on the business of the Mine. I am very sorry indeed to gee that there is likely to be a difference between you and Dr. Tobin. This is a circumstance which may lead to very bad consequences, and it is strange that Tobin should throw obstacles in the way, when he sees you surrounded with so many already, and which can only tend to lessen his own profits. It is clearly to be understood that no verbal agreement was made here with any one, nor any promises given which is not consistent with 398 the contract, as it is written. His brother never was engaged, on the contrary he told me that his brother went to see what could be done in California, and if nothing offered, he would send him back to take our portraits. This might have been said as a joke, but shows that no employment at the Mine was intended for him. No maintenance for himself, (Dr. T.) or family, was ever intended. He looked out here for a cook, and took up one for that purpose. His new contract is much more advantageous than his former one with me, as he has his per centage on the whole 3 without limitation. I have read over this second contract with care, and it appears to me quite clear in respect to his charge at the Hacienda. " Art. 2. The aforesaid, James Tobin agrees to direct the operations of the extraction of the Quicksilver to the best of his abilities, and is to have the said operations under his exclusive management." This does not show that he shall have the general management of the Hacienda. One of the causes for altering the contract, and for cancelling the limitation of his profits was, to make the contract less onerous as to the supply of ores, people, and necessaries, which you will perceive by the 4th Article. You are only bound to supply " as amply as cir- cumstances will allow" whereas, by the original contract with me, it was obligatory on us to supply all these which he might require. This in the present state of things is I consider of much conse- quence. This is my opinion of what Mr. Tobin has a rigid to demand, but I am sure you will not stand on mere points of right, or risk the inter- ests of negociacion for trifling pretentions which may be put forth. Much must be sacrificed in principle to conciliate a troublesome person, and I still most earnestly hope that your prudence will enable you to keep up cordiality between you. I shall write my opinion to Dr. Tobin, and give him my strongest advice to lay aside all vexatious pretentions, and enjoin him to proceed in good will and amity, which can only tend to his own interests and those concerned in the Mine. I hope he will listen to my advice. The amonnt of capital is getting to be enormous, and the company are beginning to get astonished. If however you can once get under way all will be well, if you could only get a couple of cylinders up in any temporary way. They would supply the Placeres. Whenever you have more than is wanted for that, you will of course send it down here, more or less by the steamer. Strange as it appears to me, a Mexican merchant " Lizardo," sends up 136 flasks by this steamer, and between 2 and 300 go by next conveyance. It is shipped by B. F. & Co., as agents ! We have not one bottle here ; but there are still of the California Quicksilver in Sonora. 399 I am glad you have taken young Mr. Thom into your house ; please remember me to him, as also to Mrs. Forbes, and your family. I am, my dear sir, &c. Yours truly, A. FORBES. Webster will go up with a Pacatillo, by this steamer if he can get his things on board. If vou can do anything for him it will oblige me. A. F. By the tenor of your letters I have hopes that you will have got rid of the villainous proceedings of Walkinshaw and his party. I hope the document, which now goes up, (the Habilitacion, &c.,) will be useful. Castillero is still somewhere in Lower California. We have not heard from him, but he must be somewhere about La Paz. Mr. Spence of Monterey writes me of date the 22d Nov., that he had advanced to Mr. Walkinshaw about $2,000, and informs me that although he had written him several times he had received no answer and that neither principal nor interest had been paid. I have advised Mr. Spence to inquire of you respecting this transaction. I hope Mr. Probst with you assistance if necessary will push the claim of the Mazatlan debt against Mr. Walkinshaw. I have a letter from Alden, in which he speaks of Walkinshaw in strong terms. I hope you will keep poor Alden in your service ; he speaks of his former services not being properly paid for, and of his accounts not being settled. (Endorsed) No. 10. F. No. 15*— j. A Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 14. ] Santa Clara, 29* Jan'y 1850. My Dear Sir, I have rec4 the copy of the contract of Habilitacion and as you re- quest me to address myself to B. F. & C°. on the affairs of the mine, I have now written to them upon this particular subject to which I request your earnest attention, not as regards the habilitacion, but an- other document which you know of. I am, my dear sir, Your faithfully, JAS. ALEX. FORBES. 400 F. No. 11.— J. A. Monroe. [0. H. No. 9.] Very Private. Tepic, Feb. 3d, 1850. James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara — My Dear Sir : I had the pleasure to write you of date the 7th January, which went by last month's steamer, to which I refer. I have since received your letters by Reyes dated the 27th and 31st of Dec, and 8th of Jan. I shall not go minutely into the whole valuable information you give me, nor into the statements so very interesting to myself and those concerned in the mine of New Almaden. By those communications I have every reason to believe that, by your indefatigable and energetic proceedings you will be enabled to defeat all the vile attempts which have been made to rob the legitimate owners of their property. The conduct of Dr. Tobin is inexplicable, but I think I can perceive that you are somewhat of opinion that he may be heard and pro- tected by the Company, but I will at once put you right upon that point, and assure you such will not be the case. All here are most in- dignant at his conduct. You must, and will, be supported, and all I wish and hope for on your part is, that you act in a manner towards him which may enable you if possible to avoid a rupture and conten- tions, which may lead to bad results. You say that Dr. Tobin comes down in the next steamer, if so he will be here in a few days. This I shall not be sorry for, the matter would then be soon settled. He would most assuredly not be asked to return, nor even permitted. He has no right to desert his post, and I hope you have not given him leave of absence. I have no doubt but that you could, with Gay, Al- den, and the other person you mention, do well enough for a time, and easily put up a part of the apparatus and work it until a proper scien- tific person can be procured and sent up to you. It so happens that almost the whole of the " Accionistas" and " Avia- dores" of the mine will be here in a few days. Mr. Barron is now here, and is attorney for those absent. La Torre comes here to visit Mr. B. Castillero has returned and is also here, so am I and William Forbes. This leaves out only the four California Bars, and I think I may venture to act for you if necessary, as you verbally told me I might. This will give us power to deal with Dr. Tobin if he comes this way, and to regulate any other matters which may be thought ne- cessary. For my own part I have no power as you know, the man- agement being in the hands of others, and therefore I beg you will take all I say as purely 'private and confidential, without attaching any au- thority to my suggestions. But of course as I am a proprietor, and in the confidence of the managers and other proprietors, my opinions and advice may be worth attending to, and be of some use to yourself as well as to them. I shall continue to write to you as long as I remain here and will be most happy at all times to hear from you. 401 I wrote by last packet to Dr. Tobin as a friend and attempted to conciliate him in a mild way, perhaps he makes two much of this let- ter, and I think it better to send you a copy to enable you to see ex- actly what I have said to him. His leaguing himself with Mr. Walk- ingshaw is too bad. Reyes has told me of all that has passed, which is almost incredible. I am glad to find that you are peaceably to get rid of Mr. W. Mr. Tobin has sent a plan of his proposed establishment, this you must on no account allow to be put in execution. You are aware that it would never do to go about large magnificent works at once, particularly as you know the whole must be at the cost of the " Aviadores" and left for the proprietors at the end of the contract. You are acting for the Aviadores, and it is your duty to restrict the works within reasonable bounds, and to only erect temporary, and ab- solutely necessary, works until some funds shall be realized from the mine. However desirous that it may be that the works should be set up by Dr. Tobin, yet if he will not go on in good faith, or if he at- tempts to injure the company,, or refuses to obey your just commands, and resists your authority, or stops or impedes the works, and thereby breaking his contract, I think he may be discharged by you, always taking care that you have a very clear case, and nothing left in doubt to cause litigation. But this is only my private opinion. I have no authority to empower you to do so, but it would no doubt be approved by the Company, none of whom look favorably on the Doctor's proceed- ings. The most effectual and safe way however would be his coming here without leave. He has not written by last opportunity, nor will he be written to by this Steamer. I have every reason to believe that the documents you mention will be found in the City of Mexico, and as Mr. Castillero will return there they will no doubt be procured, but we are at some loss to know what is exactly wanted, and I beg you will, by next steamer, give a sketch of the documents you allude to, particularly a description of the limits of the grant. I think you must not have received the information sent you of the existence of the grant of the two sitios directly to Castillero, and registered in Monterey, nor am I sure if this will mend the matter. In a few days however we will again hear from you and act accordingly. One last resort I will mention to you, and it is with great repug- nance that I do so, which is, that if the Berreyesas were unreasonable and untractable, or insist on the extension of their lands to our hacienda, the company would be justified in promoting the invalidation of their own title to their Rancho. If they make it over to any one else, and particularly to our enemies, certainly this course must be pursued. If no opposition or disclosures are made, and if the American government turn out to be liberal in conceding the Ranchos to the present holders, the Berreyesas and others 402 may be left in possession, but if active measures were taken by an ad- verse party, many of the titles would be worthless, and I have reason to think from what came to our knowledge when I was in California, the title of the Berreyesas' is not of the best. This I throw out for your consideration, and I should think these people would do them- selves no good in opposing you. We think at present that it may be the best place to get an authen- ticatad copy of the approval of the Mexican government of the grant of three thousand varas given by the Alcalde on giving possession of the mine. As a doubt may be started as to whether the Alcalde act- ing as the " Juez de Mineria," had a right to make this grant, yet if approved of the government of Mexico before the possession of the country by the Americans, there could be no doubt on the subject. This takes in our hacienda, and unless opposed by the Berreyesas would I should think settle the question. Castillero says such approval wa3 given, and that on his arrival in Mexico he will procure a judicial copy of it. This is the plan we shall adopt if we hear nothing from you to alter this resolution. Since writing the foregoing I have looked over your private letter to Wm. Forbes, dated 18th October, and find you state the limits or bounda- ries, as follows : " The boundaries must be expressed as joining on the north, and northwest, by lands of the Ranchos de San Vicente, and de los Capi- tancillos, and on the east, south, and west, by Serainia or < tierras bal- dias.' " Castillero is not certain of accomplishing this latter plan, and thinks the first, that is, the 8,000 varas the best. There goes up by this steamer another bill against Mr. Walkinshaw and in favor of B., F. & Co., for $1,000, so that Probst, Smith & Co. have in our favor and against him : By A. Forbes, accepted, 1 1,758 B., F. & Co., about 10,000 Id. bill 1,000 In all 112,758 I am, my dear sir, Yours, very truly, ALEX. FORBES. I send you five Altas, newspapers, (Endorsed) Private. A. F., 3d Feb., 1850. Answered 26th Feb. No. 11. 403 F. No. 24.— J. A. Monroe. [0. H. No. 9.] Copy. Private. New Almaden, Feb. 26, 1850. Alexander Forbes, Esq., My Dear Sir, Your favor of the 3d instant came duly to hand, and in an- swer to that part of it relating to the documents sent up to me in Nov., serving as titles to this property, I will again address you " por sep- erado." I really did have more faith in the tact and ability of Castillero, to perceive the important objects set forth in my memorandum of what was to be done nine months ago, in Mexico by that eccentric individual, and that with the powerful influence that he was to have exercised by the efficient aid that was to be lent to him, he would meet with no obstacle to the attainment of the important documents explained in that memoran- dum. But Castillero has deceived himself, for he thought that bound- aries were not necessary, as I shall presently shew you. He succeeded in obtaining the grant of two sitios to himself on the mining possession in Santa Clara while that very act of possession declares that the mine is situated on the lands of one Jose R. Berreyesa, five leagues distant from Santa Clara, and you will at once perceive that such a discrepancy would not fail to attract the attention of the U. S. Land Commission- ers and to put the case of the mine in great risk in the judicial ordeal to which its title will be subjected. Without troubling you with what I have so many times written and explained to you verbally, on the importance of the acquisition of the document, I will only say now, what it must be, and it is this : 1st. A full and complete ratification of all the acts of the Alcalde of this jurisdiction in the possession of the mine. 2d. A full and unconditional grant to Castillero of two sitios of land covering that mining possession, expressing the boundaries stated by me in the memorandum I left with you in Tepic. Both of these docu- ments to be of the proper date, and placed in the proper Governmental custody in Mexico, and 3d. The necessary certified copies of them duly authenticated by the American Minister in that capital, taken and sent to me at the earliest possible moment. You will receive my advice of the 19th inst. regarding my views of not supplying W, with any quicksilver. Yours sincerely, JAS. ALEX. FORBES. (Endorsed) Copy of letter to A. F. Private, IV. Feb. 26, 1850. 404 F. No. 12— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 10. ] Tepic, 2d March, 1850. James A. Forbes, Esq., New Almaden, Dear Sir, We duly received your letters up to the 29th of January per steamer Panama, which have had our best attention, and as our friend, Dn Ysidoro de la Torre of Mazatlan has been appointed, and has consented to proceed by this steamer to California, with full powers to act in behalf of all concerned, it is needless to enter into any partic- lars respecting the various matters contained in your letters, as you will be enabled personally to communicate your views to him ; and to arrange everything in the best manner possible. Mr. de la Torre came to Tepic to meet Mr. Barron and the others concerned in this negoci- ation, and it was deemed necessary that some of the partners in the " Habilitacion " should proceed to New Almaden in order to consult personally with you, and to arrange respecting the future operations of this enterprise, and Mr. de la Torre has been prevailed upon, at much inconvenience to himself, to undertake the present charge. We are sure that no one could be named more agreeable to you, than Mr. De la Torre, and have no doubt but that his presence will be most useful in sanctioning and arranging a plan of future operations, and of assisting in adjusting any difficulties which now exist, particu- larly as he has the full authority of the association to act, as to him shall appear necessary. Mr. De la Torre takes up with him Dr. Tobin in the hopes that he will resume his labors, and act in conformity with his duty. Mr. Barron and Don Andres Castillero are about to proceed to the City of Mexico, and will attend to what you have recommended. Soliciting your kind attentions to our friend Mr. De la Torre, We are, dear sir, Your most obedient servants, BARRON, FORBES & CO. (Endorsed) No. 12. F. No. 14— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 11. ] Tepic, 11th March, [1850.] My Dear Sir: The Oregon's letters have just come up, and I give this a chance of reaching San Bias before the arrival of the Panama steamer. Mr. Barron and Castillero have gone off to Mexico, and I write them to- day respecting the Document you know of, which if possible will be 405 procured. The news of your having got up 4 Cylinders gives us all much joy, and I gave the good news to my friends. M. La Torre don't expect this — unless he knows by the Steamer which touched at Mazatlan. You will perhaps see him and Dr. Tobin before this reaches you, who both go by this conveyance. Let us have Quicksilver and all will be well. I am most happy to hear you have found an abundant mine of Lime- stone, this is of much importance. Your official letter about the vessel will be forwarded to the Foreign Office. In great haste, yours truly, A. FORBES. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, March 11th, No. 14. F. No. 13— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 13. ] Tepic, 7th April, 1850. James A. Forbes, Esq., N. Almaden, My Dear Sir : I wrote to you by the California, dated the 23d February, and since then have received by the u Oregon " yours of the 19th of that month. I was very happy to hear that you had got up some of the Cylinders, and trust that you are at this time distilling Quicksilver. I hope Dr. Tobin will now attend without any difficulty to the superin- tendence of the apparatus, and am sure that you will on your part do everything in your power, to promote harmony, and forward the inter- ests of all concerned. You will I know find great relief and pleasure by the arrival of your friend La Torre. He will during his stay take much responsibility off your shoulders, and from his decision, and con- ciliatory disposition, assist in smoothing many of the difficulties which surround you. Mr. Barron and Castillero have arrived in Mexico, and have every prospect of finding the documents you are aware of, and which will of course be forwarded as soon as possible. I am, my Dear Sir, Yours very truly, ALEX. FORBES. I forward a letter received from Mr. Murray of the Foreign Office. (Addressed) James A. Forbes, Esq., New Almaden. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, 7th April, 1850. Answd. 28th. No. 13. 406 F. No. 15— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 13. ] Private. Tepic, 6th June, 1850. James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara, My Bear Sir : I had the pleasure to receive jour letter of the 28th of April by the steamer, but of course not in time to reply by the one from Panama, which arrived the day after that from San Francisco. I remark what you say of Dr. Tobin and the cylinders, which has caused me some uneasiness, and I wait with anxiety to know, how those he is putting up himself will succeed, which we expect to do by the steamer which ought to arrive at San Bias on the 10th inst. I find that it has been deemed necessary to appoint an American citizen as manager of the mine, and am most happy to know that this meets with your approbation. This approval on your part I am quite sure will be estimated as it deserves, and shows to those interested in this enterprize that you do not hesitate to sacrifice your own private interests for the general benefit of the concern. For my own part, I feel most grateful and highly obliged, and the members of the house of Barron, Forbes & Co. express strongly the same feeling. We are all convinced that whoever may be in the management of the New Almaden will receive the assistance of your knowledge and experience, and the company and proprietors cannot fail to be sensible of your services. It gives me great pleasure to hear from yourself, as well as from M. La Torre, that the closest friendship had existed between you, and that both were animated by the same desire of mak- ing the mine productive. I had the pleasure to know Mr. Halleck at Monterey, and I think a better selection could not have been made. I think he is a gentleman with whom you will be much satisfied as manager of the mine, and who I have no doubt will be glad to avail himself of your experience in whatever may be new to him. I am very happy to hear that Mr. Walkinshaw has been settled with, and that all annoyance from that or any other quarter has ceased. 1 shall avoid saying anything respecting the Berreyesa affair till the letters by the steamer come to hand, which will no doubt confirm the arrangement between them and Mr. La Torre. I am, my dear sir, Yours truly, A FORBES. (Endorsed) No. 15. 407 F. No. 17— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 15. ] J. A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara, My Dear Sir : Tepic, 10th January, 1851, I was duly favored with your obliging letjters of the 12th and 29th of Nov., in which you mention that I had stated some disappointment by your not writing, and allude to some other matters I have no rec- ollection of. I have always reckoned upon you as a friend, and am well convinced that you have every disposition to promote the interests of the mining negotiation as much as is your power, which William Barron confirms in his late letters to the house. We have nothing to fear from the lawyer Jones should he come here, but I understand he has gone to the Sandwich Islands, and is likely to make a journey to the other world. Mr. Barron has caused a most minute examination to be made in the archives in the city of Mexico, the result of which has been that, neither Alvarado nor Micheltorena were authorized to grant titles for lands in California, nor does there appear to have been any approval or confirmation of such grants as they took upon themselves to grant — so that the title of the Berreyesa's lxnd, either by Alvarado or by Micheltorena, if opposition is made, is valueless. This being the case, few of the California titles would be good if determined by the vigorous application of the Mexican law. Mr. Barron has procured documents to confirm this view of the case, but we have resolved not to make use of such documents except in our own defence, as we do not wish to injure any one ; but in the case of the Berreyesas we are compelled to use all means in our power to counteract their proceedings or those of their abettors if they persist in their late proceedings. If it was not that I am an interested party I would recommend to them to secure their Rancho by silence, for I am well assured that . by adopting hostile measures against us they may lose it altogether. The Rothschilds have a large quantity of quicksilver on hand, and the miners thought that by competition between them and New Almaden it might come down greatly in price, and kept off from purchasing, but an agreement has been come to between both parties, by which this competition is done away with, and the price will be maintained at a fair rate. In consequence however of the expectation of the miners few sales have been made, and little of the proceeds of sales realized, but from the arrangement alluded to it is hoped that the sales will soon be considerable. You will find by B. F. & Co.'s letter that 408 your wishes have been complied with in debiting you with the $1700 in the account of your share of the sales of quicksilver. With best respects to Mrs. Forbes and your family, I am, my dear sir, Yours very truly, ALEX. FORBES. (Addressed) James A. Forbes, Esq., Santa Clara, California. (Endorsed) Alex. Forbes, Jan. 10th, 1851. No. 17. F. No. 27— J. A. Monroe. [ 0. H. No. 26. ] Memorandum of documents contained in this box. Sixteen letters from Alexander Forbes to J. A. Forbes, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 6, 14, 15, 17 and one marked B. Three letters from Barron, Forbes & Co. to J. A. Forbes, numbered 12, 16, and marked C. All the above in English. Three copies of letters from J. A. Forbes, marked II. Ill and IV, in English. One copy of a memorandum in the Spanish language, marked I. One letter from Barron, Forbes & Co., J. San Francisco March 3, 1857. Jas. Alex. Forbes. Also a copy of petition from Alex. Forbes, accompanied by a sketch of pertenencias of which the possession was given on the 19th of Jan., 1848, by Alcalde of San Jose. (Endorsed) List of documents contained in this box. 409 DEPOSITION OF ANTONIO SUftOL. United States District Court, ) Northern District of California, \ San Francisco, December 12th, 1857. On this day, before the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, &c, &c, came Antonio Sufiol, a wit- ness produced on behalf of the United States, in Case No. 420, being a cross appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and set- tle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366, on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows — his evidence being interpreted by Rich- ard Tobin, a sworn interpreter. Present : Ogden Hoffman, District Judge. Question by Counsel for United States. Question. — Have you been examined heretofore in this cause ? Answer. — I have. My name is Antonio Sunol ; my age is 60 years ; my residence is San Jose*. (Document produced by S. 0. Houghton shown to witness.) Ques. — Is this the same paper shown on your previous examination ? Ans. — I believe it is ; it is the same. Ques. — Where were you when you signed it ? Ans. — In San Jose\ Ques. — Who else were there at the time ? Ans. — Antonio Maria Pico, Noriega and Gutierrez. Ques. — Was there any one else ? Ans. — Jose* Fernandez was also there ; I think that was all. Ques. — Are you certain that Gutierrez and Fernandez were both I ore ? Ans. — Yes. Gutierrez brought the papers, and Fernandez, as Sec- ■ry of the Ayuntamiento, was present also. i ;ues. — Where did Gutierrez bring the papers from ? Ans. — From the Mission of Santa Clara. Ques. — Who had sent him ? Ans. — Andres Castillero. Ques. — Was Castillero not present ? Ans. — I do not remember that he was ; I think not. 34 410 Ques. — Was Padre Real there ? Ans. — I am positive he was not when I signed. Ques. — Were these papers signed on the same day the possession was given, or afterwards ? Ans. — It was afterwards ; one or two days. Ques. — In whose handwriting is the document ? Ans. — In that of Gutierrez. Ques. — Did you see Gutierrez write it ? Ans. — No. I know his handwriting, because he was a school mas- ter at my house for some time. Ques. — Was it customary in those days for Alcaldes or other offi- cers to do any official act between Christmas and New Years ? (Objected to.) Ans. — It was customary to perform official acts at any time. Ques.— Please look at Exhibits" X. Y.," " A. B." Andres Castillero. ) San Francisco, December 15th, 1857. On this day before J. Edgar Grvmes, 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 Capt. John Paty, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present: Frederick Billings, Esq., for Claimant, and E. W. F. Sloan, for the United States. Questions by E. W. F. Sloan, Esq. Question 1. — What is your name, age, and place of residence ? Answer 1. — My name is John Paty, 50 years old, and I reside in Honolulu, Sandwich Islands. I am a master mariner. Ques. 2. — Where were you during the year 1846 ? Ans. 2. — I was on this coast most of the year. I made a voyage to Mexico during the same year from California, on board the bark Don Quixote, of which I was master. Ques. 8. — From what point in California, to what point in Mexico, did you make that voyage ? Ans. 8. — From Monterey to Acapulco. Ques. 4. — At what time did you sail and at what time did you ar- rive in Acapulco ? Ant. 4. — I sailed on the 3d of April, 1846, from Monterey, and arrived at Acapulco on the 21st of the same month. Ques. 5. — What was the object of that voyage ? Ans. 5, — It was to take a passenger and his servant to Acapulco. Ques. 6. — Who was that passenger ? Au3. 6. — Andres Castillero. I understood that he was a Mexican officer. Ques. 7. — Did you land him at Acapulco ? 425 Ans. 7.— I did. Ques. 8. — What became of him then ? Ans. 8.— I do not know ; but I understood he went to Mexico. Ques. 9. — Did you keep a log of the voyage ? Ans. 9. — I did. It was burnt in this city, in the big fire of May, 1851. Ques. 10. — Look at document marked " J. P. No. 1," now at- tached to this deposition, and state what it is, and by whom written ? Ans. 10. — This is extracts from the journal kept on board of the Don Quixote and written by myself. This journal was my wife's private journal, and from that journal and from my private papers I made these extracts. Ques. 11. — Are you able to state that this is a correct memoran- dum? Auns. 11. — Yes, sir. (The document " J. P. No. 1," is objected to by claimant's counsel.) Ques 12. — Look at document marked " J. P. No. 2." now attached to this deposition and state what it is and by whom written. Ans. 12. — It is a copy of a letter written by myself, addressed to T. 0. Larkin. It was written in Monterey, dated " April 2d, 1846." Ques. 13. — Look at document marked" J. P. No. 3," now attached to your deposition and state what it is, whether it came into your pos- session, and when. Ans. 13. — This is a receipt from the Post Office in Acapulco, for letters mailed there by myself on the 22d of April, 1846. Said let- ters were taken down by me in the Don Quixote from Monterey. Ques. 14. — How long had you been in Monterey prior to setting out on that voyage ? Ans. 14. — I do not know for certain, but think about two weeks. Ques. 15. — Who chartered the vessel for that voyage ? Ans. 15. — It was chartered by the government. Thos. 0. Larkin was my' agent. Ques. 16. — Was there any other Port of Entry except Monterey, at which a veasel could clear in Upper California ? Ans. 16. — I believe not. Ques. 17. — Do you know of any other voyage having been made from Upper California to the western coast of Mexico during two months preceding your departure on that voyage ? Ans. 17. — I do not. Ques. 18. — Can you state with confidence that no voyage of that kind was made during the two weeks prior to your departure ? Ans. 18. — I can. They had been in treaty for another vessel be- fore they chartered mine ; but she did not go. 35 426 Ques. 19. — Are you acquainted with James McKinlay ? Ans. 19. — I am. Ques. 20. — Have you any knowledge of his having made a voyage from California in the Brig Juanita to Mazatlan, at the time of your trip to Acapulco ? Ans. 20. — I have not. He made a voyage there I know, but I think it was sometime prior to mine. I do not know when she reached Mazatlan. Ques. 21. — Did you touch at any intermediate point on your voyage from Monterey to Acapulco ? Ans. 21. — I did not. Ques. 22. — Look at the document marked " J. P. No. 4," now at- tached to your deposition, and of which the following is a translation : SEAL The Citizen Juan Augustin Marin, Capt. of Frigate of the National Navy, Commanding the Navy of the Southern Department, and Cap- tain of the Port of Acapulco. I certify that by the precedings documents which exist in the office under my charge that in relation to the Kanaka Bark Don Quijote, it shows that this vessel anchored in this Port the 21st of April, 1846, coming from Monterey in ballast. Her Captn. John Paty, in 17 days of navigation, brings passenger the Captn. Dn Andres Cas- tillero, Commissioner for the Alta California, near the Supreme Govt. This Bark sailed for the Sandwich Islands the 18th day of May, of the sameyear, with a cargo of produce of the Country, and were passengers Enrique Malekembaker a German, and two young Mexi- cans Jacinto and Jose' Turque. Acapulco, July 10th, 1857. J. AUGUSTIN MARIN. and state whether the same as now translated to you contains the truth according to your recollection of the facts. Anst. 22. — All as to my arrival is true. All the document is true, except that I did not depart for the Sandwich Islands from Acapulco, but returned to the Coast of California. It is not correct as to the passengers who returned with me. (Counsel for Claimants objects to the introduction of documents " J. P. No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4," and questions connected with them.) Ques. 23. — Look at the document marked " J. P. No. 5," now 427 attached to your deposition, and of which the following is a transla- tion, to wit : . ^>~~* j Carlos Horn, first Lieutenant of the National Navy and ] seal [ Captain of this Port. I certify that according to the documents existing in the archives of the office of the Captn of the Port, The Hawaiian Bark Don Quixote, Capt. John Paty, anchored in this roadstead of San Bias, the thir- teenth day of April, eighteen hundred and forty-six, coming from the Port of Monterey, in the Alta California. (Signed) CARLOS HORN. Ygnacio Echagaray, Colonel in the Army, Political Chief seal J and Commandant General of this Canton : I certify that the signature which precedes is the same which is used in all the public and private acts by the citizen Carlos Horn, Captain of the Port of San Bias, and Military Commandant of the said place, and full faith and credit can be given to the same, and that it may be used when necessary. I have certified this under my hand and seal the 18th day of July, 1857. (Signed) Y. ECHAGARAY. and say whether that certificate as now translated to you, contains the truth according to your knowledge of the facts. (Counsel for Claimants objects to the introduction of document " J. P. No. 5," and the questions connected with them.) Ans. 23. — It does not. I went direct from Monterey to Aca- pulco. I stopped there on my way up to Monterey, about the middle of June. I was also in there with the Don Quixote in April, 1845. I do not recollect being there with the Don Quixote at any other times. Ques. 24. — How long did you remain at Acapulco in 1846, before you left that port for Upper California ? Ans. 24. — I remained there from the 21st of April to the 18th of May. Ques. 25. — For whom or for what were you waiting there ? Ans. 25. — Waiting for Don Andres Castillero, whom I was accord- ing to my charter to bring back if he wanted to come. I waited so long as I have mentioned, and then heard that he would meet me at Mazatlan or San Bias. I touched at both places but heard nothing of him, and then came on to California. 428 I think Castillero left Acapulco about three days after our arrival. I remember the circumstance of his servant coming on board for his luggage. I have never seen him since. Cross-Examination. Ques. 26. — Did you know anything of the business which took Cas- tillero to Mexico, or for what purpose he went there ? Ans. 26. — I did not. Ques. 27. — Did he take anything down with him from California ? Ans. 27. — He took no merchandize, he had some specimens of ore with him. I think it was silver ore. I do not know what other kind he had. Ques. 28. — When you expected him back from Mexico, did you ex- pect any others to come with him, who would in your vessel come to California with him ? Ans. 28. — I expected that there would have been passengers, but did not expect them particularly with him. Ques. 29. — Did you hear anything concerning his bringing up miners to California; if so, from whom ? Ans. 29. — I heard something about it from Mr. Larkin, my agent; I mean about bringing up mining apparatus. I do not recollect what it was. Ques. 30. — Did you anticipate a renewal of your charter, or any other voyage to Acapulco, on account of any mining business, or any business connected with Castillero ? Ans. 30.— I did not. Ques. 31. — Did Castillero speak English at the time of the voyage down? Ans. 31. — He did not. He spoke Spanish. Ques. 32. — Did you speak Spanish at that time ? Ans. 32. — I did not speak it well. I could not carry on a conver- sation freely. Ques. 33. — Did you have much conversation with Castillero ? Ans. 33. — I did not. I only spoke a very few words. Ques. 34. — Did Castillero speak with you at all on the subject of his visit to Mexico ? Ans. 34. — I do not remember that he did. Direct Resumed. Ques. 35. — Did you see the ore which Castillero took with him on your vessel ? Ans. 35.— I did. Ques. 36. — Describe how much there was of it. 429 Ans. 36. — I do not remember exactly. There was about a bucket full, a common bucket. I do not know that I can distinguish cinnabar from other metallic ore. The ore that Castillero took down was of several kinds. I am no judge of it. I saw among it some ore which I took to be silver. That ore I think I knew. Ques. 37. — Did you hear of the war between the United States and Mexico, before you sailed from Acapulco ? Ans. 37. — I did. I think it was 2 or 3 days before I sailed. Ques. 38. — In what form did the news of the war reach you ? Ans. 38. — I merely heard that a battle had been fought, and that the Americans had been defeated, and that war was existing. JOHN PATY. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of December, A. D. 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Special Commissioner. Filed Dec. 16, 1857. JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk, By J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. EXHIBIT « J. P., No. 1." INFORMATION FOR WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. First. — In April, A. D., eighteen hundred and forty-six, I charter- tered the bark Don Quixote, under my command, to the Mexican Gov- ernment at Monterey, for a voyage to Acapulco and back to Monterey. Thomas 0. Larkin acting as my agent. Second. — I sailed from Monterey on the fourth day of April, A. D. eighteen hundred and forty-six, bound for Acapulco. Third. — Don Andres Castillero and his servant, or companion, (" Lazaro Pina I think was his name,) Mrs. John Paty, child and servant, were passengers on board. Fourth. — We arrived at Acapulco on the twenty-first day of April, A. D. eighteen hundred and forty-six ; no person left the vessel or came on board during the passage. Fifth. — Don Andres Castillero and his servant left Acapulco for 430 Mexico on the twenty-fourth day of April, eighteen hundred and forty- six. Sixth. — I agreed to wait twenty days at Acapulco for Don Andres Castellero, and after waiting until the 16th of May, I heard that he wished to meet me at Mazatlan, consequently I left Acapulco on the 18th of May for that place and St. Bias. Seventh. — Capt. John Vioget, Mrs. John Paty, child, and servant were passengers from Acapulco. Eighth. — Touched at San Bias on the 4th June, and left on the six for Mazatlan. Ninth. — Arrived at Mazatlan on the 9th June, where I waited until the 16th June, and not hearing anything of Den Andres Castillero, I concluded not to wait for him any longer ; took on board Mrs. Anita Castanares, daughter of Rafel Gonzales, of Monterey, and Mrs. Car- men, daughter of Feliciano Sobreano, of Monterey, and made sail. Tenth. — Touched at Cape St. Lucas on the 21st Sune, and sailed again the same day for St. Pedro. Eleventh. — I have not had any information from Don Andres Cas- tillero or his servant, either at San Bias or at Mazatlan. Twelfth. — I arrived at St. Pedro on the 27th July, and sailed again on the 9th of August for St a . Barbara. Thirteenth. — Arrived at St\ Barbara on the 13th of August, and sailed again on the 16th for St. Lewis Obispo. Fourteenth. — I arrived at St. Lewis on the 19th, and sailed again for Monterey on the 23d of June, where I arrived on the 27th. Fifteenth. — I have enclose a receipt from the post office, for letters mailed at Acapulco. Sixteenth. — The charter, for the Don Quixote, was paid by the Gov- ernment, at Monterey, part in advance, and the balance after my re- turn. Honolulu, 9th July, 1857. JOHN PATY. constlate of the united states of america, Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. On this 9th day of July A D 1857, personally appeared before me the undersigned Vice Consul of the United States of America at Hon- 431 olulu Hawaiian Islands Capt. John Paty to me well known and who subscribed and made oath to the foregoing statement written upon three pages, and I hereby certify that the foregoing statement of Capt John Paty is entitled to full faith and credit. n In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand Con- seal ( sular Seal, at Honolulu H. I. this ninth day of July A D I 1857. GEO A LATHROP US V Consul EXHIBIT " J. P. No. 2." Copy. Dear Sir Agreeable to our contract relative to the charter of the Bark Don Quixote I have to inform you that I am now ready to sail, and am only waiting for the passenger or passengers. You know it is of much importance for me to return back to this coast as soon as possible and unless the contract is complied with by or on the 4th day of this month I shall consider it null and void and shall require damages accordingly. T. 0. Larkin Esq. Monterey April 2, 1846. Your Obdt Servt JOHN PATY. (Endorsed) Copy of a letter to T. 0. Larkin Monterey Apr 2 '46 EXHIBIT " J. P. No. 3." Satisfizo p r . francat a . en esta admon. D n . Juan Paty, capit n . de la Barca Quijote, de la Band a . se S n . Luichi lo siguiente " asaver u » Por un pliego con 14 onzas, p\ Vera cruz | 8 y 4 r 8 . Por uno de una onza p a . dho. punto " 1 " P r . una carta p a . los Estados unidos d 1 . N " " 4 Por un impreso p a . los mismos " " 1 Son $10 "1 Admon. de Correo de Acap co . Ab 1 . 22 1846 JOSE BRACHO. (Entd) (Endorsed) Receipt for letters mailed at Acapulco for Mr Larkin 1846. (In pencil) Monterey 432 EXHIBIT " J. P. No. 4." (CERTIFICATE OF THE CAPITAN DEL PUERTO DE ACAPULCO.) El Ciud . Juan Agustin Marin Capn de Fragata de la Armada Na- tional Comandante de Marina del departamento del Stir y Capn del Puerto de Acapulco Certifico : q por los antecedentes q obran en e*sta Oficina de mi cargo y Aduana Maritima, con relacion a la Barca kanaha " D Quijo- te," consta q 6sta buque fonde6 en este Puerto el veinte y uno de Abril de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis (1846) procedente de Monter- rey en Lastre su Capn Jhon Paty con diez y siete dias de Navegacion, de pasaje el Capn D. Andres Castillero comicionado por la Alta Cali- fornia serea del Sup mo . Gobierno. Esta barca dio la Vela para las islas Sandavoich el diez y ocho de Mayo del mismo aiio con su carga frutos del pais, y de pasaje k Enrique Malekembuhn Aleman y dos Jovenes Mejicanos Jacinto y Jose* M a . Jurque. Acapulco Julio diez y ocho de mil ochocientos cincuenta y siete. J. AGUSTIN MARIN Consulate of the United States, At Acapulco, Mexico. This is to certify that the foregoing stgnature of Senor J. Augustin Marin is personally known to me to be his true signature and as such is entitled to full faith and credence. Given at the Consulate of the United States in the Port of Acapul- co Republic of Mexico on this the 18th day of July A D. 1857. s In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal ( affixed the seal of this consulate. I CHARLES L. DENMAN, U. S. Consul 433 EXHIBIT "J. P. No. 5." Carlos Horn l er Teniente de la Armada Nac 1 . y Capitan de este Puerto. / A N Certifico : que segun acreditan las constancias ( & . ) existenses en el archivo de esta Capitania de Puer- \ j to, la Barca Canaca "D. Quijote," su Capitan John Paty fondeo en esta Rada de S. Bias el dio v trese de Abril de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis, prosedente del Puer to de Monterey de la Alta California. Y para los usos que convenga doy el presente bajo mi firma y sello de oficio, en el Citado Puerto de San Bias, a cuatro de Julio de mil ochocientos cincuenta y siete. CARLOS HORN. ^ A N Ygnacio Echagaray Coronel de eje'rcito, Gefe ( a j ) Politico y Comandante pral de este Canton : \ \ Certifico : que la firma que antesede es la v v ' misma que usa en todossis asuntos particulares y publicos el C* Carlos Horn, Capitan de Puerto en San Bias y coman- dante Militar de dha. plaza, por lo mismo puede dareele entera fe* y cre'dito. Y para los usos & que haya lugar estendi el presente con mi sello y firma 4 los dies y ocho dias del mes de Julio de mil ochocientos cincuenta y siete. Y. ECHAGARAY. DEPOSITION OF JAMES ALEXANDER FORBES. United States Distrigt Court, ) Northern District of California. ) The United States ) vs. > Andres Castillero. ) San Francisco, Dec. 14th, 1857. On this day, before the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, came James Alexander Forbes, a wit- ness produced on behalf of the United States in Case No. 420, being 434 an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present : Ogden Hoffman, District Judge, and counsel for United States and for claimants. Question by United States Attorney. My name is James Alexander Forbes ; my age is 52 ; am a native of Scotland ; have resided in California 28 years. Question. — Have you held any public employment during the exist- ence of the Mexican Government, and if so, what ? Answer. — I was British Vice Consul eight years, from 1843 to 1851. Ques. — During that time was there a British Consul at Tepic, and who was he ? Ans. — There were two persons exercising the functions of British Consul at Tepic during that time ; one was Mr. Eustace Barron and the other Mr. Alexander Forbes. I do not recollect precisely during what years they respectively held office. I believe that Mr. Eustace Barron exercised those functions from 1843 to 1847 or 1848. Mr. Alexander Forbes succeeded him I think about 1847 or 1848. He held office I think until 1850, when he was succeeded by Mr. Eustace W. Barron, son of the former. Ques. — Were these three gentlemen all of the house of Barron, Forbes & Co., during this time ? Ans. — I cannot state at w T hat time Mr. Eustace W. Barron became a member of the firm of Barron, Forbes & Co., nor can I state of my own knowledge that Mr. Alexander Forbes was a member of that firm. Ques. — Who was Mr. William Forbes ? Ans. — He was a member of the firm, and the one whom I knew there as the prominent active partner in the house. Ques. — Did you ever have a personal acquaintance with Mr. Alex- ander Forbes ; if so, where and when ? I did ; in California, in 1848. Ques. — When did he arrive in California ? Ans. — I am not certain as to the precise date. It was the latter part of 1847 I think. Ques. — Can you not recall the month ? Ans. — As my recollection serves it was in the latter part of the year. I cannot state the precise time. 435 Ques. — After you saw Mr. Alexander Forbes in California in 1847-'8, did you see him elsewhere ? Ans I saw him in the city of Tepic, in Mexico, in May, 1849. Ques. — When you saw him in Tepic did he appoint you his agent for any purpose ; if yea, for what purpose ? Ans. — He did. He appointed me to take charge of the mine of New Almaden. Ques. — Did he confer that authority by writing ? Ans. — He did. I received a written power of Attorney. That document is in my possession. I believe it is on record in Santa Clara County, but I am not certain ; at all events I have the paper. Ques. — Have you got it here in Court ? Ans. — I have not. It is in my house in Santa Clara. Ques. — How long did you remain in Tepic on the occasion of which you have spoken, and when did you arrive in California ? Ans. — As far as my recollection serves me, I left California about May 1st, 1849, and I arrived in San Francisco about June 13th of the same year, but I am not positive. Ques. — Will you endeavor to remember at what time you left Tepic ? Ans. — I have said that I arrived in San Francisco about the 13th June. I came in a steamer, and I must have been some nine or ten days on the voyage. Ques. — When you arrived in California did you do anything in pur- suance of the authority you had received from Alexander Forbes ? Ans. — Not immediately. In pursuance of that power of Attorney, I took charge of the mine of New Almaden. Ques. — How long did you hold charge of the mine, and in what capacity did you hold it ? Ans. — I had charge of the mine and Hacienda from October 1849, to May 1850. I held it as Director. Ques. — What was the nature of your duties ? Ans. — The general supervision of the affairs of the mine. Ques. — What duties did you perform while holding charge of the mine? Ans. — Those that I have expressed in my previous answer. The supervision of the mine included the payment of laborers and the di- rection of their operations. Ques. — At that time did you own an interest in the mine ? Ans. — I did. Ques. — Did you make reports of what you did in the course of your duties. If so ; to whom and how — whether orally or in writing ? Ans. — I made written reports to Barron, Forbes & Co., as the Directors general of the mine, of the disbursements made by me. They were generally sent by steamer. 436 Ques. — In the year 1849 did the mail steamers stop at any Mexi- can ports ; if so, at what ports and how often did they run ? Ans. — The mail steamers sailed from here monthly, and generally stopped at Mazatlan and San Bias. Ques. — Did you write by every steamer to the persons you have mentioned ? Ans. — I did generally. Ques. — Was it your custom to write a single letter or many letters of different dates by each steamer ? Ans. — My correspondence with those gentlemen was voluminous and required several days to prepare it. I dated my letters from day to day as I prepared them. Ques. — Are you acquainted with the firm signature of Barron, Forbes & Co., and with the handwriting of either of the partners or of their clerks at the time you have spoken of? Ans. — I am acquainted with the handwriting of Mr. Alexander Forbes, Mr. Eustace Barron, and Mr. Eustace W. Barron. Ques. — How did you acquire your knowledge of their hand- writing ? Ans. — I have received letters from them all. Have seen them all write except the elder Mr. Barron. (Paper produced marked " F. No. 20, J. A. Monroe.") Ques. — Look at this paper and say if you know the handwriting ? Ans. — The body is in the handwriting of Mr. W. E. Barron, the gentleman now in court, the signature is that of Mr. William Forbes. (Paper offered in evidence — counsel for claimants objects to the let- ter as an admission on the ground that there are other parties in interest as appears by the record who are tenants in common, and whose interests will be affected thereby. Also, that it does not appear by whom it was received or where it came from.) Ques. — Are you the person to whom this letter was addressed ; was it received by you ; when and where ? Ans. — I am the person : I received it at the mine New Almaden ; it was transmitted to me by my agent in San Francisco ; it was re- ceived 15 or 20 days after its date. (Paper offered in evidence. Received and read subject to objection, and attached to deposition, marked " 0. H. No. 1.") (The witness desires to state that he was in error as to the date and 437 place of the reception of the above letter. He now states that he re- ceived it in Tepic, and that he remembers the fact from hearing the contents read which he had not previously adverted to.) Ques. — What were the circumstances you had communicated to Barron, Forbes & Co., and what were the lands alluded to in that letter ? (Question objected to.) Ans. — As far as I recollect I considered it necessary to obtain an extension for the purpose of procuring wood, and I recommended the purchase of a part of the rancho of San Vicente. I was thereupon authorized to do so by those gentlemen. Ques. — What part of the ranjcho were you to purchase, and from whom ? Ans. — The south-western part. I was to purchase it from the family of the deceased J ose* Reyes Berreyesa. Ques. — Please to explain what you mean by an " extension " of land in your previous answer. What was to be embraced within that extension ? Ans. — I meant an extension of facilities for the purpose of obtain- ing wood. The land referred to was all the land on the western side of the creek of Alamitos to which the Berreyesa's laid claim. The overtures made by me did not express any definite quantity of land. I was desirous to purchase their right, if they had any right. Ques. — What are the relative positions of the mine and hacienda, and the lands to which you refer ? Ans. — The principal part of the land lay to the north-east of the mine and Hacienda. The latter are on the same side of the creek. Ques. — How would the remainder lie ? Ans. — It would be impossible for me to state how far the claims of the Berreyesa's reached. I was desirous of purchasing all the lands claimed by them on the western side of the creek. Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you marked 4 F. No. 21, "J. A. Monroe," and say in whose handwriting the body of that paper in the Spanish is, and also the endorsement in English. Ans. — This document is in my own handwriting, also the endorse- ment. (Paper offered in evidence. Objected.) Ques. — Were the words of the endorsement written by you at the time of their date ? Ans. — They were. 438 Ques. — Did you or did you not leave with Alexander Forbes the memorandum, as stated by that endorsement ? Ans. — I did. (Paper read in evidence, subject to exception. Marked " 0. H. No. 2," and attached to deposition.) Ques. — Look at paper now shown you marked " F. No. 23, J. A. Monroe, " and say in whose handwriting it is. Ans. — The body of the writing and the signature are in my hand- writing ; also the endorsement. Ques. — Was that endorsement put on at its date ? Ans. — I presume it was. Ques. — Is that endorsement true ? Ans. — I did send a letter of which that is a copy to Mr. William Forbes at the date mentioned in the copy. (Paper offered in evidence. Objected to. Received in evidence subject to objections, and attached to deposition and marked *f 0. H. No. 3." Ques. — Please look at paper marked " F. No. 23, J. A. Monroe," and state in whose handwriting are the body, the signature and the endorsement. Ans. — The body of the letter and the signature are in my hand- writing ; also the endorsement, except the lower part, (that of the Clerk of this Court. Ques. — Is the fact stated in the endorsement true ? Is this a copy of a letter to Alexander Forbes, written at the date it purports to bear and sent to him ? Ans. — Yes sir. Ques. — Look at the date of the endorsement and that of the body of the letter and state how you account for the difference between them ? Ans. — I presume it is a clerical mistake. I was in the habit of writing numerous letters about the latter part of the month, and may have made a mistake in the date. (Paper offered in evidence. Objected to. Received subject to objection. Attached to deposition and marked " 0. H. No. 4.") Q ues . — Look at the letter marked " F. No. 16, J. A. Monroe," and say in whose handwriting are the body, the signatures and the endorsement ? Ans. — The body of the letter is in the handwriting of Mr. William 439 E. Barron ; the signature is that of Mr. Alexander Forbes, and the endorsement is in my handwriting. Ques. — Are you the James A. Forbes to whom it was addressed ; was it received by you and when ? Ans. — I am the person to whom it was addressed. It was received by me probably a month after its date. I cannot precisely state. (Paper offered in evidence. Objected to. Read subject to excep- tion and attached to deposition, marked " 0. H. No. 5." Ques. — Did you receive the notarial copy of the grant to Andres Castillero mentioned in this letter. Ans. — I did. Ques. — What did you do with it ? Ans. — I gave it to Don Isadoro de la Torre on the 18th June, 1850. Ques. — What Mr. de la Torre is this of whom you speak ? Had he any connection with this mine ; if so, what ? Ans. — 1 speak of Don Isadoro de la Torre, member of the firm of Jecke, Torre & Co. He had an interest at that time in the mine and in the contract for working it. He succeeded me as superintendent of the mine. Ques. -Where was he then ? Ans. — I transmitted it with other documents to him when he was at the mine of New Almaden, and I was at my residence in Santa Clara. Ques. — By whom did you transmit it ? Ans. — I am not certain whether by the hands of Mr. Robert Birnie or some other person in the service of the mine. I know he received the documents. Ques. — Are you acquainted with the signature and handwriting of the Mr. Alexander Forbes of whom you have spoken ? If so, what are your means of knowledge ? Aris. — I have had voluminous correspondence with him, and have oftentimes seen him write. Ques. — Look at the paper marked " F. No. 7, J. A. Monroe," now shown you, and say in whose handwriting it is. Ans. — The body and the signature are in the handwriting of Alex- ander Forbes. Ques. — Are you the James A. Forbes to whom it is addressed ? Ans. — I am. Ques. — At or about what time did you receive it ? Ans. — I cannot state positively, probably about the latter part of December, 1849, a month or so after its date. 440 (Paper offered in evidence. Objected to. Received subject to objection. Attached to deposition and marked " 0. H. No. 6.") Ques. — Look at the paper marked " F. No. 9, J. A. Monroe," now shown you, and state in whose handwriting it is, and whether you are the person to whom it is addressed, and whether you received it ; if so, when? Ans. — The body and signature are in the handwriting of Mr. Alex- ander Forbes. I am the person to whom it is addressed. I received it a short time after its date. I can't say when. (Paper offered in evidence. Objected to. Read subject to objec- tion. Attached to deposition and marked " 0. H. No. 7.") Ques. — Did you receive the document of which that letter speaks, being the grant to Andres Castillero ? Ans. — I don't recollect having received any other document than that to which I have already testified. Ques. — Did you ask Probst, Smith & Co., for the document al- luded to ? Ans. — I can't exactly state. I don't recollect whether I did or not. They were my agents in San Francisco. They received my corres- pondence and transmitted it to me. I do not know whether the document I received from them and gave to Don Isodoro de la Torre was the notarial copy alluded to in a former letter, or that alluded to in the last letter. Ques. — Can you state anything more with reference to the docu- ment spoken of in this last letter ? Ans. — No, sir. Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you, marked " F. No. 10, J. A. Monroe," and state in whose handwriting it is ; whether you are the person to whom it is addressed ; whether you received it, and when. Ans. — The body and signature are in the handwriting of Mr. Alex- ander Forbes. I am the person to whom it is addressed. I received it in the usual course of steamer after its date. (Paper offered in evidence objected to. Received subject to objec- tion, and attached to deposition, and marked " 0. H. No. 8." Ques. — Look at the paper marked " F. No. 11, J. A. Monroe," and say in whose handwriting it is ; whether you are the person to whom it is addressed ; whether you received it, and when. Ans. — My answer is the same as that to the last question. 441 (Paper offered in evidence. Objected to. Read subject to excep- tion, attached to deposition, and marked " 0. H. No. 8£." Ques. — Will you be kind enough to explain what Mr. Forbes refers to in speaking of information acquired by " us," with regard to the title of Jose Reyes Berreyesa ? Ans. — He refers to the existence of an erasure in one of their titles. Ques. — In what manner did you and Mr. Alexander Forbes obtain your knowledge of this fact ? Ans. — We saw it. Ques. — When, how, and under what circumstances ? Ans. — We saw that paper at the house of the Berreyesa's. Ques. — What was your object in looking into their titles ? Ans. — The object was to run certain lines between the mining lands and those of the Berreyesa's. Mr. Alexander Forbes desired to see their titles. They were shown to him and me. Ques. — Why did he desire to see the papers ? Ans. — To enable him to run a line between his lands and those of the Berreyesa's. Ques. — Was there a survey made ? Ans. — There was, by one Chester S. Lyman. Ques — .What was the date of that survey ? Ans. — I think in January and February, 1848. Ques. — What lands were surveyed ? Ans. — A tract southwest of the Rancho of San Vicente, embracing two leagues around the mine. Ques. — Under what title or grant, if any, was that survey made ? Ans. — I am not able to state. Ques. — Was you not present at any time while this survey was being made, and did you see Mr. Alexander Forbes there at any time ? Ans. — I was present, and I saw Mr. Alexander Forbes there. Ques; — Did you then see any grant of the two leagues then being surveyed ? Ans. — I did not. Ques. — Had you ever seen any such grant ? Ans. — I had not. Ques. — What lands then were to be separated from those of Berre- Ans. — Those I have already mentioned ; two leagues of ganado mayor around the mining possession. Ques. — Under what title, or by what right, as explained to you at that time, were those two leagues to be surveyed ? 36 442 Ans. — The order for the survey was made by Mr. Alexander Forbes. Ques. — Did he speak of no right or title under which he ordered that survey to be made ? Ans. — I can't exactly remember all that occurred in conversation. My impression is, that he said he had a title for the two leagues, or that there was one appertaining to Castillero. I am uncertain whether he said he had it or had it not. He never showed it to me.. My recollection of the conversation is, that Mr. Forbes stated that Cas- tillero had relinquished his claim to $25,000 from the Mexican gov- ernment, and had solicited in place of it a grant for the two sitios. I desire to state that I never saw any grant of the land at that time. Ques. — From what passed at that time, was the impression made upon your mind that Mr. Alexander Forbes spoke of a title then in existence, or one thereafter to be procured ? Ans. — My impression was that he spoke of it as already existing. Ques. — When did you become satisfied that the title did not exist, and that it was necessary to procure one as stated in your memoran- dum at Tepic ? (Question objected to and withdrawn.) Ques. — When did you become satisfied that it was necessary to procure the grant described in the memorandum left by you with Mr. Forbes at Tepic, and dated May 27, 1849 ? Ans. — I did not exactly become satisfied that it was necessary to procure that grant. Ques. — Can you not answer further to that qusstion ? Ans. — It was merely suggested. I don't know that I ought to answer. I will state, however, that from the time Mr. Alexander Forbes was in California I was apprehensive that there was something wrong about the title to the mine, in consequence of the second pos- session given by the Alcalde of San Jose* in 1848. As regards any measures that may have been carried out at my suggestion, I am in- norant of them ; that is, I am ignorant whether any such measures were carried out or not. Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you marked " F. No. 24, J. A. Monroe," and state in whose handwriting it is ; also, at the memorandum on the back, and say in whose handwriting it is. Ans. — The body, signature and endorsement are in my handwi iting. It is a copy of a letter sent by me at the date it purports to bear, to Alexander Forbes. (Letter offered in evidence. Objected to. Received subject to objection. Attached to deposition, and marked " 0. H. No. 9." 443 Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you, marked " F. No. 12, J. A. Monroe ;" say in whose handwriting it is ; whether you are the person to whom it is addressed, and when you received it. Ans. — This is a press copy of a letter addressed to me by Barron, Forbes & Co. ; the handwriting of the body I do not know ; the sig- nature is that of Mr. Wm. Forbes. It was received by me in due course of mail. (Letter offered in evidence. Objected to. Received subject to exception ; attached to deposition, and marked " 0. H. No. 10. " Ques. — Look at the letter marked " F. No. 14, J. A. Monroe," and state in whose handwriting it is ; whether received by you, and when. Ans. — The body and signature is in the handwriting of Mr. Alex- ander Forbes. I am certain from the reference made to the cylinders that it must have been sent to me in 1850. (Paper offered in e\idence. Objected to. Received subject to objection ; attached to deposition, and marked " 0. H. No. 11.") Ques. — Look at the four papers shown you, and marked " F. No. 13, J. A. Monroe ; " " F. No. 15, J. A. Monroe ; " « F. No. 17, J. A. Monroe," and U F. No. 16}, J. A. Monroe," and state in whose hand- writing they are, and when received. Ans. — " F. No. 15-2 " is a press copy of the letter signed by me, and addressed to Alexander Forbes, and transmitted at the time of its date. The rest are all in the handwriting of Mr. Alexander Forbes, and received by me in due course of steamer. (Papers offered in evidence. Objected to. Received subject to objection ; attached to deposition and marked " 0. H. No. 12," " 0. H. No. 13," " 0. H. No. 14," « 0. H. No. 15." Ques. — Look at the papers marked " F. No. 1, J. A. Monroe," "F. No 2," J. A. Monroe," " F. No. 3, J. A. Monroe," " F. No. 4, J. A. Monroe," now shown you, and say in whose handwriting they are, and whether received by you and when. Ans. — They are all in the handwriting of and signed by Alexander Forbes. They were transmitted so me from their respective places of date, and received by me, not by steamer, but by other conveyances : sailing vessels, &c. Ques. — Look at the papers now shown you, marked " F. No. 6, J. A. Monroe," and state in whose handwriting it is, and whether received by you, and when. Also, at " F. No. 5, J. A. Monroe :" 444 also, at " F. No. 19, J. A. Monroe ;" also, " F. No. 8, J. A. Mon- roe." Ans.— " F. No. 6," " F. No. 5," and " F. No. 19," are in the handwriting of and signed by Mr. Alexander Forbes. Also, " F. No. 8, J. A. Monroe." They were received by me by a special messen- ger from the mine of New Almaden, except one, which was received by a messenger from Monterey. Ques. — Look at the paper marked " F. No. 19, J. A. Monroe," and answer the same questions with regard to it. Ans. — " F. No. 19 " is in the handwriting and signed by Alexan- der Forbes. It was received by me by a special messenger from the mine. Ques.— Look at " F. No. 25, J. A. Monroe," "F. No. 26, J. A. Monroe," and " F. No. 27, J. A. Monroe," and answer the same questions with regard to them. Ans. — " F. No. 25 " is in the Spanish language ; it is in my hand- writing. It is a copy of a petition presented by Alexander Forbes to the Alcalde of San Jose, at the time it bears date, Jan'y, 1848. " F. No. 26," is a sketch explanatory of it, also in my handwriting. The drawing is by me. " F. No. 27," is a list, in my handwriting, of the documents to which I have been testifying. (All the above documents were offered in evidence, and objected to. Received subject to exception, attached to deposition, and marked " 0. H. No. 16," " 0. H. No. 17," " 0. H. No. 18," " 0. H. No. 19," " 0. H. No. 20," 0. H. No. 21," " 0. H. No. 22," " 0. H. No. 23," " 0. H. No. 24," " 0. H. No. 25," 0. H. No. 26." Ques. — Look at paper marked " F. No. 18, J. A. Monroe," and state by whom it was written, and when received. Ans. — It is in the handwriting of Mr. Wm. E. Barron : the signa- ture is that of the firm, written by Mr. William Forbes. It was re- ceived by me in due course of mail. (Offered in evidence. Objected to, and received subject to excep- tion. Attached to deposition marked " 0. H. No. 27.") JAS. ALEX. FORBES. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 14th day of December, 1857. OGDEN HOFFMAN. Examination adjourned until Tuesday, Dec. 15th, at 11, A. M. 445 U. S. STATES DISTRICT COURT. In Open Court. Tuesday, December 15th, 1857. Present : — Ogden Hoffman ; the District Attorney and Mr. Ran- dolph for the U. S.; Mr. Peachy for Claimant. Examination of James Alexander Forbes Resumed. Certified copy of Power of Attorney to James Alexander Forbes offered in evidence. (Objected to. Objection sustained ; but the Court allows the said copy to be used for the purposes of this examination, with the under- standing and on condition that the original will be produced and duly proved at a subsequent day, and if the same is not so produced, then the said certified copy and all questions relating thereto, are received subject to all legal exceptions as to the admissability or effect thereof. Marked "0. H. No. 29," and attached to deposition of James Alexan- der Forbes.) Examination Resumed. Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you, marked " H. L. No. 6," filed August 20, 1857, in this case, purporting to be a copy of power of attorney to you from Alexander Forbes, certified to be of record in Recorder's office of Santa Clara county, and say whether that is a true copy of a power of attorney received by you from him at Tepic. Ans. — I believe it is substantially correct. Qus. — Did you cause that power of attorney to be recorded at the Recorder's office of Santa Clara ? Ans.— I think I. did. Ques. — Is the original the power of attorney under which you took charge of the mine of New Almaden ? Ans. — It is. Ques. — You yesterday testified that certain papers were in the handwriting of Mr. Wm. E. Barron ; what are your means of know- ing his handwriting ? Ans. — I have had correspondence with him and seen him write. Ques. — When did you first receive possession of the Mine of New Almaden, and from whom ? Ans. — I received possession of the mine in 1846, from the represen- tative of Castillero. 446 Ques. — What was his name ? Ans. — Jose Maria Real, usually known as Padre Real, of the Mis- sion of Santa Clara. Ques. — Of what did he give you the possession ? Ans. — Of the mine itself, the hacienda, the mining utensils and the ores that had been extracted from the mine. Ques. — What do you mean by the mine ? Do you mean the spot only where the ores were dug, or that spot with a definite extent of land about it ; and if the latter, of what definite extent of land around the mine did he give you possession ? Ans. — I not recollect that any definite extent was specified other than that given by the Alcalde. It was understood that the mine con- tained three pertenencias at that time. (The latter part of this answer objected to.) Ques. — By " pertenencias" do you mean the quantity of land known as such in the mining ordinances of Mexico ? Ans. — I do. Ques. — Was Padre Real at that time interested in the Mine of New Almaden, as well as the representative of Andres Castillero ? Ans. — He was. Ques. — Did he assign any reason for wishing you to take possession at that time ? Were you an owner in the mine ? Ans. — He was desirous that the mine should be continued to be wrought, and I was negotiating at that time for the purchase of an in- terest in the mine. Ques. — Did he assign any reason for selecting you as a proper per- son to take charge of the mine at that time ? Ans. — I don't recollect that he did, other than that we were upon friendly terms. Ques. — Was it not understood that there were special reasons why you should be the person to have charge of the mine ? Ans. — I think Padre Real manifested a desire not to be in charge of the mine owing to his clerical character, and the difficulties which were about taking place in the country. Ques. — Do you mean the conquest by the Americans ? Ans. — I do. Ques. — Describe, if you please, in what condition you found the mine when you took possession. Was it then being wrought ; if yea, by how many laborers ? Ans. — The aperture of the mine was an adit or horizontal entrance. The pit of possession or " poso de posesion," was filled with debris of the upper part called " tepetate." The adit was about 20 or 25 feet in length through the rock. The ores were in sight on either side. There was a planila or little plateau on the outside formed of the ma- 447 terial taken from the mine. There was one Mayordomo in charge, one blacksmith, and two or three Indians. The Mayor domo and blacksmith resided at the hacienda. One of the Indians remained constantly at the mine and slept in it. They were not at that time ac- tively engaged in extracting the ores. (The witness desires to add to his former answer, that he received about 2,000 pounds of quicksilver at the time he received possession of the mine.) Ques. Where did the other Indians stay ? Ans. I don't know. They wandered about there, and down to the Mission of Santa Clara. Ques. Had you visited the mine at any time during the preceding one, two, three or four months ; if yea, had you found laborers en- gaged in working the mine — if so, at what time and how many ? Ans. I had visited the mine about one month previous. The Mayordomo was there ; some three or four Indians were at work in- side the mine extracting ores. I had not been there before that time. Ques. Had you no information or knowledge as to whether the mine was being worked two, three, or four months previously ? Ans. Not of my own knowledge ; but it is certain that it had been wrought, for the quicksilver which I received had been extracted. Ques. Do you mean to say that is certain that the mine had been wrought, and that quicksilver had been extracted within four months next preceding the time when you took possession ? Ans. I cannot state at what time that quicksilver was extracted. I hare already said I could not state from my own knowledge at what time the mine was being wrought. Ques. Did you not learn from Padre Real at what time that quick- silver had been extracted ? Ans. I do not recollect that I did. Ques. How long did you hold possession of the mine, and to whom did you surrender it. Ans. I can't exactly state. Sometime in 1847 I delivered it to Mr. Robert Walkinshaw, agent of Mr. Alexander Forbes. Ques. Did Padre Real deliver to you the possession of the hacien- da ; did he give you therewith the possession of any definite extent of land about it, and how far is it from the mine ? Ans. When he gave me possession of the mine, the hacienda was comprised in it. It is situated about a mile from the mine. Ques. Do you know of any mode of measuring three pertenencias about that mine so as to include the hacienda ? Ans. No, sir. 448 Ques. Will you answer yes or no, whether he gave you possession of a definite tract of land about the hacienda ? Ans. There was no definite tract of land stated. The possession of the hacienda was comprised in that of the mine. Ques. When you delivered possession of this mine and hacienda to Robert Walkinshaw, agent of Alexander Forbes, of what did that possession consist ? Did you deliver possession of any tract around the mine and hacienda, or either of them ? Ans. I delivered to him that possession which I had received, to- gether with a considerable quantity of ore which I had extracted. At the hacienda I delivered what I had received, together with some utensils purchased by me. I did not deliver to him possession of any definite tract about the mine or hacienda. Ques. When you recovered possession of the mine and hacienda on your return from Tepic, of what did you regain possession ? Ans. I did not state that I recovered possession on my return from Tepic ; I said I received it by virtue of a power of attorney. Ques. Of what did you receive possession on your return from Tepic ? Ans. I received possession of the mine, a large quantity of cinna- bar ore, and of the hancienda, comprising all the works erected by Mr. Walkinshaw. Ques. Did you receive possession of any definite tract of land about the mine or hacienda at that time ? Ans. I do not recollect that I did. Ques. Look at this letter marked u F. No. 6, J. A. Monroe," and tell me what assays are spoken of in that letter ? Ans. As far as my recollection serves these were assays made at an adit vein by Mr. Alexander Forbes at a place not in the true course of the vein. It was afterwards called " capricio." Ques. Was that assay made by yourself ; if so, what was the yield there spoken as " surprising ?" Ans. I made several assays of the ores from New Almaden and San Antonio. They were made with a gun barrel. Probably the sur- prise expressed was at finding those ores as good as the others, which was not expected. I ought to add that it was Mr. Forbes' policy to make it appear that there was no large deposit of quicksilver there, as is usual throughout the mining dirtricts of Mexico. I mean that it was his policy at that particular time. The assays were made with a large gun barrel with the muzzle inserted in water. Ques. What was the largest per centage of quicksilver you re- member to have obtained with your gun barrel from the ores of New Almaden ? Ans. As far as my recollection serves, at that time about 26 per cent. 449 Ques. Did you afterwards obtain a greater yield ; if so, when and how much ? Ans. I did. In the progress of the operations rich ores were dis- covered, of which I have made assays which produced over 40 per cent. It is to be understood that an assay made in the manner I have stated is not subject to the same loss as attends the reduction of ores on a larger scale, owing to the evaporation. Ques. Did you make an average of the yield of the best ores ; if so, what was it ? Ans. I did not make any continuous series of assays. I did not make any average of the best assays. Ques. When you took possession of the mine what constructions had been made for reducing the ores ? Ans. The operations had been conducted on a small scale up to that time. The ores had been confined in two iron pots, the one in- verted over the other with an aperture for the escape of the vapor of mercury which was condensed. Ques. At what time were furnaces for the reduction of ores first erected ? Ans. I erected furnaces at the hacienda in the winter of 1850. They contained iron retorts. Ques. How many were there ? Ans. There had been some furnaces .containing these iron pots erected in 1846. The pots were replaced from time to time as they were decomposed by the action of the sulphur. The brick furnaces at present in use were erected in 1850. The mayordomo erected the furnaces with iron pots. I can't say whether the mayordomo or Cas- tillero erected them. They consisted of two arches, one above the other. The lower received the ashes, the upper the wood. On the upper the pots were placed, the lower received the ore ; the upper was inverted over it with a luting at the joint, but with an orifice for the escape and condensation of the vapor. They were built of adobe or sun driedbricks. Mr. Forbes, in 1848, erected similar fnrnaces but a little^ larger. Those I erected in 1850 were similar. They contained each two iron retorts, having doors on the one side and apertures on the other, connected with iron condensers. I erected two of these in 1850. They were much larger than the previous ones. Each retort was charged with four hundred pounds of ore. Ques. What was the expediente referred to in the first paragraph of the letter just shown you ? Ans. As far as my recollection serves me, it alludes to a copy of the Berreyesa title which had been procured from Monterey. Ques. Who had procured it, and for what purpose ? Ans. I procured it to ascertain the extent of land comprised in their grant. 450 Ques. At what time did you purchase an interest in the Almaden mine, and from whom ? Ans. About the time I took charge in 1846 I purchased from Jose* Teodoro Robles and Secundino Robles, partners of Andres Castillero in the mine. The deed was not put on record until some time after- wards ; in fact, it was not made out. In reality the purchase was made at that time. Ques. Where is the deed ? Ans. I do not know. It is on record in Santa Clara county. Ques. Where is the original ? Can't you recollect whether you delivered it to your vendees or not ? (A deed from Don Secundino Robles and Don Teodoro Robles to James Alexander Forbes produced. Admitted to be the original deed in handwriting of witness. Certified copy filed in lieu of the original by consent of both parties. Copy marked " 0. H. No. 28," and at- tached to deposition.) Ques. At the time you made this purchase did you ask of the Messrs. Robles or Padre Real to see the title under which they held this property ? Ans. They exhibited to me a copy of the contract with the Com- pany for the working of the mine, which I retained. I don't recollect that any other document was shown me. I asked them for their evi- dences of title. Ques. Do you mean the contract between Andres Castillero, Gen. Castro, the two Robles and Father Real, made in 1845 ? Ans. I do. I think it was made in November, 1845. Ques. Did they exhibit to you any other title or writing what- ever? Ans. I do not recollect that they did. Ques. Did you at that time see, or had you at any time previously seen, any concession by any Alcalde of 3000 varas in all directions from the mine, or any grant of two sitios of " ganado mayor." Ans. 1 had not. Ques. Had you seen any such papers at the time you took your deed in 1847 ? Ans. I had not seen any grant of the two sitios. As to the con- cession of 3000 varas, I am uncertain. I should not like to state whether I had or had not. I saw it subsequently. Ques, Do you mean to say that at the time you took a deed of two barras in three pertenencias, so carefully drawn, that you are not cer- tain whether you had or had not seen a concession of 3000 varas in all directions to your grantors and their associates, or to the persons from whom they derived title, and which concession, if calculated as a 451 circle, will give more than 700 pertenencias of the largest class, and if calculated as a square will give just 900 of said pertenencias ? Ans. I mean to say that in that transaction I was guided by the contract of company of Castillero and his associates, and by the noto- rious fact of his having received a possession. I made out the deed according to the usual formula of Mexican documents. With regard to the pertenencias, the gentleman is mistaken, unless the extent be calculated from the mouth of the mine as a centre. I do mean to state that I am uncertain whether or not I saw at that time the con- cession alluded to. Ques. Look at the paper now shown you, marked "Ano de 1845. " Espediente del denuncio posesion y compania de la mina de Azogue " nombrada Santa Clara jurisdiccion de San Jose' Guadalupe en la Alta " California," being the original of Exhibit u A,"to Claimant's petition in this cause, and of which a certified traced copy is on file in this cause — except that part following the signature of James W. Weekes, Alcalde ; say in whose handwriting is the body and the certificate next immediately following the signature of James W. Weekes, signed James Alexander Forbes, and in whose handwriting is the endorsement in Spanish already read to you. Ans. The body of the instrument is in my handwriting ; the cer- tificate of Weekes is in my handwriting ; the signature is his. The cer- tificate signed by me is in my handwriting, and the signature is mine. The endorsement or superscription on the first leaf in Spanish is in my handwriting. Ques. At what time did you write this ; was it at the date of the certificate ? Ans. I made that copy in January, 1848, 1 presume on the same day it is dated. Ques. Where were you when you made it ? Ans. I cannot state positively, but it strikes me I was at the mine of Almaden. Ques. Where did you get the originals from which it was made ? Ans. I got them from Alexander Forbes to the best of my recol- lection. He handed them to me and requested me to make a copy. He procured them, I believe, from the Alcalde. Ques. What did you do with the originals after you had made the copy? Ans. I can't say whether I handed them to Mr. Forbes or the Alcalde. He was at the mine at the time ; his name was James W. Weekes. Ques. Did you give them to either ? Ans. Yes ; I handed them to one or the other of those persons. Ques. Had you ever seen the papers from which the copy was made before that time ? 452 Ans. According to the best of my recollection I had not. Ques. Did you ever see them after that time ? Ans. I think I did. Ques. When and where ? Ans. I sought for them in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara, I think in 1853, and I found an espediente which I pre- sumed was the same. Ques. Do you mean to say that this paper shown you was copied from the paper you found in the Recorder's office in 1853 ? Ans. I am unable to state without a comparison. Ques. Where did you obtain these words, (the superscription in Spanish) ? Ans. I presume it is a copy of the original. Ques. Where did you get the words on the first page, " Es copia a la que me remito firmandola con dos testigos de asistencia en el Pueblo de San Jose* de Guadalupe a 13 de Enero de 1846. Pedro Chabolla, de asistencia P. Sainsevain de assis tncia . Jose' Sunol ?" Ans. I do not know. I have already said I copied the paper handed to me. I presume from seeing them in the copy that they were in the original. Ques. Look at the same words signed to the second petition, and say where you got them ? Ans. I make the same answer as that to the last question. Ques. Look at the receipt for $ 25, signed Antonio Maria Pico, and say where you got those words. Ans. I make the same answer as before. Ques. Look at the last instrument, purporting to be a copy of ar- ticles of partnership between Castillero, Robles &c, and say where you gob the original of that particular paper. Ans. As far as my recollection goes, it must have been handed to me with the other documents by Mr. Alexander Forbes, or the Al- calde. Ques. Do you mean to say that each and every of the writings as to which I have just interrogated you, constituted a part of the origi- nal expediente of the mine, copied by you and certified to by Weekes ? Ans. My answer is that those copies were made by me from docu- ments presented to me as before stated. Ques. When you made this copy at the mine who else was pre- sent ? Ans. I have not positively said that it was made at the mine. If it was, Mr. Walkinshaw was present, besides Mr. Alexander Forbes. Ques. Was not Antonio Maria Pico there ? Ans. I cannot state positively whether he was there on that day. Ques. Was he not there on the 19th, 20th or 21st of January of that year ? 453 Ans. He was there with the Alcalde Weekes, but I am not certain on what day. Ques. Was it not when the Alcalde Weeks was there, and on the occasion when he gave possession of four pertenencias that he signed the certificates just shown you ? Ans. I cannot state positively whether Weekes signed the certificate on that occasion, or at his office. Ques. Was not the possession given and the certificate signed on or about the same day ? Ans. I think it was ; but I am uncertain whether it was signed at the mine or his own office. I am certain I certified to it at my own residence. Ques. Look at the paper marked by the Court " 0. H. No. 24," and say whether this is the petition on which the Alcalde Weeks gave the possession of the pertenencias on or about the same day as you have testified that he signed the certificate to the copy of the expe- diente. Ans. I think this document is a copy of the petition presented to the Alcalde on that occasion, but am not able to swear that it is. Ques. Will you now explain what you meant in that petition by what is said about the increase of pertenencias and the correction of boundaries ? (Objected to ; taken subject to objection.) Ans. I am unable to state. I made out this document at the com- mand or by the direction of another party. Ques. Who was that other party ? Ans. Mr. Alexander Forbes. Ques. Who asked you to make the copy of the Espediente — the Alcalde or Mr. Forbes ? Ans. Mr. Alexander Forbes. JAS. ALEX. FORBES. Subscribed before me this 15 Dec, 1857. OGDEN HOFFMAN, Dist. Judge. Examination adjourned until Wednesday, Dec. 16, at 11 A. M. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Present : Ogden Hoffman, Judge ; counsel for the United States and for Claimants. 454 Examination of James Alexander Forbes, resumed. Wednesday, December 17, 1857. Question. — When Alexander- Forbes arrived in Monterey in 1847, how old was he ? Ans. — I should think about 72 years of age. Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you, superscribed on 1st leaf " Posesion de la mina de Santa Clara. Ano de 1845," being paper produced by S. 0. Houghton, (admitted to be the same found by wit- ness in 1853 in Recorder's Office as testified by him,) and say whether or not this is the paper from which you made the copy endorsed " Es- pediente de la Mina" &c, as to which you testified yesterday ? Ans. — 1 cannot state unless I am allowed to compare them. (The witness compares the documents.) I think it is not. Ques. — If this is not the original from which the copy was made can you now answer whether or not you have ever seen the original since the time you made the copy ? Ans. — I do not recollect that I have. Ques. — Did you ever see that paper " Posesion de la Mina " &c, at any time before you made that copy ? Ans. — I do not recollect that I did. Ques. — Did you ever see it any time before you discovered it in the Recorder's office in 1853. Ans. — I cannot state with certainty whether I did or not. Ques. — Look at the letter marked " F. No. 24, J. A Monroe, 0. H. No. 9," in which you say that Castillero succeeded in obtaining a grant of two sitios on his mining possession. Which of the three mining possessions do you allude to therein ; the one for three per- tenencias which you have said was understood to exist at the time you bargained with the Robles for the two barras ; the one of which you made the copy certified to by Weekes January 20, 1848, being for 3000 varas in all directions from the mine ; or that one given by the said Weekes of the same date with the said certificate of Weekes, and which is for four pertenencias ? Ans. — I allude to the posession given to Castillero by the local au- thorities of San Jose in 1845. It must have been the one I under- stood to exist at the time I bargained with the Robles, and which I understood to consist of three pertenencias. Ques. — Have you ever seen the act of concession of the said three pertenencias ? Ans. — I have not. 455 Ques. — Do you know what are the terms of said concession of three pertenencias ? Ans. — Not having seen it, it is impossible for me to state its terms. Ques.— Look at the letter marked " 0. H. No. 4." Which of these possessions do you allude to by the terms " precar- ious and illegal possession of the mine," &c, which of the three pos- sessions just referred to ? Ans. — I allude to the possession of 3000 varas. The terms u pre- carious and illegal " refer to the mining ordinances which prescribe a quantity less than that, as the extent of a mining possession. Ques. — Then sir, are you not in error when you said that your allu- sion in letter " 0. H. No. 9," was to the possession of the three per- tenencias which you had never seen. Do not both letters allude to the same thing ? Ans. — I think I am not in error ; although I said I had not seen that possession, I still alluded to the first, whatever it may have been, and having seen the act of possession in 1848, my observations in the last letter refer to that. Ques. — Not having seen the concession of three pertenencias which you said was supposed to exist when you bargained with the Robles", and therefore being unable to say in what terms it was expressed, how could you in this letter " 0. H. No. 9," have referred to that conces- sion, when you use these words, u that very act of possession declares " that the mine is situated on the lands of one Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, " five leagues distant from Santa Clara." Ans. — I did not say that I alluded in this letter to an act of posses- sion of three pertenencias. I said I alluded to the first act of posses- sion given. (The former answer of the witness is read to him by request of counsel.) He desires to explain : With regard to the three pertenencias, I alluded to what was under- stood to have been given immediately around the mine, which was con- sidered to constitute three pertenencias of the mine but not of the Hacienda or other lands adjacent thereto. Ques. — I now repeat my question ; how is it that never having seen that act of concession, and being therefore ignorant of its terms, you could use the language referred to in letter " 0. H. No. 9 ? " Ans. — If I have inadvertently answered that in that letter I allude to a possession of three pertenencias, I now state that I allude to the act of possession copied by me in 1848. There was only one act of possession which I understood to have 456 been given. This embraced three pertenencias, so far as regarded the mine. Three pertenencias, and also lands about the Hacienda, I understood to have been given to Castillero in 1845. Ques. — How much land do you mean to say was granted about the Hacienda ? Ans. — I understood there were 3000 varas. Ques. — When do you mean to say you understood this ? Ans. — I think I learnt this about the time I received possession from Real. I am not certain, it may have been subsequently. Ques. — When you bargained and bought of the Robles two of their four " barras " did you not obtain from them the half of all their in- terest in the mine and its appurtenances ? Ans. — I did. Ques. — How is it then that your deed drafted by yourself expressed only two of their barras in each of the three pertenencias of that mine ? Ans. — Quite correct. I purchased two barras, and as a matter of course the deed expressed according to mining custom all the perten- encias supposed to be comprised in a mine. Ques. — How is it then that there was no allusion to their interest in the tract of 3000 varas around the Hacienda, which is one mile from the mine ? Ans. — The terms of the deed of sale comprise every thing ; all their right, title and interest to lands and mine. Ques. — Show what words in that instrument convey an interest in the 3000 vara tract around the Hacienda ? Ans. — It is that clause which commences " all their rights and " shares in each one of the three pertenencias," &c. By Mexican custom a sale of barras in a mine includes an interest in the Hacienda. Ques. — On yesterday, after reading letter " O. H. No. 20, (F. No. 6,") now again shown you, dated January 19th, 1848, you said it was at that time the policy of Mr. Alexander Forbes to conceal the character and quality of the mine. What did you mean by that ? Ans. — I meant to say it was his policy to conceal from certain par- ties already interested, and from others desirous of being interested, the yield of the mine, in order to induce the former to sell out and to deter others from purchasing. Ques. — Which of the partners had he reference to at that time ? Ans. — I represented two shares of the Robles. Padre Real was one of the original company. He desired them to conceal it from Padre Real and from me as the representative of the Robles shares. Ques. — When Alexander Forbes arrived in 1847 and during his visit did he manifest much jealousy about that mine towards you, Father Real and the neighbors ? 457 Ans. — Only in so far as I have stated. Ques. — You have said that Mr. Forbes caused a survey of lands to be made about the mine ; was not that survey made after the date of your copy of the " Expediente de la Mina," &c, certified by Weekes, Alcalde, and after the concession of four pertenencias by said Weekes ? Ans. — I cannot state from recollection whether it was or was not. I do not recollect how long Mr, Lyman was there. I cannot state when he commenced or finished. It was about January or February 1848. He may have commenced in December. Ques. — Do you know why it was that he did not follow the calls of the concession of 3000 varas in all directions around the mine ? (Objected to as assuming a fact not proved.) Ans. — I don't know. I know very little about it. I was there very seldom. Ques. — You have said that one object of this survey was to separate the lands of the mine from those of Jose' Reyes Berreyesa. Did you suppose that you could. settle the limits of Berreyesa by any survey of your own ? Ans. — I did not take upon myself to determine anything in the matter. I did not order the survey. Ques. — How then were you able to say that one object of the sur- vey was to separate the lands of the mine from those of Berreyesa ? Ans. — Because I was so informed by Mr. Alexander Forbes. Ques. — Did he not then also inform you how it was that any survey of his was to affect the boundaries of another man's land ? Ans. — He did not. Ques. — Were the Berreyesas called upon to be present at this survey ? Ans. — The principal representative of the family were viz, the widow and two of her sons. Ques. — What part did they take in the matter ? Ans.— They pointed out certain limits, or a certain line to the S. W. of their house, as their boundary in that direction. This was done at the house, in the presence of Mr. Forbes, Mr. Lyman, and myself, who interpreted to Mr. Lyman. Ques. — Did the surveyor set up any land-marks on those limits ; if so, what ? Ans. — I afterwards saw two flags on that line, which I learnt had been set up by Mr. Lyman. Ques. — Were there no heaps of stones or other permanent monu- ments set up ? Ans. — There may have boen ; I don't recollect now. 37 458 Ques. — When you took possession of the mine in 1846, how many entrances had been made into the hill ? Ans. — One. Ques. — You have mentioned the " poso de posesion," and another entrance, which had gone in about twenty-five feet; was there not also a cave there ? Ans. — I have mentioned but one aperture to the mine, on the left of which was the " poso de posesion." The cavity was originally natural, but that to which I testified yesterday had been excavated by the operators under Castillero, and this I alluded to as about 25 feet long. Ans. — Was there not a cave there before 1845, where the Indians had been in the habit of resorting ? Ans. — For many years previous to that date it was known that such a cave did exist, and was considered to contain some mineral, the nature of which was not known until discovered by Castillero. The Indians were accustomed to use the ore for paint. I obtained this informa- tion from old Indians myself. Ques. — Then in 1846 were there three apertures, the poso, the adit, and the cave — or was the adit through the cave ? Ans. — There was an artificial enlargement at the mouth of the cave. The poso was visible, but filled up to within a foot or two of the surface with debris, it was very near the mouth. The cave ex- tended beyond the poso ; the aperture had been enlarged artificially. The adit had been pushed some twenty-five or thirty feet from the mouth. The poso was on the left near the entrance. Ques. — How deep was the cave before it was extended as you have described ? Ans. — I am unable to state. I had never been there. Ques. — Then the depth of twenty-five feet or thereabouts, was the original length of the cave, with the addition of the artificial exten- sion ? Ans. — It was. Ques. — After Mr. Walkinshaw took possession of this mine as agent for Mr. Alexander Forbes, and up to the year 1850, have you heard him make any declaration with respect to the title to the mine ? (Objected to. Taken subject to objection.) Ans. — Subsequently to his becoming an owner he made no decla- rations with regard to the title to the mine. (Direct examination rested.) 459 Cross-Examination by Mr. Peachy, Counsel for Claimants. Ques. — Do the letters concerning which you have testified, and which have been offered in evidence, contain all the correspondence between you and Mr. Alexander Forbes, or with Barron, Forbes & Co., with reference to the mine ? Ans. — I believe they contain all the private correspondence I had with those gentlemen. Ques. — What do you mean by private correspondence ? Ans— I mean letters alluding to matters I considered private. Ques. — Are these all the letters you showed Mr. Laurencel ? Ans. — They are. Ques. — When did you first hear of the discovery of the mine of New Almaden by Andres Castillero ? Ans.^-In November 1845, or December, I am not certain. Ques. — You have stated that it was notorious in 1846, that he had received possession of the mine. How long before that had you known that he had received possession of the mine ? Ans. — I had known it about 8 months ; 7 or 8 months before 1846, when I bargained with the Robles. Ques. — When did you first learn of a grant of two leagues made to Castillero on this mining possession by the Mexican Gov't ? Ans. — I do not exactly recollect ; I think it was in 1848. Ques. —Look at the letter now shown you; state in whose hand- writing it is. Ans. — It is in my hand-writing. The endorsement is in the hand- writing of Alexander Forbes. I sent it to Mr. Eustace Barron, Sr., at or about the date. It was written on that day. (Paper produced offered in evidence. Marked" 0. II. X. No. 1." Objected to.) Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you and state in whose hand- writing it is. Ans.— It is in my hand-writing, and signed by me. It was written at the time it bears date, and sent by me. The endorsement is in the handwriting of Alexander Forbes. (Letter offered in evidence. Objected to. Taken subject to ob- jection. Attached to deposition and marked" 0. H. X. No. 2.") Ques. — Look at the letter now shown you, and state in whose hand- writing it is. (The witness desires to say in explanation of his previous answer, 460 that the correspondence which he stated to contain all his private cor- respondence with Alexander Forbes, and with Barron, Forbes & Co., contains all his private correspondence when he was in charge of the mine, or at and about that period. That he makes this explanation injustice to himself, as some of the letters just shown him are marked private.) Ans. — It is in my hand-writing, and signed by me ; it was written at its date, and sent to Mr. Alexander Forbes about that time. (Objected to. Read subject to objection, and attached to deposition, marked " 0. H. X. No. 3.") Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you, and answer as before. Ans. — It is in my hand-writing and signed by me. It was written at its date, sent to Mr. Alexander Forbes, and the endorsement is in his hand-writing. (Objected to. Received subject to objection. Attached to depo- sition and marked " 0. H. X. No. 4.") Ques. — Look at the paper now shown you and answer as before. Ans. — The hand-writing is that of Win. E. Barron, now in Court. Signed by Barron, Forbes & Co. The signature is written by Wm. Forbes ; it is addressed to me ; it was received by me, I presume by due course of post. The endorsement is in my handwriting. The address is in the hand-writing of Wm. E. Barron. (Letter offered. Received subject to objection. Marked " O. H. X. No. 5.") Ques. — Did you hand over to Mr. De La Torre any documents and letters in your possession ? Ans. — I wrote a letter to him at the time I transferred the posses- sion of the same to him, specifying the letters transmitted to him. I handed over to him all the letters and documents of a public nature connected with the mine. I presume this was one of them. Ques. — Look at the letter now shown you, and answer as before. Ans. — The body and the signature are in my handwriting. It is the letter I have just alluded to; it was sent to Mr. De La Torre with the documents and letters therein mentioned, at the time I transferred the posession to him. (Letter offered in evidence. Objected to. Received subject to exception. Marked « 0. H. X. No. 6.") 461 (The Court advises the Counsel on both sides, that objections to the admissibility of all papers heretofore offered, or hereafter to be offered in evidence, need not now be stated, except such as are formal and might be removed if mentioned. And that both sides will be at liberty to urge at the final hearing all objections to the admissibility and competency of said papers, except those above mentioned, with the same effect as if the same were now particularly specified.) (The Counsel for U. S. call upon Claimants to produce all the docu- ments referred to in the last letter exhibited to witness, and give notice that if the same be not produced, the admission in evidence of any of said documents will be objected to, as containing only a part, and not the whole of said documents.) JAS. ALEX. FORBES. Subscribed in open Court, this 15th Dec. 1857. OGDEN HOFFMAN, Dist. Judge. DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Present : Ogden Hoffman, Judge ; the District Attorney, and Mr. Randolph, for the United States. Mr. Peachy, for claimant. Thursday, December 17th, 1857. Examination of James Alexander Forbes, resumed. Ques. — You have stated on your direct examination that you had never heard of a grant of two leagues to Castillero until 1 848 or 1849. To what two sitios do you refer in your letter to Alexander Forbes, .dated July 14, 1847, marked " 0. H. X. No. 8," wherein you say, " I was presented," &c, (passage in letter read to witness ;) and what do you mean when you say in said letter, " I could not per- mit," &c. ? (passage read to witness.) Look at the letter and state to what you refer therein. Ans. — I think I stated in my direct examination that I was not certain of the precise time at which I was informed of a grant to Cas- tillero, and in the two passages referred to, I allude to the lands which I had been informed had been solicited by Castillero. Ques. — In that letter you speak of two sitios which had been con- ceded to Castillero and socios ; and in your last answer to your last question you say you refer to lands which had been " solicited" by him ; why did you use the term granted when you referred to lands solicited ? 462 Ans. — The expressions used in this letter were based upon the in- formation which I stated I had received. Ques. — Had you been informed before you wrote that letter that there had been a grant to Castillero for two leagues ? Ans.- — I had been informed that Castillero had said that he had a grant for two leagues. Ques. — Look at the letter marked " F. No. 24, J. A. Monroe," and particularly to the words, " He Castillero, succeeded in obtaining a grant to himself for 2 sitios," &c. Is the grant of two sitios to which you therein refer the same as that to which you refer in letter " 0. H. X. No. 3 " ? (Question objected to as assuming that the witness has said that the grant did exist at the date of the letter, whereas the witness merely stated he had heard of such a grant. Taken subject to exception.) Ans. — It is the same tract which, as I have before stated, I had been informed had been granted to Castillero. Ques. — Is the grant the same as that which you have said you had heard had been made to Castillero, and to which you allude in letter " O. H. X. No. 3," as the " two leagues conceded to Castillero?" Ans. — It is the same. Ques. — You have said on your direct examination, that you re- ceived a notarial copy of a grant to Castillero, referred to in letter " F. No. 16, J. A. Monroe," dated Nov. 13, 1849. Look at the paper now shown you and say if this the notarial copy referred to by you. Ans. — It is. (Notarial copy offered in exidence. Objected to. Point reserved. Marked " 0. H. X. No. 7.") Ques. — When did you first learn that a contract of avio had been made between the proprietors of the mine and Alexander Forbes ? Ans. — To the best of my recollection, in the year 1846. Ques. — Did you ever see a copy of that contract ? Ans. — I did. Ques. — When did you first see it ? Ans. — I cannot state positively ; I received a certified copy of it I think in 1850. Ques. — Did you ever ratify as proprietor, any contract of avio ? Ans. — I did. Ques. — Do you remember what contract you ratified ? Ans. — I do. Ques. — What contract was it ? 463 Ans. — I ratified as one of the owners, and as representative of two others, a contract for working the mine made with Mr. Alexander Forbes, in Tepic. I am not certain whether it was made by the at- torney of the parties, Mr. McNamara, or by Castillero in person and Don Jose Castro. It was presented to me in 1847, by Mr. Walkin- shaw. I cannot state, positively, whether the contract was presented to me or not, or merely the simple ratification of it by Castillero and Castro. Ques. — Look at the document now shown you, and state whether this is the ratification given by you to which you have referred ? Ans.. — It is. The writing on the 1st, 2d, and 3d pages, and the signature, are mine. It was written at the time it bears date. The writing on both sides of the last sheet is not mine. (Offered in evidence. Objected to. Point reserved. Marked " 0. H. X. No. 8.") Ques. — At the time you made this ratification, had you ever seen the ratification of the contract of Habilitacion made by Castillero in the city of Mexico ? Ans. — I cannot now precisely recollect what was the nature of the document presented to me by Mr. Walkinshaw in 1847, purporting to be a ratification of the contract of avio by Castillero, but I think it was similar to that which I gave. Ques. You are certain then that Walkinshaw showed you a copy of Castillero's ratification ? Ans. He did show me a document purporting to be that ratifica- tion. Ques. Did you read it ? Ans. Probably I did. Ques. Was it long or short ? Ans. I think about as long as mine, possibly longer. Ques. You have said on your direct examination, that you did not receive the document alluded to in Letter " F. No. 9." dated Dec. 1, 1849. And you also stated that you were doubtful whether the notarial copy of the grant to Castillero, which you delivered to Torre, was the document sent to Probst, Smith & Co., and referred to in letter " F. No. 9." Please examine this letter and state whether the document therein referred to as sent to Probst, Smith & Co. was a notarial copy of a grant to Castillero, or some other document. Ans. — I cannot state precisely whether it was the document, being the notarial copy to which I have testified, or whether it was a certi- fied copy of the contract of Avio ; but I think it must have been the last mentioned document. The document which I received and which is referred to in that letter was the certified copy of the contract of Avio. 464 Ques. — Look at your letter of February 26, 1850, marked " F. No. 24, J. A. Monroe," and state if the documents therein referred to as having been sent to you in November, are the same documents men- tioned in the letter of Barron, Forbes & Co., to yourself, dated 30th November, 1849, marked " F. No. 16." Ans. — They are. Ques. — Look at the document now shown you and state whether it is the same which is referred to in the letter " F. No. 9, J. A. Mon- roe, 0. H. No. 7," as having been sent to you under cover to Probst, Smith & Co. Ans. — To the best of my recollection it is. (Offered in evidence. Objected to. Point reserved. Marked " 0. H. No. 9.") Ques. — Look at document " F. No. 25," wherein the Alcalde is requested to visit the' mine for the purpose of inspecting works and of reforming boundaries of the 1st act of possession. What act of pos- session is referred to ; when was it given, and to whom ? Ans. — It refers to the possession given to Castillero in 1845. Ques. — It appears from your letter " F. No. 24," dated February 26, 1850, that Castillero had received a grant for two leagues on his mining possession. What mining possession did you refer to ? Ans. — The same as that of which I have just spoken. Ques. — When you were in Tepic in 1849, did you see Castillero ? Ans. — I did not. I did not meet with him at any time during that trip. | Ques. — Did you learn where he was while you were in Mexico on that occasion ? Ans. — I think I was informed that he was in Lower California. Ques. — When did you last see him ? Ans. — About the beginning of 1846. I am not certain as to the precise time. Ques. — Did you ever hear of any act of possession of the mine of New Almaden being given other than that to Castillero in 1845, and that by Weekes in 1848 ? Ans. — I did not. Ques. — If there had been, would you not have been likely to know it ? Ans. — During the time I had charge of the mine I should certainly have known it. Ques. — Would you not have been likely to know it even when you were not in charge of the mine ? Ans. — It is probable that I would. 465 Ques. — Were you as well acquainted in 1846 with the mining ordi- nances, as you have since become ? Ans. — I was not. Ques. — Did the people about the mine have any knowledge gen- erally of the mining laws, as to the extent of pertenencias, &c. ? Ans. — Few if any of the inhabitants of California had any knowl- edge of the mining ordinances at that time. There was only one copy in California that I knew of. Ques. — Could either of your vendors of your interest in the mine read or write ? Ans. — No sir. Ques. — Do you know whether the Robles understood the meaning of the term " pertenencia ? " Ans. — It is possible that they may have known it. They were intimate with and constantly with Castillero and Padre Real, who had the ordinances. Ques. — You say that in making that purchase you were governed by the partnership which Castillero had formed with the Robles, and by the notorious fact that Castillero had received a possession in 1845. Have you the original contract of partnership referred to, or a copy thereof ? Ans. — I have neither. I gave to Mr. Wm. E. Barron the certi- fied copy of the contract which I received from the Robles at the time I made my bargain in 1846. (Document superscribed " Afio de 1845, Expediente del denuncio," &c. being document stated by witness to have been copied by him and certified to by Weekes, Alcalde, shown to witness. Ques — Is the contract of partnership therein set forth a copy of that ? a certified copy of which was given to you by the Robles. Ans. — This is a copy of the document delivered to me by the Robles., Ques. — State how the papers concerning which you have testified in your direct examination came into the possession of the United States Attorney. Ans. — By virtue of a subpoena duces tecum to Mr. Davidson, with whom they were deposited. Ques. — How did he get possession of them ? Ans. — They were deposited with him by myself and Mr. Laureneel. Ques. — How came your property to be jointly deposited ? Ans. — I received a consideration from him for the use of those papers for a specific purpose. Ques. — What was that purpose ? Ans. — Mr. Laureneel judged that those papers might be useful to 466 him in procuring an amicable compromise with the parties interested in the mine of New Almaden, and he agreed to pay me a considera- tion for the use of them for that purpose. Ques. — Did you ever tell him that this claim to the mine of New Almaden was fraudulent ? Ans. — I do not recollect that I ever did. His inferences were drawn, I presume, from an examination of the papers. Ques. — Did you . ever offer to go to Mexico to procure proof of the fraudulent character of this claim ? And did you assure him that such proofs existed ? Ans. — Mr. Laurencel and myself had some conversations with re- gard to the possibility of obtaining such proofs. Ques. — Did you ever see the document addressed by Castillo Lan- zas, Minister of Relations to the Governor of California, bearing date May 23, 1846, and directing him to put Castillero in possession of two sitios on his mining possession, which has been offered in evidence by the claimants in this case as ther title ? Ans. — I have seen it. It is the counterpart of the notarial copy to which I have testified to-day. Ques. — Do you know any thing connected with that paper having any tendency to prove that it was made on a day different from that on which it bears date, or that it is not for any reason genuine, or that there has been any fraud whatever in procuring it ? (Objected to. Point reserved.) Ans. — I am unable to state. I do not know how or when it was procured, or by whom. Ques. — I repeat the last question. And if you know any such fact, state what it is. Ans. — I decline answering that question on the ground that the answer might expose me to a criminal prosecution. Ques. — You stated on your direct examination that you had left a certain memorandum in Tepic, now shown you, marked " F. No. 21, J. A. Monroe ;" you also volunteered the statement that in regard to any measure carried on by your suggestion you were ignorant of it, and that you are ignorant whether any such measure was carried on. If that be the case, how could it criminate you to answer the preced- ing question ? Ans. — As regards the expressions in my answer, I repeat them. Further than that I decline to answer on the same ground as that stated in my last answer. Ques. — You have already stated that in the year 1847 you had been informed of the existence of a grant to Castillero by the Mexican Government of two sitios. You have also stated that in 1849, about 467 November, you received a notarial copy of an instrument called a grant to Castillero, being the same which you were advised by Barron, Forbes & Co., in their letter of Nov. 30, 1849, had been sent to you on the 13th of that month. You have also stated that you understood this last named document to be the grant of two leagues, of the exist- ence of which you had been informed in 1847. You have also stated in your letter of the 12th February, 1850, " F. No. 24," that Castil- lero had succeeded in obtaining a grant of two sitios to himself on his mining possession, and that you referred to the grant of which notarial copy had been sent you on the 3d Nov., 1849. You have also stated that the original document signed by Castillo Lanzas is a counterpart of that notarial copy. Please to state on reconsideration whether the foregoing facts were correctly stated by you. Ans. — With the exception of a little descrepancy in the dates, and also with the explanation that this original document from Castillo Lanzas was not seen by me until some time in 1853 or 1854, 1 think those statements are correct. Ques. — Do you know of any act committed by any person other than yourself, connected with the original grant, having a tendency to prove its fraudulent character ? Ans. — I do not. I am not responsible for the acts of other people. (The question is explained to the witness and he repeats his answer in the negative.) Ques. — What did Mr. Laurencel pay you for those papers ? Ans. — For the use of those papers he paid me 110,000. Ques. — Was it in cash ? Ans. — It was. Ques.— When ? Ans. — In May last. Ques. — Was your agreement in writing ? Ans. — It was. Ques. — Have you that copy ? Ans. — I am not certain whether it is among my papers. Ques. — Are you not certain that it is among your papers ? Ans. — It may be. It is probable it is. Ques. — Why do you say you are uncertain whether you have it ? Ans. — Because I have it not about me. It is probably in my house in Santa Clara. Ques. — Why then do you express a doubt on the matter ? Ans. — Because there were two agreements, and I am not quite certain whether I destroyed both or not. Ques. — Are you not certain you destroyed neither ? Ans. No. I am certain I destroyed one. Ques. How many agreements did you make ? Ans. I have already said I made two. 468 Ques. — Have you received no more than the 110,000 already spoken of? Ans. — Yes. Ques. — How much ? Ans. — I can't state exactly, as I have not realized from it ; probably a few thousand dollars. Ques. — When did you receive this last amount ? Ans. — I received a certain amount about a fortnight since. Ques. — How much ? Ans.— A little over 2,000 dollars. Ques. — Was that received since Mr. Laurencel testified in this case? Ans. — Yes, sir. Ques. — Has it been so long as a fortnight ago ? Ans. — I think about twelve or thirteen days. Ques. — Who paid it ? Ans. — He did. Ques. — Where and how ? Ans. — In this city, in cash. Ques. — Where ? Ans. — I believe in Battery street, at a place at which I met him. Ques. — In whose house ? Ans. — In Mr. Sellier's house. Ques. — On what account was this paid ? Ans. — On account of money he testified he owed me. Ques. — How came he to owe you ? Ans. — In accordance with his agreement with me. Ques. — 110,000 then was not the whole consideration ? Ans. — I have stated it was not. Ques. — Does he now owe you anything on account of that purchase ? Ans. — I am unable to state, as I do not know the result of certain negotiations now pending. Ques. — What is that negotiation ? Ans. — The negotiation of certain notes. Ques. — Whose ? Ans. — Notes for $3,500 drawn by James Eldridge and endorsed by Henry Laurencel. Ques. — The negotiation is for cashing those notes ? Ans. — Yes, sir. Ques. — When are they payable ? Ans. — In six and twelve months from date. Ques. — When are they dated ? Ans.— Dec. 2, 1857. Ques. — Who is to cash them ? Ans. — Any one who chooses. 469 Ques. — After they are paid Mr. Laurencel will owe you nothing ? Ans. — I consider he owes me nothing now. Ques. — Regarding those notes as worth their face, how much have you received from Mr. Laurencel ? Ans.— Viewing the matter in that light, $20,000. Ques.— How do you make out #20,000 ? Ans. — I hold two notes for $3,500 each, and received 3,000 in cash. Ques. — Are these notes made by Eldridge or his agent ? Ans. — By his agent Mr. Hawley. Ques. — You were subpoenaed to appear here last Monday week ; you did not appear. Were you holding back to procure from Mr. Laurencel the payment ? Ans. — I was not holding back precisely as you state. I was de- tained by illness in my family. I am free to say that I have appeared here against my will. Ques. — Where were you last Monday week ? Ans. — In my own residence at Santa Clara. Ques. — Where on the following day ? Ans. — I went to what was once my rancho. Ques. — Where during the remainder of the week ? Ans. — Principally there. Ques. — When did you come to San Francisco ? Ans. — Last Sunday I heard that an attachment had issued against me, and on learning it, I immediately came to present myself before this honorable Court to purge myself of the contempt. Ques. — For how long a time has Mr. Laurencel been owing you $10,000 on that contract ? Ans. — I can't recollect exactly. Ques. — Don't you remember the terms of the contract ? Ans. — I can state them for your satisfaction. Witness states the terms of the contract. The second $10,000 was to be paid, provided Mr. Laurencel succeeded in making a compromise. If not, the mat- ter was to be left for further arrangement. Ques. — When w r as the last adjustment made ? Ans. — About the second day of December. Ques. — Was that the occasion when he pledged a rancho to you ? Ans. — He never did pledge a rancho to me. Ques. — Not verbally ? Ans. — That is another thing. He did give me a verbal assurance to that effect. Ques. — You say you own no interest in the mine of Almaden now ? Ans. — No, I do not. JAMES ALEX. FORBES. Subscribed in open court, this 17th Dec, 1857. OGDEN HOFFMAN, Dist. Judge. 470 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Friday, December 18th, 1857. Present: Ogden Hoffman, Judge, &c; Mr. District Attorney and Mr. Randolph, for the United States ; Mr. Peachy, for the Claimants. Cross-examination of James Alexander Forbes resumed. Question. — When did you receive the Eldridge notes ? Answer. — On the 2d December. Ques. — Had you refused to give your tertimony, or expressed an unwillingness to testify, so long as Mr. Laurencel owed you $10,000 ? Ans. — From the commencement of the negotiation with him, I told him that it was incompatible with my position to testify in this case. Ques. — How came your final settlement with Mr. Laurencel to have been made just after he had given his testimony, and a very short time before you came on the stand to give your's ? Ans. — As I never consented to the presentation of any papers be- fore any Court, I opposed their introduction here, stating my objection to the Court, but being apprehensive that they would ultimately be in- troduced, I stated to Mr. Laurencel that we must have some arrange-, ment with regard to the ultimate payment, which was effected. Ques — That was after the papers had been brought into Court by Mr. Davidson? Yes, sir. Ques. — These papers were then put to a use which would have been a gross violation of Mr. Laurencel's contract with you if he had pro- cured them to be so used ? Is it not so ? Ans. — It is true that it was against the letter of his contract with me. But I was informed that he was compelled to do it by the force of circumstances here. Ques. — What circumstances do you refer to ? Ans. — I have no personal knowledge of those circumstances. Ques. — What circumstances were those which you were informed existed ? Ans. — I am unable to state ; they were not particularized to me. Ques. — Were you satisfied with the explanation given to you ? Ans. — I was not, and therefore opposed the presentation of these papers here. 471 Q ue s. — In what respect was the explanation unsatisfactory to you ? Did it fail to satisfy you that these papers had been used without Mr. Laurencel's consent or procurement ? Ans. — It failed to satisfy me in all respects ; I am unable to state whether they were used without his consent or concurrence. Q ue s. — Did not your dissatisfaction, in part, arise from the fact that these papers were used before you were paid by Mr. Lauren- eel ? Ans. — I cannot say that it did ; I was at all times averse to having the papers used, as was evident by my objection in Court the day they were presented. Ques. — Was it not understood between Mr. Laurencel and any other persons and yourself,- at the time of the treaty for those papers, or any other time, that your testimony would be required to prove that they were correspondence between you and the persons by whom they purport to have been written ? Ans. — It was not understood so until after their presentation, when it was signified to me that it would be necessary so to prove. Ques. — Were you not present when Mr. Laurencel's testimony was given in this case on Nov. 28th ? Ans. — I was present. Ques. — After the Attorney for the United States attempted to prove by that witness, by means of your declarations to him, that these letters constituted the correspondence between you and the persons by whom they purport to have been written, and the Court refused to ad- mit such delarations in evidence, were you not told by Mr. Laurencel or any other person, that your testimony was essential to give effect to these letters, and were you not requested to testify for that purpose, and was not your final settlement with Mr. Laurencel, consisting of the payment of three thousand dollars in cash, and the assignment of Eld- ridge's two notes for $3,500 each, made on the condition, or with the understanding, or under a promise on your part, that you would testify in this case ? Ans.— No, sir. I have already answered that it was stated to me by the counsel for the United States, that it would be necessary to prove the identity of those papers ; my ultimate arrangement with Mr. Laurencel emanated from himself and was, not made contingent upon my testifying, other than I have already stated. Ques. — When you refused yesterday to answer a question on the ground that it might tend to criminate you, did you suppose that an answer in the negative to that question would criminate you, because it might be contradictory to some statement, verbal or written, under oath or not under oath, made by you to Mr. Laurencel, or any other person, and not in any court of justice ? 472 Ques. — I decline to answer at all, on the ground that it involves me in a criminal prosecution. (Counsel for claimants request the Court to compel an answer to the question. The Court refuses so k to do, whereupon counsel for claimants excepts. Exception noted.) Ques. — Were you not one of the defendants in the suit of James Tobin et al, vs. Robert Walkinshaw et al, in the Circuit Court of the United States for this District ? Ans. — I was. Ques. — Was that a suit in Chancery, instituted to obtain injunction to restrain defendants from working the mine of New Almaden, and for the appointment of a receiver and for other purposes ? Ans. — I do not exactly recollect ; I was made a defendant in sev- eral suits, even when I had no interest in the mine. Ques. — Did you make an answer in that suit, and was it under oath ? Ans. — I think I was. made to make several answers in those differ- ent suits. I presume Mr. Peachy alludes to one that was printed ; That answer was made in my name, and those of several other parties. Ques. — Was it sworn to by you ? Ans. — I think it w T as. Ques. — Have you still any interest in the Almaden mine ? Ans. — I have not. Ques. — What was your interest ; to whom did you sell ; and when and what did you ask for it ? Ans. — My interest was two barras, that is 2-24ths ; I sold one in 1850 or 1851 to Mr. John Parrott for the sum of $24,000, part in cash and part payable on long terms ; I sold the other to Mr. Wm. E. Barron for 130,000 in 1855. Ques. — Have you been paid all the money for which you sold the two shares ? Ans. — I have. Ques. — Do either of those deeds contain a warranty ? Ans. — I think the first contained a warranty against every body but the United States. The second was a quit-claim. Ques. — Look at the document shown you ; state what it is ; in whose writing, and by whom signed ? Ans. — This is a deed to which I have just testified for one share of the Almaden mine, sold to Mr. Wm. E. Barron ; it is in my handwrit- ing and signed by me ; it is the second deed made by me for this same share, the draft of which was sent to me by Mr. Halleck. Ques. — What part of the mine is a barra If Ans. — One twenty-fourth. Ques. — Look at the articles of partnership between Castillero and his associates, by which you said you were guided when you purchas- 473 ed of the the Robles, and say what interest, under the contract, you learnt the Robles had at the time you made the contract ? Ans. — Four barras. Ques. — How many barras are named in that instrument ? Ans. Four. Ques. Among all the partners I mean ? Ans. It is not explicitly stated; there are 24. Ques. What is there stated ? Ans. Witness reads clause from contracts, wherein Castillero dis- poses of one-half his interest, and divides that half into three acciones of four barras each. Ques. In examining the contract of partnership, where did you find the expression " las tres pertenencias de la mina," used in the deed of sale from Robles to you ? Ans. I did not find it any where ; I was informed by the agent of Castillero, Padre Real, that the mine comprised three pertenecias. (The last part of the answer objected to.) (Answer signed by witness produced from files of Circuit Court, shown to witness.) Ques. Is that the answer made by you in the suit before men- tioned ? Ans. It is. It was sworn to me as a document prepared by the counsel for the mine, I not being interested in the suit. As regards the facts therein set forth, they are derived principally from informa- tion from other parties. As to the facts set forth in paragraphs 29, 30, 31, which have been read to me, they were stated by me on infor- mation derived from others. I make the same observation with regard to the whole of the answer, except where I make statements based on my own knowledge. (Counsel for claimants offers in evidence the paragraphs 29, 30, 81. Counsel for United States requires the whole answer to be put in evidence, if any part is so received. The Attorney for claimants expresses his reluctance so to do, on the ground that the answer is voluminous, and in great part irrelevant, and that he does not wish to encumber the record ; and offers to put in evidence such parts as the attorney for the United States may select as relevant to the matter in issue. The counsel for United States expresses his inability to make such 38 474 selection as suggested, and requires the whole answer to be put in, to which counsel for claimant accedes.) Ques. At the time you made that answer, had jou not seen the documents referred to by you in the 31st section ? (Witness desires to see the section alluded to.) Ans. I stated that I had seen the notarial copy to which I have testified, but it must be evident that what is there asserted, is based on information of other parties. I could not know whether the Presi- dent of Mexico was please^ or not pleased. Ques. — You stated yesterday that you had seen the original, which is a counterpart of the notarial copy referred to by you, some time in 1853 ; why do you now speak in your last answer only of the notarial copy ? Ans. — It is very true that I did state I had seen a document pur- porting to be such original. I saw it in the hands of Mr. Wm. E. Barron or Mr. Peachy. I mentioned the notarial copy because I had been more familiar with it. I did not mean that I had seen only that copy. Ques. — When you put in this answer, did you have any reason to be- lieve that the document claimed to be a title in colonization mentioned in the 31st section of said answer, was not made at the time it pur- ports to have been made, or was not genuine, or was in any manner affected by fraud ? Ans. — I am compelled to decline to answer that question for the reason before given. Ques. — When you made this answer, did you have any reason to be- lieve that what is stated in the 29th section as to Antonio M. Pico, Alcalde, on the 30th Dec, 1845, having put Andres Castillero in pos- session of said mine and having granted to him said tract of land was not true ? Ans. — No, sir. So far as regards the possession, some sort of a possession, possibly of 3,000 varas, I had no reason to believe it un- true. Ques. — Had you any reason to believe at the time you put in that answer, that the facts stated in the 30 th section thereof, were not true ? Ans. I decline to answer on the same grounds as before. Ques. — Look at the document marked "F. No. 11, O. H. No. 9," compare it with the document now shown you, and say whether one is a press copy of the other ? Ans. — I believe the latter to be a press copy of the former. 475 Ques. — Look at the words in F. No. 11, " I have every reason to believe the documents you mention will be found in the city of Mexi- co ;" look at the same words in the press copy ; say what difference you find. Ans. — The word " found" is underscored in the original and not in the copy. Ques. — Have you not within the last two years taken the benefit of the insolvent act ? Ans. — I have. Ques. — When were the proceedings instituted, and where ? What was the date of your discharge ? Ans. — The proceedings were in the Court for the 3d Judicial District of California, in November, 1856. I obtained my discharge I think in January of this year. Ques. — What wbs the amount of your liablities ? Ans. — I don't recollect. As near as I can recollect $100,000 and odd. Ques. — Were Bolton, Barron & Co. among your creditors ? Ans. — They were ; for the amount of a note of mine which they had discounted without my knowledge. It was payable to other par- ties. Ques. — How much was you their debtor ? Ans. — The amount of that note, $3,200, and a small balance of $80. Ques. — Did you after your discharge attempt to borrow from them, and if so, what amount ? Ans. — In consequence of the oral and written statements of those gentlemen that my services in their behalf, in the negociation of the mine, had been very beneficial to them, I was inspired with the hope that in the storm of adversity which had overtaken me, they were the persons to whom I should apply for aid. I did apply for a loan of $10,000 to make certain investments I desired to make, upon which I offered to secure them. I was informed by the senior partner. Mr. Bolton, that he would confer with Mr. Barrron, and after one week, in which I was every day at their office, I was informed by Mr. Bolton that my proposition could not be entertained. Ques. — Was it after their refusal that you sold to Mr. Laurencel the use of these papers ? Ans. —It was. Direct Examination Resumed. (Counsel for U. S. reads notice to produce certain paper served on Counsel for Claimant, August 20, 1857, and calls for the same. 476 The Counsel for Claimant states that he does not know whether he has them or not, not having had time to examine. Counsel for U. S. offers certified copies in evidence, and offers to allow Counsel for Claimant to introduce and substitute for the same the originals, if the same are in his possession. Objected to. Point reserved.) Ques. — Look at document marked " H. L. No. 1," purporting to be a certified copy from Recorder's office of four acts of sale, each of one barra, made at Tepic by Jose' Castro to Alexander Forbes, dated respectively March 1st, 1847, April 12, 1847, April 16, 1847, and May 10, 1847, and state whether you filed the originals of which these purport to be copies, for record in the Recorder's office of Santa Clara county ? Ans. — I did. Ques. — When ? Ans. — In April, 1854, as far as my recollection serves me. (Certified copy offered in evidence. Objected to. Point reserved. Marked " 0. H. No. 28J" and attached to deposition ; also translation marked « 0. H. No. 29.") Ques. — Look at paper marked " H. L. No. 4," purporting to be a deed from S. & T. Robles, by yourself as their attorney, to Robert Walkinshaw, one of the claimants, and state if you made such a deed of which this is a copy. Ans. — I executed that deed. This is a copy of it to the best of my recollection. (Deed offered in evidence. Objected to. Point reserved. Marked " 0. H. No. 30." Ques. — Look at this paper marked " H. L. No. 5," purporting to be a certified copy of a deed from J. M. Real to Robert Walkinshaw, dated August 9, 1849 ; state whether you have any knowledge of a sale by Padre Real to Walkinshaw of one barra as set forth in that deed. (Objected to.) Ans. — I do. Ques. — Is that a copy of the deed to the best of your knowledge ? (Objected to.) Ans. — I was cognizant of the fact of the sale at that time. I once 477 madr a copy of fiie deed from the records soon after the time of the sale. I believe this to be correct. (Deed offered in evidence, and translation. Objected to. Point reserved. Marked " 0. H. No. 31" and " 0. H. No. 32.") Ques. — Look at this paper marked " H. L. No. 2," purporting to be a certified copy of a deed from Andres Castillero to Alexander Forbes ; read it and say what you know about it. Ans. — I was cognizant of the fact of the purchase of 3 barras in the mine of Almaden by Alexander Forbes from Padre Real, at the time he was here in 1847. I never saw the original, but have seen it on record. Examination suspended. GEORGE M. YOELL CALLED ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES. Ques. — What is your business, &c? Ans. — I have been employed from March to October of this year in the Recorders office of Santa Clara county. Look at the certificate to this paper marked " H. L. No. 2," and say whether you are the person who made it, and at whose request. Ans. — I am. I made the copy certified to, at Mr. Laurencel's re- quest. I copied it from the records in the office, from " Book 3 of deeds," which contains the old Spanish records. It was found in the old Juzgado or Alcalde's office. They were transferred there when the State Government was formed. I do not know the fact ; it is so considered in the Recorder's office. (Paper offered in evidence ; also translation. Objected to. Point reserved. Marked 0. H. No. 33. 0. H. No. 34.) JAMES ALEXANDER FORBES' EXAMINATION RESUMED. Ques. — Will you produce the original power of attorney spoken of by you ? Ans. — In expectation of being ordered to produce it I sent for it, and received it yesterday. (Paper produced.) 478 Ques. — Look at this paper purporting to be a power of attorney to yourself from Alexander Forbes, dated April 23d, 1849, and say if the signature is genuine, and in whose handwriting it is, and whether you received it at the time of its date. Ans. — The signature is the genuine signature of Alexander Forbes. The body is in the handwriting of Mr. Wm. E. Barron. I received it in Tepic, Mexico, in May, 1849. (Paper produced in evidence. Marked " 0. H. No. 35.") Ques. — Look at paper marked " H. L. No. 7," and say whether you made the original deed of which this a copy. Ans. — I did. I believe this to be a copy of my deed. (Marked « 0. H. No. 36.") Ques. — Look at " H. L. No. 8," purporting to be a copy of a deed by yourself to Henry Laurencel of l^ths of one 24th. Did you make such a deed and is this a copy of it ? Ans. — I did make such a deed, and I believe that to be a copy. I desire to state that prior to my sale of one barra to Mr. Barron I had re-acquired the three-twentieths previously sold by me. (Paper offered in evidence. Marked " 0. H. No. 37.") (Counsel for U. S. offers certified copy of deed to Bolton, Barron & Co. of three-twentieths of a barra, marked " H. L. No. 9." Marked by the Court " 0. H. No. 38." Also certified copy of deed from Bolton & Barron to F. E. Fernandez ; marked " 0. H. No. 39." Also copy of a deed from F. Fernandez to J. F. De Leon, marked " H. L. No. 11." Marked by the Court " 0. H. No. 40.") Ques. — Look at paper marked " H. L. No. 12," and say did you receive such a deed ; and if so, what did you do with the original, and is this a copy ? Ans. — I did receive it. I filed the original for record ; it is now in my possession. This is a copy of it I think. (Deed admitted by consent. Marked " 0. H. No. 41.") (Paper produced marked " H. L. No. 13.") Ques. — Did you make such a deed, and is this a copy of it ? Ans. — I did. This is a copy to the best of my knowledge. (Marked " 0. H. No. 42.") 479 Q ue s. — Look at this paper marked " H. L. No. 14 ;" did you make the original, and does it refer to the same barra as the last deed ? Ans. — The original is already in evidence. I made it, and it refers to the same barra. (Deed offered in evidence. Marked " 0. H. No. 43.") Ques. — Look at this paper, " H. L. No. 15," purporting to be a certified copy of a deed from Jecker, Torre & Co. to Barron, Forbes & Co., made in the City of Mexico on 7th December, 1852, and say if you know anything of the original. Ans. — I have seen the record of sue a a deed in the Recorder's of- fice of Santa Clara county. (Copy offered in evidence. Objected to. Point reserved. Marked " 0. H. No. 44," and translation marked " 0. H. No. 45.") Examination adjourned until Saturday, Dec. 19th. JAS. ALEX. FORBES. Subscribed before me, this 18th Dec, 1857. OGDEN HOFFMAN. BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE U. S. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Saturday, December 19, 1857. Present : Ogden Hoffman, Judge ; Counsel for United States ; Mr. Peachy for Claimants. James Alexander Forbes' Examination resumed. (Counsel for United States offers deed from Andres Castillero to Frederick Billings, Oct, 2d, 1856. Also deed from F. Billings to Wm. E. Barron, Nov. 18, 1856. Execution admitted. Objected to as irrelevant — point reserved. Marked " 0. H. No. 46," and " 0. H. No. 47.") 480 (Counsel for United States offers an additional extract from Exhibit attached to deposition of Jose' M. Lafragua in this case, which extracts are not included in the transcript. Admitted by consent. Marked " 0. H. No. 48," and translation marked " 0. H. No. 49." Also certified transcript from records of District Court for Third Judicial District, Maria G. Bernal de Berreyesa et al. vs. James Al- exander Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, complaints in trespass and ejectment, marked " 0. H. No. 50." Also, bill and in suit in this Court, Berreyesa et al. vs. Forbes et al, marked " 0. H. No. 51." Objected to as irrelevant.) Ques. — When did you first hear this mine called u New Almaden"? Ans. — I don't exactly recollect ; about the time of the arrival of Mr. Alexander Forbes in California. Ques. — Was it before or after Mr. Walkinshaw arrived ? Ans. — I think it was after. Ques. — Who was the person whom you heard say, that he had heard Castillero say, he (Castillero) had a grant ? Ans. — My answer yesterday did not specify the person ; I said I had heard a person say that he had been informed that Castillero had said he had a grant ; that person was Robert Walkinshaw. He in- formed me that Mr. Alexander Forbes had told him that Castillero had said he had a grant. Ques. — Was that the same Mr. Walkinshaw who sued you in 1849 before Alcalde May, and whom you then charged with being interested with Horace Hawes, in an attempt to denounce the mine. Ans. — It was ; perhaps it would be incorrect to say he he sued me ; I opposed his proceedings growing out of that denouncement. Ques. — Were there not two suits pending at the same time, one for the denouncement of the mine, and the other for the possession ? Ans. — There were two suits nearly simultaneous. This Robert Walkinshaw was the same man with whom I had the litigation in 1849. Ques. — Have you not heard the same Walkinshaw say that the title was all a fraud and a humbug ? and what have you heard him say ? (Objected to. Question withdrawn.) Ques. — Have you not heard Mr. Walkinshaw make declarations different in purport from that to which you have alluded ? (Objected to. Point reserved.) Ans. Mr. Walkinshaw has made statements to me that there was no title to the mine, and signified to me his wish that I should coop- 481 erate with him in obtaining a title from the Berreyesa's. The first declaration to that effect of Walkinshaw to me, was before he was a partner in interest, and the latter, which is the one to which I princi- pally allude, was after he became a party in interest. Qns. — About what time were these declarations made ? Ans.— In 184T and 1849. Ques. — About what time was it that he made the declaration in fa- vor of the title to which you have referred ? Ans. — It was in 1847, a short time prior to his departure for Mexico. Ques. — Which was made first ? Ans. — It was on the occasion of his return from Mexico that he stated to me he had been informed that Castillero had got a grant. I desire to correct a previous answer as taken down by the Court. Mr. Walkinshaw related to me what Mr. Forbes had stated he had heard Castillero say, in 1847 on his return from Mexico. Ques. — When did first you hear him say there was no title ? Ans. — Prior to his departure for Mexico. Ques. — When did you hear him say so the second time ? Ans. — In 1849. It is so set forth in his complaint against me at that time. Ques. — Did you ever hear him orally make such declarations ? Ans. — He told me so himself, before the commencement of those difficulties. Ques. — Was the last occasion before or after he became interested in the mine ? Ans. — He was then interested in the mine. Ques. — Look at the letter " 0. H. X. No. 8;" say how you trans- mitted that letter to Alexander Forbes. Ans. — I do not remember. Ques. — That being a time of war, what manner were you enabled to correspond with alien enemies ? Ans. — The only opportunity in general, was by vessels of war. Ques. — Did American vessels of war carry your commercial corres- pondence to merchants in Mexico ? Ans. — I did not say American vessels of war. Ques. — Can you say they did not carry your correspondence of that nature ? Ans. — I do not recollect of having sent correspondence by Ameri- can men-of-war. I may have done so ; I do recollect of having sent by British men-of-war. ^ Ques. — What American man-of-war, is it possible, would have car- ried a letter from you to an alien ememy ? Ans. — It is possible, but not probable ; letters might have been sent by a private hand on board ; especially considering the friendly rela- 482 tions between gentlemen on board those vessels, and the persons to whom I desired to write. Ques. — Do you mean amity between American officers and British merchants resident in Mexico ? Ans. — I do. I don't mean amity in the strict sense of the term, but merely friendly relations arising from hospitalities received, &c. Ques. — Did you send this letter (0. H. X. No. 3) by an American vessel-of-war ? Ans. — I cannot remember. Ques. — Did you send it by a British man-of-war ? Ans. — I cannot state. Ques. — What British man-of-war left the ports of this State for the ports of Mexico about that time ? Ans. — I am unable to state. There was a British frigate com- manded by Capt. Duntz, which left here about that time. I think after the date of that letter. I can't say how long after. Ques. — Did you send this letter by that frigate ? Ans. — I can't say. I now recollect that she left before the 14th July, 1847. Ques. — Was it not your custom to express in your letters by what conveyance they were sent ? Ans. — It was not my custom to do so in every case. I generally did so. Ques. — Was it not Mr. Alexander Forbes' custom to endorse on the letters when he received them ? Ans. — I believe it was generally his custom. Ques. — Is this so endorsed ? Ans. — It is not. Ques. — When did you last see this letter before it was produced here? Ans. — I don't recollect. Ques. — Had you seen it at any time since the year 1847 ? Ans. — I had not. Ques. — Did you see it at any time in the year 1847, after its date ? Ans. — I do not recollect that I did. Ques — Was it among the papers which you turned over to Mr. De La Torre ? Ans. — I am unable to state whether it was or not. I think not. Ques. — Was it received by Mr. Forbes before he left Mexico for this country ? Ans I do not know whether it was or not. Ques. — Are you absolutely certain it was written at or about the day of its date ? 483 Ans. — I think it was. Ques. — What did you take the letter to the light for ? Ans. — I was looking to see the water-mark. Ques. — Why do you speak doubtfully on the subject ? Ans. — I think it was written at that time. I have no reasons for supposing it was not. Ques. — By what conveyance did Mr. Walkinshaw return to Mexico in 184T. Ans. — By the British schooner " William." Ques. — In what month ? Ans. — I am unable to state. At the commencement of 1847 ; in the spring I think. Ques. — What opportunity had you to write to Tepic after Walkin- shaw left and before Alexander Forbes arrived ? Ans. — I do not now recollect. Ques. — Were there any ? Ans. — I am unable to state. Ques. — In what vessel did Walkinshaw return to California with Alexander Forbes ? Ans. — The British schooner " William. " Ques. — How is it that you can remember what vessel left before the date of that letter and that it was the same vessel that returned a month or two later, and cannot form even a conjecture of what vessel it was by which that letter was sent, or of any vessel leaving about that time ? Ans. — The fact of the arrival of the schooner William is impressed on my memory from the circumstance of her having been seized by Com. Biddle when she arrived in Monterey. I went there officially to represent to him her neutrality. She was condemned but subsequently allowed to depart, and subsequently returned, I don't know under what flag or how. Ques. — Please name all the British ships which arrived in or left the ports of Upper California during 1847, which came to your knowl- edge as British Vice Consul. Ans. — It is impossible after so long a period of time to recollect. I do not remember any. Ques. — Then I understand you to say that you have no idea when or how that letter got out of California to Mr. Alexander Forbes. Ans. — I don't recollect. Ques.— Look at letter " 0. H. X. No. 1," dated Jan. 30th 1846, and state whether means of communication between San Bias and the ports of California were frequeut or unfrequent at that time. Ans. — They were unfrequent. Ques. — Read that letter and see if it will aid you to recollect what opportunity you had of sending letters next after its date. 484 Ans. — I don't recollect. Ques. — Do you recollect of having had any between that date and the day Andres Castillero left the country ? Ans. — I do not. Ques. — Was there any at all ? Ans. — I think not ; at all events, from this part of the coast. Ques. — Yesterday you were shown a sworn answer in Chancery made by you. Was Mr. Wm. E. Barron, one of the co-defendants, in the country at that time ? Ans. — I am not certain whether he was or not. Ques. — As far as you were concerned, what was the result of the suit ? (It is admitted that he still remains a defendant in the Equity suit, and that a verdict of acquittal was entered in his favor in the ejectment suit, on proof that he had no interest in the premises, and that an injunction was refused as prayed for in the Equity suit.) Ques. — After you were acquitted in the suit at law, were you ever spoken to to become a witness in that suit ; if so, by whom ? Ans. — I don't recollect any person asking me to testify. Ques. — Why was it that you, who had no interest in the mine, answered so much at length, and why did you not simply disclaim any interest in the matter ? (Objected to.) Ans. — As far as I recollect I declined to answer, but it was inti- mated to me that I was interested on account of previous rents and profits, and owing to my previous relations with parties interested I did not like to refuse. (Foregoing answer obj ?cted to on the ground that Defendant Forbes' obligation to answer is a matter of law, and the above question asks the witness' opinion as to his legal obligation.) Q ue s. — What was the character of Weekes, Alcalde, for intelli gence and sobriety and education ? (Objected to as tending to impeach the character of Weekes, a witness for United States.) Ans. — He is a man of limited education, addicted to intemperance at times, nevertheless intelligent and honest. Ques. — I n w hat capacity did he come to this country ? Ans. — I think as an ordinary seaman. Q ue s. — Is the Mr. McNamara mentioned in letter " F. No. 3. 0. 485 H. No. 18," the Irish priest of that name who had the grant for the whole valley of San Joaquin ? Ans. — He is the same individual who attempted to get that grant from the Departmental Gov't. Ques. — Do you know any thing of this " power" spoken of in this letter ? Ans. — I know he had a power of attorney from the information he gave me, and again from Padre Real, and subsequently from Mr. Alexander Forbes. Ques. — Was Gen. Jose* Castro a party constituent to that power ? Ans. — I believe he was. Ques. — Where was it executed, according to your aforesaid infor- mation ? Ans. — In Monterey. Ques. — When ? Ans. — In June 1846. Ques. — Did McNainara arrive as early as that in Monterey ? Ans. — He did. Ques. — When Gen. ' Castro retreated from Upper California, do you know of his having left any blank signatures in this State, if so with whom ? (Objected to as irrelevant.) Ans. — I saw in the hands of Padre Real, blank sheets of paper with Castro's signature at the end of the last page. Ques. — Do you know of any one or more of them having been filled up ; if so, by whom, and for what purpose ? Ans. — I do know that one sheet was used by the said Padre Real, for the purpose of renouncing his right to the donation of his share in the mine. This was addressed to Jose Castro, the representative of Castillero. An acceptance of this was written above Castro's signa- ture. The renunciation was made, because Real being a " regu- lar," was prohibited by the ordenanzas from holding an interest in a mine. Ques. — Who obtained this renunciation, and for what purpose ? (Objected to, as irrelevant, and because offered to show general character of Padre Real, and to explain the policy of Alexander For- bes, alluded to by the witness, as declared among other objects by counsel for the U. S.) Ans. — I think it was suggested to Padre Real by Mr. Walkinshaw, that a renunciation of his interest was necessary, because the ordenan- zas prohibited a " regular" from holding an interest in a mine, and he 486 having received this donation from Castillero, renounced it in favor ot his donor. The reason why it was communicated to Castro, in the manner i have stated, was because Castro was not in California. Ques. — What was the date affixed to the papers ? Ans. — I don't know. Ques. — Was it made as of a time when Castro was here ? Ans. — I cannot state. Ques. — Do you know why Walkinshaw interested himself to procure this renunciation ? Ans. — It was understood that Padre Real, as agent of Castillero, should sell three barras to Alexander Forbes. Ques. — Are those the three shares which appear by the deeds to have been sold to Forbes ? Ans. — They are the three shares sold by Real to Alexander Forbes. Ques. — Do you know of Real's filling up any other blank ? Ans. — I do not. Ques. — Did you ever see the contract of avio which Alexander Forbes speaks of having made in letter " F. No. 3. 0. H. No. 18 ?" Ans. — I don't recolledt of having seen it until I received it at the end of 1849 or beginning of 1850. I mean the paper called " Hab- ilitacion," spoken of to me in the letter of Dec. 1, 1849. Ques. — Your ratification of the contract is of a date prior to your receipt of the document, is it not ? Ans. — It is. Ques. — When you ratified the contract of avio, you had therefore never seen any copy of that contract in which was set out at large the document signed Castillo Lanzas, called a grant by claimants in this case ? Ans. — I had not seen any such. Mr. Walkinshaw presented me with a draft of a ratification from which I wrote mine. They are conceived in about the same terms. Ques. — The first time you ever saw any ratification of that avio, containing the Castillo Lanzas document was when you received it as aforesaid ? Ans. — It was. Cross-Examination Resumed. Ques. — When did Mr. Walkinshaw first arrive in California ? An S . — I think in the winter of 1847, or the beginning of 1847, I am not certain as to the date. Ques. — Did he arrive in January ? Ans. — I cannot state. Ques. — How long was he in charge of the mine ? 487 Ans. — He was a short time in charge before he left for Mexico. He was absent a few months and retained charge of the mine until Au- gust, 1849, when he delivered it to me. Ques. — Did he receive a salary as agent ? Ans. — I presume he did. Ques. — I understand you to have said that three declarations were made to you by him : one before he left for Mexico, to the effect that the title was not good. The second was after his return, when he in- formed you what Alexander Forbes had said Castillero had said ; and again, that duringthe litigation in 1849, he said the title was not good, being the same statement substantially, as is set forth in his complaints in that litigation. Ans. — I did not mean that he made formal declarations, but he so expressed himself on those occasions. Ques. — It appears now, that when your letter of July 14, 1847, was written, Mr. Walkinshaw had never told you that Castillero claimed to have a grant of two leagues. Ans. — I cannot see how that would follow. It is claimed that I have contradicted myself, because I had stated that the first informa- tion I obtained of Castillero's grant was from Mr. Walkinshaw, but I stated I was not certain of the time when I had been so informed. I did not state that Mr. Walkinshaw's communication to me to that effect, was posterior to this date. Ques. — You stated that you were positive that when Mr. Walkin- shaw informed you of what Alexander Forbes said he had been told by Castillero, it was after Walkinshaw's return from Mexico. Had he returned on the 14th July, 1847 ? Ans. — I think I said he had so informed me, to the best of my recollection. Mr. Walkinshaw returned subsequently to July 14, 1847. I wish to state I was in error. It is difficult to retain in memory such events after the lapse of ten years. Ques. — Then you must have received this information from Mr. Walkinshaw before he left California in the spring of 1847. Ans .— Yes, sir. Ques. — What was the character of the litigation between Walkin- shaw and yourself in 1849 ? Ans. — In the first place, the character of the litigation ccmmenced by Horace Hawes, in connection with Walkinshaw, was a denuncia- tion of the mine, for an abandonment claimed to have occurred while I was in charge ; and the next suit was against me as a trespasser without title. (Petition of Walkinshaw in second suit read.) Ques. — How could he say that the title was not good ? 488 Ans. — I don't know ; but I state it to be a positive fact under oath that on the planila of the mine, in the presence of a civil officer, who was restoring me to the possession, of which he, Walkinshaw. had, forcibly deprived me, and of several others, among whom was K. H. Dimmick, former Alcalde of San Jos6, Walkinshaw stated I had no title, that my constituents had no title, and that the property be- longed to him. Ques. — I recall to your attention the litigation. Did Mr. Walkin- shaw therein claim that there was no title by Registry ? Ans. — It may be considered there were two suits, but in reality they were one. In my previous answer I did not refer to those papers, for I had not examined them, but to the declarations of Walkinshaw publicly made in and about San Jose. I wish further to explain that when he took a mortgage upon the Berreyesa's property, it was to secure himself, because he was uncertain and doubtful of the title to the mine. Ques. — At the time then that Mr. Walkinshaw made these declara- tions he had an adverse interest ? Ans. — I don't know. He wanted to have two strings to his bow, and therefore obtained a mortgage from the Berreyesa's. Ques. — Did he not have an interest in the Hawes' denouncement ? Ans. — I think he was the principal party in the operation. Ques. — Was not Mr. Walkinshaw mortified at his displacement and his being superseded by you ? Ans. — I think it possible he may have had some feeling on the sub- ject. But before he was superseded he had acquired the interest from Berreyesa, and the actual abandonment of the mine had taken place. Ques. — Did not the brig Lady Shaw Stewart and the schooner Santa Cruz sail from Monterey for the southern coasts in the months of July or August, 1847 ? Ans. — I don't recollect. It is possible ; but if so, it has escaped my memory. Ques. — Look at letter now shown you and state in whose handwrit- ing it is? Ans. — It is mine ; my signature. I wrote it at its date. I sent it to Mr. Alexander Forbes. It is endorsed in handwriting of Walkin- shaw. (Letter offered in evidence. Objected. Marked " 0. H. X. No. 7*.") Ques. — Did Mr. Walkinshaw show yon any documents besides the draft of the ratification previously spoken of ? Ans. — No, sir. When I asked him in 1849 to show me his docu- ments, he swore he hadn't any. 489 (Letter dated 7th January, 1847, read to witness — from Alexander Forbes to witness.) Ques. — When did McNamara leave California ? Ans. — In the latter part of July, 1846. He w T ent to the Sand- wich Islands. I received a letter from him at the Islands, dated, I think, in October, 1846. He arrived in Mexico at the latter part of 1846. Ques. — Have you any reason to believe he was not in Tepic on the 28th November, 1846 ? Ans. — I have not. Ques. — When did Castro leave California ? Ans. — Soon after the occupation by the Americans. He returned in 1847 or 1848 ; I could'nt say when ; he was a long time absent. . Ques. — Do you remember to have seen the signature of Castro on the top of the second page ? Ans. — I cannot state its precise position. My impression is it was on bottom of third or fourth page. (Letter " F. No. 9, 0. H. No. 7," read to witness.) Ques. — Did you examine at Monterey for the purpose of obtaining that document ? Ans. — I did not. Ques. — When did you first show this letter to Mr. Laurencel ? Ans. — I think last January. Ques. — Look at pencil memorandum of " F. No # . 6, 0. H. No. 20," in whose handwriting is it ? to what does it refer ? Ans. — It is in my handwriting, and refers to the shares to be divided out of the mine of San Antonio, which I was commencing to work. I must casually have made the memorandum on this piece of paper. Ques. — Did not in fact Padre Real derive a benefit from the sale to Alexander Forbes ? Ans. — I presume that what money was paid he received, although he told me he had been swindled. Ques. — Do you remember having testified in the case of Charles Fossat on behalf of the U. S. ? Ans. — I do. Ques. — At whose instance was that deposition given ? Ans. — I don't know w r hether at that of Mr. Crittenden or Mr. Laurencel. Ques. — Was it before or after your agreement with Laurencel ? Ans. — After. But it was not conditioned or consequent upon that arrrangement. If I had not made any arrangement, I should still have given that testimony. 39 490 Direct Resumed. Ques. — Why did you not go to Monterey to look for the document spoken of by Mr. Alexander Forbes in his letter to you ? Ans. — I thought it would be useless. Ques.— Why? Ans. — Because I did'nt think it was there. Ques. — Why didn't you think it was there ? Ans. — I thought he might have been mistaken. Ques.— In the letter 3d February, 1850, (" F. No. 11, 0. H. No. 9,") the word " found " is underscored, and the words " very pri- vate," written on the top. Was that word underscored, and the words written on the top, when you received it ? Ans. — I believe they were. Ques. — Do you know of any difficulty in adding those w T ords after the press copy was taken ? Ans. — None, whatever. JAS. ALEX. FORBES. Subscribed before me, this 19th Dec, 1857. OGDEN HOFFMAN, U. S. Dist. Judge. Filed December 19th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. Exhibits to Deposition of Jas. Alex. Forbes. 0. H. No. 1. Vide " F. No. 20— J. A. Monroe." Page 390 0. H. No. 2. Vide " F. No. 21— J. A. Monroe." Page 391 0. H. No. 3. Vide " F. No. 23— J. A. Monroe." Page 392 0. H. No. 4. Vide u F. No. 22— J. A. Monroe." Page 393 O. H. No. 5. Vide " F. No. 16— J. A. Monroe." Page 394 491 0. H. No. 6. Vide " F. No. 7-J. A. Monroe." Page 395 0. H. No. 7. Vide " F. No. 9— J. A. Monroe." Page 396 0. H. No. 8. Vide " F. No. 10— J. A. Monroe." Page 397 0. H. No. 9. Vide " F. No. LI— J. A. Monroe." Page 400 0. H. No. 9. Vide " F. No. 24— J. A. Monroe." Page 403 0. H. No. 10. Vide " F. No. 12— J. A. Monroe." Page 404 0. H. No. 11. Vide " F. No. 14— J. A. Monroe." Page 404 0. H. No. 12. Vide " F. No. 13— J. A. Monroe." Page 405 0. H. No. 13. Vide " F. No. 15— J. A. Monroe." Page 406 0. H. No. 14. Vide " F. No. 151— J. A. Monroe." Page 399 0. H. No. 15. Vide " F. No. 17— J. A. Monroe." Page 407 0. H. No. 16. Vide " F. No. 1-^T. A. Monroe." Page 382 0. H. No. 17. Vide "F. No. 2— J. A. Monroe." Page 382 0. H. No. 18. Vide " F. No. 3— J. A. Monroe." Page 383 0. H. No. 19. Vide « F. No. 4— J. A. Monroe." Page 384 492 0. H. No. 20. Vide " F. No. 6— J. A. Monroe." Page 386 0. H. No. 21. Vide " F. No. 19— J. A. Monroe." Page 385 0. H. No. 22. Vide " F. No. 8— J. A. Monroe." Page 388 0. H. No. 23. Vide " F. No. 5— J. A. Monroe." Page 386 0. H. No. 24. Vide " F. No. 25— J. A. Monroe." Page 387 0. H. No. 25. Vide " F. No. 26— J. A. Monroe," facing Page 388 Being " pertenencias and lines of mine of New Almaden, Jan'y 20, 1848." 0. H. No. 26. Vide " F. No. 27— J. A. Monroe." Page 408 0. H. No. 27. Vide " F. No. 18— J. A. Monroe." Page 390 0. H. No. 28. Vide " H. L. No. 3." Page 172 0. H. No. 28}. Vide " H. L. No. 1." Page 151 0. H. No. 29. DEED — JOSE CASTRO TO ALEX. FORBES. Translation of " H. L. No. 1," page 151. In the City of Tepic, on the first of March one thousand eight hundred and forty-seven before me the notary and witnesses, Don Jose* Castro, dwelling transiently in this place, and whom I certify I know declared : that he is the lawful owner of four " varras" in a Silver mine 493 with alloy of gold and quicksilver, situated in appurtenances of the Rancho of Don Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, in the Jurisdiction of the Pue- blo of San Jose of Guadalupe, of the Territory of Upper California in the second District of Monterey, as appears in the Archives of that place, from whence was extracted, an extra-judicial copy of the con- tract of that company, which document exhibits itself properly certi- fied herewith, and which certifying of said instrument says to the let- ter as follows : Deed of Articles of Copartnership which the Senor Don An- partnership. los interesados el premio de cinco pesos por quintal, concedidos por el articulo b°. del supremo decreto de 24 de Mayo de 1843, a los que estrajesen azogue de los minas de la Republica. Por dichos docu- mentos se ha podido tener una noticia exacta del azoque estraido en Guadalcazar desde Febrero de 844 hasta Mayo del presente, en que 529 concluyo el teVmino fijado a dicho preinio, cuyo resultado es ol sig- uiente. page 134. De la mina de San Antonio, novecientos cin- cuenta quintales, una arroba, dos libras 950 1 2 De la San Augustin, setenta y seis quintales, tres arrobas, dos libras, trece onzas 76 3 2 13 De Santa Lucia, cien quintales 100 00 De Trinidad y San Andres setenta y ocho quintales, tres arrobas quince libras una y media onzas 78 3 15 1\ Total 1,205 3 19 U\ La Junta ha ofrecido & una de las companias de Guadalcazar, re- metir a aquel mineral uno de los aparatos destilatorios encargados a Londres, y que no ha podido recibir hasta ahora por el bloqueo. Asi del importe de los premios correspondientes a la estraccion del azoque nacional en Guadalcazar, como del correspondiente a otros ciento trienta y seis quintales sacados del nuevo Almaden en el Du- razno, se restan aim algunas cantidades de pesos, que no han podido satisfacerse, a virtud de la suspension de los pagos dolfondo de azogues. ******** Mexico, November 17th, 1846. ISIDRO R. GONDRA, Oficial 1°. Por ocupacion del Secretario. Page 147. Junta de Fomento y Administrativa de Mineria. Exmo. Sr. Al remitir a V. E. con esta fecha el resumen de lo hecho por esta junta en los tiltimos anos en debido desempeno de su honroso encargo y del estado actual de los diversos negociados de que se ha ocupado, ha tenido el honor de acompaliar le las iniciativas que page us. en su conce pt deben adoptarse para el verdadero fomento y proteccion de la mineria Mexicana. Mas para que la grandiosa empresa de la esplotacion de las minas de azogue no quede paralizada por mas tiempo con grave detrimento de la riquera ptiblica la Junta se ve* en la necesidad de pedir al supre- mo gobierno, no dinero por ahora, sino lo que facilmente puede pro- porcionarle aun en medio de sus graves urguencias que es cre'dito, el que se lograra si se mandan espedir immediatamente por el ministerio de hacienda las 6rdenes respectivas a las aduanas maritimas de Vera Cruz y Tampico para que desde hoy tenga su esacto cumplimiento lo dispuesto en alarticulo 12 del decreto de 25 de Septiembre de 1843, remitie'ndose directamente a la Junta las libranzas correspondientes 530 por los direchos que le consigno la ley tan luego como se levante el bloqueo. Tal determinacion estrictamente legal tiene k su favor el no gravar por ahora ni en un centavo al erario nacional conprometido en sostener a toda costa la independencia y los mas caros derechos de la naeion ; pero contando la Junta para lo succesivo con este fondo, y obteniendo la correspondiente autorizacion del mismo supremo gobierno, podra quiza proporcionarse recursos con la menor peYdida posible y con ellos continuar fomentando el espiritu de empresa que de otro modo desa- pareceria con la suma de todos los bienes que ha patentizado en dicha esposicion debe reportar la Republica. Ademas, como la ley de 2 de Diciembre de '42 impuso obligaciones a la Junta, esta no puede desempenarlas, si no se atiende a su justa so- licitud, y tendra entre otros el grave sentimiento de ver cerrar las catedras de nueva creacion que se abrieron en el colegios nacional de mineria para la instruccion de la juventud dedicada a adquirir los distintos conocimientos que se necesitan para poseer con perfeccion la ciencia mineria. Para evitar tan grandes males la Junta tieno el honor de dirigirse a V. E. no dudando que interpondra su influjo respetable, 4 fin de que pueda disponer en lo que resta de este ano lo conveniente hara dar principio en enero a los estudios establecidos en el por la ley. La Junta disfruta la satisfaccion con este motivo de reiterar & V. E. lar protestas de su distinguida consideracion y particular aprecio. Dios y Libertad. Mexico, 17 de Noviembre de 1845. VICENTE SEGITRA, Presidente. Por ocupacion del secretario, ISIDRO R. GONNRA, Oficial Primero. Exmo. Sr. Ministro de Relationes D. Jose Maria Laeragua. U. S. Surveyor General's Office, ) San Francisco, Cal. \ I James W. Mandeville, U. S. Surveyor General for California, and as such having in my custody the papers of the late Board of U. S. Land Commissioners to ascertain and settle the private land claims of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be extracts correctly made from a document on file in case No. 366, on the docket of said Board, indorsed, " No. 366, Andres Castillero, Exhibit D. P. L. an- nexed to dep. of Jose' Maria Lafragua. Filed in office, January 30th, 531 1855. Geo. Fisher, Sec'y. Recorded in Rec. of Ev. vol. 18, p. 620 and 611." Given under my hand and official seal at the City of San Francisco, this 23d day of'Novr. A. D. 1857. Teal \ J. W. MANDEVILLE, U. S. Surv. Genl. Cal. O. H. No. 49. TRANSLATION OF " D., P. L.," Exhibited in the Deposition of Jose Maria Lafragua, January 29th, 1855. Of Its Office. page 119. The junta de fomento y administrativa de Mineria, installed the 24th December 1842, in compliance with the requirements of the tenth article of the decree of its organization, remitted to the proper depart- ment, in November, 1843, the plan of regulation which it has formed for the most economical and faithful administration of the funds en- trusted to it ; but the Government, considering that it could not fulfil its important duties without the hands necessary for their perform- ance, decreed on the 30th of December, the disposition of its em- ployees, and in July, 1844, returned the plan that it might be modified with reference to the subsequent provisions. In January of the same year, it solicited the approval of the 29th article of the proposed regu- lations, according to which a separate account should be kept for each fund, charging to the endowment the amounts which were expended for wages in the former establishment, and to that of quicksilver the excess, and remitted the respective propositions for the arrangement of the places ; those of two officials and as many clerks of the Secretary's office, that of keeper of archives, that of accountant, that of two officials and one clerk of the accountant's office, and finally that of treasurer, being approved, all of whom entered upon the performance of their duties on the 10th of February, 4th and 7th of March. On the 8th of the same the Junta arranged its office provisionally, designating to each of the employees his respective labors. On the 19th of March, 1845, the Supreme Government appointed the Messrs. D. Benigno Bustamente, Licetiate D. Jose* Maria Lacauza, y D. Luis Varela, to report upon the Decrees which organized the 532 Colegio de Mineria, authorizing the Commission to inspect the Semi- nary and the office of the Junta. The report which they made to the Supreme Government was passed to the same office, and is awaiting investigation. The first clerk of the Secretary's office, D. Manuel Garcia Del Valle, having died, the Supreme Government approved the promotion of the second, thaf of the first being unprovided for. On the 23d of September of the present year, the Junta granted leave of absence to its Secretary D. Jose* Maria Castera, whom the Supreme Government had thought proper to charge with a commis- sion, and the first official performed his duties in accordance with the cited decree of the 30th December, 1842. * # * * * * * * * * * * * .* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • # * * * * * * * * * Quicksilver. page 130. The first appendix to the last Memorial of the Department of Justice contains what was briefly expressed by the Junta on the 24th of February, 1844, in regard to the measures adopted by the Provis- ional Government in favor of this branch, the results which they had produced up to that date, and the means which, in its judgment, should be taken to prevent the laudable ends with which those measures were set on foot from being defeated. The periodical, " Siglo XIX," in its numbers 1361 and 1362 of the 21st and 22d August, 1845, inserted a communication from the " Diario de la Marina de la Habana," of he 3d of June preceding, in which are indicated the exemptions, which, in the opinion of the writer, should be adopted in the tariff of the Island of Cuba in order to effectu- ate the transit, by its deposite, of a part of the quicksilver destined to Mexico, which is now conveyed by the British steamers, by which, he was persuaded considerable advantages in favor of the shipping and commerce of that nation would be obtained ; and that it could, in time, 533 by means of its influence and various other circumstances, better ad- vance its own interests and those of the Republic by proper treaties. In the opinion of the author, by remitting the quicksilver to the said Island, whilst it is not required for the consumption of our country, and retaining the Spanish capital in that District, the result could be obtained that the inhabitants would take part in the business, using their own resources to sustain and facilitate it ; the risks and expendi- tures consequently being divided. Because as many as might not wish to incur new dangers in direct transmissions would sell their quick- silver in Havana ; and because the great interest which money pays in the Republic would facilitate the double operation, diminishing the exhibitions (" exhibiciones.") Supposing the quicksilver to be in the hands of the agent in Havana, he would doubtless afford the Mexicans adequate means of buying it in Spain with the guaranties of European Bankers. Page i3i. In the project then it is proposed to abolish the monopoly of quicksilver, opening a market for its purchase from first hands, and with, at most, but a small increase of value to be divided between the indivi- duals or corporations . who might be benefited by the result of the enterprise. But considering that the Government might need advances on the income, perhaps equivalent to those exacted in the last contract, it is thought proper that in time the Republic should interpose so that an arrangement might be made between the bank of Isabel the Second or some other national establishment and the Government of Madrid, after the example of that which the Minister Mon made with the Bank of San Fernando. It is supposed in the article, that the capital could be formed, the Bank itself contributing, and also some European Houses by subscrip- tions and the Mexicans through this Junta ; and that it should be con- ceded to the shareholders that the administration and income of the quicksilver should be left to the same Bank, assigning them to it with the proper securities. The writer also believes that Mexico could offer directly to the Spanish Government the loan of a considerable sum for a certain num- ber of years on condition that it should bind itself to renounce all other contracts, extending the effect to a fixed price. Such are, substantially, the original bases of one of the projects formed to the end that Spain might alienate its quicksilver on terms for obtaining immense advantages of the reciprocal commerce, which, as yet, is carried on exclusively by England. And the Junta in presenting this idea of the Havana writer to your Excellency, has no other end in view than to remind you of the most urgent necessity which exists of adopting this or some other, in order to cover, with smaller losses, the great deficiency which the Mexican quicksilver 534 leaves in the consumption of the mines, especially when the contract made with the house of Roschild terminates next year, and the Sov- ereign Congress could empower the Junta as it did on the 17th of February 1843 by its decree of that day. In the periodical of Tampico, Tamaulipas, la Esperanza, number 11 of the 12th of March of the year preceding, the editors copied a letter from San Luis Potosi, which announced a discovery in quicksilver at Guadalcazar, which indicates the extraction of more than three quin- tels daily. The Junta on the 26th of the same month addressed the proper Government, requesting detailed information of the discovery, with a view to encouraging its working and development. On the 2d of April it answered, that it had sought the correspond- ing information, and that so soon as it could obtain it, it would remit it to the Junta, confirming the intelligence, notwithstanding the distilling apparatus was of clay, and said at that time various parcels up to twenty flasks had been introduced, and that some monthly remittances to Guanajusto had been contracted for. As by the improvement of the apparatus an increase ought to be obtained at Guadalcazar, in order to profit by all the ley of the metal, which is lost now, to ensure the permanence of the production, and to obtain the inauguration of economy in every class of expenses, the Government of the Department wished that as soon as practicable a scientific inspection might be made, and the Junta, on the 16th of April, although convinced of the advantages which would result from sending an intelligent person who would contribute to the better di- rection of the labor and works of Guadalcazar, and especially to the most economical and abundant distillation of the quicksilver, answered that it was then unable to do it for the want of funds. The above mentioned periodical in its number of April 2nd, spoke again of the progress they were making in Guadalcazar, asserting that in four days they extracted four quintals, there having been an arroba of metal which might yield seventeen ounces, notwithstanding the great evaporation which necessarily resulted from the small intel- ligence with which the metal was reduced ; that there were four mines being worked and seventy denounced ; and the spirit of enterpise which was excited, had produced traders in the ore, (rescatodores de metal en piedra.) Reserving the remittance of more precise intelligence, the Depart- mental Government on the 10th of May transmitted a copy of the report issued from the office of the Prefect of San Luis on the 80th of the same month. From that it appears that, according to investi- gations made in the mine of San Antonio, besides the leads, veins and outcroppings, almost on the surface, which are worked, there had been struck already a second vein at the depth of thirty feet, whose metals of superior "ley" (since they yielded from four to five pounds to the 535 " carga") could increase its products considerably by perfecting the smelting apparatus, which consist now almost entirely of large narrow mouthed pitchers with tubes of clay and conductors of metal ; that the opinion that the land to be prospected occupied an area of five square leagues, a little more or less, was confirmed ; that its situation was to the north of Guadalcazar, and surrounded by an abundance of timber ; that according to the exhibition made by the proper Mineral Court, up to the 26th of April there had been discovered in its juris- diction eighty two mines ; that no works had been undertaken except those very necessary to burn in mud (para quemar en lodo), which is the method most commonly used ; that of all the mines only four were profitable ; that from that of San Antonio, the most productive, they got out fifty " cargas" a day, with a ley of 2, 3, and four pounds, the products of the others not being exactly known ; that with the bad method of smelting which they have, they did not avail themselves of all the " ley" which they have ; that there was in the neighborhood a supply of wood and water, and that the other mines registered were worked on an uncertainty, the greater part showing signs of the kind of earth (panino) m which the cinnabar is produced. The Minister of Justice on the 7th of June, transcribed to the Junta an official letter from the Government of San Luis of the 31st of May, and with it ;:. copy of another from the Departmental Assem- bly, which contains the followtng proposition : It will be proposed through the Government of the Department, and with the knowledge of the Supreme Government of the Republic, to the Junta de fomento de Mineria de Mexico, that it should estab- lish a fund for the buying up of quicksilver in the mine of Guadal- cazar, for the present, of twenty thousand dollars, and that at the ex- pense of its funds it should construct the apparatus of the furnace most necessary and useful, in which at its expense, the quicksilver metals of those mines may be reduced, only a small increase being calculated for the indemnification of the costs of its construction. The Junta answered to the Supreme Government on the 18th of the same month-, acknowledging the propriety of the examination and that of constructing the apparatus, at the same time complaining of the want of funds, and representing the necessity that existed of expediting the arrearages of the funds destined by law for the encouragement of the quicksilver business. The Director General of Industry, on the 14th of said month, pre- sented a report of the industrial Junta of San Luis, in which with the date of the 7th of the same month, and to urge this Junta de fomento to the efficacious protection of Guadalcazar, so as to avoid its going to decay, which, without such indispensable assistance, would be at no remote period, whilst with a brilliant result could be secur:d, he solicited the scientific inspection, perfect smelting apparatus, and the 536 establishment of a purchasing office (rescate); but the Junta had the pain of manifesting to him its want of funds, adding, that having asked them on the 19th of the same month from the Supreme Govern- ment, the Superior of San Luis, should designate the person or per- sons, who in that mine should be charged with the custody of the money which might serve for the purchasing fund, (rescate), as also with the purchase and sale of the quicksilver, the Commissioner giving sufficient security for his administration. The Government on the 9th of July gave notice, in answer, that the few capable persons who were in the said mine, were supposed to be occu- pied with their own private business, believing, for that reason, that it was more proper to choose some one in San Luis, who, either by him- s M or through an agent under his responsibility, might discharge the trust. The Junta on the 20th of August of the previous year, represented to the Government of San Luis, that notwithstanding the poverty of the fund., it would place there soon four thousand dollars for the es- tablishing of a purchasing office of the fluid quicksilver in the said mining place*, without other restriction than that of preserving without diminution the sum indicated, to which end it could form and remit the corresponding regulation, comprehending in it an adequate method of favoring the workers of the quicksilver and the miners who shall buy it, covering all the expenses of administration and indemnifying the person who shall be charged with it, under the proper guaranties, and designate the individual to perform the trust, whether he might be of San Luis or of Guadalcazar. The said Government announced on the 27th of August, that it was already engaged in the establishment of the agency. Subsequently, the Court of Guadalcazar, on the 80th of October of lest year, reported that the mines of cinnabar registered amounted to a hundred and twenty-five, those denounced to thirty-three, and that the extraordinary productiveness afforded space for the location of many more than those theretofore established, since following the- an- cient openings, which it appears were worked from time immemorial by the aborigines, although there- is no notice of it in the archives of the tribunal, the excavations are spread over about six leagues in circum- ference from the silver mine, having one league for the least breadth, for which reason it is judged that a great deposit ought to be found there, and the more, when it is seen that some of the mines anciently worked showed, by the heaps of earth, a depth of as much as a hun- dred varas and notwithstanding the various examinations and denounce- ments made, the mines held in possession and which yield abundant profits, although of scanty " ley"' will go as high as twenty-five, the others being still prospected but very superficially, for the want of capitalists to apply themselves to the business ; there being extracted 537 monthly a hundred quintals and upwards of quicksilver, notwithstand- ing the meanness and insufficiency of the apparatus. The Junta answered on the 12th of November, that the Court should be informed if there were any companies formed or to be formed which would need assistance, and in case there were, it should make known which were the mines that ought to be undertaken, what the amount of the shares should be, and the basis on which each negotia- tion would have to rest, to the end that the Junta with these data might decide. However up to this time it has received no answer — neither from the Government nor from the Couit, nor, indeed, has it demanded any, hoping from day to day that it might be in receipt of the funds appropriated by law for this department, which hope, unfor- tunately, has not been realized. His Excellency the Governor of San Luis, on the 19th of July and 4th of December of last year, the 18th of April, 9th and 18th of May of the present, remitted to the Junta the Documents which prove the extraction of the national quicksilver in Guadalcazar, so that the parties interested might receive the premium of five dollars per quin- tal, granted by the 5th article of the Supreme Decree of the 24th of May, 1843, to those who might extract quicksilver from the mines of the Republic. From those documents an exact statement can be had of the quicksilver extracted in Guadalcazar from February 1844 up to May of the present year, at which time the term fixed for the said premium expired. De la mina de San Antonio novecientos cin- quenta quintales, one arroba and two pounds 950 1 2 De la San Augustin seventy-six quintals, three arro- bas, two pounds, thirteen ounces 76 3 2 13 De Santa Lucia, one hundred quintals 100 00 De Trinidad y Andres, seventy-eight quintals, three arrobas, fifteen pounds, one and one half ounces. 78 3 15 1\ 1,205 3 19 14} The Junta has offered to one of the Companies of Guadalcazar, to send to that mine one of the distilling machines ordered in London, and which it has not been able to receive yet on account of the block- ade. Thus from the amount of the premiums corresponding to the ex- traction of the national quicksilver at Guadalcazar, as also from the amount corresponding to a hundred and thirty-six quintals more ex- tracted from the New Almaden of Durazno, there remain some sums 42 538 of money that could not be paid, by reason of the suspension of the Quickrilver fund. Mexico, Nov. 17th, 1846, ISIDRO R. GONDRA, 1st Official on account of the occupation of the Secretary. Junta de fomento y Administrate va de Mineria. Most Excellent Sir : — In remitting to your excellency, with this date the summary of the proceedings of this Junta, in the years last past, in the due performance of its honorable trust, and the actual condition of the diverse transactions with which it has been occupied, it has had the honor of reporting to you the initia- tive steps which, in its opinion, ought to be adopted for the true encouragement and protection of Mexican Mining. But in order that the grand enterprise of the development of the quicksilver mines may not be paralized longer, to the great detriment of the public wealth, the Junta finds itself under the necessity of ask- ing from the Government, not money, for the present, but what it can easily furnish, even in the midst of its great necessities, that is credit, which will be obtained, if the the Minister of Hacienda will cause the proper orders to be issued to the Maritime Custom houses of Vera Cruz and Tampico to the effect that hereafter it may have its exact complement appropriated in article 12 of the Decree of the 25th of September, 1813 ; the corresponding drafts for the duties which the law assigned to it, being remitted directly to the Junta as soon as the blockade may be raised. Such an arrangement, strictly legal, has in its favor, that it will not burthen, for the present, te the amount of a cent, the National treas- ury, now charged with maintaining, at all costs, the independence and the dearest rights of the nation ; but the Junta counting on this fund for the future, and obtaining the proper authorization from the Supreme Government itself, could, perhaps, provide resources with the least possible los3, and with them continue to encourage the spirit of enter- prise, which otherwise would disappear with the sum of all the goods it has patented in the said exposition, which the Republic ought to avoid. Besides as the law of the 2d September, '42, imposed obligations on this Junta, it cannot discharge them if its just solicitude is disregard- ei, and it would have, among others, the great pain of seeing closed the newly created professorships which were opened in the National College of Mining for the instruction of youth dedicated to the ac- quirement of the various knowledge which is necessary in order to be perfect in the science of mining. To avoid such great evils the Junta has the honor of addressing it 539 self to your Excellency, not doubting that you will interpose your res- pectable influence, so that during the remainder of this year, it may be able to dispose of what may be required in order to make a begin- ing in January of the studies established by law. The Junta enjoys the satisfaction of repeating to your Excellency the assurances of its distinguished consideration and particular respect. God and Liberty, Mexico, 17th of November, 1845. VICENTE SEGURA, President. On account of the engagement of the Secretary, ISIDRO R. GONDRA, First Official. Most Excellent sir, Minister of Relations, D. Jose Maria Lafragua. 0. H. No. 50. (Vide page 219.) 0. H. No. 51). (Vide page 199.) 0. H. X. No. 1. Private, St. Francisco, 30th Jan. 1846. Eustace Barron, Esq. My Dear Sir : The accompanying correspondence will be left at Mazatlan by the British ship Emma Captain Elbourn, whose destina- tion is the South Pacific Ocean, and lastly at Valparaiso. In consid- eration of the payment of one hundred dollars, he has agreed to touch at the first mentioned port, solely for the purpose of delivering my package. I trust that you will not disapprove of my having taken this method of communicating to what I consider important information. I have given the Captain a bill for the amount, which I presume he will nego. tiate at Mazatlan. News have reached this coast, of the final adjustment of the Oregon question, but it is not stated in what manner. ^ I presume that the Texas affair has not been settled ; as the expe- dition for California has not arrived. 540 D. Andres Castillero, a sort of Commissioner from the Mexican Government to this Department, is now working a quicksilver mine near the Mission of Sta. Clara, which mine has yielded 40 per cent, upon the assay of mineral employed. I have had a deal of trouble with the authorities here, relative to the deposit of the roll of the British ship Emma. The Captain of the Port claims it, and the British laws command the master to deposit it in my hand under the penalty of £25. I have retained the roll in my possession, in spite of a villainous Captain of the Port, and henceforward shall cause the Captain of any British vessel to furnish a list of his crew copied from the roll. I shall not fail to address you by every opportunity. I am, my dear sir, Your most obedient servant, JAS. ALEX. FORBES. P. S. — Be pleased to number my public letter No. 81, in lieu of No. 8. (Endorsed) 1846. J. A. Forbes, S. Fro. 30 Jan. Reed. 17 March. Private. 0. H. X. No. 2. Private. San Francisco, 22 Sept., 1846. My Dear Sir : The Herald has come suddenly into this port, where according to my last words from the Admiral I least expected her. I send you some notice of the affairs of this country, but everything is in such an uproar that nothing can be trusted to the hands of any person. Do not think that I shall fail to write you whenever a safe opportu- nity presents. I am now in charge of the Quicksilver mine, and am going to work it until I can hear from Castillero, and am upon the point of striking a bargain for four shares. The mine of which I wrote you by the Juno, does not produce 40 per cent., according to the ore shown us. The Herald leaves immediately, but I shall write you more at length 541 by the Figaro. I think I am right, thut the mine now under my charge gives 20 per cent. Excuse haste, my dear sir, and believe me, Yours most sincerely, J. ALEX. FORBES. The vessel is now under sail while I write. (Endorsed) : 1846. J. A. Forbes, S. Franc'o 22 Sept'r. 0. H. X. No. 3. Private. Santa Clara, 14th July, 1847. Alexander Forbes, Esq. : My Dear Sir : I have the pleasure to communicate to you, that up to the present time nothing has occurred to affect the quiet occupation of the mine of Almaden. Since the departure of Mr. Walkingshaw, Mr. Alden has done little in the mine in consequence of the scarcity of operatives. The indians have almost all left him ; and such is the indolence of this class of people, that I am quite certain you will never be able to do anything with such labourers. I should advise you to try and procure some of the natives of the Sandwich Islands, through the influence of Mr. Wyllie. These people should be from the interior, and not from the maritime part of the population. They should be engaged under contract for three or five years, as they are employed by the Hudson Bay Company. I was presented yesterday with a splendid specimen of quicksilver ore, from a spot within or near the limits of the two leagues conceded to Castillero and Socios, but situated upon the land claimed by the American, Cook, of whom you doubtless have been informed. The person who brought the specimen to me, was sent by one of the dis- coverers and informed me that in May, 1846, this new vein was dis- covered and denounced before the authorities of San Jose* ; but that in consequence of the war they did not receive possession. One of the parties shewed the vein to a person sent by M. Moerenhout and Sr. Alvarado to treat with them for the sale or contract for working the vein. I immediately had an interview with the discoverers, and in- formed them that if any such vein did in reality exist without the limits of the two leagues, and documents could be manifested of the denun- ciation, I was ready to enter into a contract in the name of the Com- pany of Almaden, for working the vein, but that I could not permit 542 any claim or operation to be entered upon until the land should be measured ; that it would be detrimental to their interest to attempt to make any contract with any other than yourself. M. Moernhout re- ceived a refusal from these people to make any arrangement ; and this morning called at my house on his journey to St. Francisco, whither he has gone for I know not what purpose. I shall take the necessary measures to frustrate any contract that be made with these persons, as also with another party who denounced another vein, and who are at some expense digging for metal. This last is without the limits of the mine of Almaden, but I think that it will not prove of any value. I have, notwithstanding, agreed that you will work it ; that is to say, that you will give the habilitacion upon better terms than any other person. There is another vein near the mine, of which I have informed Mr. Alden. This will not of course be molested. I have seen a letter from Mr. McNamara to Padre Real, in which he complains bitterly that he has not received enough for his services in negotiating the mining contract with you ; that he ought to have had one barra from each of the socios ; that I wrote inaccurate state- ments to you ; and sums up with a furious tirade, telling the Padre that he (McNamara) is a man of great influence with Her Majesty's Minister at Mexico, of whom he is the most intimate friend ; that I had better be cautious, or I will lose my official situation ! and other absurdities which manifest his principles, and how little he is aware of my independence of spirit to be affected by such threats. This letter was evidently written in the supposition that I should learn its con- tents ; I am sorry that I cannot send you a copy of it at the present time, as the Padre is absent. I am ignorant how my letter to you could have given such umbrage to the Rev. gentleman, and I beg that you will have the kindness to send me a copy of that same letter, and also to inform me whether Mr. McNamara is yet in Mexico. I am, my dear sir, Yours sincerely and respectfully, JAS. ALEX. FORBES. 0. H. X. No. 4. Santa Clara, 7 Febr'y de 1848. Alexander Forbes, Esquire : My Dear Sir : By the Mason I send you some specimens of the new vein, which was duly registered on Saturday, and poso opened ; I have not had time to make an assay. Your opinion respecting the abundance of ores of cinnabar in the vicinity of New Almaden is very 543 correct. I have this morning caused another denuncio to be made of another veta ! and on my return from it I have yet another to make. The samples of these last two vetas are, however, rather inferior to the beautiful specimens I now send to you. I have spoken to Mr. Lyman upon the subject of this survey ; and he very willingly agreed to go and see you to-morrow. I shall go the hacienda to-morrow (Thursday,) in order to assist if you resolve upon the measurement before you proceed to Monterey. My opinion of the title of the widow of Berreyesa, or rather my first view of that title, and the information given by her sons, was that the grant was for two leagues, but I have been at her house on my return hither, and I find that the title was given for one league, or sitio, and that the word one has been converted into the word two. I advise you of this in order to prevent an incorrect supposition of her boundary line. She correct- ness of her title can only be ascertained by examining the archives at Monterey. Mr. Lyman tells me that he did not survey Cook's land, although he, Cook, had made pome proposition to him to do it. Per- haps it would be safe to take the limit of Cook and the prolongation of that line as one of "the limits of the two sitios, without meddling with the widow's land or boundary ; but you know that she expects to have some line defined between her land and those two sitios of the hacienda, and will therefore determine as to that operation. The priest is not yet arrived, nor is there anything new to commu- nicate to you. I have not had time to make out the power of attorney, but I shall be able to do it before you leave. The Mason leaves this at nine, A. M. I am, my dear sir, Your obt. servant, JAS. ALEX. FORBES. (Endorsed) 1848. Mr. Forbes. 0. H. X. No. 5. Tepic, 6th February, 1850. James A. Forbes, Esq., New Almaden: Dear Sir : — In reply to your private letter of the 20th December, respecting the two sitios of land, we have to say that we had hoped that the document lately sent, for this grant to Mr. Castillero would have been sufficient, but as you seem to be doubtful on this point, we have spoken to him, he being now here, and his opinion is that if this grant is not tenable it will be better to go upon the three thousand 544 varas of the Alcalde, granted at the time of giving possession of the mine, and approved of by the Mexican Government, which approval will be taken from the Mexican archives and sent on to you. Although by the Ordenanzas of Mineria the Alcalde or Judge may not have had strictly a right to grant these 3000 varas, yet being approved by the Mexican Government, would make this valid as a grant. We hope however you will find the Berreyesas' lands not to include the hacienda, and consequently either the grant of the two sitios or the 3000 varas would be a sufficient title. Mr. Alexander Forbes will however write you more particularly on this subject. We are much surprised at the proceedings of Dr. Tobin, whom you say has the intention of coming by the steamer of the first of Febru- ary. We shall not be sorry that he comes ; he will gain nothing by that step, and you may depend upon your being supported whatever he may mean to say or do to ycur prejudice. The good fortune will be that the principal part of all the Habilitadores and proprietors of the mine will be here to meet him. As however we hardly think he will venture to come w T e shall say nothing of the reception he will meet with. We are, dear sir, Your most obt. serv'ts, BARRON, FORBES & CO. (Addressed) — James Alex. Forbes, Esq. (Endorsed) Barron, Forbes & Co., relative to the departure of Dr. Tobin from N. Almaden, 6th Feb'y, 1850. Answered 26th Feb'y. 0. IL X. No. 6. Santa Clara, 18 de Junio, 1850. Sr. Dn. Ysidoro de la Torre : Muy Sexor mio y de mi aprecio : — Acompano h V. los sig'tes do- cuments que pertenecen k esa negociacion, y son los que tienen rcla- cion con mi administracion de ella 4 saber : Un pliego papel sellado mejicano, del sello 5°. con copia autorizada de la commnnicac'n del ministerio de relaciones esteriores relativa & dos sitios de ganado mayor en N. Almaden. Seis pliegos en papel comun, con copias autorizadas del contrato de abio de la mina de N. Almaden, incluyendo copia del documento k que se contrae el arriba mencionado pliego, &c. certificado por el Consulado Britanica de Tepic. 545 Siete pliegos — siete pliegos de papel sellado mejicano dell sello cuarto, con copias autorizadas del contrato original de la Compania de la Mina de N. Almaden, fha 2 de Noveb're, 1845 ; del poder de D. Jose* Castro k Macnamara, para efectuar el contrato de abio ; ratification del mismo por D. Andres Castillero ; y cesion de los dos sitios, ratificacion de Castro, &c. certificado por el Consulado Americano en Tepic. Veinte y oclio cartas y una nota de q. de la direccion gral en Tepic a D. A. Forbes. Documentos relativos al pleito de Walkinshaw contra la mina de Nue- vo Almaden, incluyendo cartas del dho recibos, &c. Recibos, ordenes y cartas, &c, incluyendo recibo del pago de la lan- cha Emilia ; del pago de $3,500 p s . a Antonio Gamez, copias del contrato del Dr. Tobin, &c, &c, y de la gente oprerario por el Vicar of Bray. Soy deb. S. S. Q. B. S. M., DIEGO ALEX. FORBES. P. D. Por separado incluyo a V. el pagare" de Juan Armstrong y la libranza contra Jesus Herrera en que lite ha anotado el pago de los doscientos pesos. 0. H. X. No. 7. Anos de mil J ochocientos cuarenta ' \ ocho y mil ochocientos ^ cuarenta y nueva. mlnisterio de r.elaciones esteriores gobernacion y policia. Exmo. Se^or : El E. 6 Y. S. Ministro de Justicia, en oflcio de 20 del corriente, me dice lo que copio : • " E. S. : Hoy digo al E. S. D. Vicente Segura, Precidente de la Junta de Fomento de Mineria, lo siguiente : ' E. S. Habiendo dado cuenta al E. S. Precidente interino con la notade V. E. de 14 del presente a que se servio* acompafiarme, con recomendacion, la solicitud del Senor Don Andres Castillero para el fomento de la mina Azogue que ha descubierto en la Mision de Santa Clara en la Alta California ; se ha servido S. E. aprobar en todos sus partes el convenio celebrado con dicho individuo para principiar la es- plotacion de dicho mineral, y con esta fecha se hace la communicacion 546 que correspond^ al Ministerio de Relaciones Esteriores y Gobernacion, para que libre las ordenes oportunas por lo respectivo a lo que con- tiene la 8a proposicion, relativa & la concesion de terrenos en aquel Departmento.' Y tengo el honor de insertario 4 V. E. 4 fin de que por lo respectivo a la solicitud del S. Castillero, & que ha tenido a bien acceder el E. S. Precidente interino sobre que como colono se le conceda dos citios de ganado major sobre el terreno de su posecion mineria, se sirva V. E. librar las ordenes de que se trata. Reitero a N. E. &a." Y lo transcribo a V. E. para que con arreglo a lo que prevengan las leyes y disposiciones sobre colonizacion, ponga al S. Castillero en posecion de los sitios que se mencionan. Dios y Libertad. Mdxico, Mayo 23 de 1846. CASTILLO LAZNAS. E. S. Gobernador del Departamento de Californias. Es copia fielmente sacada de su original que se presents en este ofi- cio por las Senores Barron, Forbes y Compailia de este Comercio, y devolviendoseles por mi rubricada, se les da el presente a su peticiou para el uso que les convengo ; y en fe* de todo lo signo y firmo en Te- pic a trcce de Noviembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y nueve. JESUS VEJAR. Los infrascriptos Escribanos Publicos en esta Ciudad, certificamos y damos % : que el signo y firma con que se halla autorizada la prese- dente copia es del Escribano Publico Don Jesus Vejar quien se halla ejerciendo su profecion en este misma Ciudad. Y en comprovacion sentamos la presente en Topic a trece de Noviembre de mil ochocien- tos cuarenta y nueve. Panfilo Solis. Eusebio Fernandez. I, Eustace W. Barron, H. B. M. Consul for San Bias, hereby certify, that the foregoing signatures are in the true hand- writing of the subscribers who hold the situations therein represented, and are worthy of all faith and credit. Given under my hand and seal sf office, in the City of [seal.] Tepic, this 13th day of November, 1849. EUSTACE W. BARRON. 547 0. H. X. No. 7 1-2. [In pencil.] Berreyesa's Farm, 17 Feb. 1848. My Dear Sir : The widow has agreed to have the line of demar- cation between the sitios of the mine and her land, to be placed upon the summit of the second hill from her plain, (upon which one of her sons is now gone to put up a white flag in a tree,) and to run along that ridge down to the stream near the road which the said line will cross, and skirting along the base of the hills near the plain, until it reaches Cook's line or boundary between his land and the widow's. This measure will take in the greater part of the Canada, and I think that it will be very near the line you pointed out to Mr. Lyman. The widow has desired me to state to you, that she wishes to have her land measured as follows : One league upon the line of division between herself and Cook, and a parallel line to be run to that between her land and the Bernales, but that if you are desirous to have the strip from the point of the hill towards the lomita near Cook's, that she is willing to arrange the matter of purchase with you, and will be glad for you to make her an offer for that part of it. I am, my dear sir, Your obt. serv't, JAS. ALEX. FORBES. Alex. Forbes, Esq., New Almaden. (Endorsed:) Jas. A. Forbes, Feb'y. 1848. Description of land agreed to be included in mine tract. 0. H. X. No. 8. No. 4. Por cuanto Don Jose* Castro, vecino de Monterey en el Territorio de la Alta California, socio en una Mina de Azogue, ubicada en la ju- risdiction del Pueblo de San Jose' de Guadalupe, y cuya mina es cono- cida con el nombre de Almaden de Santa Clara ; otorg6 en el Puerto de Monterey, & los doce dias del mes de Junio de mil ochocientos cua- renta y seis, un poder especial, autorizando el Presbytero Don Eugenio Macnamara, para que contratase con una Compania Ynglesa, que se hiciese ca«go de la elaboracion y avio de la enunciada mina de Azo- gue ; cuyo contrato realizo el dho. Sor Macnamara ; en la Ciudad de Tepic, en veinte de Noviembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis, con el Sor Don Alexandre Forbes, Consul y subdito Britanico ; por si, y & nombre de la Compania que representa ; reduciendolo k escritura 548 publica otorgada por escribano publico ; y aprobada y ratificada, por Don Andres Castillero, residentc en la Ciudad de Mexico ; y socio tam- bien en la referida mina. Y habiendose obligado este Senor a recabar el esplicito consentimiento y ratificacion del referido contrator por parte de sus consocios, residentes en este Departamento ; por las dudas que pudieren suscitarse acerca de la representacion del Sr. Macna- mara. Yo, Diego Alexandro Forbes, Vice Consul S M. B. para Californias, autorizado con poder general, amplio e ilimitado de los Srs. Don Se- cundino Robles y Don Teodoro Robles ; socios en la enunciado Mina de Almaden de Santa Clara : Digo, que otorgo en la mas solomne forma que haja lugar en derecho ; y me obligo a cumplir exacta y re- ligiosomente, todo cuanto contiene la espresada escritura del contrato celebrado con el Sor. Don Alexandro Forbes y la Compania que repre- senta. Lo apruebo y ratifico en todas sus partes, queriendo que se rae tenga por uno de los obligados al cumplimiento de su literal tenor, desde su celebracion, hasta cumplidos los diez y seis anos estipulados en dicho contrato, en la inteligencia, de que todas las gracias y privile- gios que haya concedido, 6 que en lo futuro concediere el Supremo Gobierno de Mexico, a los Srs. Duenos de la enunciada Mina de Azo- gue de Almaden de Santa Clara, en recompensa 6 substitution del premio 6 gratificacion ofrecida por el mismo Gobierno (como consta por sus decretos) por el descubrimiento y elaboracion de esta clase minas, seran disfrutados por los duenos de esta, conforme k las acciones que poseen en ella. En testirnonio de todo lo que antecede, y para su fiel y exacto cum- plimiento, he firmado este documento, a nombre de mis espresados comitentes, en papel simple a causa de la total falta del sellado, y lo he autorizado con mi sello oficial, por falta tambien de autoridad compe- tente en este lugar. Mision de Santa Clara, Alta California, Republica Mejicana, a los cuatro dias del mes de Mayo de 1847. DIEGO ALEJANDRO FORBES. \ Sello 549 Sello Cuatro. Un Real. Jesus Vejar Escribano Publico en esta Ciudad : Certifico y doy fd que la firma que antecede del Senor Don Diego Alejandro Forbes con que se subscribe el presedente poder otorgado por Don Jose" Castro es la que usa y aconstumbra como Vice Consul de S. M. Britanica en la Alta California bajo el sello que asi mismo se ve*, y con tal caracter de Vice Consul es reconocido por las casas mercantiles de ultramar en esta ciudad, dando fd y credito k los instru- ments autenticos que dicho Seiior ha espedido, Y por esta razon asi legaliso su firma. Y k pedimento de los Senores Barron, Forbes y Compania signo y firmo el presente en Tepic a diez y och de Marzo de mil ochocientos cincuenta, dejando rubricada aquella constancia. JESUS VEJAR. El Alcalde 1°. constitutional y Escribano Publico que firmamos, cer- tificamos y damos fe, que el signo y firma que antecede autorizando el presendente certificado, es del Escribano Publico en esta ciudad Don Jesus Vejar, quien se hallo en el ejercicio de su profecion. Asi lo comprobamos en Tepic a diez y ocho de Marzo del mil ochocientos cin- cuenta. Eusebio Fernandez. Loreto Corona. Consulate of the United Stales. I, George W. P. Bissell, Consul of the United States of North America, for this district, hereby certify that the signatures attached to the foregoing document, are in the true handwriting of the subscri- bers, who legally hold the situations therein represented, and are wor- thy of all faith and credit. 550 ^ In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand, and seal of seal > office, in the city of Tepic, this first day of December, in the — — ' year one thousand eight hundred and fifty. G. W. P. BISSELL. U. S. Consul. 0. H. X. No. 9. Jesus Vejar, Escribano Publico en esta Ciudad : Certifico y doy fe* que el Seiior Don Alejandro Forbes, socio en la Compania Comercial Yngleza en esta ciudad me ha presenfcado con diez fojas en el papel sello primero y cuarto el testimonio de una es- critura, la cual es al pie de laletra como sigue : " En la ciudad de Mexico k diez y siete de Diciembre de mil ocho- ctentos cuarenta y seis, ante mi el Escribano Publico y testigos, pre- sente el Sor. Don Andres Castillero, Capitan de Caballeria Perma- nente de esta vecindad, cuya persona mayor de edad doy fe conosco y dijo : que por el documento que presenta, consta que como dueno de una mina de plata con ley de oro y azogue, ubicada en el Rancho de Don Jose* Reyes Berreyesa en la jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe, del Territorio de la Alta California, en el segundo Dis- trito de Monterey, y cuya mina se conoce con el nombre de Santa Clara, celebro un contrato de compania de dicha mina con los Senores Comandante General Don Jose* Castro, Don Secundino Robles, y Don Teodoro Robles ; asi como con el Reberendo Padre Fray Jose Maria del Refugio Suarez del Real, como secionario perpetuo de sus con- socios por cuatro Barras de la mencionada Mina, cuyo documento otorgado en la Mision de Santa Clara a dos de Noviembre de mil ocho- cientos cuarenta y cinco en copia sacada del original que existe en el Archivo del Partido, autorizada por el Sor. Don Manuel Castro y Don Antonio Maria Pico, doy fe tener a la vista en las citadas dos fojas utiles en papel comun. Que el relacionado Don Jose Castro su con- socio por si y a nombre de los socios de la mencionada mina otorgd en el Puerto de Monterey k los doce dias del mes de Junio del corriente ano de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis, un poder especial, pero ampleo, k favor del Presvitero Don Eugenio Macnamara para que contrate con una compania Ynglesa que se hiciese cargo del laborio de las tres per- tenencias que a Castro y socios les corresponden en la espresada mina con el objeto de proporcionarle los avios y gastos necesarios para el aumento de la negociacion : todo con entera sujecion & lo que para casos como el presente disponen las ordenanzas de mineria. Que con tal autorizacion, el prenotado Sefior Presvitero Don Eugenio Macna- mara, en la ciudad de Tepic, a viente y ocho de Noviembre del eorri- 551 ente ano de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis, realizo el contrata para que fue autorizado con el Senor Don Alexandro Forbes por si y a nom~ bre de la compania Yngleza que representa, reduciendolo 4 Escritura Publica otorgada ante el Escribano Publico Don Panfilo Solis, cuyo tenor con el poder que justifica la represen- corregido tacion del Senor Macnamara es como sigue : {alma una n lubnca. Escritura deTcpic. En la Ciudad de Tepic 4 veinte y ocho de Noviembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis, ante mi el Escribano y testigos, el Presvitero Don Eugenio Macnamara actual residente en este lugar, dijo : que Don Jose* Castro, vecino del Puerto de Monterey, como socio en la Mina de Azogue que se haya en la comprension de Santa Clara, y 4 noinbre de sus consocios, que le cedieron sus derechos para que contratase con una compania Yngleza la elaboracion de dicha Mina, le confirio poder con este objeto, el cual otorgado ante cuatro testigos en dicho Puerto, a doce de Junio del corriente ano doy £8 tener 41a vista original, y su tener a la letra dice : poder. En el Puerto de Monterey 4 los doce dias del mes de Junio de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. Yo Jose Castro con presencia de los testigos que al fin se nombraran : usando del derecho que me han otorgado mis socias para celebrar cualesquiera contrato que se pudiera ofrecer, con respecto a las tres pertenencias que por justos titulos y como descubridores tenemos en la Mina de Azogue, situada en la com- prencion de Santa Clara, y favoreciendoles las ordenanzas de mineria y leyes concernientes, especialmente el soberano decreto de siete de Octubre de mil ochocientos viente y tres, para que se proporcione el grande provecho y utilidad al laborio de esta clace de minas, y siendo la que poseen en la actuatidad, la primera unica y principal por su ley, que se ha descubierto en la Nacion Mejicana ; y que no pudiendo el Gobierno Supremo darles los aucilios que les corresponden por hal- larse en una distancia immenza y ultramarina, sin esperanza de que este pais por si mismo fomente esftr interesante ramo por no tenor nin- gunos fondas de que disponer, y sin encontrarse al mismo tiempo un facultativo mineralogico, ni haber brazos para el laborio continuo que se requiere, para el adelanto de esta industria desconocida en este De- partamento ; ha convenido y conviene dar poder especial, amplio, bas- tante y por cuanto por derecho se requiera, mas pueda y deba valer al Presvitero Don Eugenio Macnamara, para que representando su per- sona y la de sus socios contrate con una compania Yngleza con esclu- cion de cualquiera otra Nacion para que se haga cargo del laborio de las tres pertenencias de dicha Mina por el tiempo de nueve anos con el fin de proporcionar los avios, hacer los gastos necesarios y mantenerla en buen giro y con arreglo 4 las mencionadas ordenanzas de mineria, siendo los productos de las tres pertenencias de la Mina, para los duenos una mitad y la otra mitad para la compania Yngleza y cuando 552 no se pudiere convenir a cllo, se ofrecera a la compania Yngleza las dos terceras partes para que los dueiios reciban la otra tercera parte, entendiendose que la parte que corresponde a los duenos sera- fibre de gastos ; y si aun en esto no hubiere convenio. Se haran otras estipulaciones de acuerdo con Don Andres Castilleros, para facilitar la realizacion de un contrato ; y concluido el tiempo mencionado de nueve anos se prorrogaran otros siete anos mas, en los terminos que se celebre la primera contrata, quedando la negociacion, despues de todo este tiempo a disposicion absoluta de los duenos de la Mina, como tambien todos los materiales, fabricas y demas pertenencias que a ella les cor- responden, como maquinas y demas utiles adherentes a este beneficio, sin que por causa alguna tenga la compania Yngleza derecho a recla- mar cualesquiera otra clace de gastos que para su veneficio y propia utilidad llegare a originar. Y a la firmeza y validacion de lo que en vertud de este poder se ejecutare, se obliga el otorgante en toda forma de derecho a su com- plemiento, y para lo cual se somete a los Seiiores Jueces que del caso deban conocer, en cuyo testimonio lo firmo con los cuatro testigos que lo son Don David Spence, Don Juan Malarin, Don Manuel Dias y Don Antonio Maria Pico, en el dia mes y ano ya mencionados. JOSE CASTRO. David Spence, Manuel Dias, Juan Malarin, Antonio Maria Pico. Que el inserto poder no le esta revocado ni limitado en raa- EscrituX nera alguna ; y que despues de haber solicitado con el mayor de Tepie. empeno el negocio para que fue facultado, ha celebrado con el Sefior Don Alejandro Forbes, subdito y Consul Britanico por si, y por sus socios en esta empresa, el contrato que espresan las siguientes condiciones : l a . Primera : El Sefior Don Alejandro Forbes y sus socios se ha- cen cargo del laborio de las tres pertenencias que comprhende dicha Mina de Azogue por el termino de diez y seis ailos, segun esta facul- tado por el inserto poder, y sin que sea nesesario el acuerdo de Don Andres Castillero, en razon de que este contrato esta fuera de los lim- ites para que fue autorizado el relacionado. 2 a . Seg anda : Que el Senor Forbes y socios estan en la obliga cion de proporcionar los avios nesesarios, erogar los gastos presisos y mantener la Mina en buen giro y con arreglo a las ordenanzas de mi- neria. 3 a . lercera : Que de los productos de las tres pertenencias que 553 comprhende la Mina, percibiran, dos terceras partes el Senor Forbes y sus socios, quedando la otra parte a favor de los dueSos, sin que de ella se dedusca gasto alguno. 4 a . Cuarta : Que concluidos los diez y seis anos de esta compaiiia queda la negociacion a la disposicion absoluta de los duenos, asi como todos los materiales, fabricas, y demas pertenencias que a ella le cor- respondan, como maquinas y otros utiles anecsos a la negociacion ; y por nungun motivo tendran derecho a reclamar el Senor Forbes y sus socios, cualesquiera otra clace de gastos que para su beneficio y propia utilidad lleguen a originarse. Presente el Senor Don Alejandro Forbes, cuya persona doy ft} con- osco, por si y como representante de los demas accionistas en este asi- unto, 6 impuesto de las anteriores condiciones del poder incerto dijo ; que aquellas estan arregladas en un todo a los terminos con que ha celebrado este negocio. • Ambos otorgantes manifestaron : que este contrato queda celebrado bajo las condiciones estipulodas que se obligan a observar y cumplir religiosamente, sin interpretaeion, y a no reclamar esta escritura en todo ni en parte, y el que faltare sera estrechado a su observancia por la via ejecutiva, asi como al pago de los perjuicios y gastos que se ori- ginen, cuyo monto defieren en la relacion jurada de quien sea parte, sin otra prueba de que se releban, aunque se requiera de derecho. Y a la firmeza de todo lo referido obligan los otorgantes sus bienes y los de los socios de la Mina y del Senor Forbes, y los sometan a la jurisdic- cion de los Seilores Jueces que de sus causas deban conocer, para que a cumplimiento los estrechen como por sentencia definitiva, consen- tida y pasada en autoridad de cosa juzgada. Asi lo otorgan y firma- ron siendo testigos los ciudadanos Nicolas Figueroa, Manuel Covarru- bias y Luis Villalbaso presentes y vecinos ; doy fe\ EUGENIO MACNAMARA. Alejandro Forbes, Panfilo Solis. Sacose de su registro hoy dia de su otorgamiento en estas cuatro fojas del papel correspondiente : doy fe*. (un signo) PANFILO SOLIS, Escribano Publico. Concuercla la anterior escritura con la copia original que laSritum en cuatro fojas utiles doy ft tenen a la vista. Sue e iapre y - El prenotado Senor Don Andres Castillero continuo di- eente. ciendo : que en la mas solemne forma que haya lugar en derecho otorga : que se obliga a cumplir por su parte exacta y religi- osamente como uno de los socios contratrantes con el Senor Forbes todo cuanto contiene la escritura incerta, que aprueba y ratifica en todas 43 554 sus partes, queriendo que se le tenga desde este momento por una de los obligados al cumplimiento de su literal tenor. Desde hoy hasta cumplidos los diez y seis anos del contrato, se obli- ga y a sus herederos y susesores k no reclamar cosa alguna contra la escritura incerta ; pero si lo hiciere quiere no ser oido en juicio ni fuera de el. Cede en favor del Avio y por los diez y seis anos de la contrata, los dos sitios de ganado mayor de que el Supremo Gobierno le tiene hecha gracia, segun consta por el documento oficial que presenta para que quede copeado al final de la presente escritura y saiga incerto en las copias que de ella se espidan. Y por cuanto 4 la falta de solemnidad que pueda notarse en el poder incerto en la escritura que va copeada en la presente, se obliga 4 re- cabar el esplicito consentimiento de sus consocios que ratificaran la pre- sente escritura para quitar las dudas que puedan ocurrir a cerea de la representacion del Padre Don Eugenio Macnamara por los consocios del Senor Castro y del que habla. Declara igualmente que esta anu- ente de que el contrato de que hobla esta escritura no tenga efecto hasta que la compafiia Yngleza se halle en quieta y pacifica posecion de la Mina a que se refiere. Con cuyas calidades y condiciones el prenotado Senor Castillero se obliga por su parte al cumplimiento de cuanto queda dicho ; y asegura que para el otorgamiento de la presente escritura no ha sido engauado ; sino antes le, es util & sus intereses, y que en el no hay mas condi- ciones que las espresadas, ni el convenio envuelve lesion ni usura de ninguna especie, como lo jura por Dios y la Senal de la Cruz ; pero si alguna resultare del ecseso le hace gracia y donacion a la compafiia Yngleza, pura, perfecta 6 irrevocable, con insinuacion y renunciacion de la ley segunda titulo primer o, libro diez de la novicima recopilacion. Desde hoy hasta cumplidos los diez y seis anos del contrat > y reser- vandose unicamente los derechos que por el dominio y propiedad le pertenecen del de posecion y demas que tenga, se desapodera, quita y aparta, asi como a sus herederos, y todos los cede, renuncia y traspasa en el relacionado Senor Forbes como representante de la compania Yngleza, & quien por la presente le confiere ampleo poder y facultad bastante, constituyendolo procurador en su propia causa, para que con sugecion & las ordenanzas de mineria, y con total arreglo & la presente escritura, se aproveche la compania de los productos que con arreglo a la misma le pertenecen practicando todo lo demas para que esta fa- cultada. Se obliga & la evicion seguridad y saneamiento de este contrato que por su parte le asegura le sera cierto y seguro, y que por el no se le movera pleito ; pero si alguno resultare, de su cuenta lo seguira hasta dejar a la compania en quieta y pacifica posecion, b que si no lograre le pagara tonos los danos y perjuicios con las contas procesales y per- 555 sonales que se causen. Se sujeta al tenor literal de la ley primera, tit ulo primer o libro diez de la novicima reeopilacion, cuyo contenido sabe y quiere se le tenga por obligado al cumplimiento de la presente escritura. Y siendo presente el Senor Don Francisco Martinez Negrete de esta vecindad cuya persona mayor de edad doy fe conozco, 6 impuesto del contenido de esta escritura dijo ; que teniendo orden espresa y facul- tad bastante por el Senor Alejandro Forbes, a su nombre y el de la compania Yngleza, acepta este instrumento dando por contentos y sat- isfechos a los interesados en ella. El varias veces dieho el Senor Don Andres Castillero al cumplimiento de cuanto queda espuesto, obliga su persona y bienes presentes y futuros y con ellos se somete al fuero y jurisdiccion de los Seiiores Jueces que de sus causas conforme a dere- cho puedan y deban conocer, para que a ello lo compelan y apremien como por sentencia definitiva, consentida y pasada en autoridad de cosa juzgada ; renuncio su domicilio y vecindad con la general del derecho y la que prohibe su general renunciacion. Y por ante mi asi lo otorg6 y firm6 con el Senor Negrete, siendo testigos Don Manuel Ferraras, Don Octaviano de la Rosa, y Don Manuel Barron presentes y vecinos : doy fe*. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Francisco Martinez Negrete. Nazario Fuentes, Escribano National y Publico. Documen- Certifico y doy fe* : que el documento oficial de que 8e to oflciai. habla en la anterior escritura es del tenor siguiente : Al Ma \ Ministerio de Relaciones Esteriores ^ n ( GOBERNACION Y POLIClA. Escelentisimo Senor : El Escelentisimo 6 Y. S. Ministro de Justicia, en oficio de viente del corriente, me dice lo que copio : Escelentisimo Senor : Hoy digo al Escelentisimo Senor Don Vicente Segura, Precidente de la Junta de Fomento de Minoria, lo siguiente : Escelentisimo Senor : Habiendo dado cuenta al Exmo. Senor Preci- dente interino con la nota de V. E. de catorce del presente a que se sirvi6 acompaiiarme, con recomendacion, la solicitud del Senor Don Andres Castillero para el fomento cle la Mina de Azogue qua ha descubierto en la Mision de Santa Clara en la Alta California, se ha servido Su Es- celencia aprobar en todas sus partes el convenio celebrado con dicho individuo para principiar la explotacion de dicho mineral, y con esta fecha se hace la comunicacion que correspende al Ministerio de Re- laciones Esteriores y Gobernacion, para que libre las ordenas oportu- 556 nas por lo respectivo a lo que contiene la octava proposicion, relativa a la eoncecion de terrenos en aquel Departamento. Y tengo el honor de incertarlo 4 V. E. a fin de que por lo respec- tivo a la solicitud del Senor Castillero, a que ha tenido a bien acceder el Escelentisimo Precidente interino, sobre que como colono se le con- ceda dos sitios de ganado major sobre el terreno de su posecion mi- neria, se serva V. E. librar las ordenes de que se trata. Keitero a V. E. et cetera. Y lo participo &> V. E. para que con arreglo a lo que prevengan las leyes y disposiciones sobre colonizacion, ponga al Senor Castillero en posecion de los dos sitios que se mencionan. Dios y Libertad. Mexico y Mayo viente y tres de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. CASTILLO LANZAS. Escelentisimo Senor Gobernador del Departamento de Californias. Sacose de su registro dos dias despues de su otorgamiento para el representante de la compania en estas diez fojas utiles de los sellos primero y cuarto, que segun la ley corresponden, siendo testigos a la aca y correccion de ella y de los documentos incertos, los mismos in- strumentales, de que doy fe\ Firmado con un signo, NAZARIO FUENTES. E. N. P. Los Escribanos Publicos que signamos y firmamos, certificamos y damos fd : que Don Nazario Fuentes es tambien Escribano Publico de esta capital y el signo y firma que anteceden, son suyos, los mismos que usa y aconstumbra para autorizar los documentos que ante el pasan como tal escribano fiel y legal, a los que se han dado y dan entera fe y credito. En fe de lo cual sentamos la presente, que va autorizada con el sello de Nuestro Nacional Colegio de Escribanns Mejico a diez y nueve de Diciembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. Firmado con un signo, ROMULO de ZEVALLOS. Firmado con un signo, FRANCISCO VILLALON. Firmado con un signo, ANDRES YELLIO MEGIA. Al margen un Sello que dice " Colegio Nacional de Escribanos de Mejico, aiio de 1846." Y a solicitud verbal del mismo Senor Don Alejandro Forbes y para el uso que le convenga le doy el presente signando y firmando en Te- pic a tres de Diciembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y nueve, habien- 557 dose usado del papel comun por no haber del sello cuatro en las oficinas de su espendio, como de ella doy fe*. JESUS VEJAR. El Alcalde segundo y Escribano que subscrimos certificamos y da- mos fe* : que el signo y firma con que se halla autorizada la presente copia es del Escribano Publico en esta ciudad Don Jesus Vejar quien se halla en el ejercicio de su profecion. Asi lo comprobamos en Tepic, a tres de Diciembre de mil echocientos cuarenta y nueva. PANFILO SOLIS. Jose A. Esturia. British Consulate. I, Eustace W. Barron, H. B. M. Consul for Tepic and San Bias, hereby certify that the foregoing signatures are in the true handwrit- ing of the subscribers, who hold the situations therein represented, and are worthy of all faith and credit. , s Given under my hand and seal of office, in the City of \ seal | Tepic, this 4th day of December, 1849. < I EUSTACE W. BARRON. ANSWER IN EQUITY, [see page 473.] In the Circuit Court of the United States , for the Districts of Cali- fornia. James Tobin, et al, ) vs. \ In Equity. Robert Walkinshaw, et al. ) The joint and several answer of the said James Alexander Forbes, and Robert Walkinshaw, and William E. Barron, defendants, and the disclaimer of the said James Alexander Forbes, to the bill of complaint of the said James Tobin, trustee, and Maria Z. Bernal de Berreyesa, Jose de los Santos Berreyesa, and others. These defendants, now and at all times hereafter, saving and re- serving unto themselves all benefit and advantage of exception, which can or may be had or taken to the many errors, uncertainties, or other imperfections in said complainants' said bill of complaint contained, for answer thereto, or unto so much and such parts as these defendants are advised is or are material or necessary for them to make answer unto, these defendants severally answering, say : — 558 §1. They deny that on the twentieth day of August, A. D. 1842, and in the life time of the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, Juan B. Alva- rado, then Governor or Political Chief of California, granted to the said Jose" Reyes Berreyesa, for the use of himself and family, a certain tract of land, situated in what is now the County of Santa Clara, in the State of California, and districts aforesaid, known as the Rancho de la Canada de los Capitancillos, or the Rancho of San Vicente, bounded on the west by the lands then belonging to, and known as the Rancho of Justo Larios, and separated therefrom by a conventional line, commencing at a point at the foot of the range of low hills near the Pueblo of San Jose, near to and north of the angle formed by the junction of the Arroyo Seco and the Arroyo Alamitos, and running thence south through the said angle by the slope of the hill in the cen- tre of the Canada to the Sierra Azul; on the south by tha foot of the said Sierra ; on the east by the Laurel Hills ; and on the north by the said low pueblo hills, as the said complainants have in their said bill of complaint stated. §2. And these defendants further severally answering say, they are informed and believe, that on the 20th day of August, A. D. 1842, the said Juan B. Alvarado, then Governor of the Department of the Californias, did make and sign a document of concession, intending to grant to the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, for his personal benefit and that of his family, a part of the place named the " Canada of the Capi- tancillos," containing an area equivalent to one square league, bounded on the north by the low hills adjoining the plain of the Pueblo of San Jose* ; on the south by the Sierra ; on the east by the Laurel Hills, and on the west by the rancho of citizen Justo Larios, which has for its boundary a straight line drawn southerly from the angle formed by the junction of the Arroyo Seco and the Arroyo de los Alamitos, along the eastern base of the hill, which is situated in the middle of said Canada, to the Sierra which is mentioned and described in the title of Justo Larios, and on the map referred to in said title ; which title or grant to the said Justo Larios was made by the said Juan B. Alva- rado, Governor as aforesaid, on the first day of August, A. D. 1842 ; and that the said Governor Alvarado sent the said document of con- cession, so made as aforesaid in favor of the said Jose* Reyes Ber- reyesa, to be delivered to him. §3. And the Defendants further severally answering say, that the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa refused to accept the said grant or conces- sion, so as aforesaid offered to him by the said Governor Alvarado ; and with his own hands he delivered to Manuel Jimeno, then Secre- tary of State for the said Department, the said document of the said intended grant or concession, declaring to the said Jimeno that he the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa refused to accept the said grant or conces- sion, at the same time giving the reasons for his refusal. And these 559 defendants further severally answering say, that after the said refusal of the said Jose* Reyes to accept the grant or concession of the land, so as aforesaid intended to be made to him by the said Governor Al- varado, to wit, on the 10th day of February, 1844, he the said Jose* Reyes addressed a petition to Manuel Micheltorena, then Governor of the said Department, setting forth that he had no title to the said land of San Vicente, and requesting the said Governor to make him a grant of the said narrow Canada de los Capitancillos, and of all the Lomaria or hilly land adjoining it, and extending on the west from the point of the hill in the middle of the Canada to the plain of the Arroyo de las Llagas in the Sierra, which distance he describes as two leagues, a little more or less, and declaring moreover in the said petition, that, in the year 1842, Governor Alvarado had sent him a title to part of said land, which he had refused to accept. §4. And this Defendant, James Alexander Forbes, for himself fur- ther answering, saith : and these defendants, Robert Walkinshaw and William E.. Barron, believe it to be true, that in the latter part of Jan- uary or early part of February, A. D. 1848, he saw in the hands of the Complainant, Zacharias, the widow of the said Jose* Reyes, a doc- ument purporting to be a grant from the said Governor Micheltorena to the said Jose* Reyes, dated in the year 1844, and signed with the signature of the said Micheltorena ; that he read carefully the said document which purported to be a grant or concession by the said Micheltorena as Governor of the State Department, to the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa of the aforesaid Rancho de San Vicente, Canada de los Capitancillos, and bore the genuine signature of the said Michel- torena, with which this Defendant was and is well acquainted ; and this defendant further saith, and the Defendants Walkinshaw and Bar- ron believe it to be true, that the said document, was, when he saw it as aforesaid, by the said Complainant Zacharias, widow of the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, deceased, and in her house on the said Rancho exhibited to this Defendant, and to Mr. Alexander Forbes, who was then largely interested in the Mine of New Almaden, near to the said Rancho, and who requested the said widow to show him the title pa- pers of her late husband the said Jose Reyes, to the Rancho de San Vicente, in order that he might know how near their lines as claimed by the said widow and heirs of the said Jose* Reyes deceased, came to the Mine of New Almaden, and to enable him to have a survey made of the Mining Possession hereinafter to be mentioned, and of the grant of two square leagues around the mouth of the Mine, hereinafter to be mentioned, so that there might be no dispute concerning their boundaries, between the owners of the Mine and Mining Possession, and the said two square leagues, on the one part, and the widow and heirs and the said deceased Jose* Reyes on 560 the other. And this Defendant saith, that in the document of title so exhibited as aforesaid, there was a palpable forgery by the erasure and alteration of the words " un sitio" into " dos sitios" in that part of the title which described the quantity of land intended to be granted, which was observed at the first glance, both by this Defendant and the said Alexander Forbes, and by them mentioned to the said widow, who denied that any alteration had ever been made in the original grant ; and upon this Defendant and the said Alexander Forbes insisting that the said erasure and alteration had been made, and were too apparent on the face of the said paper to be doubted, or in good faith denied, it was agreed that the said widow should send one of her sons to Monte- rey to procure a certified copy of the said concession, for comparison with the said document, which was accordingly done ; and afterwards, that is to say, a few days before the 14th day of Feb'y, 1848, the son returned, bringing with him a copy of said grant which was certified by William E. P. Hartnell, who was at that time Keeper of the Ar- chives of the former Mexican Government in California, and as such legally in charge of the original document of which the foregoing was a certified copy. And this Defendant further saith, that either on the 14th February, A. D. 1848, or a few days thereafter, he saw the said certified copy, and examined it, and compared it with the document of title exhibited as aforesaid by the said widow, and found it to be in all respects a true and accurate copy of the last named document, with the exception, that according to the certified copy, only one square league was granted, the latter containing the words " un sitio" in the place where in the former, the said words had been by erasure and alteration changed into " dos sitios" as aforesaid ; that this Defendant does not now remember the date of said Micheltorena concession more nearly than that it was dated some time in the year 1844, nor does this De- fendant remember the boundaries of the tract of land, mentioned in the said document and intended to be granted more accurately than that the said title purported to grant to the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, the Rancho of San Vicente, part of the Canada de los Capitancillos. And these Defendants aver and so charge the truth to be, that the aforesaid erasure and alteration was a forgery made by the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, in his life time, for the purpose and with the intent of defrauding the Government of Mexico of a portion of its public do- main, and of deceiving the said Castillero, by making him believe that his newly discovered mine was not situated on the public lands of Mexico, but on the private property of the said Berreyesa, and thereby to gain a corrupt advantage at the expense of the said Castillero ; and that the said grant was by the means of the said forgery rendered null and void. §5. And the Defendants further severally answering say, they be- lieve it to be true that the said complainants have in their possession, or under their control, a document, purporting to be a grant or con- 561 cesson, made on the 20th August, A. D. 1842, to the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa in his life-time, by the said Governor Alvarado, for the use of the said Jose Reyes and that of his family, of a certain tract of land situated in the said county of Santa Clara, and in the Districts afore- said, known as the Rancho of the Canada de los Capitancillos, and that the complainants claim the said tract of land, under and by virtue of the said alleged grant or concession ; and these defendants do further say, they believe the said document bears the genuine signature of the said Alvarado, and was made by him, and by him sent to the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa in the life-time of the latter, and in the year 1842, but these Defendants say, that the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa, when the said document containing the said concession reached him, refused to accept the said grant and to hold the said lands under and by virtue of the title so offered him, and with his own hands returned the said document, to the said Manuel Jimeno as aforesaid, stating to the said Jimeno his unwillingness to accept the said concession, and declaring his refusal to accept the same, and that thereby the said document of intended concession or grant (which is the same grant alleged by the complainants in their said bill of complaint, to have been made to the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, by the said Governor Alvarado on the 20th day of August, A. D. 1842,) was rendered inoperative and utterly without effect, and did not transfer from the Mexican Nation or from any other source, to the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa any title either legal or equitable in or to the said land in the said document men- tioned and described. §6. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that the said alleged concession to Jose Reyes Berreyesa, made as afore- said by Governor Alvarado, on the 20th day of August, 1842, was never submitted to the Departmental Assembly of California, and was never approved by that Body. And further, that the said alleged concession to the said Jose' Reyes, was intended to be a concession under and by virtue of the Colonization Law of the Mexican Republic of the 18th August, 1824, and the Executive Regulations of 21st November, 1828, made for the purposes of settlement, cultivation, and the raising of stock, and did not convey any title to any minerals within the land intended to be granted. §7. And these Defendants further ' severally answering say, that the said document of concession, now set up in the complainants*" bill of complaint, and refused and rejected by the said Jose Reyes Ber- reyesa as aforesaid, was never after the said refusal of the said Jose* Reyes to accept the same, and the grant or concession intended by the said Alvarado by means thereof to be made him, delivered to the said Jose Reyes or to any person for him, by any Governor of the said De- partment, nor by any other Mexican authority in the said Department, nor by any officer or person whatsoever, capable of making the grant 562 or concession intended by the said Alvarado to be made as aforesaid, to serve him, (the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa,) as title to the said lands, nor with the intention on the part of such officer or other person, thereby to convey any right, title, interest or estate to the said Jos£ Reyes Berreyesa, in and to the lands mentioned and described in the said document ; but these Defendants believe that the said alleged document of title was fraudulently stolen and taken out of the archives of the former Mexican Government in California, since the year 1848, by some of the heirs of the said Jose' Reyes complainants, either per- sonally or by procurement, they well knowing that the said concession, made by Micheltorena, had been rendered null and void by the said forgery, and could not be received in any court of law or equity of this State or of the United States, or by the United States Board of Land Commissioners as evidence of title, either legal or equitable. §8. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that the tract of land by the said complainants, in their said bill of com- plaint, alleged to have been granted on the 20th day of August, 1842, by the said Governor Alvarado to the said Jose' Reyes, is correctly described in the said bill as far as regards its eastern and northern boundaries according to the terms of the said alleged grant ; and that the said complainants, in their said bill of complaint, have also cor- rectly described the western boundary of said tract of land in so far as they have described it as bounded on the west by the Rancho of Justo Larios ; but they deny that according to the terms and true meaning of the said alleged grant, the said tract of land is separated from the Rancho of Jugto Larios by a conventional line, commencing at a point at the foot of the range of low hills, near the Pueblo of San Jose, near to and north of the junction of the Arroyo Seco and the Arroyo Ala- mitos, and running thence south through said angle by the slope of the hill in the centre of the Canada to the Sierra Azul, as the said com- plainants in their said bill of complaint have alleged. And these De- fendants say that the complainants in so much of their said bill as states and describes the dividing line between the said lands of Justo Larios, and the said tract of land by them alleged to have been granted to the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, and in so much of the exhibit by them filed with their said bill of complaint, and marked Exhibit " C " as pretends to delineate the said dividing line, have falsely and fraudu- lently described and delineated said line. §9. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that the dividing line between the tract of land so alleged by the com- plainants to have been granted to the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa, and the said rancho of Justo Larios, is a straight line commencing at the junction of the said Arroyo Seco and the Arroyo de los Alamitos, and running thence southerly along the eastern base of a small hill near the middle of the Canada until it reaches the Sierra. 563 §10. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that as to so much of the said Complainants said bill of complaint as states, that the tract of land so alleged to have been granted to the said Jose* Reyes, is bounded on the south by the Sierra Azul, the said Defend- ants not knowing what the said Complainants mean by the Sierra Azul, cannot answer the same ; but that if by the Sierra Azul the Complainants mean that range of hills which lies immediately along the southern border of the valley or Canada of the Capitancillos, ex- tending from the eastern boundary of the said tract of land to the Arroyo de los Alamitos, which range of hills so lying on the southern side of the said valley and the low Pueblo hills on the northern side thereof, do in fact make the land lying between them a valley or Canada, then the Defendants admit the said statement of the Com- plainants bill to be true ; but if, by the term Sierra Azul, the Com- plainants mean any other range of hills, then the Defendants deny the said statement to be true. §11. And these Defendants further severally answering say, they believe it to be true that the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa, for five years prior to the date of the said alleged grant, and ever after until the time of his death, with his family, continued to be in the public posses- sion of a part of the said Canada cle los Capitancillos, being a part of the land so alleged to have been granted to him, but these Defendants further severally say, that they, or any or either of them, to the know- ledge or belief of the others or other of them, know not and have never been informed, save by the said Complainants bill, and cannot set forth as to their belief or otherwise, whether the said possession of the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa was a lawful or peaceable possession ; or whether he resided on the said land, improving or cultivating the same, as re- quired by the provisions of the colonization laws. §12. And these Defendants further severally answering say, they deny that the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa died sometime in the year 1847, and they also deny that he died seized or possessed of the said lands in the said bill of complaint mentioned, or of any other lands, under or by virtue of the grant alleged by the complainants in their said bill of complaint, to have been made to him by Governor Alva- rado on the 20th day of August, A. D. 1842. xVnd this Defendant, James Alexander Forbes, further severally answering saith, and these Defendants, Robert Walkinshaw and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, that the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa died in the month of June or in the early part of July, A. D. 1846, and that if by virtue of any title the said Jose* Reyes was possessed or seized at the time of his death, of any part of the tract of land alleged as aforesaid by the com- plainants to have been granted to him on the 20 th day of August, 1842, he was so seized and possessed by virtue of the title exhibited as aforesaid by the complainant, Zacharias, his widow, to Mr. Alex- 564 ander Forbes, and this Defendant, James Alexander Forbes, in the year 1848. §13. And these defendants further severally answering say, they believe it to be true that when the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa depart- ed this life, he left surviving him his said widow, Maria Z. Bernal Ber- reyesa, and his lawful children, Jose de los Santos, Santiago, Francisco, Fernando, Ygnacio, Jose, Encarnacion, Nemecio, Maria del^Carmen, Loretto, and Magdelena, his heirs at law. §14. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that they, or any, or either of them, to the knowledge or belief of the others or other of them, know not, and have not been informed save by the said complainants bill, and cannot set forth as to their belief or other- wise, whether, on the 12th day of July, A. D. 1850, the said widow and heirs of the said Jose' Reyes deceased, demised said lands and all mines therein, with the appurtenances, to Richard Roman, Charles V. Stuart, and James Hepburn, and their assigns, for the term of twenty years, thence ensuing. §15. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that they, or any, or either of them, to the knowledge or belief of the others or other of them, know not, and have not been informed save by the said complainants said bill, and cannot set forth as to their belief or otherwise — whether, on the 12th day of September, 1855, the said lease-hold Estate in the said lands and tenements with the appurtenan- ces, aforesaid, for the remainder of the said term, was duly assigned, transferred, and conveyed unto the said James Tobin, in trust, for the use and benefit of the said widow and heirs at law of the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa, deceased, as in the said bill of complaint specified, and to such uses as they may appoint. §16. And these Defendants further severally answering, say, they believe it to be true, that the said widow and heirs at law of the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, filed their petition before the United States Board of Land Commissioners, appointed to ascertain and settle the private land claims in California, by the act of Congress of the third of March, 1851, for the confirmation of their right or title to a certain tract of land called the Rancho de San Vicente, Canada de los Capi- tancillos, but these defendants say, that they, or any or either of them, to the knowledge or belief of the others or other of them, know not, and have not been informed save by the said Complainants said bill, what are the boundaries of the tract of land claimed in the said peti- tion, nor when the said petition was filed, nor what was the prayer of the said petition, nor what proceedings were had thereon, (except the Decree of Confirmation), and as to those matters can not set forth as to their belief or otherwise ; and as to the said decree of the said Board, they say, they deny that the said decree confirmed to the said widow and heirs of the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, deceased, the tract 565 of land alleged by the Complainants in their said bill of complaint, to have been granted to the said Jose' Reyes by Governor Alvarado on the 20th day of August, 1842, as set forth, bounded and described in the said bill of complaint ; but they say that by the said decree of confirmation there was confirmed unto the said widow and heirs a cer- tain tract of land, being the same tract of land heretofore in this an- swer described by these Defendants, as the tract of land called for and described and intended by Governor Alvarado to be granted, by the title or document of concession, dated the 20th of August, 1842, and in the 23d section of this answer, more particularly described as delin- eated on Exhibit " X," which document of concession the said Jose" Reyes refused to receive as aforesaid ; and that none other land was by the said decree confirmed unto the said widow and heirs of the said Jose" Reyes. And these Defendants believe it to be true, and say, that the claim which was confirmed by the said decree of the said Board stands on appeal, and that the said decree is not final. §17. And these Defendants further severally answering say, they believe it to be true that the said Nemecio Berreyesa, a son and one of the heirs of the said Jose" Reyes, deceased, departed this life in or about the month of July or August, A. D. 1854, leaving Benita Rodriguez, his widow, and Paula, Filiberto, Maria and Feliciana, his children and heirs at law, him surviving, and that the said children are minors ; but these defendants, or any or either of them, to the know- ledge or belief of the others or other of them, know not and have not been informed, save by the complainants' said bill, and cannot set forth on their belief or otherwise, whether the said Nemecio died testate or intestate. §18. And this Defendant, Robert Walkinshaw, further severally answering saith, and these Defendants, James Alexander Forbes and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, that at the time of the death of the said Nemecio, he the said Nemecio, had no right or title, inter- est or estate, in or to any part of the tract of land mentioned and de- scribed in the said complainants' bill of complaint ; and that the said widow Benita, and the said children and heirs of the said Nemecio have not, nor have any of them, any right, title, interest or estate in and to the said tract of land, derived from the said Nemecio, by inher- itance or otherwise ; and farther, that this Defendant, Robert Walkin- shaw is now owner and possessor, and has so been from the month of July, L854, of all the title and estate of the said Nemecio, deceased, in and to the whole of the said Rancho of San Vicente, Canada de los Capitancillos, which the said Nemecio inherited from the said Jose" Reyes, or had in any other manner acquired before the 5th day of April, A. D. 1853, on which day John F. Pyle purchased at a sale held in the city of San Jose', by the Sheriff of Santa Clara County, under and by virtue of an execution duly issued upon a judgment ren- 566 dered in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, within and for the said County of Santa Clara, in favor of Nicolas Valencia, and against the said Nemecio Berreyesa, and duly levied, all the right, title, interest and estate of the said Nemecio Berreyesa, in and to the said Rancho San Yicente, Canada de los Cap- itancillos ; and that on the 8th of October, A. D. 1853, (the said prop erty having never been redeemed) Joseph W. Johnson, ex-sheriff of the said County, the same person into whose hands while Sheriff of the said county, the said execution was first placed, and who made the the said levy and sale, conveyed unto the said John F. Pyle, his heirs and assigns, all the estate, right, title, claim and interest of the said Nemecio Berreyesa, in and to the land aforesaid, by deed duly execu- ted, delivered, acknowledged and recorded ; and that by conveyances effectual in law to pass the same, and for a valuable consideration by him given, this Defendant, Walkinshaw, became and is now the owner and possessor of all the title and interest of the said Nemecio in the said lands which was conveyed to the said Pyle as aforesaid, and has so been since the 24th of July, 1854. §19. And these defendants further severally answering say, they deny that the said complainant, Santiago Berreyesa, hath, or had at the time of filing the said bill of complaint, and for a long time before, any right, title, or estate, in or to the said Rancho San Vicente, Can- ada de los Capitancillos, derived by inheritance from his father the said Jose* Reyes. And this Defendant, Robert Walkinshaw, for himself further answering saith, and these Defendants, James Alexander Forbes and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, that on the fifth day of November, 1850, this Defendant purchased at a sale held in the City of San Jose*, by the Sheriff of Santa Clara County, under and by virtue of an execution issued upon a judgment rendered in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, within and for the said County of Santa Clara in favor of Martin Flores, and against the said Santiago Berreyesa, and duly levied all the right, title, interest, and estate of the said Santiago Berreyesa in and to the said Rancho San Vicente, Canada de los Capitancillos, and thereupon John Yontz, the Sheriff of said county, and by virtue of his said office, and said proceedings thereunto duly authorized, conveyed to this De- fendant, Walkinshaw, all the right, title,, and interest of the said San- tiago Berreysa, in and to the said land, the said interest being the one undivided twentieth part of the said land, by deed duly executed, de- livered, and acknowledged on the 5th of November, 1850, and record- ed in the office of the County Recorder the next day. §20. And this Defendant, Robert Walkinshaw, further severally answering saith, and these Defendants, James Alexander Forbes and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, that on the 25th day of Jan- nary, 1849, he lent to the Complainant, Fernando Berreyesa, and to 567 his said brother Nemecio, then living but now dead, the sum of One Thousand Dollars to be paid on or before the last day of May thence next ensuing ; and the said Fernando and Nemecio, in consideration of said loan, did by public act in writing, and to secure the said sum of money and interest to the said Walkinshaw, hypothecate their entire interest in the said Rancho of San Vicente, Canada de los Capitan- cillos, and surrendered possession of the same to the said Walkinshaw as a further security : whereby the said Walkinshaw became entitled to the possession of the said Rancho, in the manner and to the extent that the said Nemecio and Fernando had enjoyed the same, and en- tered into possessien thereof, under and by virtue of the said hypothe- cation ; that thereafter when the contract of sale between Theodore Shillaber and certain of the Complainants, more fully hereinafter de- scribed, was made, the said Walkinshaw being interested with the said Shillaber in the said contract, this Defendant is informed and believes that the original document of the said hypothecation was surrendered by an agent of his, Gamiz y Alcalde, now dead, to the said Nemecio and Fernando, in acknowledment of the payment of the debt, for the security of whi- h it was given, and by them taken as part of the con- sideration they were to receive from the said Shillaber, on account of the said contract, to the extent of the debt and interest by the said in- strument secured ; and that the said debt so contracted by the said Fernando and Nemecio, to this Defendant Walkinshaw, unless it was surrendered by the said Walkinshaw's agent to Fernando and Nemecio as aforesaid, and by them received and accepted as part of the money which constituted the consideration of the contract with the said Shil- laber, has never nor has any part thereof, been paid to the said Walk- inshaw by the said Nemecio and Fernando or either of them, or in any manner satisfied, nor has the right of the said Walkinshaw to the pos- session of their part and interest in the said Rancho, by virtue of said hypothecation, ever been taken from or surrendered by him. §21. And the said Defendants further severally answering say, that they have caused at great expense a very minute and accurate survey, both lineal and topographical, to be made of the said tract of land granted as aforesaid to the said Justo Larios on the first day of August, A. D. 1842, and of the said tract of land alleged by the Com- plainants in their said bill of complaint, to have been granted by the said Governor Alvarado to the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, on the 20th day of August, 1.842, and of the country adjacent to the said Ranchos ; which survey was made by competent and skilful surveyors, and is a correct and true survey of the tract of land of which it purports to be made ; and that they have further caused a map of the said survey to be made and lithographed, which map is a correct representation of the said survey in all respects, and truly describes and delineates the said country and the boundaries of the said Ranchos as they are given 568 and described in the said grant to Justo Larios, and in the said alleged grant to Jose' Reyes Berreyesa ; and the said Defendants herewith file a copy of the said map, marked Exhibit " X," which they pray may be considered part of this their answer. §22. And the Defendants further severally answering say, that the tract of land on the said Exhibit, " X " delineated as follows : Beginning at Station 0, at the junotion of the Arroyos Seco and Ala- mitos, and thence down the stream, which, below said junction, is named on said Map, Arroyo de los Capitancillos, to its junction with another Arroyo called Arroyo Seco ; thence up said last named Arroyo to Station No. 44 ; thence in straight lines from Station to Station consecutively to Station No. 64 ; thence in a straight line to the start- ing point, (this last line closing the survey, and being drawn from the junction of the said Arroyos Seco and Alamitos southerly along the Eastern base of the hill in the middle of the Canada to the Sierra,) and containing one square league, less about 800 acres, is a true and correct survey of the Rancho granted as aforesaid to the said Justo Larios, if the Arroyo de los Capitancillos, and not the low hills lying to the north thereof, is to be taken as the northern boundary of the said Rancho ; and that if the said low hills are to be taken for such northern boundary, it would make no difference whatever in said southern boundary, meaning from Station No. 44 to Station No. 64 ; and no difference in the direction of the eastern boundary line, mean- ing the line drawn from the junction of the Arroyos Seco and Alamitos, southerly by the eastern base of the hill in the middle of the Canada to the Sierra ; and no difference in the western boundary line of the said Rancho, except to extend it from the junction of the Arroyos Seco and Capitancillos at Station No. 24, to the foot of said low Pueblo hills. And these Defendants further say, that the title of the said Justo Larios, does not name any northern boundary to the land granted, but that the Map which accompanies his title lays down the Pueblo Hills, on the north of the said Arroyo de los Capitancillos. And these Defendants say, that the land included in the said delineation of the said Rancho of Justo Larios, with the additional strip of land added to the southern boundary thereof described on Exhibit X, as contained between that portion of the southern boundary line, which extends from Station No. 47, at the point K, thence along the Stations conse- cutively to Station No. 64, and from Station No. 64 to the point I, and from I to J, and from J to K, would contain one square league of land, the quantity granted as aforesaid to the said Justo Larios, and would include a portion of the Sierra, which, by the title and the ac- companying Map of the said Justo Larios, is made the southern boundary of his Rancho. §23. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that the tract of land mentioned and intended to be conveyed in the pre- 569 tended grant of the 20th August, 1842, alleged by the complainants to have been made by Governor Alvarado to the said Jose Reyes is truly delineated on said exhibit, as follows, (except that the following delineation take3 in a portion of the Sierra, which by the said alleged grant is made the southern boundary of said Rancho, and includes a greater quantity of land than one square league by five hundred and eleven acres,) that is to say : Beginning at station at the junction of the said Arroyos Seco and Alamitos ; thence in an easterly direc- tion a little inclining to the south, along the base of the Pueblo Hills, in straight lines from station to station as they are consecutively num- bered, to station No. 10 ; thence in a southerly direction to a point marked L ; thence in a westerly direction to the point of intersection of the southern and eastern boundary lines of the said Rancho of Justo Larios, as surveyed for one square league, at the point marked I ; thence in a straight line to the beginning ; and that the tract of land so delineated contains the whole of that part of the Canada or valley of the Capitancillos which is described in the said alleged grant to the said Jose' Reyes, and moreover embraces a portion of the Sierra which constitutes his southern boundary, and contains more than one square league of land, by so much as is contained in the triangular area marked on the said exhibit ILM, that is to say, five hundred and eleven acres, and they deny that any land whatsoever outside of the limits above delineated was mentioned, or described, or conveyed, or intended to be conveyed to the said Jose Reyes, by the said alleged grant of the 20th August, A. D. 1842. §24. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that in the said alleged grant of the 20th August, 1842, to the said Jose' Reyes, only a part of the valley of the Capitancillos, extending from the eastern boundary line of Justo Larios to the head of the valley in the Laurel Hills, a distance of two leagues, and none of the adjacent hills, was mentioned or intended to be granted ; and that the said alleged grant calls for an area of one square league ; and they further say that the petition of the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa to the Governor of California, dated June 2d, 1842, which preceded the said alleged grant, asked for the said narrow Canada and the adjacent hills, and described the area of the tract solicited to be two square leagues. §25. And these Defendants further severally answering say, they deny that the tract of land mentioned and described in the said grant alleged as aforesaid by the said Complainants in their said bill of com- plaint to have been made to the said Jose' Reyes by Governor Alva- rado on the 20th day of August, 1842, contains any mines of cinnabar which have ever been discovered or worked ; that they believe there- is a quarry of limestone on the said tract of land in the hill nearly opposite and to the south of the word " de" in the name " Rancho de Berreyesa" as printed on said Exhibit " X," but that they, nor any 44 570 of them, do not know of any other quarry of limestone on the said tract of land ; that they believe there was formerly a large number of growing trees on the said tract of land, but they further severally say, that they or any or either of them, to the knowledge or belief of the others or other of them, have never been informed save by the said Complainants bill, and cannot set forth as to their belief or otherwise, whether the principal value of said tract of land consisted in the said alleged mines of cinnabar or quarries of limestone and growing trees. §26. And these Defendants further severally answering say, they deny that some time in the year 1849, or at any other time, they, or either or any of them, by themselves or their, or any of their agents or abettors, unlawfully or wrongfully entered into and upon any lands or premises belonging to the complainants, or any or either of them ; and they particularly deny that they, or either or any of them, themselves or by their or any of their agents or abettors, in the year 1849, or at any other time, unlawfully and wrongfully entered into or upon the premises, which are mentioned and described in the pretended grant, alleged by the said complainants in their said bill of complaint to have been made by Governor Alvarado to the said Jose Reyes on the 20th August, A. I). 1842 ; and they deny that since the year 1849, or at any other time, they, or any or either of them, have ever wrongfully taken possession of all or of any part of the premises mentioned and described and intended to be conveyed in the said pretended grant to said Jose* Reyes, which lies west of the Arroyo de los Alamitos, together with all or any part of the said tract of land which lies east of and along said Arroyo of four hundred yards in width. And they further severally deny that they, or any or either of them, have wrongfully cut down and destroyed about five thousand or any other number of the growing trees upon said tract of land, of the average value of twenty dollars, or of any other value, or of no value ; and they deny that they, or any or either of them, have opened quarries on the said tract of land, and received therefrom large quantities of lime, or any quantity of lime, of the value of five thousand dollars, or of any other value, or of no value ; and they deny that they, or any or either of them, have opened in the said tract of land extensive mines of cin- nabar, or any other mines of cinnabar ; and they deny that they, or any or either of them, have removed from the said tract of land large or other quantities of quicksilver, of the aggregate value of five millions of dollars, or of any other value, or of no value. §27. And these Defendants further severally answering say, it is true that one James Tobin, whom they believe to be the complainant of that name, in the said bill of complaint named, did, on the 15th day of September, A. D. 1855, and before the filing of the bill of complaint in this cause, file his declaration in ejectment in this honorable Court on the law side thereof, for the recovery from these Defendants of the 571 tract of land in the said declaration described, which description is in the same words, which the said complainants in their said bill have falsely and fraudulently used to describe the tract of land which they pretend as aforesaid was granted by Governor Alvarado to the said Jose Reyes on the 20th day of August, 1842 ; and that on the filing of said declaration, summons issued thereon against the Defendants in said declaration named ; and they further say, that they have answered the said declaration, denying that the plaintiff hath any title to the land therein mentioned, and further denying each and every allegation therein contained ; and that the said suit in ejectment is now at issue. §28. And these Defendants further severally answering say, they deny the combination and confederacy in the 12th Section of the said bill of complaint charged against them ; and they particularly deny that combining and confederating for the purpose of working any mine whatsoever, and of disposing of the profits thereof to their own use, they continue to commit, or have ever committed any acts of waste or trespass upon any lands belonging to the said complainants or to any, or to any one of them, either in the cutting down and burning of the timber thereon ; or in the sinking of any mine therein ; or in the taking from such a mine large, or other quantities of cinnabar ; or in the reducing of the same to quicksilver at the average rate of five thousand pounds daily, or at any other rate ; as the said complainants in their said bill of complaint hi ve charged. §29. And these defendants further severally answering say, that on or a few days before the 22d day of November, A. D. 1845, An- dres Castillero, a Mexican by birth, domiciled in the Department of California, discovered a mine in what is now the County of Santa Clara, in the State of California, and Districts aforesaid, and what was then the Jurisdiction of San Jose* Guadalupe, 2d District of the said Department ; that there being no Mining Deputation, or Mining Dis- trict in the said Department, and no Judge of First Instance in the 2d District of said Department at that time, Andres Castillero presented himself on the 22d November, A. D. 1845, before the 1st Alcalde of the Jurisdiction of San Jose" Guadalupe, and in writing represented the fact of said discovery, and the names of his associates, who were four, not counting the said discoverer, and all other matters and things relative to the said discovery, required by the ordinances on that sub- ject ; that the said Castillero, having been at first mistaken in regard to the nature of the minerals so discovered, did afterwards, to wit, on the 3d day of December, A. D. 1845, make known in writing to the said First Alcalde, the true character of the said minerals so discov- ered, and caused the said representation to be added to the registry in the office of the said First Alcalde, of the said Castillero's first repre- sentation concerning the same : that the proper notices of the registry of said discovery having been posted up as required by law, and a pit 572 (pozo) opened of the dimensions required by law, Antonio Maria Pico, Alcalde of first nomination as aforesaid, accompanied by two witnesses, for the want of a Notary Public, did within ninety days from the regis- try of said discovery, to wit, on the 30th December, 1845, put the said Andres Castillero in the possession of the said mine, and of a tract of land measured three thousand varas to all points from the mine, and did grant to the said Castillero the said tract of land, being a tract of land in a square form, with its opposite sides lying north and south, and east and west, respectively. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that although public notices of the registry of the discovery of the said mine were immediately, on such registry being made as aforesaid, posted up in conspicuous public places as re- quired by the laws and ordinances of Mexico on that subject, no person appeared before the said Alcalde pretending to have right to the said discovery against the said Andres Castillero, within ninety days from the date of the discovery, or within ninety days from the said registry thereof, or within ninety days from the posting up of such public notices, or within any period determined by the laws and ordinances, within which a person claiming an adverse right might contest the right of the discoverer to the said mine and mining possession. And these Defendants further say that the name of the mine so discovered and registered, and granted, was at first," The Mine of Santa Clara," and that it was about the year 1847 or 1848, changed to the " Mine of New Almaden," which name said mine has ever since borne. §30. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that afterwards, to wit, on the twelfth day of May, A. D. 1846, in the city of Mexico, whither the affairs of the said mine had taken its said dis- coverer, he, the said Andres Castillero, entered into negotiations with the Mexican Government to procure funds sufficient to work the said mine on a larger scale than his own individual means, or those of his partners would admit of, and having presented his proposals to the Junta de Fomento y Administracion de Mineria, the highest mining tribunal in Mexico, and especially charged by law with the duty of devising and proposing rewards to the discoverers of mines of quick- silver, the said Junta did favorably report to the President of Mexico upon all the said proposals, and the President of Mexico, on the twen- tieth day of May, A. D. 1846, approved the contract as proposed by the said Junta, and that thereby a contract was concluded b:tween the Mexican Government and the said Castillero, by which the Gov- ernment agreed to advance the sum of five thousand dollars, and a number of iron flasks or retorts, to the said Castillero, and to be reim- bursed said expenditures in a certain quantity of quicksilver, the first yielded by the mine, to be delivered to the said Government by the said Castillero, at the Port of Mazatlan. §31. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that 573 the Mexican authorities being highly pleased with the brilliant discov- ery so made by the said Andres Castillero, of an article so important to a country in the situation of Mexico, whose principal wealth consists in ores of gold and silver, the President of Mexico, upon the petition of the said Andres Castillero, and in reward of that discovery, was pleased to grant him, by title of colonization, a tract of land having an area equal to two square leagues, in a square form, the opposite sides of which lay north and south, and east and west, respectively, in the middle of which was situated the mouth of said mine ; and by order of the 23d May, 1846, issued from the Ministry of Relations, reciting the said concession so made to the said Castillero, directed the Governor or Political Chief of the said Department to put Castillero into the pos- session of said two square leagues of land. And the said order was delivered to the said Castillero, to serve him as the evidence of his title, and as the authority under which the Governor of the said Department should proceed to put him in possession of the said land. §32. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that the position of the mine so discovered by the said Andres Castillero is correctly designated on the said Exhibit X, by the black spot near the words " New Almaden Mine," and that the square area ABCD, laid down on the said exhibit, truly delineates the tract of land, of the su- perficial extent of two square leagues, granted as aforesaid by the President of Mexico to the said Andres Castillero ; and that the square area marked on the said exhibit EFGH, truly delineates the tract of land measured three thousand varas to all the points from the mine, which by the said Alcalde Antonio Maria Pico was designated as the mining possession incident and appurtenant to the said mine, and granted as aforesaid to the said Castillero, and of which the said Cas- tillero was put into possession as aforesaid by the said Antonio Maria Pico, with two assisting witnesses. §33. And these Defendants further severally answering say, they are informed and believe, and so charge the truth to be, that when Andres Castillero discovered the said mine, and caused a registry of his discovery to be made, the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, who was then living, falsely represented to the said Castillero that the newly discov- ered mine was on his land, that his grant or concession of the said land being the said Rancho of San Vicente, in the Canada de los Capitan- cillos, called for two square leagues, and was derived from the Mexi- can Government, by document of title made and issued on the 20th day of November, A. D. 1844, signed by Manuel Micheltorena, at that time Governor of the Department of the Californias, and by Man- uel Jimeno, Secretary of State in the said Department, and noted in the proper book on page 13 ; and that the said Jose* Reyes did fraud- ulently and with intent to deceive the said Castillero, make with his own hand a pretended copy of the said original grant, and exhibited it 574 to the said Castillero, and delivered it to him, and represented to the said Castillero that it was a true copy of his said grant ; and that in the said pretended copy there was a material and important variation from the original in this, that whereas the said original grant called for and intended to grant only one square league, and expressly and ab- solutely confined the said Jose' Reyes to that quantity of land, the said pretended false copy made it to appear that the quantity granted was two square leagues, and positively and expressly names and calls for that quantity ; that the said Jos6 Reyes was guilty of this gross deceit and fraud for the purpose of inducing the said Castillero to believe and declare that the mine so discovered was situated on the land of the said Jose Reyes ; and the said Castillero, believing the said false statements of the said Jose Reyes, and further supposing that the di- rection of the western boundary line of the said Rancho of San Vicente was such as to throw the newly discovered mine on the Berreyesa side thereof, in which respect the said Castillero was mistaken, as he might well be, in view of the positive declaration of the said Jose Reyes, to the effect that the said mine was on his land, and considering further the want of all the means by which the location of said line might at that day be accurately determined, did in his representation to the Al- calde state that the Mine which he had discovered was situated on the Rancho of the said Jose" Reyes Berreyesa ; that the said Andres Cas- tillero left California in the early part of the year 1846, in the month of March, and took with him to Mexico the said pretended copy of the concession made to the said Jose Reyes by the said Governor Michel- torena, and was there for the first time informed, and obtained the information, from the said Micheltorena, that the quantity of land granted by him as Governor of the Department of the Californias, to the aforesaid Jose' Reyes Berreyesa, in the aforesaid concession of the Rancho of San Vicente, in the Canada of the Capitancillos, was one square league and no more, and that the said pretended copy of the said original document of concession contained a falsehood, in making it to appear that two square leagues were thereby gramted ; that the said Castillero, before he left California as aforesaid, had been inform- ed by some persons who lived in the neighborhood of the said Rancho of Berreyesa, that he had made a mistake in representing the mine to be on the land of the said Berreyesa, and that it was not on his land ; that in the year 1847, in the month of January, the said Castillero sent inclosed in a letter to the said Alexander Forbes, the said pre- tended false copy, so given as aforesaid by the said Jose Reyes to the said Castillero, and stated in the said letter that the same was given to him by the said Jose Reyes, and contained a falsehood in regard to the quantity of land granted, in that it called for two square leagues in- stead of one, and that his colindantes had told him before he left Cali- fornia that his Mine was not on the land of the said Berreyesa ; and fin- 575 ally, that the said Castillero having so learned from persons in Califor- nia the mistake he committed in representing the newly discovered Mine, now called the Mine of New Almaden, to be situated in the lands of the said Jose Reyes, and having also learned from Michelto- rena the fraud that had been practiced on him by the said Jose Reyes, in making for him in his (the said Jose Reyes) own handwriting, and in delivering to him the said pretended and false copy of his said conces- sion and declaring it to be a true copy of the same, regarding the lands adjoining on all sides the said Mine of New Almaden as public lands (terrenos valdios), did petition the President of Mexico for a grant of two square leagues by title of colonization, to be located on his mining possession, and obtained a grant for the same from the President of Mexico. §34. And this Defendant, Robert Walkinshaw, further answering saith, and these Defendants James A. Forbes and William E. Barron believe it to be true, that some time in the month of October, A. D. 1849, the complainants Zacharias, widow of the said Jose" Reyes, and Nemecio, and Ygnacio, and Carmen, and Loretto, and Jose* de los San- tos, made and entered into a contract of sale with Theodore Shillaber, of the city of San Francisco, whereby they sold to the said Shillaber all their right, title, and estate in and to the following tract of land, bounded as follows, that is to say : On the west by the hills mentioned in the title of concession, and the Ranch de los Capitancillos, (meaning the said Rancho of Justo Larios,) on the east and north by the Arroyo de los Alamitos, as far as an oak tree marked with a cross at the ford of the stream, (which point is designated on Exhibit X by the letter " U,") and from this oak along the line of the hills as far as the Pi- cacho of Chual ; and on the south by the Sierra Azul or Blue Mountains, it being the intention of the said vendors and the said Shillaber, that the above described tract of land would comprehend the mine of New Alma- den, with its " Hacienda de beneficio" ; that the price which the said Shillaber agreed to pay for the entire interests of the said widow, and all the heirs of the said Jose Reyes in and to the said tract of land, was the sum of twenty thousand dollars, or at that rate, to the said widow and each heir, according to their respective interests and shares in and of the same. That the said contract was reduced to writing and signed by the said Zacharias, widow of the said Jose" Reyes, by her son the said Ygnacio, who was thereunto duly authorized, and who also signed for himself ; and by the said Loretto, by her brother the said Nemecio, who was thereunto duly authorized, and who also signed for himself; and by the said Carmen by her husband Lorenzo Pineda, who was thereunto duly authorized ; and by the said Jose Encarnacion, and the said Magdalena by the said Ygnacio who was thereunto duly author- ized ; and that the said contract of sale was agreed to and made by the said widow Zacharias, both for herself and her son the said Jose" de 576 # los Santos, one of the Complainants, who duly authorized his mother to act for him in the premises ; that the written contract of sale, signed as aforesaid, was delivered by the vendors to the said Shillaber, he paying them at the same time the sum of five hundred dollars in cash, and agreeing to start from San Jose' immediately, for San Francisco, and send back the balance of the purchase money, that is to say, the sum of nineteen thousand and five hundred dollars, to be paid to those who had signed, according to their respective shares and interests, to which arrangement the said vendors readily assented ; that thereupon the said Shillaber departed immediately for San Francisco, and as soon as he arrived there sent a messenger to San Jose' with the sum of nineteen thousand five hundred dollars, to be left with Josiah Belden, his agent, who had instructions to pay it on the said contract in the manner aforesaid ; that between the time of the said Shillaber' s de- parture from San Jose* and the arrival at the last named place of the said money, an interval of perhaps as much as three days, the said widow and heirs, vendors as aforesaid, under the expectation and promise of receiving a larger price from another person, with whom, after the said contract of sale was made with the said Shillaber, they had been in treaty for the sale of the said land, refused to receive the money which he had sent in compliance with his said contract, to be paid to the said widow and the other Complainants, vendors ; that the sum of nineteen thousand five hundred dollars being then deposited with Josiah Belden, at his store in the City of San Jose, the said ven- dors, by Josd Fernandez, Alcalde of 2d nomination, were duly cited, according to law, to appear and receive the same on the said contract and according to the terms thereof ; that the said money was tendered to the said vendors in sums corresponding to their respeetive shares in the land, and they were requested to receive the same from the said Shillaber in fulfilment of his part of the said contract, which they and each of them refused to do ; that the said Shillaber fully and faithfully complied with all his engagements and undertakings under the said contract, and that the Complainants, vendors as aforesaid, after hav- made a solemn and well considered contract of sale, and received a part of the consideration in money, did fraudulently refuse to accept the balance of the consideration so due to them, and so tendered to them, in order that they might, with a greater show of success, fraud- ulently attempt to repudiate the contract, and thus secure the larger price which had been promised them, and did thereafter institute pro- ceedings to annul and set aside the said contract as will appear in this answer. §35. And this Defendant, Robert Walkinshaw, further severally answering, saith : and these Defendants, James A. Forbes and Wil- liam E. Barron, believe it to be true, that afterwards, to wit, on the twenty-sixth day of December, A. D. 1849, the said Shillaber sold # 577 and conveyed to this Defendant all his right, title and estate acquired under or by virtue of the said contract of sale so made by him with the aforesaid Complainants, vendors, the said Walkinshaw reimbursing said Shillaber all money paid on that behalf, and undertaking to pay all money due on the said contract to the widow and heirs of the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa. §36. And this Defendant, James Alexander Forbes, further sev- erally answering, saith : and these Defendants, Robert Walkinshaw and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, that some time in the year 1849, about the month of October, hearing that the said Theo- dore Shillaber was in treaty with the said widow and heirs of the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa for the purchase of all their right, title and es- tate in and to a certain tract of land hereinafter more particularly described, as that which was sold to Sr. Don Ysidoro de la Torre*, hereinafter mentioned, and hearing that as the price offered to them by the said Shillaber was the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and hav- ing an interest in the said mine and lands of New Almaden, granted to Andres Castillero as aforesaid under the said registry of his dis- covery, and by title of colonization ; and moreover, being the agent of the owners and workers of the said mine, most of whom resided out of California, and could not act for shemselves in the premises ; and fear- ing that his and their interests would be seriously jeoparded in the un- settled condition of the laws, and courts, and society in California, in any controversy which might arise on any pretended adverse claim to the said mine and lands ; and deeming it to the interest of himself and all other persons standing in his relation to the said mine and lands, under said circumstances to buy their peace, even from the most false and fraudulent pretenders to an adverse claim, and even at a large sum of money ; did, in the name of the owners of the said mine and lands whose agent he was, although he had not authority from them therefor, but in the utmost good faith, and believing they would adopt his said act, offer the said widow and heirs of the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa the sum of thirty thousand dollars for their entire interest in the tract of land, which is hereinafter more particularly described as having been sold by the said widow and heirs to the said Ysidoro de la Torre* : that afterwards, having ascertained that the said widow and heirs, or some of them, had actually made and entered into a contract with the said Shillaber, and signed an instrument of sale, conveying to him the tract of land for which this Defendant had made them the said offer, he refused to complete the said contract upon the said terms, as long as the said contract with the said Shillaber remained in force ; and it was agreed between this Defendant and the said widow and heirs of the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, that the said purchase should be subject to the contingency of the sale to the said Shillaber being annulled, and that this Defendant should not be called upon to pay the sum of 578 thirty thousand dollars until the happening of said event, but when- ever that contract was set aside or put out of the way to the satisfac- tion of this Defendant, the contract should be completed by the pay- ment of the said sum of money on his part, and a conveyance of the said land on their's. That thereupon, as these Defendants are in- formed and believe, the said widow and heirs of the said Jose Reyes advising with James M. Jones, Esq., a practising lawyer, who resided in the Pueblo of San Jose, near the residence of the said Complain- ants, and who was the attorney of the said Complainants, executed a Power of Attorney in favor of the said Jones, giving him authority to institute a suit in their names, against the said Shillaber and others, in order to annul what they style in their said letter " a fraudulent sale " of the lands of the Rancho of San Vicente, belonging to us," (the Complainants) " in which pretended sale," they add, " the said Shil- " laber and his agents have caused persons not thereto authorized to " sign a deed of sale declaring that we " (the said. Complainants) " have sold not only the said portion of the Rancho of San Vicente, " but likewise the lands of New Almaden, the mine itself, and the site " of its works, which do not belong to us" (the said Complainants,) " by any title ;" that this letter of attorney, substantially and in all its material parts set forth and recited as above, was on the 7th day of November, A. D. 1849, signed by the said widow Zacharias, and the said heirs of the late Jose Reyes Berreyesa, and delivered to their said attorney, James M. Jones ; that this defendant having before the date of the said letter of attorney, agreed as aforesaid to purchase the said tract of land from the said complainants, and being desirous for the reasons aforesaid of preventing the said Shillaber and his asso- ciates from acquiring any pretended adverse claim to the mine and lands of New Almaden, how false or fraudulent soever such claims might in fact be, certainly wished that the said complainants might succeed in annulling the said sale to the said Shillaber ; but this de- fendant having made the said oifer of purchase, which had been be- fore the execution of the said Power of Attorney, accepted by the said widow and heirs, had no interest in procuring a recital in the said instrument, to the effect that the said widow and heirs did not claim title to the lands, mine and hacienda of New Almaden and did not procure such recital to be made ; that this defendant does not remem- ber whether he prepared a draft of the said letter of attorney to the said Jones, and believes he did not, but is very certain that if he did draft such a letter of attorney, the said recital was dictated to him by the said Berreyesas, who have declared to him over and over again, both before the year 1849, and afterwards, that they never claimed the said Mine or Hacienda by any title : and these defendants, Wal- kinshaw and Barron, say, that neither of them was in any manner cog- nizant of the said letter, nor do they know by whom it was drafted or 579 written ; that this defendant, Barron, arrived in California for the first time in March, 1850, and that this defendant, Walkinshaw, being in- terested with the said Shillaber in the said contract of sale, was di- rectly opposed to all attempts on the part of the said widow and heirs to annul the same. §37. And these Defendants further severally answering say, That after the foregoing occurrences, to wit : about the month of March, A. D. 1850, Ysidoro de la Torrd, who had a short time before pur- chased a large interest in the Mine and lands of New Almaden, ar- rived in California from Mexico with full powers from the owners of said Mine and lands to take charge and possession of the same, and to make contracts and expend money on account thereof, to appoint agents and officers to superintend and manage the said Mine, and generally with full powers to work it on an extensive scale and conduct its af- fairs ; whereby the Defendant Forbes was superceded in his powers and agency, and ceased to have any control over the affairs of the Mine, except as part owner thereof. §38. And this Defendant Robert Walkinshaw further severally an- swering saith, and these Defendants, James A. Forbes and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, That on the arrival of the said Ysidoro, and the institution of a new agency for the Mine, this Defendant Walkinshaw, seeing that matters were to be placed on a new footing, and believing that the Mine was to be worked on a scale correspond- ing in magnitude with what he believed to be its great capabilities, and being a part owner thereof to the extent, as he claims, of three undivided twenty-fourth parts, by title derived from Andres Castillero, and con- sidering it to be for his interest to put an end to litigation, did on the twelfth day of May, A. D. 1850, assign "end transfer to the owners of the said Mine and lands claiming under the said Andres Castillero, all the right, title and estate to the lands above described, which he ac- quired by the said contract of sale, which had been assigned and trans- ferred to him by the said Shillaber ; with the understanding, never- theless, that the said Ysidoro de la Torre* would proceed to complete the sale made as aforesaid by the said widow and heirs to the said James Alexander Forbes, for and on account of the said owners of the New Almaden Mine. §39. And this Defendant James Alexander Forbes, further sev- erally answering saith, and these Defendants, Robert Walkinshaw and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, That when the said Ysidoro arrived in California, this Defendant represented to him the contract of sale which he had made with the said widow and heirs, and requested Don Ysidoro to carry it into execution, as he had authority to do under his powers, which the said Ysidoro consented to ; and that accordingly as soon as the said Ysidoro ascertained that the Defendant Robert Walkinshaw was willing to surrender to the owners of the Mine of New 580 Almaden the rights he had derived from the assignment to him of the said contract by the said Shillaber, he expressed his willingness to car- ry into execution the contract which this Defendant had made with the said widow and heirs ; and thereupon, an estimate being made of the costs and expenses incurred in procuring the surrender of the contract which the said widow and heirs had made with the said Shillaber and other persons claiming under him, and the said widow and heirs agree- ing to the said estimate at four thousand dollars, it was finally and fully agreed between the said Ysidoro de la Torre', for himself, and re presenting the owners of the said Mine, on the one part, and the said widow and heirs of the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, deceased on the other part, that the last named parties, in consideration of the sum of twenty-six thousand dollars, to be paid by the said Ysidoro de la Torrd, would sell and convey to him for his own benefit and that of his part owners of the Mine of New Almaden, all their right, title and estate in and to the tract of land before described in the contract of sale, made as aforesaid with the said Shillaber ; and thereupon the said widow and all the other heirs of the said Jose Reyes Berreyesa, by the said Jose de los Santos Berreyesa, their agent and attorney, by them there- unto duly authorized, did on the 26th day of April, A. D. 1850, sign an instrument in writing, setting forth the said contract of sale, and conveying to the said Ysidoro de la Torre*, for the uses aforesaid, the tract of land mentioned and described in their aforesaid contract with the said Theodore Shillaber. §40. And this Defendant James Alexander Forbes further seve- rally answering saith, and these Defendants, Robert Walkinshaw and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, that during the pendency of the litigation between the said widow and heirs of the said Josd Reyes deceased, and the said Shillaber, to procure the rescission of their said contract of sale with him, and before their said final agreement with the said Ysidoro de la Torre*, this Defendant, on account of his said con- tract with the said widow and heirs, had advanced to the said widow the sum of 11,591,00, and to the said Nemecio the sum of 11,900.00, and to the said Ygnacio the sum of $450.00, and to the said Fernan- do the sum of $193.00, and to the said Santiago the sum of 8810.00, and to the said Jose de los Santos the sum of $700.00, making in the aggregate the sum of five thousand six hundred and forty-four dollars, paid by the Defendant to the said several persons on account of his said contract with them, and by them and each of them accepted in part payment of the consideration thereof. And this Defendant fur- ther saith, that the said Jose* de los Santos, when he signed the afore- said contract of sale for himself and for his mother, and brothers and sisters, made an estimate of the money which this Defendant had paid on account of the said contract, and computed it at the aforesaid re- spective sums ; which sums of money the said widow and heirs have to this day retained. 581 §41. And these Defendants, James A. Forbes and Robert Walk- inshaw, further severally answering, say, and this Defendant, William E. Barron, believes it to be true, that the said Ysidoro. de la Torre*, after the said contract of sale was made and signed, as aforesaid, by the said widow and heirs, tendered them the whole consideration money, and requested them to receive it, which they refused to do, for what reason these Defendants do not know, unless, as they believe, there had grown up in the said Berreyesa family, disputes and dis- cord, in respect to the division which they were to make among them- selves of the said purchase money. §42. And these Defendants, James Alexander Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, further severally answering, say, and this Defendant, William E. Barron, believes it to be true, that the said Defendant, Walkinshaw, in the year 1849, dissatisfied with the treatment he re- ceived from the owners of the mine and lands of New Almaden, and having, as he supposed, just cause for dissatisfaction, did associate with the said Theodore Shillaber in said contract of sale, made as aforesaid, between the said Shillaber of the one part, and the said widow and heirs of Jose* Reyes deceased, of the other ; and that the Defendant, Forbes, throughout the whole of the said contest, with the said Shillaber and his associates, and the owners of the mine, acted for the latter whose agent he was, and opposed and strenuously re- sisted the said Shillaber and all other persons, endeavoring to set up, or to acquire any pretence or claim of right adverse to his own, and that of the persons whom he represented ; and that so far from there being any combination, confederacy or collusion, between these Defendants or any of them, for the purposes charged by the Complainants in their said bill of Complaint, or for any other purpose, they say, (and so does the Defendant, William E. Barron,) that the said Barron at that time had no interest either present or prospective in the said mine or lands, and was not during said transactions, and had never been in California, and did not arrive in California until the month of March, 1850, and did not acquire any interest in the said mine, or lands, until the- month of May, 1855 ; and that these Defendants, Walkin- shaw and Forbes, were directly opposed to each other, in the said at- tempt of the said Theodore Shillaber and others to wrest the posses- sion of said mine and lands from the owners thereof claiming under Andres Castillero, and that the said Forbes successfully defeated all such attempts ; and were directly opposed to each other in all treaties and negotiations with the said widow and heirs, for the purchase of their right and title to the said tract of land, sold by them, as afore- said, first to the said Shillaber, and afterwards to the said De la Torre ; and that the said opposition engendered such feelings of ani- mosity in the mind of each to the other, that from the time of said occurrences to this day they have not been on speaking terms. 582 §43. And these defendants Robert Walkinshaw and William E. Barron, further severally answering say, and this defendant, James A. Forbes believes it to be true ; that they are with the other persons hereinafter named, the owners and proprietors of the said mine and lands of New Almaden, claiming the same under the titles thereto acquired as aforesaid by the said Andres Castillero, and that as such proprietors all the title and interest acquired as aforesaid, by the said Ysidoro de la Torr£, by the conveyance made to him by the said Robert Walkinshaw, as well as that acquired by the contract of sale made as aforesaid, between the said Ysidoro, and the said widow and heirs of the said Jose" Reyes Berreyesa, have enured to the benefit of the said Walkinshaw and Barron, and the other proprietors of the said mine and lands. §44. And these defendants, Rob't Walkinshaw and Wm. E. Bar- ron, further severally answering say, and this defendant James A. Forbes believes it to be true, that besides the said defendants Walkin- shaw and Barron, there are other persons having an interest in the lands and mine of New Almaden, as proprietors and owners thereof in fee, by title derived from Andres Castillero, and that the said owners and proprietors are in possession of said mine and lands, and are as follows : Eustaquio Barron, of the City of Mexico, Eustaquio W. Barron, of Tepic, in the Republic of Mexico, Martin La Piedra, of said Tepic, Francisco Maria Ortiz, of Gaudalaxara, in the said Republic, and John Parrott and James R. Bolton, of the City of San Francisco, in this State ; and that the said proprietors and those under whom they hold, made and entered into a contract, long before the institution of this suit, and the aforesaid action of ejectment, with the said Eustaquio Barron, and the said Eustaquio W. Barron and with William Forbes and Fernando Escandon, of the City of Mexico, and with the firm of William Gibbs & Co., of Lima in Peru, (the names of whose members these defendants know not, and therefore cannot set forth,) for the working of the said mine, and that the said mine is now and has been for a long time worked under said contract ; that by theterms of the said contract the proprietors receive a certain proportion of the quicksilver yielded by the reduction of the ore of cinna- bar dug out of the mine, and the said contractors the residue of such yield ; and that said contract will not expire before the year 1862, and therefore, these defendants say, that the said proprietors and con- tractors have an interest in the matter in litigation in this cause, and should be made parties defendant therein. §45. And the Defendant, James Alexander Forbes, further severally answering, saith : and these Defendants, Robert Walk- inshaw and William E. Barron, believe it to be true, that he was at one time, to wit, in the year 1850, the owner in fee of two un- divided twenty-fourth parts of the mine and lands of New Alma- den, by title derived from Andres Castillero ; and that thereafter, 583 to wit, on the ninth day of August. A. D. 1850, he sold and con- veyed one of the said parts to John Parrott, now a resident of the city of San Francisco, in this State, with a clause of general warranty ; and that subsequently, to wit, on the twenty-ninth day of May, A. D., 1855, he sold and conveyed the remaining undi- vided twenty-fourth part of the said lands and mine to the De- fendant, William E. Barron, without warranting the title ; where- by this Defendant was divested of all title and estate in the said mine and lands of New Almaden, and surrendered his possession thereof ; and further, that this Defendant is not now, and was not at the time of the institution of this suit, or of the said action of ejectment in any manner interested in the said mine and lands, except as warrantor of the part sold to Parrott, nor in any part of the premises mentioned by the Complainants in their said bill of complaint, or in their declaration in ejectment ; and is not now interested in the same, except as such warrantor, and is not in the possession thereof, and does not claim title to the said lands, nor to any part thereof. §46. And these Defendants further severally answering, say : that between the month of December, 1845, when Andres Castil- lero and his partners, were placed in possession of the said mine and lands of New Almaden, and the first day of May, 1852, these Defendants, with their co-proprietors and contractors, and the persons from whom they claim, expended, in working the said mine, reducing the ores taken therefrom, and improving the said lands, the full sum of ($978,114.11,) nine hundred and seventy- eight thousand, one hundred and fourteen dollars and eleven cents ; and that the whole price of quicksilver extracted and sold during that time, together with the value of the whole amount then on hand unsold, was the sum of five hundred and sevent- eight thousand dollars, ($578,000,) as near as may be, thus show- ing that after working the said mine for nearly seven years, its proprietors and contractors were in debt, on account of the said mine, in the sum of four hundred thousand dollars ; all of which was set forth in the answer filed on or about the fourth of May, 1852, in the United States District Court for the Northern Dist- rict of California, to the Bill in Equity, filed by the said Com- plainants against these Defendants, Forbes and Wilkinshaw, and others, hereinafter mentioned, and as these Defendants believe, constituted one of the reasons why the Plaintiffs in the ejectment suit, to which the said Bill in Equity was auxiliary, suffered the said suit at law to slumber for so many years. And that the en- tire proceeds of the sales of quicksilver produced by said mine of New Almaden, from the month of December, A. D. 1845, to the present time, — a little more than ten years, — have not paid an interest equal to two per cent, per month on each year's excess of 584 annual expenses over the annual receipts, on the supposition of a balance of accounts being struck at the end of each year, and the said monthly interest allowed for the succeeding year on the said excess of annual expenses over annual receipts ; while the usual and curreut interest of the country during the same period, has ranged from ten per cent, per month to two per cent, per month, and has been at no time less than the last named sum. §47. And these Defendants further severally answering, say : that sometime in the month of February, 1848, Mr. Alexander Forbes, as before stated; being largely interested in the mine and lands of New Almaden, as proprietor, claiming under the said titles of Andres Castillero, caused a survey of the same to be made by Chester S. Lyman, Esq., who was at that time Surveyor for the middle Department of Upper California, holding said office by commission from R. B. Mason, then Civil and Military Governor of California, for the purpose, among others, of fixing the dividing lines between said lands and those of his neighbors, the said widow and heirs of Jose' Reyes Berreyesa ; that the said widow and heirs were requested to attend said survey of the said dividing line, and to make known what they claimed as their lands, and where the said dividing line should be run; that the said widow Zacharias and some of the other Complainants, to wit : Fernando and Jose* Encarnacion and Lorenzo Pineda, then mar- ried to Maria del Carmen Berreyesa, but now deceased, and also the said Nemecio, who was then living, but is now deceased, were present at the running of said dividing line, and pointed out the boundaries of their said rancho, and assisted in the said survey and in the establishment of the said line, and assented to the line so run off, measured and established, and agreed that it should ever after be considered as the true dividing line between the said Rancho of San Vicente and the lands of New Almaden ; that there were present at the said survey and establishment of the said dividing line the widow and the above named heirs, Complainants, and the said Alexander Forbes and Fernando Al- den, and Chester S. Lyman, the Surveyor, and various assistants and laborers ; and this Defendant, James Alexander Forbes, says, that the said widow and heirs on the occasion aforesaid, and while the Surveyor was adjusting the position of the flags, for the purpose of running his lines, pointed out to him two hills on which the Surveyor's flags were placed, at the points designated on " Exhibit X v by the letters I and V, and told him that the dividing line between their rancho and the lands of New Alma- den was correctly defined by the position of the said flags. And these Defendants further say, that in making the said survey the said proprietors of the mine and lands of New Almaden exclu- ded a part of what they had a right to claim according to their 585 limits as defined in the act of possession and concession, made as aforesaid to Andres Castillero, by Anto Maria Pico, Alcalde, and as defined in the colonization grant, made as aforesaid, to Andres Castillero by the President of Mexico ; that such exclusion was made in favor of the widow and heirs of the said Jose' Reyes Berreyesa ; and that the said land so excluded by said survey was valley land, comprising some of the most fertile lands within the limits of the Rancho San Vicente, and also irrigable, and best suited to all purposes of pasturage and cultivation ; and this ex- clusion was agreed to by said proprietors because they did not wish to deprive the said widow and heirs of any part of the land claimed by them as within the limits of their alleged grant, and least of all, of such as was suitable to the purposes of occupation, settlement, cultivation and pasturage ; and because desiring to have permanently established boundaries, they agreed to such as the said widow and heirs pointed out and claimed, and declared themselves content with. §48. And these Defendants further severally answering say, That the limits of the lands of New Almaden, surveyed by Ches- ter S. Lyman, on the occasion aforesaid, are correctly delineated on the said Exhibit X, by the lines thereon shaded with green, and that the said lines, or so much of them as lie contiguous to the said Rancho of the Berreyesas, were those pointed out and established by the said widow and heirs, and by them agreed upon as a permanent dividing line between their said Rancho and the lands of New Almaden ; and these Defendants further say, that the area included within the said survey is equal to two square leagues, and that it was laid out in that form to compen- sate for so much of the square area A B C D, as lies to the north of the line LIJ; and these Defendants further say, that neither the said Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, in his life time, nor his said widow and heirs at law, or any of them, since his death, was ever in possession, by virtue of any title or otherwise, of the land inclu- ded in the limits of the survey of the lands of New Almaden, made by Chester S. Lyman, as aforesaid, and above described. §49. And these Defendants further severally answering say, That ever since the month of December, A. D. 1845, these Defendants, (except James A. Forbes, who was in possession until he sold to the Defendant, Barron, as aforesaid,) with their co-proprietors, and the said contractors, and the persons under whom they claim title, have been in the possession of the said Mine of New Almaden, and of the Hacienda so marked on Exhibit " X," and of the said square area, E FGH, except as hereinafter mentioned ; and from the 20th day of May, A. D. 1846, in the possession of the square area, A BCD, except as hereinafter mentioned ; that during the whole of that time they have been engaged in working the said Mine, and improving the 45 586 said lands, at a vast expense and risk ; that they have taken from said Mine large quantities of cinnabar and reduced the same to quicksilver, and exported large quantities of that metal from this State to be sold in foreign markets, there being in this State, and in the United States, a market for only a very small proportion of what they have produced ; that the process of reducing the ores requires a great deal of fuel and some lime ; that all the fuel which has been used by these Defendants, (except the Defendant, Walkinshaw) their co-proprietors, and the said contractors and the persons under whom they claim, for the said pur- poses, or for any other purpose whatever, has been, since the month of July, 1850, purchased by their agents at the Hacienda from persons who have procured the same from the adjacent Ranchos, and brought it to the Hacienda to sell ; that these Defendants believe much of the wood they have used has been cut on the Rancho of the Complainants, within the limits mentioned and described in their alleged grant as defined in this answer, but that none of it was cut by these Defend- ants, nor by any of them, or by their or any of their agents, nor by their authority, direction or permission ; but these Defendants are in- formed and believe, and so say, that a very large proportion, if not all, of the wood which they have purchased, has been cut by certain per- sons under contract with the said widow and heirs of Jose' Reyes, de- ceased, complainants, and by their permission ; and that the said widow and many of the said heirs have, during the last five years and more, frequently been to the Hacienda to ascertain how much wood had been delivered by certain persons, and how much money had been paid for it, in order that they might ascertain what was due to them under their contracts with such persons ; and that neither before the month of July, 1850, nor at any other time, have these Defendants, or any of them, (except the Defendant Walkinshaw, as hereinafter stated,) cut down or taken any growing or other trees, outside of the limits of their land as surveyed by the said Lyman ; that sometime in the year 1848, and thence to the year 1850, some lime was taken out of a quarry whose locality is designated on Exhibit X by the point W, and in very small quantities for the purposes of the Mine ; that after the year 1850, and up to the year 1853, lime was taken from quarries whose localities are respectively designated Y and Z, on the said Exhibit X, for the purposes of the Mine ; that never at any time have these De- fendants, or any of them, dug or taken, or caused to be dug or taken, any lime at any other place or places, either on their own lands of Almaden or on the lands claimed by the said complainants ; but that since the year 1853, they have purchased whatever lime they needed, and paid therefor in cash, it being brought to the Hacienda already burnt, and put up in casks, and there and in that condition sold to these Defendants. §50. And these Defendants further severally answering, say : that 587 although they claim title to the tract of land sold as aforesaid, by the said widow and some of the other complainants, to the said Shillaber, and afterwards by the said widow and the heirs of the said Jose Reyes deceased, to the said Ysidoro de la Torre, they have been wrongfully and unlawfully deprived of the possession of all that part of the said tract, which lies outside of the lines of Lyman's said survey, except a small piece of about fifty acres located around the house of tne De- fendant, Walkinshaw, indicated by name on the Exhibit Jl, and that the Complainants have been in possession of the same for several years, and do now possess it. §51. And the said Defendant, Robert Walkinshaw, admits that he has used a portion of the growing trees on the land sold as aforesaid, by some of the Complainants to the said Shillaber and to the said de la Torre, outside the limits of Lyman's said survey, and within the limits of the land called for, by the alleged grant of Alvarado, to the said Jose* Reyes ; but he says, that the timber so cut was used for building fences and other purposes about a farm, and for fire wood ; and that he hath the right to possess said land and use said timber, under and by virtue of his titles thereto set forth in this answer ; and he further saith, and so say the other Defendants, that he has not cut down, or used any growing timber on the said land or elsewhere by the order or direction of the said Forbes and Barron, or either of them, nor as their agents, or to be used in or about said mine. §52. And these Defendants further severally answering, say : as to so much of the said Complainants' bill of complaint as charges that the proceeds of the sales of quicksilver amount to the average sum of three thousand dollars per day, or thereabout, they deny that the same is true ; and they deny that they fraudulently retain the pro- ceeds or a greater part of the proceeds of said quicksilver beyond the jurisdiction of this Court ; and they aver that the parts of said proceeds corresponding to their respective interests in the said mine and lands are regularly distributed and paid them in the due course of the busi- ness of the negotiation, and by them retained in this State ; and they deny that they have not visible property, means or resources of any kind within the State of California, sufficient in amount and value to satisfy or discharge the damages which the said Complainants are justly entitled to recover of them, on account of any acts of trespass, w ? aste and destruction, ever by them committed on any lands belong- ing to the Complainants. And these Defendants aver, that the said Barron, and the said James R. Bolton, and the said John Parrott, all of whom reside in the city of San Francisco, State of California, are the owners and possessors of a large amount of very valuable and highly improved land, and have, besides a considerable sum of money invested in their business, and the whole of the real estate so by them owned in San Francisco is worth, according to the best of the information, 588 knowledge and belief of these Defendants about one million of dollars ; and these Defendants further aver that the other proprietors and con- tractors before named, are worth in the aggregate at least five millions of dollars, exclusive of their interest in the mine and lands of New Al- maden, and that although thej do not reside in this State, but live and have their fortunes elsewhere, they are amply able to respond to any damages which could be recovered of them by the Complainants, even supposing all the statements and allegations of the said complaint to be true. And these Defendants further say, that at the time of filing their bill of complaint in this cause, and instituting the action of ejectment therein mentioned, the said Complainants well knew that the said John Parrott, and the other proprietors and contractors were in- terested in the said mine and lands and had been in the possession thereof for several years, working the said mine and exporting and selling a large part of its products. §53. And these Defendants further severally answering, say : they deny that the said Complainants have sustained or will sustain any injury, irreparable or other, from the working of said mine of New Almaden by these Defendants, their co-proprietors, and the said con- tractors, or any of them, even supposing all the statements and charges in the said bill of complaint regarding the title of the Complainants, and the trespasses by the Defendants to be true ; and they further deny that they, or any, or either of them, or that their co- proprietors, and the said contractors, or any or either of them, have ever, at any time, worked the said mine of New Almaden, or disposed of the pro- ceeds of sales of the metal yielded thereby, with any view to defraud the said Complainants of their just rights, or to place said proceeds beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts of this State, or of the United States ; or with the design of avoiding the payment of any damages which the said Complainants might possibly recover of them, on account of said alleged acts of trespass or destruction ; but on the con- trary they aver, that these Defendants and the other owners of the mine and lands of New Almaden, and the said contractors, have always worked and improved the same in the manner that any other owner, having full confidence in his title, and desiring to develop the resources of such property, would work and improve said mine and lands ; that much the larger portion of the quicksilver procured from the said mine has been sent abroad for sale, because there is not in the United States a market for any except a small part thereof ; and that the proceeds of the sales of quicksilver have always been dis- tributed among the owners and contractors in dividends corresponding to their respective shares and interests. §54. And these Defendants further severally answering, say : that the matters of defence which the said Complainants have anticipated in their said bill, and endeavored to avoid, are 589 already sufficiently set up in this answer, and as to the matters of avoidance which the said Complainants have set forth in their said complaint, these Defendants say : §55. That the Alcalde, before whom the aforesaid registry of the discovery of the said mine was made, (called in the Complain- ants' said bill of complaint, a " pretended denouncement,") did have jurisdiction of the matter ; §56. That the said Castillero did disclose the names of his associates, by a writing of partnership, dated Nov. 2nd, in the year 1845, and authenticated by the Prefect of the Second Dis- trict, Don Manuel Castro, the original document being deposited in the archives of the Partido, and a certified copy thereof signed by said Manuel Castro, the said Prefect, and by Antonio Maria Pico, the Alcalde before whom the said registry of the said dis- covery was made, the said certified copy being dated December 8th, 1845, and annexed to and forming a part of the records of said proceedings of registration of discovery and juridical pos- session. §57. That the names of said associates of the said Castillero so disclosed, were Jose Castro, Secundino Robles, Teodoro Robles, and Friar Jose Maria del Refugio Snares del Real ; that neither of said associates, Jose* Castro, Secundino Robles, and Teodoro Robles, was at the time of such registration, had been previously, or has since become, " either a regular of religious orders, or a secular ecclesiastic;" that these Defendants have been informed, and believe it to be true, that the said Friar Jose" M. R. S. del Real, to whom by said writing of partnership, the aforesaid Cas- tillero made a voluntary grant of four shares as a perpetual dona- tion, was then a Regular of Religious Orders, and that if, by the ordinances on the subject, the said Friar Jose" M. R. S. del Real who was a regular, could not acquire a title in mines, then the said Andres Castillero did not part with the shares which he attempted to so donate to the said Friar Jose* M. R. S. del Real. §58. That the said Castillero did sink a trial pit within ninety days, and have the same inspected according to the then existing law. §59. "That if said Castillero did not contribute to the revenues of the Mexican Government by the payment of a " percentum of the proceeds of said mine," it was for the reason that the then existing laws of Mexico did not reserve thereto any percentum of the proceeds of said mine, but on the contrary, offered a premium or reward for the discovery and working of Quicksilver mines. §60. That neither the said Castillero nor these Defendants have " ever paid to the said Berreyesa, deceased, his widow or heirs, or to any one for them " damages resulting from the work- king of said mine, nor the use of said land nor the timber 590 thereon, " for the reason that no such damages have ever been lawfully assessed, nor has any demand for such assessment ever been made, either upon said Castillero or upon either or any of these Defendants; for the reason that no damages have ever re- sulted to the said Berreyesa, deceased, to his widow or heirs, from the working of said mines, and the use of the land and the timber thereon, but on the contrary large pecuniary advantages ; for the further reason that said mine is not on any land now belonging to, or which ever did belong to said Berreyesa, or his widow or heirs; and for the further reason that neither the said Castillero, or these Defendants, or either or any of them, has ever used any land or the timber thereon, which ever did belong to or does now belong to said Berreyesa, deceased, his widow or heirs. §61. And these Defendants further say, that the pertinencies, or shares of said mine were measured off as required by law, to wit: three thousand varas of land in all directions, and the juri- dical possession thereof given to the said Castillero, the same being made and executed by said Alcalde of First Nomination of San Jose, Guadalupe, acting with two assisting witnesses; §62. That the ; ' Junta de Fomento y Administrativa de mine- ria" did have jurisdiction or supervisory power in matters of denouncement of mines where the person denouncing or making registry, applied to the Government to aid, contract for, or habil- itate such mine,- that said Junta, together with the President of Mexico, did confirm the said registry of discovery of said Castil- lero, and enter into a contract with him for supplying and work- ing said mine; and they deny that the jurisdiction of said Junta, either appellate or original, was limited to a district not more than twenty-five leagues from the City of Mexico; and they further deny that they have ever claimed that said Junta exercised ap- pellate jurisdiction in this case over any litigated question, or that any appeal was ever taken from the action of said Alcalde of San Jose to said Junta; §63. And these Defendants further say, that the document of grant claimed by the Defendants to have been made to said Castillero by the President of Mexico, of two square leagues of land on his mining possession, (called in said complainants' bill of complaint " an alleged grant from the President of Mexico,'') is a grant of said two leagues of land, and they deny that it does not purport to be a grant, and that it is a mere reference of the matter to the Governor of Cali- fornia, recommending him to act thereon in pursuance to the coloniza tion laws ;" and they say that said document is not only a grant or title of said two leagues of land to said Castillero, but that it also con- tains an order to the Governor of California to put the said Castillero into possession of said land so granted, and that said document was delivered by the proper authority to said Castillero, as the proper 591 evidence of his title to said land ; that these Defendants believe that said document was presented to the de facto Governor of California; but if not so presented, the failure to so present it necessarily and unavoidably resulted from the operations of the war between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, and the great distance be- tween the city of Mexico and the Department of California, by which said Castillero and his, agents were prevented from presenting said docu- ments to said Governor in time for him to act in the premises before the occupation of said Department of California by the military forces of the United States ; and these defendants deny that said document of grant to Castillero, and order of possession to said Governor by the said President of Mexico, (erroneously described in said complainants' bill of complaint as a reference or recommendation,) was " procured so to be made through the fraudulent concealment of the fact that said Mine was situate in lands claimed as of the ranch of said J. R. Berreyesa," or through the representations ^called " false and frau- dulent" in complainants' said bill of complaint) of the said Castillero, and of these Defendants, that said mine was in the Mission of Santa Clara, and not in the lands belonging to said Berreyesa ; but they severally believe it to be true, and therefore so say, that the said Cas- tillero, in asking for" said grant, truly and correctly represented the facts of the case, to wit : that in denonncing and registering said Mine, he had represented it to be on the lands of said Jose Reyes, he, the said Jose* Reyes, having falsely and fraudulently represented himself to said Castillero as the owner of said lands, under a grant of two square leagues to him by Governor Micheltorena, whereas said grant was for only one league, and had been fraudulently changed and altered by a forgery to two leagues by said Jose Reyes ; and these Defendants severally believe it to be true, and so say, that the said President of Mexico, at the time of deciding upon said Castillero's petition for said grant of land, had before him full and correct infor- mation with respect to the character and extent of any grant or grants of land previously made, or pretended to have been made by the local authorities in California to said Berreyesa, from the circumstantial re- ports which the Governors of California were required by the 9th Article of the Regulations of 1828, to make to the Supreme Govern- ment every three months, of all lands by them conceded or granted, and also particularly from the said Governor Micheltorena, who, these Defendants are informed and believe, w T as then in the city of Mexico and in communication with the Supreme Government, and was called upon by said Castillero for information on this particular matter ; and these Defendants further say, that said Castillero, in describing in general terms the locality or position of the mine by him discovered and registered as being " in the Mission of Santa Clara," and as being " at the distance of five leagues from this Mission to the west," did 592 so correctly describe in general terms the locality or position of said mine ; and these Defendants aver that said mine is situate in the lands formerly designated, marked out and generally known and understood as Mission lands of the Mission of Santa Clara ; and they deny that said Castillero, in so describing the locality of the mine by him dis- covered, either deceived or iutended to deceive the said Junta, or the said President of Mexico, or any other person whomsoever, or misrep- resented or intended to misrepresent the position or locality of said mine by him discovered, or the character or ownership of the lands in which said mine was situate ; §64. And these Defendants further deny it to be true, as alleged in said complainants' bill of complaints, that neither the said widow and heirs, (meaning the widow and heirs of Jose* Reyes Berreyesa,) nor either of them, have ever executed and delivered to these defend ants, or either of them, any conveyence whatever of said land or mine ; and they further deny it to be true, as alleged in said bill of complaint, that neither have these Defendants, or either of them, ever paid to said widow and heirs, or either of them, any money or other consideration for such conveyances (called in said bill of complaint " pretended con- veyance ") ; and they say that the true facts of the case are as else- where particularly set forth and shown in this their answer ; §65. And these Defendants further deny it to be true, as alleged in said bill of complaint, that upon the earnest solicitation of these De- fendants, and their promise to pay thirty thousand dollars therefor, some of said heirs were induced to sign an instrument prepared by these Defendants, purporting to convey the interest of said widow and heirs in said lands to one Theodore Shillaber for or on account of these Defendants ; and they say that the true facts of the case are elsewhere set forth and shown in this their answer ; §66. And these Defendants further deny it to be true, as set forth in said bill of complaint, " that said instrument " (meaning the convey ance to said Theodore Shillaber) " was never, in fact, delivered, but was placed in the desk of a third person, and under his custo- dy"; and they deny that said instrument was even taken from the custody of any such third person " without the knowledge or consent of said widow and heirs, or either of them,' , and " that it was clandestinely and fraudulently abstracted by the said Theodore Shillaber from such custody," and that said Shillaber was then or at any time the agent or confederate of these Defendants, or either of them, except so far as he was associated with the Defendant Walkin- shaw in the purchase hereinbefore set forth and fully shown : and they deny that these Defendants, or either of them, did as alleged in said bill of complaint, " falsely and fraudulently pretend to be indignant at the conduct of said Shillaber in abstracting said instrument " ; and they deny, as they have already denied, that said Shillaber, or any person employed by said Shillaber, or any person acting for these 593 Defendants, or either of them, or any person whomsoever, ever did abstract said instrument, as is in said bill of complaint alleged ; and they deny that they, or either of them, " represented to said widow and heirs, that, for the protection of their rights in the matter, it was necessary to cause to be instituted legal proceed- ings for the purpose of setting aside or annulling said instrument," but they admit that this Defendant Forbes did offer, in the man- ner and terms hereinbefore set forth and shown, to purchase cer- tain lands as hereinbefore described, of the said widow and heirs, in case said sale to said Shillaber should be given up, cancelled, set aside, or annulled ; §67. And these Defendants further deny that they, or either of them, ever offered to indemnify said widow and heirs against the pay- ment of all and any costs in that behalf, as alleged in said bill of com- plaint ; and they deny that the Defendants Barron and Walkinshaw, or either of them, ever drafted a letter of attorney for the purpose of authorizing James M. Jones, Esq., to commence or prosecute said ac- tion, or for any other purpose ; and the Defendant Forbes has no rec- ollection of having ever drafted such a letter of attorney, and believes that he never did draft such letter ; and these Defendants deny that said letter of attorney was drafted secretly, or for the fraudulent pur- pose of procuring the signatures of said widow and heirs, or either of them, to a written instrument in which they are represented as dis- claiming all title to said lands and mine, or to any other written instru- ment whatsoever ; §68. And these Defendants further severally answering say, they have been informed, and believe it to be true, and therefore so say, that the said widow and heirs employed the said James ' M. Jones as their attorney to set aside the said conveyance to the said Shillaber, and, for that purpose, gave him a letter of attorney, in which they dis- claimed all title to the lands and mine of New Almaden, and set forth that said lands and mine of New Almaden did not belong to them, the said widow and heirs, by any title ; that said letter of attorney was written in the Spanish language, that it was read to said widow and heirs, and that they were fully advised of its contents ; that Lorenzo Pineda, the son-in-law of the said widow, and husband of Maria del Carmen, one of said heirs and one of the complainants in this suit, was particularly active in getting up said letter of attorney, and then and there read and explained said letter of attorney to these complainants ; §69. And these Defendants further severally answering, say : that said letter of attorney was given to said Jones after the defendant, Forbes, had agreed with the Complainants for the purchase of the interests of the Complainants in the lands west of Alamitos creek, as herein before particularly described and set forth, and that said letter of attorney was given for the purpose of carrying into effect such agreement of sale and purchase between the Compiainants and Defendant, Forbes, 594 by annulling or setting aside the aforesaid instrument of sale by the said Shillaber ; that the said widow and heirs in execnting said letter of attorney to said Jones, were fully advised and made acquainted with its contents, and especially were they advised and made acquaint- ed with the recital of clauses by which they disclaimed all title to the lands and mine of New Almaden, that said widow and heirs did not then pretend to claim said land and mine of New Almaden, and that said widow has since frequently disclaimed all title to said lands and mine of New Almaden ; and these Defendants severally deny that said recital in said letter of attorney, or any part thereof was false, but on the contrary, they say that said recital was and is true ; and they further deny that said widow and heirs, or either of them executed said letter of attorney, without any knowledge of said recital ; and they further deny that said widow and heirs executed said letter of attorney, solely for the purpose of delivering it to said Jones ; and they further deny, that they, or either of them retained said letter of attorney, in their own possession, either fraudulently or otherwise ; and they fur- ther deny that there was any fraudulent scheme, between them and the other Defendants, or between them and any other person whomso- ever, of depriving said widow and heirs of their just rights or interests in said property, as in said complaint alleged, or of depriving them or either of them of any just right or interest in any property whatsoever. And these Defendants deny that this " said letter of attorney was not read to said widow and heirs," as alleged in said bill of complaint ; and they further deny that said widow and heirs were advised of its con- tents only so far as it empowered said Jones to commence and prose- cute said action ; and they further deny that the said widow and heirs executed said letter of attorney without any knowledge of the recital to the effect that the mine and lands of Almaden did not belong to them by any title. §70. And this Defendant, James A. Forbes, further severally an- swering, says : and these Defendants, William E. Barron and Robert Walkinshaw, believe it to be true, that both before and after said sur- vey of Lyman, and even during the pendency of much harrassing liti- gation against the owners of the mine and lands of New Almaden, into which the said widow and heirs have been seduced by the false and fraudulent representations of interested speculators, who by all manner of fraud and artifice, and for their own purposes of specula- tion and plunder, have endeavored to poison the minds of the said Ber- reyesas against the owners of New Almaden, the said widow hath often declared that she never claimed the New Almaden mine, or the haci- enda, and never supposed that she had any interest in, or title to, the minerals or to the said hacienda ; and that the litigation on that ac- count was entirely against her wishes ; but that the said widow seem- ed to be under the influence of some of her sons, who, being violent, wicked and corrupt men, are willing instruments in the hands of any 595 speculator in law suits, and ever ready to repudiate their most solemn contracts, and to enter into any others which may be proposed to them, promising pecuniary advantage ; §71. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that on the 26th day of August, A. D. 1850, the complainants Zacharias, widow of Jose* Reyes, deceased, Ignacio, Santiago, Jose' de los Santos, Nemecio, Francisco, Fernando, Maria del Carmen and her husband Lorenzo Pineda, Loreto and her husband Juan Bojorques, Madalena and her husband Maximo Fernandez, and Encarnacion, by his guar- dian, Wm. R. Bassham, brought an action against these Defendants, James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw, in the district Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for the county of Santa Clara ; and in their complaint in the said action, they stated that their said Rancho of San Vicente is bounded on the west by the Rancho de los Capitancillos, which boundary commences at the junction of the Arroyo Alamitos and the Arroyo Seco, and runs thence southwardly, passing the hills or Lomita in the centre of the cafiada, towards the east, to the Sierra, and alleged that the Defend- ants had trespassed on their said lands by cutting and carrying away the wood, timber and limestone on the said land, and claimed damages therefor in the sum of twenty thousand dollars ; that the plaintiffs in said action did not claim as the western boundary of their said Rancho the line which they have falsely and fraudulently alleged, in their said complaint in this cause, to be the western boundary of said Rancho, and did not claim any damages against said Defendants for any alleged trespass in digging cinnabar, and carrying of the proceeds, and that the western boundary of said Rancho, as described by the said Plain- tiffs in the complaint filed as aforesaid, on the 26th day of August, 1850, would not include the mine of New Almaden in the lands so claimed as the lands of the said Berreyesa, how far soever said line might be extended. §72. And these Defendants further .severally answering say, that after the aforesaid suit was instituted, and an order of survey obtained from the court, and an actual survey made of the lands claimed by said plaintiffs, and upon which the said complaint alleged that the alleged said Defendants had committed the aforesaid alleged acts of trespass, — to wit, on the 30th day of September, A. D. 1850, — the plaintiffs in said action, except the plaintiff, Ignacio, together with one Richard Roman and one James Hepburn, and one Charles Y. Stuart, brought an action of ejectment in the said District Court, within and for the said County of Santa Clara, against Isidoro de la Torre of Mazatlan, in Mexico, Alexander Forbes and William Barron and Eustaquio Barron of Tepic, in the Republic of Mexico, and John Parrott, of the City of San Francisco, in the State of California, and these defen- dants, James A. Forbes and Robert Walkinshaw ; and in their com- plaint in the said action, they stated that their said Rancho of San 596 Vicente is bounded on the west by a line drawn from the junction of the Arroyo Seco, and the Arroyo de los Alamitos, thence south by the eastern brow or slope of the hills in the centre of the valley to the Sierra, which is a different line from that stated in their aforesaid action of trespass, and would include the New Almaden Mine, which the other would uot : and they alleged that the defendants in the year 1845 entered upon the said land, and had ever since been in posses- sion thereof, and had committed thereon divers acts of trespass by opening and working quicksilver, lime, and other mines, and more particularly the mine of New Almaden, by which said several tres- passes the plaintiffs alleged they had been damaged in the sum of one million of dollars ; and that the summonses in the said cause were served on these defendants, Forbes and Walkinshaw, on the lith day of October, A. D. 1850, and on John Parrott on the 7th day of November, A. D. 1850, and on the other Defendants by publication for six months ; that on the 23d day of January, A. D. 1851, the plaintiffs in the said suit filed a petition praying for the appointment of a receiver, to take charge of the accruing profits of said mine, and retain them until the question of title could be determined at law, which was heard and granted on the next day, without notice to the Defendants or their attorneys, and John W. Geary, formerly of San Francisco, was appointed such Receiver ; and that said order was made by the Hon. William R. Turner, Judge of the eighth Judicial District, of the State of California, who happened to be then holding Court for the Hon. John H. Watson, the Judge of the Third Judicial District, as he, the said Judge Turner, supposed, with the consent of the Defendants, which was not true — that the said order was subse- quently, to wit, on the 22d day of February, A. D. 1851, revoked and set aside, and that said cause was afterwards, to wit, on or about the 28th day of April, A. D. 1851, by order of the said District Court transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. §73. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that after the aforesaid cause was transferred to the District Court of the United States, the plaintiffs in the said cause filed a bill of complaint in said Court, sitting as a court of equity, in which said bill the complainants alleged the pendency of the said action of ejectment, and charging the Defendants in ejectment with having succeeded by means of various pretences and subter- fuges in causing great delay in the progress of said action, and with having taken and continuing to take great quantities of quicksilver from the said land, prayed for an injunction and Re- ceiver, for the purposes and on the grounds that the same are prayed for in this cause ; and that thereupon, on motion and no- tice, and on the said complaint and the Defendant's affidavit, and after full argument, the said motion was denied on the day of A. D. 1852. 597 §74. And these defendants further severally answering say, that after the said decree was made, denying the motion of the complainants for an injunction and Receiver, the said complain- ants, instead of being thereby stimulated to greater energy and industry in preparing their said action at law for trial, and hav- ing their title to the said mine and land established and the De- fendants ejected therefrom, and the said alleged acts of trespass and destruction and vast irreparable injury stopped, have suffered the said action of ejectment to slumber for years, and have not taken one single step to bring the same to trial from that time to the present day, and have not sought to have their right or title decided by law ; that meanwhile the said complainants have seen these Defendants expend vast sums of money in building houses, roads and bridges, and improving and ornamenting the lands around the Hacienda, and in erecting furnaces for the reduction of the ores of quicksilver, and have seen these Defendants export- ing large quantities of quicksilver from this State and selling some therein, and making many valuable and permanent improve- ments in the mine and on the lands of New Almaden, thereby showing how false was their alleged intention of testing their right at law, and how false their charge against the Defendants in ejectment of resorting to subterfuges for the purpose of delay- ing the trial at law, that they, the said Defendants, might continue to commit the said acts of trespass and destruction, to the irre- parable injury of the Plaintiffs ; and thereby further showing what these Defendants always believed, and now aver to be the truth, that the said complainants have never desired to have their rights to the said lands and mine of New Almaden, against that of these Defendants, tried- at law ; but that they, with many in- stigators and confederates, who, for the porposes of speculation, have purchased large interests in said Rancho of San Vicente, and paid for the same with very small pecuniary consideration, but with large promises of instituting law suits against the De- fendants and recovering heavy damages, and with many profes- sions of their peculiar qualifications for the conduct of litigation in California, (not meaning any of their solicitors or attorneys,) have, from time to time, and as often as one sett of instigators, confederates and speculators may have sold out to a new sett, first instituted an action of ejectment against these Defendants, and then filed a bill in chancery ancillary thereto, containing the same statements, and making the same charges, and concluding with the same prayer as this bill, for the purpose of exacting money from the Defendants in the purchase of their peace, or for the purpose of selling out on the streets, at a higher price, their shares in the suit at law ; and these Defendants aver and charge it to be true, and are ready to establish it by proof, that such has 598 been the character of the litigation by the said complainants and their confederates, against these Defendants, for the last six years. §75. And these Defendants further severally answering say, that, on the 30th day of September, A. D. 1852, there was filed in the name of Andres Castillero, before the said United States Board of Land Commissioners, a claim to the mine and lands of New Almaden, by virtue of the title acquired by the said acts of registry, concession, and juridical possession ; and also a claim to two square leagues of land around the mine, by virtue of the con- cession made by the President of Mexico to the claimant, as a colonist ; and afterwards, to wit, on the 8th day of January, 1856, the said Board made a decree, confirming the claimant's title to the mine and lands, under the said acts of registry, concession, and juridical possession, and rejecting his claim under the coloni- zation grant ; which decree is not final. And these Defendants further say, they are advised and believe, that when the said claims shall be heard on the appeal which hath been taken from said decree, so much of said decree as rejects the claim founded on the colonization grant will be held to be erroneous, and re- versed, and the said claim confirmed. And these defendants further say, that whatever benefit or advantage hath accrued or can accrue from the said confirmation, hath enured to their benefit, and the benefit of their co-proprietors. §76. And these Defendants further ^severally answering say, they deny all and all manner of unlawful combination and con- federacy wherewith they are by the said bill charged, without this, that there is any other matter, cause or thing, in the said complainants' said bill of complaint contained, material or neces- sary for these Defendants to make answer unto, and not herein and hereby already well and sufficiently answered or confessed, traversed and avoided or denied, is true to the knowledge or be- lief of these Defendants ; all which matters and things these De- fendants are ready aud willing to aver, maintain and prove, as this Honorable Court shall direct ; and humbly pray to be dis- missed hence with their reasonable costs and charges in this be- half most wrongfully sustained. ARCH'D. C. PEACHY, Solicitor of the Defendants. San Francisco, February 11th, 1856. United States op America, ) g cT State op California. j The Defendants James Alexander Forbes and Robert Walkin- shaw named in the foregoing answer, being duly sworn severally 599 depose and say that they have read the foregoing answer and are acquainted with its contents, and that the same is true of their own knowledge, except as to the matters and things therein stated on their information and belief, and that as to those matters they believe it to be true. JAS. ALEX. FORBES, ROBERT WALKINSHAW. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of February, A. D. 1856. GEO. PEN. JOHNSTON, Clerk [Endorsed.] Filed February 11th A. D. 1856. GEO. PEN. JOHNSTON. Clerk. DEPOSITION OF JOSE FERNANDEZ. United States District Court, Northern District of California. San Francisco, Nov. 6, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the United States for the Northern District of California, duly authorized to ad- minister oaths, &c, &c, came Jos6* Fernandez, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimant in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as folio ws-^-his evidence being interpreted by C. Palmer, a sworn inter- preter. Present : The U. S. Attorney by A. P. Crittenden and Edmund Randolph ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Questions by Attorney for Claimant. Question 1. — Your name, age, and place of residence ? Answer 1. — Jose* Fernandez ; 58 ; the Mission of Santa Clara. Question 2. — How long have you resided in California ? Answer 2. — Forty years. GOO Question 3. — How long have you resided in and about the Pueblo of San Jose* ? Answer 3. — This last time I have resided between San Jose* and Santa Clara since the year 1836. Question 4. — What public office, if any, have you held in either of said places, or elsewhere in California ? Answer 4. — I have been sometimes Justice of the Peace (" Juez de Paz ") in the Pueblo of San Jose, and I have also upon various oc- casions been " Escribano del Jusgado." Question 5. — Did you hold any office in the year 1845, if so, what office ? Answer 5. — I was " Scindico del Jusgado " and " Escribano " of the Court of San Jose in 1845. Question 6. — Who was Alcalde of the Pueblo of San Jose' in 1845 ? Answer 6. — Antonio Maria Pico. Question 7.— Who in 1846 ? Answer 7. — Dolores Pachecos ; I was " Juez Suplente " in 1846. Question 8. — Do you know Pedro Chaboya ? Answer 8. — I do. Question 9. — Do you know his handwriting ? Answer 9. — I do. Question 10. — By what means do you know it ? Answer 10. — Because I have seen him write his name ; I believe that is all he knows how to write. Question 11. — Is Chaboya now living? Answer 11. — He is now living. Ques. 12. — Where is he living ? Ans. 12. — About a league from the Pueblo de San Jose'. Ques. 13. — Look at the document now shown you marked " A. B." to be annexed to your deposition, and say if you know in whose handwriting is said instrument, and if the signature of Pedro Chaboya thereon appearing is the genuine signature of Pedro Chaboya. This question applies to the signature wherever it occurs in said docu- ment. Ans. 13. — The whole document is in the handwriting of Salvio Pa- checo ; the signatures of Pedro Chaboya, which appear in four places on said document, are his genuine signatures. (Question and answer objected to as incompetent to prove the exe- cution of the document by Pedro Chaboya, the document being in the handwriting of another person, Chaboya ought to be called to prove that the writing was on the paper at the time that he signed it, and that. the said writing on the paper was of the date which it purported to be.) 601 Ques. 14. — Are you acquainted with Manuel Castro and Antonio Maria Pico ; do you know their handwriting and their signatures, and how do you know them ? Ans. 14. — I know them ; I know their handwriting and their sig- natures ; I was with Antonio Maria Pico as " Escribiente del Jusgado," in San Jose, and I have in my possession a document from Manuel Castro which he sent to me appointing me " Juez Suplente." My means of knowing their handwriting were these. Ques. 15. — Examine the document now shown you marked " C. D.," and state if the signatures of Manual Castro and Antonio Maria Pico, appearing on the third page of said document are their original signa- tures. Ans. 15. — I have examined the document referred to, and in my belief, they are the genuine signatures of Manuel Castro and Antonio Maria Pico. Ques. 16. — Do you know in whose handwriting is the body of the document appearing on the 1st, 2d and 3d pages, which is signed by Manuel Castro and Antonio Maria Pico ; if yea, state whose it is ? Ans. 16. — I cannot tell to a certainty whose handwriting it is ; it appears to be the handwriting of Gutierrez, but I cannot tell to a cer- tainty. (The same objection to the questions and answer in regard to signa- tures on this document as were made to question and answer No. 13, in regard to the signature of Chaboya.) Examination adjourned until 2 P. M. Examination adjourned until to-morrow, Nov. 7, at 11 A. M. San Francisco, November 7, 1858. Examination of Jose* Fernandez, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimant. Mr. Palmer not being present, Richard Tobin sworn as interpreter. Present : U. S. Attorney, by A. P. Crittenden, and E. Randolph, Esqrs. ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. Ques. 17. — Look at the document produced by S. 0. Houghton, a witness examined on behalf of Claimant on the 23d October, 1858, be- ing the document referred to in his third answer, and state if your ever 46 602 saw that document before ; if you are acquainted with the handwriting of the bodies of the instruments contained in said document, with the signatures to the same, with your means of knowing such handwriting and signatures. (The U. S. Attorney insists upon having certain answers and ques- tions written down in Spanish as well as English. Agreed to.) Ans. 17. — I know the document ; I cannot say positively in whose handwriting it is ; I know the signatures which are at the end of the document, they are those of Antonio Sunol, Jose Noriega, and Anto- nio Maria Pico ; I know the handwriting of the decree ; it is Salvio Pacheco's ; the signature to the Decree is that of Dolores Pacheco ; I think that the handwriting of the petition is that of Benito Diaz, which is the first paper in the document ; the signature to said peti- tion is that of Jose* Castro. I have seen this document before ; I had it in my hands in the Court at the Pueblo in the year 1845, and in the year 1849 while I was Alcalde ; I do not remember whether the paper which I call the petition was with the other instruments when I had them in my hands in the year 1849. When I had them in the year 1845, I am sure it was not ; the paper which I call the petition is signed by Jose* Castro, and upon which is the Decree signed by Do- lores Pacheco ; I think that the handwriting of and signature to the second paper is that of Don Andres Castillero ; I think the signature to the third paper is also that of Don Andres Castillero ; I do not know in whose handwriting the body of the paper is ; the last paper appears to be in the handwriting of Gutierez, but I do not know whether it is his or not, but I know the signatures perfectly well, they are those of Antonio Maria Pico, Jose* Noriega, and Antonio Sunol ; I know these signatures because I was Secretary to Sunol and Pico, and I have had correspondence with Noriega for many years ; I know the signature of Dolores Pacheco, as I was also his Secretary, and I know the writing of Salvio Pacheco because I have often seen him write ; I say that the hadwriting and signature of the second paper and the handwriting of the third paper, are those of Don Andres Castillero, because they remember other handwritings and signatures of his which I have seen ; I do not say so becauce I have had any correspondence with him. Ques. 18. — When you saw that document in 1845, where did you see it, and how came it into your hands? Ans. 18. — I was Secretary of Antonio Maria Pico in the Court ; it was brought there by that Gutierrez of Santa Clara. He said to me, " Now it is all finished, here is the fee," and he gave me three dollars and a-half, and so the document remained in the Court. Ques. 19. — What do you mean by that Gutierrez ? is he the same 603 i Gutierrez in whose handwriting you have said you think one of the in- struments in the documents you have had shown you, to be ? Ans. 19. — It is the same person. Ques. 20. — When you say Gutierrez paid you three dollars and a- half as a fee, what fee do you mean, and for what service was the fee paid ? Ans. 20. — It was my business to make those documents, and Father Real desired that they should be made by Gutierrez in Santa Clara, and I believe that that was the reason why they sent me three dollars and a-half, though I demanded nothing from them. Ques. 21. — When this document was handed you by Gutierrez what did you do with it ? Ans. 21. — It remained there in the Court ; I did nothing else with it. Ques. 22. — Who was in charge of the archives at the Court when you received that document ? Ans. 22. — I was. ' Ques. 23. — Who was Alcalde of San Jose* in 1849, if you can re- member ? Ans. 23. — A certain Mr. May was First Alcalde, and I was Second. Mr. May remained in a few months, and was succeeded by a certain person named Conroy, and we remained in together until the month of April of the year 1850. Ques. 24. — During the year 1849, were you employed about the office of the Alcalde ? Ans. 24. — Yes, I was. Ques. 25. — What employment had you there ? Ans. 25. — Second Alcalde. Ques. 26. — What were your duties as Second Alcalde ? Ans. 26. — I attended to the suits of all those who spoke Spanish. Ques. 27. — Could either May or Conroy speak Spanish ? Ans. 27. — May did not speak any, but Conroy spoke as well as I do myself. Ques. 28. — You have said that you saw the document shown you, and that it was in your hand in 1849 ; state where you saw it. Ans". 28. — I saw it in the said Court, but did not examine it ; I had it in my hands in handling papers. Ques. 39. — Was Pedro Chaboya ever Alcalde of San Jose* ? if yea, and you can remember, state when. Ans. 29. — He was Alcalde, but I do not remember in what year. Ques. 30. — Do you know who succeeded Dolores Pacheco in the year 1846 ? Ans. 30. — I and Valentin Higuera were successors of Dolores Pa- checo in the year 1846. There were four Alcaldes, one first and one second, and one substitute for the first, another substitute for the se- 604 cond. Dolores Pacheco was the first, but I do not remember who the second was. Ques. 31. — Who was the First Alcalde, yourself or Valentin Hi- guera ? Ans. 31. — Valentin Higuera. Ques. 32.— Who was first " Suplente" ? Ans. 32. — I do not remember who the first substitute was ; I was the second substitute. Ques. 33. — Who was the first Mayor of San Josd, (formerly the Pueblo,) under the laws of the State of California ? Ans. 33. — I do not remember. Ques 34. — After the Mexican system of Alcalde had been replaced by the system adopted by the State of California in the year 1850, do you know what was done with the archives of the Alcalde's office at San Jose* ? Ans. 34. — I do not ; I saw nothing more. Examination adjourned until Monday morning, Nov. 9, 1857, at 11 A.M. San Francisco, Nov. 9, 1857—11 A. M. Present : U. S. Attorney, by A. P. Crittenden and E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. Cross-Examination — Questions by U. S. Attorney. Ques. 1. — In your 30th answer, you say " It was my business to make those doouments, and Father Real desired that they should be made by Gutierrez in Santa Clara," — what did Father Real have to do with the business ? Ans. 1. — I do not know what he had to do with it, he was there at the mine, at the time of the possession, but I do not know what he had to do in the matter. Ques. 2. — How do you know he was there at the time of the pos- session ? Ans. 2. — Because I saw him there. Ques. 3. — Who was there ? Ans. 3. — There were Sunol, Castillero, Pico, Noriega, Gutierrez and I, and several others whom I do not remember ; I remember those because I went, I might say, with them. Ques 4. — Where did you go from ; at what time did you start ; 605 what time did you get there ; how long did you stay ; what happened whilst you were there ? Ans. 4. — Suiiol and I went together from the Pueblo ; Pico and Noriega also went from the Pueblo, the others probably went from Santa Clara, because they lived there ; I do not remember at what hour we started, I think it was about 9 or 10 in the morning ; we ar- rived there in about an hour or an hour and a-half after we started ; we remained there until evening, walking about there and looking at the mine. Ques. 5. — Did you all go on horse-back, or did some one of the party go on foot, and if so, who was it ; did you return the same evening ; to what place did you return, and what time did you get back ? Ans. 5. — Gutierrez went on foot ; we returned the same evening ; Suiiol and I returned to the Pueblo, and the others left us and went in the direction of their homes ; we got back a little before sunset. Ques. 6. — How long did you have to wait for Gutierrez at the mine before he arrived, or did he get there at the same time that the rest of you did ? Ans. 6. — I do not know when he reached there ; I saw him there. Ques. 7 — Did you have any conversation with him on the road ; I mean when you saw him on the way a foot ? Ans. 7. — I do not remember. Que?. 8. — Where is Gutierrez ? Ans. 8. — I do not know ; I do not know whether he is dead or alive. Ques. 9. — When did you see him last ; does he now live in Califor- nia ; what country did he come from ; was he living at Santa Clara or San Jose* when you all went to the mine ; what was his occupation in Santa Clara at the time you visited the mine ? Ans. 9. — I think I have seen him since we visited the mine, but I do not know where or when ; I do not know whether he now lives in California, I have enquired for him, but have obtained no information concerning him ; he first came to Pueblo in the year 1843 or 1844 ; I do not know what country he came from ; I think he was a school- master at Santa Clara when we made the visit to the mine ; he lived at Santa Clara. Ques. 10. — Was not Gutierrez a Basco ; did he not wear a red cap peculiar to that people ? Ans. 10. — I do not know, he said he was a Spaniard ; he was in the habit of wearing the red cap, which is generally worn by the Basques, although the cap which he wore was different in form from those worn by the Basques, because the one which he wore was long and those worn by the Basques was short and round ; I never heard Gutierrez speak Basque. Ques. 11. — Did this Gutierrez ever make or write more than one 606 document at the Mission of Santa Clara, which it was your business, as the Secretary of Pico, to have made or written ? Ans. 11. — He only brought me one; I do not know whether he wrote any other. Ques. 12. — Did Antonio Maria Pico return with you and Sunol to the Pueblo ? Ans. 12. — I do not remember whether he returned with us or not. Ques. 13. — You did not leave him at the mine ? Ans. 13. — No. We all came away. Ques. 14. — Where did Pico return to on that day ? Ans. 14.— To the Pueblo. Ques. 15. — When did you next see Gutierrez after coming from the mine ? Ans. 15. — When he came to bring the papers which he had made in Santa Clara to the Pueblo. Ques. 16. — Was that months or weeks after the return from the mine, or how long after was it ? Ans. 16. — It was one, two or three days after. Ques. 17 — Was it three days after ? Ans. 17. — I am not certain how many days it was, one, two, or three days, but I think it was in the same week. Ques. 18. — I want to know if it was not the same day, or the next day ? Ans. 18. — It could not have been upon the same day, because it was night when we got back. Ques. 19. — What day of the week was it when you went to the mine ? Ans. 19. — I do not remember. Ques. 20. — In what month was it ? Ans. 20. — I don't remember whether it was in November or De- cember. Ques. 21. — Was it not in January, 1846 ? Ans. 21. — No. Because in 1846 I was no longer secretary. Ques. 22. — How long was it before Christmas, or after Christmas, when Gutierrez brought you that document ? Ans. 22. — I do not know whether it was before or after. Ques. 23. — You have not answered yes, or no, whether it was on the day after your return from the mine that Gutierrez brought you that document ? Ans. 23. — I do not know whether it was the day after we left the mine, or whether it was two or three days after. Ques. 24. — Was that the first time you saw the document, when Gutierrez brought it to you ? Ans. 24. — It was the first time. 607 Ques. 25. — How do you know that the document you have testified about, is the same document that Gutierrez brought you ? Ans. 25. — Because I know it. Ques. 26. — Was the document which Gutierrez brought you all signed ? Ans. 26. — I did not examine it well. Ques. 27. — Did you not read it ? Ans. 27. — I did not. Ques. 28. — How can you know it to be the same document if you did not read it ? Ans. 28. — I do not know. I have seen it tumbling about with other papers in the Court ; I always saw it in the desk tumbling about. Ques. 29. — Did you read it when you saw it tumbled about amongst the other papers ? Ans. 29. — The superscription was what I always read. Ques. 30. — What was the superscription which you always read? Ans. 30. — Possession of the mine of Santa Clara, I think it says, I did not pay much attention to it. Ques. 31. — Did you read no more than the superscription? Ans. 31. — If I read any more, I do not remember it. Ques. 32. — Then how do you know that this document of which you have testified is the same ? Ans. 32. — I imagine it is the same. Ques. 33. — Who wrote the superscription ; did you write it ? Ans. 33. — I do not know who wrote it, I did not. Ques. 34. — When you all went to the mine, what engineer or sur- veyor did you carry with you ; what kind of instruments did you carry with you ; what engineer, surveyor, or instruments did you have at the mine on that occasion ? Ans. 34. — I neither knew a surveyor, nor were there any instru- ments whatever. Ques. 35. — What kind of measurements did you make at the mine on that occasion, and what kind of work did you do ? Ans. 35. — We did no work, nor measurements either. Ques. 36. — How many stakes did you drive, and if any, who drove them ; how many, and in what positions were they driven ? Ans. 36. — I did not see any driven. Ques. 37. — Did you not remain there with the rest of them ? Ans. 37. — I was there with the others, sometimes in their company, at other times apart from them, other times in the mine, other times among the bushes. I could not remain standing at the same place. Ques. 38. — What do you mean then when you say you were at the mine at the time of the possession ; what possession ? 608 Ans. 38. — I did not go to give possession. I merely went in their company. Ques. 39. — What more was done there than you have said ? What possession did you see given ? Ans. 39. — I only saw what they said. They said it is now all fin- ished, and we went off. But I did not learn how or in what manner. Ques. 40. — Answer again directly question 39. Ans. 40. — I saw nothing. I did not go to give possession. Ques. 41. — Do you know the handwriting of the signatures to the papers now shown you marked " Exhibit X. Y. C. McA." " Exhibit M. A." and " Exhibit L. R." and if you know, state whose they are? Ans. 41. — I do not know whose they are, but I think they are Gu- tierriez'. Ques. 42. — Look now at the document of which you have been testifying, superscribed, Posesion de la Mina de Sta. Clara, being the same produced by S. 0. Houghton, and say whether the body and signatures of every paper in that document contained, and especially the last paper signed Antonia Maria Pico, Antonio Sunol and Jose* Noriega, are not in an entirely different handwriting from that of the body and signatures of the three papers marked " Exhibit X. Y." « Exhibit M. A." " Exhibit T. R." ? Ans. 42. — The handwriting of the aforesaid snperscription is simi- lar to that of the papers marked " Exhibit X. Y." " Exhibit M. A." and " Exhibit T. R." the handwriting of and signatures to all the pa- pers contained in said document are different from the handwriting of and signatures to the said three papers marked " Exhibit X. Y." " Exhibit M. A." " Exhibit T. R." The signatures are entirely dif- ferent, the handwriting is different, but I cannot say that it is entirely different, On Saturday I said that I believed the handwriting of the first paper contained in said document was that of Benito Diaz, but now I say positively that it is the handwriting of said Benito. Ques. 43. — Is not the aforesaid superscription written with exceed- ingly large letters, and are not the exhibits with which you have been comparing it, written with small letters such as are usual in private letters ; what resemblance can you see between the very large lettering of that superscription, and the small letters of the ex- hibits ? (Examination adjourned until to-morrow Tuesday, November 10, 1857, at 11, A. M.) 609 San Francisco, November 10, 1857, 11, A. M. Examination of Jose* Fernandez, a witness produced on behalf of Claimant, continued : Present : The U. S. District Att'y, by A. P. Crittenden and Ed- mund Randolph ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. Ans. 43. — The resemblance which I see is between the large letters of said exhibits and superscription. The I's and J's are similar. Ques. 44. — Have you got in your possession a letter of Gutierrez', or any other writing by Gutierrez ; if so, let me see it ? Ans. 44. — I have not. The paper marked " exhibit T. R." I once had it in my possession, but I do not know how it got here. Ques. 45. — Will you now look at the paper shown you, being the " Escritura de Compania," compare it with the said Exhibits, " M. A." " T. R." and " X. Y." and say whether it is not in the same hand- writing ? Ans. 45. — I think it is the same. Ques. 46. — Does it not seem to you exactly the same ? Ans. 46. — I cannot say that it is exactly. Ques. 47. — Have you the least possible doubt ? Ans. 47. — I have a doubt because I did not see them written. Ques. 48. — Have you any other doubt ? Are they not written by the same person, judging by the handwriting ? Are they not both written by Gutierrez manifestly ? Ans. 48. — I think they are written by Gutierrez. Ques. 49. — In your 20th answer on your direct examination, you have said that you asked them for nothing, meaning the persons who sent you the three dollars and a half fee by Gutierrez ; who were those persons ? Ans. 49. — I do not know who sent me the fee, Gutierrez only said to me, " here, they send you this," and he gave me the three dollars and a half. Ques.50. — Have you no idea who the persons were that sent you the money ? Ans. 50. — I have an idea that it was Castillero. Ques. 51. — Who was entitled to fees for papers made by the Al- calde ; the Secretary or the Alcalde himself ? Ans. 51. — The Secretary ; the Alcalde received no fees, nor pay for making papers, even though he should make them himself, at least I never saw him do so. Ques. 52. — When you were examined in the Berreyesa suit of To- bin vs. Walkinshaw concerning this mine, you were asked why you did not sign the papers as attesting witness, and you said, as appears 610 by the notes of Judge Hoffman, " I can't tell why I did not sign as attesting witness," and now you say that the papers were made in Santa Clara while you were in San Jose* ; was not that a good and suf- ficient reason why you were not attesting witness, and why was it that you could not give that reason then ? Ans. 52. — They probably did not ask the question well, or it is a mistake. If I am mistaken it is through ignorance not from design. It is true the papers were made in Santa Clara ; I did not see them made, but Gutierrez told me that they had been made there. Ques. 53. — In Tobin vs. Walkinshaw, according to Judge Hoff- man's notes, you testified : u I and Castillero went together to the mines, but I don't know where the others went from," and in this case you have testified that you and Antonio Sunol went to the mine to- gether ; how is it that you don't testify the same way now as you did then? Ans. 53. — There is a mistake in Judge Hoffman's notes, because I never said that I went to the mine with Castillero ; I did not even know Castillero till I met him at the mine. Ques. 54. — Did not Antonio Sunol ask you to go with him to the mine ? Ans. 54. — I think he did ask me ; I have forgotten that matter so much that I don't remember. Ques. 55. — Then you don't remember what he asked you to go there for? Ans. 55. — He said to me " they are going to give possession, come with me to the mine," Pico told me the same thing. Have I not already said that Sunol invited me to go to the mine ? Ques. 56. — Were you not then very much surprised on arriving at the mine not to see any measurements made, any stakes driven, or any possession given ? Ans 56. — No, because I never saw possession given of any mine. Ques. 57. — Never having seen possession given of this or any other mine, were you not very much surprised when, on the next day, or within two or three days, Gutierrez brought you the papers which pur- ported to contain an account of a possession given of this mine, on the very day when you were there present ? (Question objected to, on the ground that it takes for granted what the witness has never said.) (Objection withdrawn.) Ans. 57.— No. Ques. 58. — At that time was the " Juzgado" or office of the Al- calde kept at the Mission of Santa Clara, or at the Pueblo of San Josd? 611 Ans. 58. — At San Jose". Ques. 59. — Have you not seen on some occasion, possession of llanchos given by Alcaldes, or of Suertes ? Ans. 59. — No, I have not. Ques. 60. — Have you not seen juridical possession of Ranchos or Suertes given by Alcaldes on some occasions ? Ans. 60.— No. Ques. 61. — What time in the year 1845, did Antonio Maria Pico cease to be Alcalde ? Ans. 61. — It must have been on the first of January, 1846, because those who went out of office surrendered it to their successors on the first of January of each year. Ques. 62. — Did Dolores Pacheco succeed him ? When did Do- lores Pacheco cease to be Alcalde ? Who was the first person the Americans made Alcalde of San Jose\ and when ? Ans. 62. — Dolores Pacheco succeeded Pico. In the month of July I went to Los Angeles with Castro, and Pacheco accompanied us as far as La Natividad, and from there he returned to the Pueblo, and when I returned to the Pueblo in the month of August, I found Pedro Chaboya, Alcalde of the Pueblo of San Jose'. The first person made Alcalde of San Jose' by the Americans was called Captain Burton. I do not remember w T hen the Americans made him Alcalde. Ques. 63. — How long have you lived in California ? From what country did you come ? Where were you born ? What was the first you knew about this mine before Castillero came to this country ? Ans. 63. — I have lived in this country 40 years. I came here from Peru. I was born in Cadiz in Spain. Before Castillero came to this country I heard it said that Luis Chaboya had a mine, but I did not know where it was nor had I ever seen it. (That part of the question and answer which relates to the witness' knowledge of the mine before the coming of Castillero, objected to ; the question on the ground of irrelevancy, and the answer on the ground of hearsay.) Ques. 64. — Is that all that you recollect about this mine before that time ? Do you not know that this is the same mine with that of Luis Chaboya ? (Question objected to on the ground of irrelevancy, and also on the ground that it is examining the witness upon a point not touched upon in the examination in chief.) Ans. 64. — I do not remember any more. It is said that this is the same mine of Luis Chaboya, but I don't know whether it is or not. 612 Ques. 65. — What is your business now ? Do you own a Rancho ? Do you own a mine ? Do you keep a store ? Are you a mechanic ? Are you a laborer ? Are you a lawyer ? Are you a doctor ? Have you been often a witness during the last 8 years ? How do you gain your livelihood ? (Form of question objected to, as containing an unnecessary num- ber of words, and encumbering this record unnecessarily.) Ans. 65. — I have no business whatever ; I am owner of a piece of land ; I am not owner of any mine ; I keep no store ; I am a me- chanic ; I am a laborer ; I am not a lawyer ; I am not a doctor ; I have been a witness two or three times during the last 8 years ; I earn my living by working. Ques. 66. — What piece of land do you own ? How much land, and where is it ? What kind of a mechanic are you, and what sort of work is it that you gain your livelihood by ? Ans. 66. — I have a piece of land in the county of Santa Clara. I do not know how large it is. I make a living by cultivating this piece of land. I am a laborer, not a mechanic. JOSE FERNANDEZ. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10 Nov., 1857. cutler McAllister, U. S. Com. Deposition taken subject to all exceptions, except as to the form of the questions. cutler McAllister, U. S. Com. EXAMINATION OF JOSE FERNANDEZ IN SPANISH. Ques. 17. — Vea Yd el documento presentado por S. 0. Houghton, un testigo examinado en favor del Actor ed dia 23 de Octubre de 1857. Sicido el Documento de que se habla en su tercera respuesta. Y diga si Juana a visto ese documento antes, si conoce Vd. la letra en los cuerpos de los instrumentos contenidos en dicho documento y las fir- mas en ellos, y porque conoce Vd la dicha letra y firmas. Answer 17. — El documento lo conosco las letras no puedo decir figa- mente que letras son conosco las firmas que estan al fin del documento 613 son las de Antonio Sunol y Jose* Noriega y Antonio Maria Pico conos- co la letra del decreto que es de Dolores Pacheco. Me parece que la letra de la Representation es de Benito Dias es el primer papel que se halla el este documento. La firma de la arriba representacion es de Jose* Castro. He visto este documento antes. Lo tuve en mis manos en el Jusgado del Pueblo el ano '45, y el ano '49 cuando esture de Alcalde. No me acuerdo si el papel que llamo la representacion estaba con las otras instrumentos cuando los tuve en mis manos en el ano '49. Cuando los tuve en el ado '45 estoy seguro que ira estaba. El papel que llamo la representacion esta firmado por Jose* Castro y el tiene el decreto firmado por Dolores Pacheco. Me parece que la letra y la firma del segundo Papel es de Don Andres Castillero. La firma del terco papel me parece que es de Don Andres Castillero tambien pero la letra del cuerpo del papel no se de quien es. La letra del ultimo papel se parece al de Gutierrez pero no se si es o no pero las firmas las conosco perfectamente son de Ant . M a . Pico, Jose* Noriega y An- tonio Sunol. Conosco estas firmas por que fin secretario de Sunol y Pico y he tenido correspondencia con Noriega por muchos alios conos- co la firma de Dolores Pacheco porque fui Secretario de el tambien y conosco la letra ole Salvio Pacheco porque lo he visto escribir muchas veces. Digo que la letra y la firma del segundo papel y la letra del tercer papel so de Don Andres Castillero porque se parecen a otra letra yfirmas de el que he visto. No lo digo porque halla tenido correspon- dencia con el. Ques. 18. — Cuando vio Vd este documento en 1845 adonde lo vio y de que modo obtuso Vd la posesion de el. Res. 18. — Estaba yo de escribiente con Antonio M\ Pico en el Jusgado; alii lo trigo ese Gutierrez de Santa — me digo "ya estatodo concluido aqui tiene V d . la paga" y me dio tres pesos y medio, y asi quedo el documento ento en el Juzgado. Preg. 19. — Que quere Vd decir cuando dice " ese Gutierrez" esel mismo Gutierrez que ha dicho Vd que le parecia que la letra de uno de los instrumentos del documento que se le ha ensenado a Vd. Resp. 19. — De el es ese mismo. Preg. 20. — Cuando dice Vd que Gutierrez le pago a Vd tres pesos y medio como paga, que paga querre Vd decir y por que servicio era la pago ? Res. 20. — A mi me correspondia hacer esos documentos y el Padre Real hizo empeno para que los hicierra Gutierrez en Santa Clara, y yo creco que ese era el motivo porque me mandajon los tres pesos y me- dio pero yo no les pedi nada. Preg\ 21. — Cuando Gutierrez le entrego a Vd este documentos que hizo Vd con el. Resp. 21. — Alii quedo en el juzgado no hize otra cosa con el. 614 Preg. 22. — Quien estaba encargado de los Archivos de Jusgado cuando recibio Vd ese documento. Resp. 22.— Yo. Preg. 23. — Quien esa Alcalde en San Jose en 1849 si Vd se acu- erda. Res. 23. — Un tal Mr. May era primero j yo era el segundo. Mr. May estuvo algunos meses y despues entro un tal Conroy y esturimes Junlos hasta el mes de Abril de aiio '50. Durante. Preg. 24. — En el aiio 144 estaba Yd empleado en la oficina del Al- calde. Res.— Si. Preg. 25. — Que empleo tenia Vd alii. Resp. — Segundo Alcalde. Preg. 26. — Que deberes tenia Vd como segundo Alcalde. Resp. — Corria con los demandas de todos los que hablaban espanol. Preg. 27. — Que si May 6 Conway podian hablar Espanol. Resp. 27. — May no podia pero Conway hablaba espanol lo mismo que yo. Preg. 28. — Ha dicho Vd que habia visto el documento que se le ha ensefiado y que estaba en sus manos en el ano 1849 diga Vd a donde lo vio. Res. — Lo vi en el mismo Juezgado — pero no lo registre tampoco — manajando los papeles les alii Jo tuve en mis manos. Preg. 29. — Que si Pedro Chaboya fue alguna vez Alcalde de San Jose y si fue en que epoca se Vd se acuerda. Res. — Fue Alcalde pero no me acquerdo en que epoca. Preg. 30. — Sabe Vd quen era el successor de Dolores Pacheco en el aiio 1846. Resp. — Yo y Valentin Higuera fuimos successores de Dolores Pa- checo en el ano 1846. Habian cuatro Alcaldes un primero un segun- do y un septente del primero y otro suplente del segundo Dolores Pa- checo era primero pero no me acuerdo quien era el segundo. Preg. 31. — Quien era el primer Alcalde Vd o Valentin Higuera. Res. — Valentin Higuera. Preg. 32. — Quien era el primer suplente. Res. — No me acquerdo quien era el primer suplente. Yo era el segundo. Preg. 33. — Quien fue el primer Mayor de la Ciudad de San Jose* antiguamente el Pueblo bajo las leyes del Estado de California. Res. — No acuerdo. . Preg. 34. — Despues que el sistema Mexicana de Alcaldes fue su- plantado por el sistema adoptado por el Estado de California en el ano 1850 sabe Vd que se hiso con los archivos del Juzgado del Alcalde en San Jose\ Resp. — No se — no vi ma3. 615 Cross-Examined. Preg. 1 — En su respuesta No. 20 dice Vd i: a mi me correspondia hacer esos documentos y el padre Real hizo empeno para que los hi- ciera Gutierrez en Santa Clara," que tenia el padre Real que hacer con el asunto. Resp. — No se que tendria que hacer el estaba alii en la misma cuan- do la posesion — pero no se que tendria que hacer en eso. Preg. 2. — Como sabe Vd que el estaba alii al tiempo de la posesion. Resp. — Por que lo vi alii. Preg. 3., — Quien mas estaba alii. R eS p. — Estaban Sunol, Castillero, Pico, Noriega y Gutierrez yo y otros varios que no me acquerdo quienes eran me acquerdo de aquellos porque fuimos casi juntos. Preg. 4. — De donde fueron — a que hora empezaron su viage — cuando llegaron alii cuanto tiempo se quedaron y que sucedio mientras que quedaron alii. Resp. — Yo y Sunol fuimos juntos del Pueblo Pico y Noriega tam- bien fueron del Pueblo los otros man de Santa Clara por que alia vivi- an. No me acuerdo que a hora empezamos nuestro viage — me parece que fue* como a las nueve o las diez de la manana llegamos alii en una hora o hora y media despues de nuestra salida. Quedamos alii hasta la tarde y estuvimos passando por alii y mirando la mina. Preg. 5. — Fueron Vds. todos a Caballo o fue alguno a pie, y se* fue alguno a pie quien era, si volvieron la misma tarde ; a donde se vol- vieron y a que hora estuvieron de vuelta. Resp. 5. — Gutierrez fue a pie ; nos volvimos la misma tarde. Yo y Sunol volvimos al Pueblo y los otros se separaron de nosotros toman- do direccion de su casa. Esturimos de vuelta un poca antes de po- nerse el sol. Preg. 6. — Cuanto tiempo tuvierron que aquardar a Gutierrez en la mina o llego el alii al tiempo que llegaron los de mas. Resp. 6. — No si cuando llegaria. Yo lo vi alii. Preg. 7. — Tuvo Vd alguna conversacion con el en el camino, quero decir cuando Vd lo vio en el carmino a pied. Resp. 7. — No me acuerdo. Preg. 8. — Adonde esta Gutierrez. Resp. 8. — No se ; no se si esta vivo o muerto. Preg. 9. — Cuando lo vio Vd por la ultima vez vive el ahora en Cal- ifornia cuanto tiempo estuvo el viviendo en California, de que pais vino el Estaba el viviendo en Santa Clara 6 San Jose* quando fueron Vds. todos a la mina. Que negocio tenia el en Santa Clara en el tiempo mencionado. Resp. 9. — Creo que lo he visto despues de la visit a que hicimos a la mina pero no se donde fue* ni quando. No se si vive ahora en Califor- 616 nia, he preguntado por al y no me han dado razon ; el uno primero al Pueblo en el ano '43 o '44 no se de que pais uno. Resp. 9. — Yo creo que el era maestro de Escuela en Santa Clara en el tiempo que hizamos la visita a la mina. El vivia alii en Santa Clara. Preg. 10. — Que si Gutierrez no era un Basco. No tenia el costum- bre de usar una goma colorada como suelen usar los Bascos. Resp. 10. — No se el decia que era Espaiiol ; el tenia costumbre de usar la goma colorada que generalmente usan los Bascos ; aunque la goma que el usaba era de forme diferente de los que usan los Bascos porque el que el usaba era largo y los que usan los Bascos son cortos y redondos nunca x vi hablar biscaino a Gutierrez. Preg. 11. — Que si este Gutierrez jamas hizo o escribio mas de uu documento en la Mision de Santa Clara que le correspondia a Vd como eecretario de Pico hacer o escribir. Resp. — El no me trajo mas de uno : no se si ha escrito otro. Preg. 12. — Que si Antonio Maria Pico le volvio al Pueblo con Vd. y Sunol. Resp. 12. — No mi acuerdo si volvio el con nosotros 6 no. Preg. 13. — No no dejaron Yd en la misma. Resp. 13. — No todos bajamos. Preg. 14. — Adonde volvio Pico ese dia. Resp. 14. — Volvio al Pueblo. Preg. 15. — Despues de su retenida de la mina ; quando lo volvio a ver a Gutierrez por primera vez. Resp. 15. — Quando volvio a traer al Pueblo los papeles que habia hecho en Santa Clara. Preg. 16. — Que si eso fue semanas 6 meses despues de la retenida de la mina 6 cuanto tiempo despnes fue. Resp. 16. — Como dos 6 tres dias despues. Preg. 17. — Fueron tres dias despues. Resp. 17. — No estoy cierto cuantos dias fueron si fue un dia dos tres dia pero pienso que en la misma semana. Preg. 18. — Quiero saber si no fue el mismo dia 6 el dia siguente. Resp. 18. — No podia ser el mismo dia porque ya era de noche cuan- do volvimos. Preg. 19. — Que dia de la semana era cuando fueron a la mina. Resp. 19. — No se. Preg. 20. — En que mes fue*. Resp. 20. — No me acuerdo si fue en Nov. 6 Diciembre. Preg. 21. — Que si no fue en Enero '46. Resp. 21. — No porque en '46 ya yo no era secratario. Preg. 22. — Quanto tiempo antes de la Pascua 6 despues de la Pas- cua fue cuando Gutierrez le trajo a Vd ese documento. Resp. 22. — No se si fue antes 6 despues. 617 Preg. 23. — No ha contestado Vd si 6 no fue el dia siguiente de su vuelta de la mina que Gutierrez le trajo a Vd ese documento. Resp. 23. — No se si fue el dia despues que salimos de la mina 6 si fue dos 6 tres dias despues. Preg. 24. — Que si esa era la primera vez que vio Vd el documento — cuando se lo trajo Gutierrez. Resp. 24. — Esa era la primera vez. Preg. 25. — Como sabe Vd que el documento de que habla Vd. en su testimonia es el mismo documento que le trajo a Vd Gutierrez. Resp. 25. — Porque lo conosco. Preg. 26. — Que si el documento que le trajo Gutierrez a Vd estaba todo firmado. Resp. 26. — No lo registre bien. Preg. 27.— No lo l£go Vd. Resp. 27.— No. Preg. 28. — Si Vd no lo lego como puede saber Vd que el mismo documento. Resp. 28. — No se ; lo he visto rodando alii con otros papeles en el Juzgado, siempre no veia en la papelera rodando. Preg. 29. — Lo. sejo Vd. cuando lo vio rodando con los otros pa- peles. Resp. 29. — La caratula de culmia era lo que leia siempre. Preg. 30.— Que era la caratula que leia Vd siempre. Resp. 30. — Posesion de la mina de Santa Clara me parece que dice. No puse mucho cuidado. Preg. 31. — No leyo mas que la caratula. Resp. 31. — Si lei mas no me acuerdo. Preg. 32. — Entonces como sabe Vd que este documento de que ha hablado en su testimonio es el mismo. Resp. 32. — Me figuro que es el mismo. Preg. 33. — Quien escribio la carantula la escribio Vd. Rep. 33. — No se quien la escribio. Yo no la escribi. Preg. 34. — Cuando fueron Vds. todos a la mina que agruenesor se llevaron con sigo que clase de instrumentos se llevaron. Que agru- nenson 6 instrumentos tenian en la mina en esa ocasion. Resp. 34. — Ni conosi agrumenson ni habia instrumento ninguno. Preg. 35. — Que clase de medidas hicieron en la mina en esa ocasion y que clase de trabajo hicieron. Resp. 35. — Ningun trabajo hicimos en medidas tampoco. Preg. 36. — Cuantas estacas pusieron y si pusieron algunas cuantos y en que lugares los pusiceron. Resp. 36. — Yo no vi poner ninguna. Preg. 37. — No se quedo Vd alii con los demas. Resp. 37. — Alii estaba con los otros, mas veces estaba junta con el- 47 618 los otras veces separando, otras veces adentro la mina otras veces en el monte no habia de estar un sitio pasado. Preg. 38. — Entonces que es lo que Vd quere decir cuando dice que estuvo en la mina cuando la posesion, que posesion. Rep. 38. — Si yo no fin a dar la posesion fin en compafiia de ellos no mas. Preg. 39. — Que mas de lo que ha dicho Yd se hizo alii. Que fue la posesion que Vd vid dar. Resp. 39. — No vi mas que lo que hablaron digeron, ya est a conclu- ido, y nos fuimos pero no supe como ni de que manera. Preg. 40. — Conteste Yd directamente la pregunta No. 39. Resp. 40. — Yo no vi nada. Yo no fue a dar posesion. Preg. 41. — No conose Yd la letra y las firmas de los papeles que ahora se le muestra marcados " exhibit X, Y, exhibit M, N, y T, R," y si los conose digu de quienes son. Resp. 41. — No se de quienes son pero me parace que son de Gu- tierrez. Preg. 42. — Yea Yd ahora el documento de que ha estado Yd ha- blando en su testemonia y que tiene enciena una caratula que dice " Posesion de la mina de Santa Clara y siendo el mismo quo presenta S. 0. Houghton y diga si la letra y las firmas de cada una de los pa- peles continuado en ese documento y particularmente el ultimo papel firmado por Antonio Maria Pico, Antonio Sunol y Jose' Noriega no son enteramente diferentes de la letra y firmas de los tres papeles marca- dos Exhibit « X Y," Exhibit M A, Exhibit T R ? Resp. 42. — La letra de la caratula ante dicha es igual a la letra de los papeles marcados exhibit X Y, Exhibit M N, Exhibit T R. La letra y las firmas de todos los papeles contenidos an dicho documento son diferentes de las letras y firmas de los dichos tres papeles marca- dos Exhibit X Y, Exhibit M A, Exhibit T R. Las firmas son entera- mente diferentes. La letra es diferente, pero no puede afirmar que sea enteramente diferente. El sabado dige que me parecia que la le- tra del primer papel contenido en dicho documento era la -de Benito Dias pero ahora digo positivamente que es la letra de el dicho Benito. Preg. 43. — No esta la dicha caratula escrita en letra muy grande y no estan los papeles con los cuales lo ha estdo Yd comparando, escri- tos en letra muy pequena como se suele escribir cartas particulares. Que semejanza encuentra Yd entre la letra grande de dicha caratula y la letra pequena de dichas papeles. Resp. 43. — La semejanza que en cuentra es en las letras grandes de ■ dichos papeles y caratula las " S " y " J " son semejantes. Preg. 44. — Tiene Yd en en posesion una carta de Gutierrez 6 cual- quiera otra escritura de Gutierrez y si tiene ensene me lo. Resp. 44. —No tengo el papel marcado Exhibit T R, lo tuve en mi poder pero no se como ha venido a pasar aqui. 619 Preg. 45. — Yea Yd ahora el papel que se le rauestra siendo la es- critura de compania compare lo con dichos papeles marcados M A, T R y X Y, y cliga si ho es la misma letra. Resp. 45. — A mi me parece la misma. Preg. 46. — No le parece a Yd que es exactamente la misma. Resp. 46. — No puede afirmar que sea exactamente. Preg. 47. — Tiene Yd la mas minimar duda. Resp. 47. — Tengo duda porque no los he visto escribir. Preg. 48. — Tiene Nd alguna otra duda. No estan escritos por la misma persona juzgado por la letra, no estan los escritos por Gutierrez manifiestamente . Resp. 48. — A mi me parece que estan escritos por Gutierrez. Preg. 49. — En su respuesta No. 20 su con testacion a la preguanta que le hacia el Abagado del Actor ha dicho Yd que no les pidio nada con referencia a las personas que le luviron a Yd la paga de tres pesos y medio por Gutierrez. Quien eran esas personas. Resp. 49. — Yo no se quien me envio la paga. Gutierrez no me digo mas que " aqui le envian esto "yme entrego los tres pesos y medio. Preg. 50. — No. tiene Yd alguna idea de quenes fueron las personas que le enviaron a Yd la paga. Resp. 50. — Tengo idea que seria Castillero. Preg. 51. — A quien le correspondia recibir paga por papeles hecho por el alcalde el secretario el mismo Alcalde. Resp. 51. — El secretario, el alcalde no recibia ningun derecho ni paga por hacer papeles aunque los haciera el mismo, a lo menos yon nunca lo vi. Preg. 52. — Cuando dio Yd su testimonia en el pleito de Tobin con- tra Walkinshaw relativo a esta mina le preguntaron a Yd porque no habia, firmado Yd los papeles como testigo y Yd contesto por las notas del Juez Hoffman no puedo decir pOrque no firme como testigo. Y ahora dice Yd que los papeles se hicieron en Santa Clara mientras que Yd estaba en San Jose' ; no era eso suficiente razon porque no firmaria Yd como testigo y porque no dia Yd esa razon entonces ? Resp. 52. — No me lo preguntarian bien 6 sera algun equivoca siyo me equivoco es por ignorancia no es malicia. Es verdad que los pa- peles se hicieron en Santa Clara. Yo no los vi cuando se hicieron pero me digo Gutierrez que alia se habien hecho. Preg. 53. — En el pleito de Tobin contra Walkinshaw segun consta por las notas del Juez Hoffman digo Yd en su testimonio "Yoy Cas- tillero fuimos a la mina juntos pero no se de donde fueron los otros," y en esta causa ha dicho Yd y Antonio Suiiol fueron a la mina juntos. Como se hace que su testimonio ahora es deferente a lo que fue en- tonces. Resp. 53. — Hay equivoca en las notas del Juez Hoffman porque yo 620 nunca dije que habia ido a la inina con Castillero ni conosi a Castillaro hasta que lo encontre en la mina. Preg. 54. — Que si Antonio Sunol le dijo a Vd que fuese con el a la mina. Resp. 54. — Creo que si me ; dijo, ya tengo tan olvidado eso que no me acuerdo. Preg. 55. — Entonces no se acuerda Vd para que le dijo el que fue- ra Vd alii. Resp. 55. — Me dijo van a dar la possesion van con migo a la mina, y Pico me dijo lo mismo. — No he dicho ya que Sunol me comoido que fuese a la mina. Preg. 56. — Cuando 11 ego Vd entonces a la mina no estaba Vd mu- cho de no ver hacersir medida ninguna ni poner estacas ni dar posses- cion ninguna. Resp. 56. — No porque nunca habia visto dar possecion de ninguna mina. Preg. 57. — No habiendo nunca visto dar possecion de esta vio de ninguna otra mina no quedo Vd muy serprendido cuando el dia sigui- ente o en los dos o tres dias siguientes Gutierrez le trujo a Vd los pa- peles que pretendian dar cuenta de una possecion de esta mina dada el mismo dia que estuvo Vd alii presente. Resp. 57.— No. Preg. 58. — En esa epoca estaba el juzgado o oficina del alcalde sit- uado en la mision de Santa Clara o en el Pueblo de San Jose\ Resp. 58. — En San Jose\ Preg. 59. — No ha visto Vd alguna vez dar possecion de Ranchos o Suertes por los alcaldes. Resp. 59.— No. Preg. 60. — No visto los alcaldes alguna vez dar possecion juridical de Ranchos o Suertes. Resp. 60.— No. Preg. 61. — En que parte del ano 1845 dijo de ser Alcalde Antonio Maria Pico. Resp. 61. — Seguramente seria al primero de Enero de 1846 por que los que salian entregaban el juzgado a los que entraban el dia pri- mero de Enero de cada ano. Preg. 62. — Que si Dolores Pacheco entro immediatamente despues de el. Cuando salis Dolores Pacheco del empleo de alcalde, quien fu^ la primera persona que hizieron alcalde los Americanos en San Jose* y cuando. Res. 62. — Dolores Pacheco entro immediatamente despues de Pico. En el mes de Julio yo me fu^ para Los Angeles con Castro y Pacheco nos acompano hasta La Natividad y de alii se volvio para el Pueblo y cuando yo volvi al Pueblo en el mes de Agosto encontre a Pedro Cha- boya de Alcalde del Pueblo de San Jose. El primer Alcalde que pos- 621 secion los Americanos en San Jose* se llamaba el Capitan Burton. No se cuando fue que los Americanos pensenen este alcalde. Preg. 63. — Cuanto tiempo ha vivido en California, de que pais vino, en que pais nacio, que fue lo primero que supo Vd de esta mina antes que vinies a Castillero a este pais. Resp. 63. — He vivido en este pais 40 anos vine aqui del Peru. Naci en Cadiz Espana. Antes que Castillero viniesi a este pais oi de- cir que Louis Chaboya tenia una mina pero no sabia donde era ni nun- ca la habia visto. Preg. 64. — Es eso todo de que se puede Vd acordar antes de esa epoca. No saba Nd que esta es la misma mina de Louis Chaboya. Res. 64. — No me acuerdo de mas dicen que es la misma mina de Luis Chaboya pero yo no se se es o no. Preg. 65. — Que negocio tiene Vd ahora es Vd dueno de algun Rancho. Es Vd dueno de alguna mina. Tiene Vd algun Almacen. Es Vd un artesano. Es Vd un homcre que gana la vida con el traba- jo de sus manos es Vd un abogado. Es Vd un medico. Ha sido Vd testigo muchas veces durante los 8 anos ultimos pasados como gana Vd la vida. Res. 65. — No tengo negocio ninguna soy dueno de un pedazo de tierra. No soy dueno de ninguna mina. No tengo almacen. Soy artesano gano la vida trabajando con las manos. No soy abagado. No soy medico. He sido testigo 2 o 3 veces en los ultimos 8 anos gano la vida con mi trabajo. Preg. 66. — Que pedazo de tierra tiene Vd de que tamanos, adonde se alia, que clase de artes, ano es Vd que laya de trabajo es el que hase Vd para ganar la vida. Resp. 66. — Tengo un pedazo de tierra en el condado de Santa Cla- ra, no se de que tamafio es gano lo vida trabajando este pedazo de tierra ; soy labrador ; no soy artesano. The foregoing are the questions as put to the witness by the Inter- preter, and the answers as received from the witness. c. McAllister, U. S. Com. 622 Exhibits to Deposition of Jose Fernandez. EXHIBIT A. B. No. 1. S r Alcalde de l a Nominaeion del Pueblo de S. Jose de Gpe : jfflfe* '&?•*• Gpe ' Jose Castro tenite Coronel de caballeria de inSXse°esteyal4ibe?e e . el ejercito Mejicano, natural de este Depart- pacheco. am to an ^- e j a no taria justificacion de V. com- paresco y digo : que representando hoy la persona y dro. de el Cap n D n Andres Castillero y demas individuos que forman la comp a (siendo yo uno de los accionistas) en la mina de azogue que denuncio dho S r Castillero, el dia tres de Deciembre de mil ocho- cientos cuarenta y cinco y se nos dio la posecion el dia trienta del niismo mes y ano arreglandome en todo a las leyes de mineria titulo sesto articulo primero en que concede a los descubridores de minerales nuebos, tres pertenencias continuas 6 interumpidar con las medidas designadas p r ley 7 y p r combenir asi al dho que tiene la compania da hoy p r deducidas ante las tres pertenencias a contiuuacion de la primera mereciendole que se sirba unir este escrito al espediente de denuncio para que quede archibado y conste en todo tiempo. No llendo en papel del sello correspon- diente p r no haberlo. A. Y. suplico provea de conformidad en lo q e recibire merced y justicia. Santa Clara, Junio 27 de 1846. JOSE CASTRO. Es copia de su original sacada a la letra de el que existe en este Archibo. PEDRO CHABOYA. S r Alcalde de l a Nomination : Andres Castillero, Cap n de Cab a Perman te y resid te hoy en este Department ante la notoria Justificacion de Y. hace presente : que haviendo descuvierto una veta de Plata con las de oro en terreno del Rancho perteneciente al Sarg t0 retirado de la Comp a precidial de S. Fran co Jose Reyes Berreyesa, y queriendo trabajarla en Comp a suplico a Y. q e arreglado a la ordinanza de mineria se sirba fijar rotulones en los parajes publicos de la jurisd" para que llega- da el tiempo de la posecion juridica asegure mi dro segun las leyes de la materia. A. Y suplico probea de conformidad, en lo q e recivire merced y 623 Justicia : admitiendo este en papel comun p r . falta del selledo correspond 16 . Micion de St a Clara, Nbre 22 de 845. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Certifico ser copia de su original. PEDRO CHABOYA. Sor Alcalde de l a Nominacion del Pueblo de S. Jose*, Gpe : Andres Castillero, Capitan de Caballeria permanente ante la notoria justification de V. comparesco y digo ; que ensallando el mineral que con anterioriad denuncie a ese Juzgado he sacado a mas de Plata con ley de oro asogue liquido en precien- cia de algunos, y p r combenir haci ami dro le he demerecer a V. que unido al escrito de denuncio se hasehibe esta representacion no llendo en papel del sello por no haberlo. A V. Suplico provea de conformidad en lo que recivire merced y justicia. Santa Clara, Diciembre 3, de 1845. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Certifico ser copia de su original. PEDRO CHABOYA. No encontrandose en el Departam t0 de California, Diputacion de Mineria y siendo esta la unica vez desde la poblacion de la Alta Cali- fornia q e . se trabaja con arreglo a las Leyes de un mineral ; y care- ciendo ademas de Juez de letras el segundo Distrito Yo el Alcalde de l a nominacion C. Antonio M a . Pico he benido acompanado de dos tes- tigos p a . actuar p r * receptoria, a falta de Escribano Publico q e . no le hay, para dar posecion juridica de la mina conocida con el nombre de Santa Clara en esta jurisd 11 situada en el Rancho del Sargento Jose Reyes Berreyesa, p r que haviendo perecido el tiempo que senala la ordenanza de mineria para deducir su accion el C. Andres Cas- tillero y que otras pudiesen alegar mejor dro desde el tiempo de- nuncio a la fecha ; y encontrandose dho mineral con abundancia de metales, crystalados, el poso echo con las reglas del Arte, y produci- endo la elaboracion de la mina abundancia de Azogue liquido segun las muestras que tiene el Juzgado, y estando tan recomendado por Leyes vigentes la proteccion de un articulo tan necesario para la amalgansa- cion de oro, y plata en la Republica he venido en consederle tres mil varas p r . todos rumbos a reserva de lo que sefiale la ordenanza Gral de 624 Mineria p r . ser trabajada en Compailia de lo que doy fe" ; firmando con migo los testigos y quedando agregado este acto de posecion al cumulo del espediente que queda depositado en el archibo de mi cargo no lien- do puesto en el Papel del Sello respectibo q e . no le ay en los terminos de la ley. Juzgado de S. Jose* Gpe Diciembre de mil ochocientos cua- renta y cinco. ANTONIO M\ PICO. de asist a . de asisfc*. Antonio Sunol. Jose Noriega. Certifico ser copia de su original sacado a la letra p r . los autos orig- inales que existen en este archibo y para su constancia lo firmo a trece de Agto de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. PEDRO CHABOYA. (Endorsed) Diligencias en el Registro. EXHIBIT " C. D." No. 2. Escritura de Compaiiia que el Sr D n Andres Castillero, Capitan de Cavalleria permanente, celebra con el Sor Comandante General D n Jose* Castro, los Sres Secundino Robles, Teodoro Robles, y una Sesion voluntaria que han hecho los Companeros perpetuamente al R. P. F. Jose M a del Refugio Suares del Real, de una Mina de Plata con ley de Oro y Azogue, en el Rancho de D n . Jose Reyes Berreyesa en la jurisdiccion del Pueblo de San Jose* de Guadalupe. Artioulo 1°. — El Sr D n Andres Castillero arreglandose en un todo a. la ordenanza de Mineria hace formal Compania perpetuamente con los mencionados Sres en esta forma la mitad de la mina, que es de la que puede disponer se dividira en tres acciones en esta forma cuatro Barras, al Sr Com te General cuatro Barras y los Sres. Secundino y Teodoro Robles, y las otras cuatro al Reberendo Padre Fr Jose' M a . del Refugio Z. del Real en clase donacion perpetua. Artioulo 2°. — Ninguno de los companeros podra bender 6 enagenar 625 ninguna de sus acciones de manera q. el que verificare dicha enagena- cion perdera su derecho quedando resumida en los demas companeros. Art . 3°. — Los gastos se haron en proportion a las acciones llevan- dose una cuenta formal por un contador que se pagara del fondo co- mun. Art . 4°. — Arreglandose en un todo & lo que previene la Ordenanza de Mineria, cualquier diferencia se rosolvera por los mismos compa- neros. Art . 5°. — Dirigira las Labores, y gastos y travajos de la mina, D n . Andres Castillero y en su defecto el R. P. Fr Jose M a . del R. Z. del Real. Art . 6°. — No se extraera de los productos mas cantidades que los que se necesiten para el arreglo de la negociacion hasta que se arre- glen los travajos, y cualquier cantidad que sea ha de ser con consenti- miento de todos los companeros hasta que este arreglada la negocia- cion. Art . 7°. — Estos combinios, se autorizaran a presencia del Sr. Pre- fecto del 2°. Distrito D n . Manuel Castro, depositandose el docum to ori- ginal en el archivo del partido, j dandose una copia certificada por S. S a . a los interesados. Mision de Santa Clara dos de Noviembre de mil ochocientos cua- renta y cinco. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Por el Sr. Com tc . Gen 1 . D n . Jose* Castro. ANDRES CASTILLERO. Fr JOSE M A . del R. S. del REAL. Por Secundino y Teodoro Robles, FRANC . ARCE. Es copia fiel del Original a la que me remito. Mision de Santa Clara Diciembre ocho de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco. MAN L . CASTRO. ANTONIO M\ PICO. 626 Sello Cuarto un Real. Jesus Vejab, Escribano Publico. Certifico y doy fe que las firmas que preseden de Don Manuel Castro y Don Antonio Maria Pico autorizando el presedente documen- to de Compania entre los priniitivos duenos de la Mina Santa Clara en la Alta California las he visto iguales en otros documentos que me han sido presentados en la Casa de los Senores Barron, Forbes y Compa- nia, y ademas las ha dado por ciertas reconociendolas por del puno y letra de los mismos el Senor Don Andres Castillero por actos que ante mi otorg6 ; y por esta razon se Juzga por este oficio que dichas firmas son las mismas que aconstumbran aquellos Senores. Y 4 pedimiento de las repetidos Barron Forbes y Compania signo y firmo el presente en Tepic a quince de Marzo de mil ochocientos cincuenta. JESUS VEJAR. El Alcalde 1° Constitucional y Escribano Publico que firmamos, Certificamos y damos fe que el signo y firma que antecede, es el que uso y aconstumbra el Escribano Don Jesus Vejar eu todos los actos que ante el pasan. Asi lo comprovamos en Tepic a quince de Marzo de mil ochocientos cincuenta. LORETO CORONA. EUSEBIO FERNANDEZ. Consulate of the United States. I George W. P. Bissell, Consul of the United States of North 627 America, for this district, hereby certify that the signatures attached to the foregoing document are in the true handwriting of the subscrib- ers who legally hold the situations therein represented and are worthy of all faith and credit. , v In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand and seal of \ L. S. { office in the City of Tepic this first day of December in the ' — — ' year one thousand eight hundred and fifty. G. W. P. BISSELL, U.S. Consul EXHIBIT " T. R." No. 3. Recibi del Sindico Precurador cuatro pesos en cuenta de Mayor Cantidad que se me debe por el desempeno de secret , que fuy en * este Juzgado. § S n Jose Guad e . Mzo 4, 1846. A. GUTIERREZ. EXHIBIT "M. A. En mi nota anterior que le tengo A. V. remitida sobre el pago que deben de hacer los padres que tienen hijos, en esta Escuela : yo cre- yendo que hoy verificarian dicho pago, y al contrario no han efectuado nada de lo dicho ; y por tanto espero de su mucha adtividad los exija sin falta alguna & que berifiquen el so dicho pago, pues como dye* en mi anterior si se les deja pasar mas tiempo se les ara much mas pe- noso. iSi despues que hagan su correspond 16 , pago quieren retirar sus hijos bien lo pueden, hacer pero advirtiendo que paguen primero lo que ele- ven segun lista, o cuenta que tengo pasada a hese Juzgado de su Uarga. Dios y Libertad. Marzo 9 de 1846. A. GUTIERREZ. Sr Juez de l a nominacion de S n . Jose* Guad e . D n Dolores Pacheco 628 EXHIBIT " X. Y." Sr. Alc k . de 1 a Nominacion. Haviendo dirijido mi Nota oficial con fecha 8, del actual a ese* Juz- gado de su Cargo, referente a la sucriciou que deven de hacer los Pa- dres que tienen sus hijos, en este Establic t0 de primeras letras : vuelvo aresterar a V. de nuevo para que se sirva tomarse la molestia de inti- marles que saguen lo que les corresponde por el mes vencido, y para este efecto tiene V. la lista del numero de jovenes en ese* Juzgado y per ella espero de su adtividad exija al pago a los Padres de los jove- nes que estan a mi Cargo. Dios y Ley. Pueblo de S n . Jose* Guad e . Fbro 12 de 1846. A. GUTIERREZ. Sr Alc e de l a . Norn 11 de S n . Jose* Guad e . D n Dolores Pacheco. DEPOSITION OF ANTONIO MARIA PICO. United States District Court, ] Northern District of California. J San Francisco, November 11, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the United States for the Northern District of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, &c, &c, came Antonio Maria Pico, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimants in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows — his evidence being interpreted by Richard Tobin, a sworn interpreter. Present : The United States Attorney by Edmund Randolph ; A. C. Peachy for Claimants. Questions by Attorney for Claimant. Question 1. — Your name, age, and place of residence ? Answer 1. — Antonio Maria Pico ; 48 ; I live at San Jose in the County of Santa Clara. 629 Ques. 2. — How long have you lived in California ? How long in San Jose ? What public offices, if any, have you held ? Ans. 2. — I was born in California, and I have lived here ever since. I have lived in San Jose since the year 1852. In the year 1835, I was Alcalde at San Jose. In 1844 and 1845 I was also Alcalde of S«n Jose*. And in 1849 I was Prefect of San Jose*. I was also a Captain in the Military Organization of California. Ques. 3. — Look at the Documents marked " C. D." and " A. B." annexed to the deposition of Jose Fernandez, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimants on the 6th November 1857, and say if you are acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of the various instru- ments contained in those documents, and state your means of knowing them. Ans. 3. — The paper marked " C. D." is in the handwriting of Gutierrez ; the signatures to it are those of Manuel Castro and myself. The certificat?s appearing on the stamped paper on the third sheet of Exhibit " C. D." and signed by Jesus Vejar, Eusebio Fernandez, Loreto Corona, and G. W. P. Bissell, are written and signed by par- ties whose handwriting and signatures I am not acquainted with. The Exhibit " A. B." is in the handwriting of Salvio Pacheco, and the sig- natures to it are those of Pedro Chaboya. I know the handwriting of Pacheco and Chaboya because I have seen them write. I also know the signature of Castro because I have seen him write. Ques. 4. — Was the signature of Manuel Castro on said Document ' Exhibit " C. D." above referred to, made in your presence by the said Castro, at the time it purports to have been written, and was your name signed by yourself at that time to the said Document ? Ans. 4. — Yes. Ques. 5. — Look at the Document now shown you bearing the super- scription " Posesion de la Mina de Sta Clara. Ano de 1845," being the document produced by S. 0. Houghton, a witness produced on behalf of the claimant, on his examination taken in this case on the 23d October, 1857, and being referred to by the said Houghton in his third answer on his direct examination, and state, if you can, in whose handwriting are the various instruments in the said document contained, and whose are the signatures to said instrument, and if the said signatures are genuine, with your means of knowing them to be so. Ans. 5. — The Decree on the Margin of the first paper in this docu- ment is in the handwriting of Salvio Pacheco, the signature to it is that of Dolores Pacheco. The signature to the first paper is that of Jose" Castro, the handwriting of the first paper in form resembles that of Benito Dias ; the handwriting of the second paper is that of a person named Castaneda, the signature to it is Castillero's ; the handwriting of the third paper I think has some resemblance in form to that of Benito 630 Dias, I cannot say positively that it is his, because there were a great many persons who took part in the writing of the papers connected with this transaction ; the signature to the third paper is that of Andres Castillero. I have an idea that the fourth paper is in the handwriting of Gutierrez, the signatures to it are those of Antonio Sunol, Jose* Noriega and myself. I know the handwriting of Salvio Pacheco be- cause he was officially connected with me in the Courts. I know the signature of Dolores Pacheco, because I have seen him write when he was Alcalde. I believe the handwriting of the first paper to resemble the handwriting of Benito Dias, because I have seen him write, though not frequently. I am not willing to swear positively that it is the hand- writing of Benito Dias, it also bears a slight resemblance to the hand- writing of Castaneda, the handwriting of Dias was not always uniform. I know the signature of Jose* Castro because I had official intercourse with him when I was Alcalde, at one time he used to make a flourish to his signature differently from what he subsequently made, but still I know his signature. I know the handwriting of Castaneda officially when he was Secretary of Gen. Castro. I cannot state positively in whose handwriting the third paper is, but the signature to it I know to be the signature of Andres Castillero because I have seen him sign his name often. The handwriting of the paper itself may also be Cas- tillero's. I know the handwriting of Gutierrez because when I was Alcalde I employed him to write for me, at the time of the possession. I have also seen him write. I know the signature of Antonio Sunol, and Jose' Noriega, because they were signed in my presence as wit- nesses. Ques. 6. — Was the document signed by yourself as Alcalde, and by Sunol and Noriega as attesting witnesses, said document being the last of those contained in the document referred to, signed by yourself and the said attending witnesses at the time it purports to have been made ? Ans. 6. — Yes. It was. Ques. 7. — Examine again the handwriting of the body of the last named instrument attentively, and state with what degree of certainty you believe it to be in the handwriting of Gutierrez ? Ans. 7. — I consider it the handwriting of Gutierrez, but I think it was written rapidly, he wrote slowly or rapidly as he chose. Ques. 8. — Was Pedro Chaboya ever Alcalde of San Josd, and if he was, at what time ? Ans. 8. — In 1846 he acted as Alcalde together with Pacheco. He was Alcalde or Justice of the Peace. He was also Alcalde at other times. He was in authority in 1846, I think he was acting as sub- stitute. Ques. 9. — Are Antonio Sunol and Jose* Noriega, the attesting wit- nesses to the last instrument in writing in the document concerning 631 which you have been testifying, still living, and if yea, where do they reside ? Ans. 9. — They are both alive, living in San Jose*. Cross Examination. — Questions by United States Attorney. Ques. 1. — When was the first time you ever heard of this mine ? (Objected to.) Ans. 1. — The first I heard were conversations with Pedro and Luis Chaboya, and Robles ; on different occasions afterwards Suiiol told me that he had assisted them by giving them several things to see if they could ascertain what kind of metal that was, and they never could ascertain what it was. Ques. 2. — About those times did you never hear anybody else speak of this mine, was it a secret between the Chaboyas, Sunol, and your- self, or was it commonly talked of? (Objected to.) - - And. 2. — It was commonly talked of. Ques. 3. — How long ago is it since it was commonly talked of? (Objected to.) Ans. 3. — A great many years since. Ques. 4. — About how. many years, beginning with about what year? (Objected to.) Ans. 4. — I first heard the mine spoken of in the year 1835* in the year 1845, when Castillero first came to San Jose, the matter had been forgotten there, it was no longer spoken of because it was not known whether it was a gold or a quicksilver mine or what it was, and Cas- tillero was*1he first person who knew the metal. Ques. 5. — And what had Robles to say about it when it was first spoken of? (Objected to.) Ans. 5. — He said that they had been there at working, breaking stone, but that they were unable to ascertain what kind of metal it was. Ques. 6. — By what name was this mine known in those times ? (Objected to.) 632 Ans. 6. — It was known under the name of the mine of the Chaboyas. Ques. 7. — When was it first known as the mine of Santa Clara ? (Objected to.) Ans. 7. — In Castillero's time. Ques. 8. — When was it first called New Almaden ? (Objected to.) Ans. 8. — It was first called New Almaden in Castillero's time also. It was called by both names, but that of New Almaden was latterly more generally used than that of Santa Clara Mine. Ques. 9. — What do you mean by latterly ? (Objected to.) Ans. 9. — I mean to say that when Castillero took possession of the Mine it was publicly known as the New Almaden Mine or the Santa Clara Mine. Ques. 10. — Do you mean that Castillero gave it the name of New Almaden ? (Objected to.) Ans. 10. — I don't know who gave it that name, but in Castillero's time I have heard it called by that name. Ques. 11. — When you say in Castillero's time, and when Castillero took possession, do you mean that this Mine was called New Almaden at the time of the execution of the last paper in the document pro- duced by S. 0. Houghton, which you have testified this morning was signed by yourself and by Antonio Suiiol and Jose* Noriega as attest- ing witnesses, now shown you ? (Objected to.) Ans. 11. — No ; when that paper was executed the Mine was not called New Almaden, it was so called afterwards. Ques. 12. — Why then did you say when Castillero took possession, and in the time of Castillero ; — what did you mean ? (Objected to.) Ans. 12. — I mean that after Castillero took possession of the Mine and while he was working it, it got the name of New Almaden. Ques. 13. — What do you mean when you say, while he was working it. What do you refer to ? 633 (Objected to.) Ans. 13. — I mean since the Mine was first begun to be worked until now it has been called New Almaden- Ques. 14. — Since it was first begun to be worked by whom, and in what year ? (Objected to.) Ans. 14. — By Castillero. In the year 1845, at the time of the possession. Ques. 15. — Then it was not Castillero who gave it the name of Santa Clara ? Who was it that gave it the name of Santa Clara, and when? (The form of this question objected to as tending to mislead the witness, by stating in substance that he has said that Andres Castillero.) (Question withdrawn.) Ques. 16. — Was it then or was it not Castillero who gave to this Mine the name of Santa Clara ? Who gave it that name, and when ? (Question objected to as leading.) Ans. 16. — I don't know who gave it this name ; it was called so formerly in the time of the Fathers. The Indians used to go there for yellow paint for the Church, but it was a mine that was not worked. Ques. 17. — What have you heard from the old inhabitants of the Pueblo of San Jose' and the Mission of Santa Clara concerning the first knowledge that civilized people obtained of this Mine, how long had its existence been known, and in what manner was it brought to their knowledge ? (Objected to.) Ans. 17. — I have not heard any one say when the existence of the Mine was first known, nor how it was discovered, nor when. Adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, Nov. 12, 1857, at 11 A. M. 48 634 San Francisco, November 12, 1857, 11 A. M. Examination of Antonio Maria Pico, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimant, continued. Present : The United States Attorney by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Ques. 18. — Then you have heard no tradition among the old people concerning this Mine ? (Objected to.) Ans. 18. — I heard no tradition amongst the first inhabitants touch- ing this Mine. All that I heard was from the persons whom I have named. Ques. 19. — Was it only since the year 1835, about which time you remember having heard Robles, the Chaboyas' and Sufiol talk about the Mine, that the Indians were accustomed to go there to get yellow paint for the Church ? Had it not been the custom of those Indians from the time of the earliest inhabitants ? (Objected to.) Ans. 19. — In the year 1835 it was said in San Jose that the In- dians were in the habit of going to the mine for paint, but I do not know whether they went in the time of the earliest inahbit- ants. ' Ques. 20. — For how long a time before 1835 had the Indians been accustomed to go to the mine for paint, according to the re- port you may have heard among the old inhabitants ? (Objected to.) Ans. 20. — I do not remember how long. Ques. 21. — Were they accustomed to go there at all before the year 1835, according to the old inhabitants ? (Objected to.) Ans. 21. — I do not remember to have heard how long prior to the year 1835 they had been accustomed to go there. Ques. 22. — When did you come to live in San Jose ? (Objected to.) 635 Ans. 22. — In the year 1832 I lived on a ranch near San Jose, and in the year 1854 I went to live at San Jose. This is as well as I can remember. Ques. 23. — Have you known Antonio Sunol ever since that time, and where has he been living ? (Objected to.) Ans. 23. — I have known him since then; since then he has lived at the Mission of San Jose, at the Pueblo of San Jose, and at the ranch where I lived near San Jose. Ques. 24. — Did you not hear in 1835 that this mine contained quicksilver ? (Objected to.) Ans. 24. — No, I heard nothing of that. Ques. 25. — What mineral was the mine supposed to contain ? (Objected to:) - Ans. 25. — I did not know what it was, I did not hear what the supposition was. Ques. 26. — Did you not hear after 1835 and before the time of Castillero that the mine contained quicksilver ? During that in- terval what metal was it supposed to contain ? (Question objected to as being leading,) Ans. 26. — During the period mentioned I did not hear that the mine contained quicksilver; during that time there was no suppo- sition as to what the mine contained: it was through Castillero that the contents of the mine were ascertained. Ques. 27. — Did you not hear Antonio Sunol in the year 1835, or at some time afterward, and before the year 1845, say that the mine contained quicksilver ? What did you hear him say that he supposed the mine contained ? (Question objected to, first, as being leading; second, as asking hearsay.) ^ Ans. 27. — I do not remember having heard Si.nil say what the mine contained, during the time mentioned, nor what he supposed it contained. Ques. 28. — Was it a short time before or a short time after the execution of this instrument, viz : the last instrument in the Doc- 636 ument produced by S. 0. Houghton, signed by you and witnessed by Antonio Suiiol and Jose Noriega, that you first heard their mine called New Almaden ? (Question objected to.) Ans. 28. — A little before or after the execution of said paper the mine got the name of New Almaden; this is my opinion, I can- not be positive, to avoid lying. I do not remember exactly when I first heard the name of New Almaden; after the discovery the mine was known under the name of New Almaden. Ques. 29. — Look at Exhibit CD. attached to the deposition of Jose Fernandez, now shown you, and which exhibit you have testi- fied was signed by Manuel Castro and yourself, and signed by Castro in your presence, and tell all you know about the execution of that paper. How came it to be signed by Castro in your pres- ence ? When and where, and under what circumstance! ? Ans. 29. — It was executed at the Mission of Santa Clara: it is a copy of the original, Castro being prefect and I Alcalde. It was intended to be a copy of the original he signed in my pres- ence, because we were together. I do not remember when it was, but the paper itself will show. I think it was made at the request of the parties mentioned in it. I do no't remember for what pur- pose it was made. The paper was executed in Father Real's room where he lived with Castillero. I do not know whether we signed with the same pen, we were all there together, we signed at the same table. Ques. 30. — Are the Rubrics after the name of Manuel Castro and your name, respectively, your respective rubrics ? What rubrics are those on the first page in the margin ? Are not the exhibits " CD'^'TR " " M A * "XY " all in the hand-writing of Gutierrez manifestly ? Campare them with the last paper in the document produced by S. 0. Houghton, which you have said you thought was in the hand writing of Gutierrez, and point out airy resemblance you may find between the hand writing of these exhibits and that paper. (Objected to.) Ans. 30. — The rubrics first mentioned in the last question are those of Mannel Castro and myself. The other rubrics mentioned in said question I think were made by the person who wrote the body of the paper. The papers marked Exhibits " C D " " X Y " " L R " in my opinion are all written by Gutierrez. The hand- writing of the last paper in the document referred to is similar to the hand-writing of the said three Exhibits, the said last paper 637 was writen more rapidly than the said three Exhibits, but it is the same hand-writing, in my opinion. Examination adjourned until 10 1-2 o'clock to-morrow, Nov. 13, 1857. San Francisco, Nov. 13, 1857. Examination of Antonio Maria Pico, a witness produced on behalf of Claimants, continued. Present : — United States Attorney, by E. Randolph, A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Ques. 31. — Were the rubrics on the margin of the "Exhibit C D " there when yon and Castro signed it? Look at Exhibit T R and say whether that is not written rapidly and heavily with a coarse pen, and* say whether you find any resemblance between that Exhibit and the last writing in the document produced by S. 0. Houghton above referred to. Ans. 31. — I do not remember whether the rubrics on the said margin were there or not when Castro and I signed ; I think there is a resemblance between the hand-writings of the two papers re- ferred to in the last question, the I 7 s and P's resemble each other, I think that both are in the hand- writing of Gutierrez, in form they resemble his; Exhibit T R. is written rapidly, heavily, and with a coarse pen. Ques. 32. — In the Exhibit C D, signed by Manuel Castro and yourself, which of you was the certifying officer, and which the witness. Was it a correct copy, and if so, how do you know it was a correct copy ? Ans. 32. — I signed as a'witness, and Manuel Castro was the person who gav£ the certificate ; it was a correct copy of the orig- inal. I knowvit was correct because we compared it, Castro and 1, with the original. I also compared it with the original. Ques- 33. — Then can you not say whether those rubrics were on the margin or not at the time you compared it and signed it? Ans. 33. — I think they were probably there also, but I only ex- amined the contract ; I only examined the body of the contract. Ques. 34. — Before whom was that original celebrated from which you took the copy ? Ans. 34. — Before the Prefect Manuel Castro, and myself as Al- calde. Ques. 35. — Do you mean that it was celebrated twice, once be- 638 fore the Prefect Castro and once before you, or that it was cele- brated before you both together, and if the latter, what manner of celebration was that, under what law or by what custom? Ans. 35.— We were both together when the original copies were made, and when this copy was certified. Ques. 36. — I do not speak of copies. I repeat my last question with regard to to the celebration; by which I mean the execution of the original contract. Ans. 36. — The. celebration of the original contract took place before Don Manuel Castro ; I being there also. Ques. 37. — How do you know that it was this contract which was executed before Don Manuel Castro, you being present ; were you attesting witness and knew the contents of the paper, or what are your means of knowledge ? Ans. 37. — I know that this was the contract which was celebra- ted before Don Manuel Castro, because I considered myself there as a witness, and read the paper and knew its contents. Ques. 38. — Who were the parties to that original contract ; at what time was it celebrated ; what was done with the original ; and where is it now ? Ans. 38. — The parties were the same that are mentioned in this copy ; it was celebrated on the day of the date of the contract, which is shown by this copy ; I do not know what was done with the original, it probably remained in the hands of the parties interested, but latter- ly I have heard that Mr. Forbes had it. Ques. 39.— What Mr. Forbes ? Ans. 39.— Mr. Forbes of Santa Clara. Ques. 40. — At what place was the original contract celebrated ? Ans, 40. — At the Mission of Santa Clara. Ques. 41. — Was not the original contract deposited in Santa Clara in the house in which it was signed, or in the Jusgado of which you were judge in the Pueblo of San Jose ? Ans. 41. — I cannot remember, although I have been trying to re- member. Ques. 42. — On the trial in the cause of Tobin vs. Walkinshaw, in the Circuit Court of U. S., Districts of California, Northern District, I find by the notes of Judge Hoffman, one of the Judges who presided on that trial, that you testified concerning this contract of partnership : viz: " There existed a writing of partnership between Castillero and " others ; they were made in 1845 ; the contract itself would tell the " time ; It was before the concession was made ; I did not know the " contents of the articles ; the partners were Castillero, Castro, el " Padre and the Robles ; the articles were executed before myself as " Alcalde ; it was signed by General Castro, El Padre Real, the Ro- 639 " bles, and Castillero ; they all signed in my presence ; the original " was deposited in Santa Clara, in the house where it was signed ; it " was deposited in the Jusgado of which I was Judge in San Jose' ; " since I left there I don't know what became of those records, they H may be there still.'' Note the difference between your testimony then and to-day, and tell me how you reconcile those differences ; and by the same notes you are made to say, " Don't remember whether Castro was present at the execution of the original "; how do you reconcile that statement also, with your present testimony ? . Ans. 42. — I cannot say more than what I have already said before the Judges, and it is what I remember ; I mean that all I said before the Judges is true, or it is what I remember best. Ques. 43. — Is that the only explanation that you can give of the contradiction between the statements which you made before the Judges and the statements which you make now ? Ans. 43. — It is ; so as not to contradict, by mistake, what I have already said. Ques. 44. — Have you a very bad memory ; can you not recollect for a year your declaration under oath ; can you not recollect facts as they occurred in your own presence ? Ans. 44. — I forget things which I have stated before, because I have not the head to answer questions upon questions, they confuse you. Ques. 45. — In this document now shown you, being the one pro- duced by S. 0. Houghton before referred to, how many different hand- writings do you find exclusive of the signature, in the four different in- struments contained in this document ? Ans. 45* — The superscription is one handwriting ; the decree on the margin is another ; Castro's petition is another ; Castillero's first rep- resentation is another. I cannot know whether the handwriting of Cas- tillero's second representation is the same as the handwriting of Cas- tro's petition ; in my opinion the handwriting of the act of possession is the same as the handwriting of the superscription, the handwriting of the act being smaller. Ques. 46. — Are not the two representations of Castillero and the act of possession each in a different handwriting ; to those three pa- pers, how many different signatures are there ; and is any one of the three handwritings that of any one of the signers ? Ans. 46. — The said three papers are in different handwritings ; there are five signatures to them, four of which are different ; none of the said papers are in the handwriting of either of those who signed them. Ques. 47. — As two of these short papers were presented to you as Alcalde, and the other was executed before you as Alcalde, can you 640 explain why seven different hands were employed in the making and signing of them ? Ans. 47. — I signed the last one as Alcalde, and Sunol and Noriega signed as witnesses ; the petitioner, Castillero, signed the petition ; Castillero's second representation may have been written by himself, but I am not sure, because it also resembles the handwriting of Benito Diaz ; there were so many diiferent hands, probably because it suited them- Ques. 48. — When was that document which purports to be an act of possession executed ? Ans. 48. — I do not remember, but it is a legal document. Ques. 49. — Was it, or was it not, executed as it purports, at the Jusgado of the Pueblo of San Jose* ? Ans. 49. — Most likely it was the Jusgado, but I do not know whether it was there or at Sunol's house, it was at the one of the two places. Ques. 50. — Had you, as Alcalde, any Secretary in those days, and if so, who was it ? Ans. 50. — Fernandez was my Secretary, but I employed Gutierrez to write. Ques. 51. — Did you employ Gutierrez to write any one of these pa- pers, and if so, which, and where ? Ans. 51. — I employed him to write them all except the petitions ; he was employed in writing the paper which I have already named as being in his handwriting, to wit, the act of possession, and the con- tract of partnership ; I employed him with the consent of the parties interested. Adjourned until Nov. 14th, 1857, at 1 P. M. San Francisco, Nov. 14, 1857. Examination of Antonio Maria Pico, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimant, continued. Present : U. S. Attorney, by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. Ques. 52. — The Fernandez who was your Secretary, is he the same person who was examined here a few days ago ? Ans. 52. — He is the same person. Ques. 53. — The house of Sunol, of which you have spoken, is it the same house in which he now resides in the Pueblo of San Jose* ? 641 Ans. 53. — It is not the same ; the house of which I spoke was taken away by him, and he built a new one on the same lot. Ques. 54. — The Gutierrez of whom you have spoken, what was his occupation, and where was he then engaged in his business ? Ans. 54. — During some time he kept a school near Sunol's house ; he was engaged in his business in the neighborhood of the Pueblo. Ques 55. — Was he keeping a school near the house of Sunol at the time that he wrote out the act of possession ? Ans. 55. — I do not remember whether he still kept his school there ; it may be that he was still there. Ques. 56. — Did he write the act of possession at the Jusgado, at the house of Sunol, or at the school house ? Ans. 56. — I do not remember where he wrote it. Ques. 57. — Did he not write it at the time when you, or the parties interested, with your knowledge, employed him to write it ? Ans. 57 — He did. Ques. 58. — Then have you no recollection at all as to where he wrote it ? What recollection have you about it ? Ans. 58. — I do not remember exactly whether it was at the Jus- gado, or at Sunol's house, or elsewhere within my jurisdiction ; be- cause the Alcalde had jurisdiction over the whole Pueblo. Ques. 59. — Did he write it in your presence, or on the same day w r hen you signed it, just before you signed it ? Ans. 59. — I do not remember, but my opinion is, that it was all made on the day on which we signed it. Ques. 60. — Where was the boundary of the Pueblo in the year 1845, on the side towards the Mission of Santa Clara ? Ans. 60. — The Guadalupe River was the boundary on that side, but the jurisdiction of the Alcalde extended to the Arroyo San Francis- quito — the Corte Madera. Ques. 61. — Was not the Jusgado and the house of Sunol both sit- uated in the Pueblo of San Jose* ? Ans. 61. — They were. Ques. 62. — How is it that, on your direct examination, you spoke doubtfully as to the handwriting of the act of possession, and now you say that you, or the parties interested, with your knowledge, employ- ed Gutierrez to write that paper ; if he was employed in this way, why were you not certain about that handwriting ? Ans. 62. — I have always said that Gutierrez was the one who wrote the act of possession, but that there were many who wrote in the mat- ters concerning the mine ; there were several, Castaneda and others. Ques. 63. — Were all those persons and Gutierrez writing in the matters concerning the mine at the. same time ? Ans. 63. — I do not remember. Ques. 64. — Recall all the names of those who were engaged in writ- 642 ing in the matters concerning the mine, or who were present at the time of these meetings, either as parties interested, or as witnesses, or otherwise, to the best of your ability now to remember. Ans. 64. — I remember that Sunol and Noriega were present as witnesses, and I as Alcalde ; I do not remember who else was present at that moment. Ques. 65. — Are those all you can remember ; was not your Secre- retary, Fernandez, present at the writing of these papers, or when the act of possession was executed by yourself, and witnessed by Antonio Sunol ? Ans. 65. — I do not remember whether Fernandez was there or not ; Those whom I have named are the only ones whom I remember as hav- ing been present at that moment. Ques. 66. — Was it not customary for the Alcalde to employ their Secretaries in writing out official papers, and as attesting witnesses to their official acts ; why was it that your Secretary wrote none of the papers concerning this mine, and that other persons were called to at- test your act of possession ? Ans. 66. — It was customary, but they could call in others ; my Secretary did not write any of these papers, and other persons acted as witnesses, because I chose to do it in that way ; it suited me to do so. Ques. 67. — When your act of possession was all finished what did you do with it ? Ans. 67. — Gutierrez kept the papers to arrange them, and place them on record ; he took charge of everything. Ques. 68. — How many papers were there ? What arrangements were there to make ; and this being an official act, and you being Al- calde, and keeper of your own records, why did you not keep the papers and file them away yourself? Ans. 68. — I do not remember how many papers there were ; it was necessary to put a cover and superscription upon them. The Secre- tary is the person who has charge of the Jusgado, and Gutierrez kept them to deliver them to the Secretary. Ques. 69. — Was there any other paper but the document which has been produced by S. 0. Houghton ? Was the original contract of partnership one of the papers which remained with Gutierrez to ar- range and file away in the archives ? Ans. 69. — The paper first mentioned was one of them, but I do not know whether the last mentioned paper was one of them or not. Ques. 70. — Do you know what are " rotulones " ; and if so, what are they ? Ans. 70. — I do not understand that word, it has a thousand mean- ings. As we understand it, it means the letters which are placed on the outside of an Expediente, large letters. Ques. 71. — Speaking of Mines, what are " rotulones " ? 643 Ans. 71. — I understand that they are public Notices placed in some public places, notifying the public that any person who has any right or claim must appear before the Judge, or if not at the expiration of the time possession will be given. Ques. 72. — Who put up the " rotulones " for this Mine ; where were they put up, and for how many days ? (Question objected to.) Ans. 72. — They were placed in different places in the Jusgado, I think for sixty days, but I do not know what the law states ; I am not sure as to the time, nor as to what the law states. Ques. 73. — What do you mean by different places in the Jusgado ? Suppose this room was the Jusgado, and explain what you mean. (Question objected to.) Ans. 78. — I mean that they were placed in the most public places in the Court Room. Ques. 74. — Did you at that time inform yourself of what the law required ? Did you post up the " rotulones " for all the days required by law ? (Question objected to.) Ans. 74. — I knew at that time what the law required ; I do not remember well, but I believe I complied with the law. Castillero and I had the law, the Ordinanzas de Mineria. Ques. 75. — In the first petition of Castillero which you have before you, he says that he had discovered this Mine ; why did you receive that petition when you knew it was untrue, because the Chaboyas had occupied it in 1835, and the Indians had long been accustomed to bring paint from it for the Church, as you have before testified ? (Question objected to ; first, because the witness has not said nor has it been in any way proven that Castillero's representation was un- true ; secondly, because the facts mentioned in the question for the purpose of proving Castillero's representation to have been untrue do not in fact prove it ; third, because the witness is not on trial on im- peachment ; fourth, because it is not competent to inquire into any irregularities which may have preceded the act of registry and the concession.) Ans. 75. — Castillero was the first who brought to light the metal, 644 the quicksilver. He produced before me the metal as a proof of what he said. Ques. 76. — Read that petition ; does it say anything about quicksil- ver ? What metal does it say the Mine contained ? (Objected to.) Ans. 76. — The petition speaks of gold and silver, but it was known that it contained quicksilver, because I saw it myself. Examination adjourned until 11 o'clock, November 16, 1857. San Francisco, November 16, 1857, Examination of Antonio Maria Pico, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimant this day, continued until to-morrow, Tuesday, Novem- ber 17, 1857, at 11 A. M. San Francisco, November 17, 1857. Examination of Antonio Maria Pico, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimant this day, continued until to-morrow, Wednesday, November 18, 1857, at 11 A. M. San Francisco, November 18, 1857. Examination of Antonio Maria Pico, a witness produced on behalf of the Claimant in this case, this day continued. Present : The United States Attorney by Edmund Randolph ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Ques. 77. — If it was known that the Mine contained quicksilver when that first petition was presented to you, why was not quicksilver expressed in the petition ? Why was it not mentioned along with gold and silver ? Was not quicksilver at that time considered a valua- ble metal ? (Question objected to as irrelevant.) 645 Ans. 77. — I do not know why quicksilver was not mentioned in that petition. It was known at that time that quicksilver was a pre- cious metal. Ques. 78. — If it was known at the date of the first petition that the Mine contained quicksilver, how did it happen that eleven days after- wards Castillero presented a second petition in which he declared that he had made the discovery of quicksilver since the date of his first petition ? Before answering this question look at the second petition of Castillero which you now have before you. Ans. 78. — I do not remember why this was done, it is a very old affair and I cannot remember. Ques. 79. — If the affair is so old that you cannot remember how it was conducted, might you not also be mistaken about these papers having been presented to you at all at that time ? Ans. 79. — I remember the documents of course, because I saw them, and left them in the hands of Gutierrez. I had them as a person in authority. Ques. 80. — You have said thai you had the " Ordinanzas de Mi- neria ; " did you have them in a book called " Ordinanzas de Mineria \ n (Question objected to.) Ans. 80. — I think so. Ques. 81. — Would you know the book if you were to see it again ? Ans. 81. — I do not know whether I would know the book now or not, because a long time has elapsed, and it was a matter in which I was not interested at all. Ques. 82. — Did you ever see more than one book marked " Ordi- nanzas de Mineria ? " If you have seen more than one were they not all exactly alike ? (Question objected to.]) Ans. 82.^ — That was the only one which I have seen. (The United States Attorney here offers to hand to the witness a book marked " Ordenanzas de Mineria," and to ask the witness whether that was the same book that he had or whether the book resembled it in size and appearance. The Attorney for the Claimant asks the Attorney for the United States if he is going to file the book in this cause. He says he is not. The Attorney for the CJaimant objects to the United States Attorney asking the witness any question about said book, and asks for a decis- 646 ion of that point by the Court before the examination shall be further proceeded with. The Court not being in session at this precise time to pass upon this question, Attorney for the United States passes it for the present.) Ques. 83. — Look now at the last instrument in the document pro- duced by S. 0. Houghton, which you now have before you and which you call your act of possession, the same which you signed by yourself as Alcalde, and by Antonio Sunol and Jose* Noriega as attesting wit- nesses, and say, if you can, why the day of execution was left blank, viz. thus : u Diciembre de mil ochocientos cuarenta y cinco ? " Ans. 83. — I suppose it was forgotten in the hurry. Ques. 84. — What do you mean by the hurry, what occasion was there for haste ? Ans. 84. — There was no hurry, but as there was no malice, nor fraud, nor bad intentions at that time, we did not pay particular atten- tion to the dates. We did not mind that. Ques. 85. — Was not this instrument the most important paper con- nected with the Mine ? Was not the date, taken in connection with the date of the petitions, a very important part of this instrument ? Can you refer me to any other paper important or unimportant re- lating to this Mine in which the date is left blank ? (First part of the question objected to as simply asking the wit- ness' opinion ; and the second part of it asks of the witness a reference to papers with which the Attorney of the United States is more familiar perhaps than the witness, and certainly has the opportunity of making himself so if he is not ; and further, because it asks the witness to ex- plain, or construe, or give his opinion, about written documents.) Ans. 85. — I think that is the most important of the papers relating to the Mine. The date is an important part of it. I do not know whether there is any other paper relating to the Mine in which the date is omitted, or in which the date is left blank. Ques. 86. — When you with said Sunol and Noriega, signed said paper, was the preceding writing on it, or was it blank and the writing put on afterwards ? Ans. 86. — When we signed, everything was finished, the act was all written. Ques. 87. — Why did you sign an act which purported to grant three thousand varas in all directions ? Did you lind any author- ity for that in the " Ordenanzas de Mineria Y" (Question objected to. First, because it enquires into the wit- 64T ness' private motive in his performance of an official act. and Secondly, because the latter branch of the question is, a simple inquiry into the witness' opinion of the law.) Ans. 87. — Because Castillero told me that he required three thousand varas, and then I told him to take them in all directions. He told me that he had that right by reason of his being the first discoverer of the metal. According to what Castillero told me I believed that I as Alcalde had authority to do that, there being no other " Juez de letras " (Judge of Letters.) He was a man learned on all those subjects. He told me that I was " Juez de Letras " and I considered myself such there being no other " Juez de Letras." Ques. 88. — Was not the Pueblo of San Jose in the second " Partido V or District ? Was not the Pueblo of San Francisco de Asis the head of the, District at that time ? Was not Guer- rero Alcalde of first nomination in San Francisco, and as such did he not have the power of Judge of first instance, to the exclusion of yourself and the other Alcaldes in that " Partido " or District, and was he not the only Alcalde entitled to be called a " Juez de letras " or Judge of Letters ? (So much of above question as asks the witness' opinion of the law, objected to.) Ans. 88. — San Jose was in the second District; I do not remem- ber whether San Francisco de Asis or Monterey was the head of the District; I do not remember whether Guerrero was Alcalde at that time ; I do not know whether he had a right to be called " Juez de Letras." Ques. 89 — What sort of a possession is this of which you have spoken? Who went with you to the mine? Who were there present ? What Surveyor did you have, and what instruments ? What measurements did you make, what works did you perform ? How many stakes did you drive, where, and by whom were they driven ? r Tell all that occurred, how long you stayed there, when you returned and to what place ? Say also what Mining Professor was there present. Ans. 89. — Sunol, Noriega, El Padre Real, Castillero, Gutierrez, and I think Fernandez also, went with me to the mine; other per- sons went, but I do not remember who they were. These same persons arrived at the mouth of the mine, we were there some time, and I sent for Sergeant Jose Reyes Berryesa to his Rancho. These were there. There were also other persons there, but I do not remember who they were. There was no Surveyor. Castil lero had a small pocket compass. I told Castillero that no meas- 648 urement could be made with a cord because the ground was very uneven ; that he might take the three thousand varas within the Sierra, (mountains) in every direction; everything that was spo- ken there was written in a blotter; all that I said to Castillero ; this was the only work we performed. I do not remember having driven any stakes; I do not remember whether any were driven or not. We remained a considerable length of time at the mine, I do not know how many hours we were examining everything ; we returned to San Jose, where we arrived very late. The only Pro- fessor of Mining who was there was Castillero, because he under- stood it. Ques. 90. — Was the land of which you say you thus gave pos- session in its form a square or a circle ? (Question objected to on the ground that the act of possession is in writing, and it is not competent to explain or to vary this instrument by parole testimony.) Ans. 90. — I do not know whether it was round or square, be- cause I made the division in different directions, as I proposed to Castillero, that is to say, that he should take it where it was va- cant, or in the mountains, because the Rancheros (owners of Ranches,) would not have mountains; they wanted plains only. Ques. 91. — Who did you send after Berreyesa ? Did you send from the mine ? Did you send a written notice or a verbal one ? How long did you wait for him ? How did he come ? From what place did he come, and how long did he stay ? Ans. 91. — I sent for him by his own son; I sent from the mine. I sent a verbal notice, because I had told him previously that I was going to the mine at that time; he soon came; I waited for him a short time, he came on horseback from his Rancho; he re- mained until we left. Ques .92. — Are the Sergeant Berreyesa and that son of his alive? Where was Gen'l Jose Castro in the month of November 1845, and who was his Secretary at that time, if he had one ? Ans. 92.— Sergeant Berreyesa is dead, but I do not know whether that son is dead or alive, because I dont remember which of the sons it was, but I know it was one of them. I don't know where Gen'l Castro was in that month, Castaneda was his Secretary but I do not know whether he was such during that month, he may have been. 649 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF RESUMED. Ques. 1. — How long was it before you were examined in the Case of Tobin v. Walkinshaw referred to in the Cross Examina- tion, that you had read the "Escritura de Compania ?" Ans. 1. — I saw it before it was shown to me in Court, but I do not remember how long before. Ques. 2. — Since you testified in that case have you had any conversation with James Alexander Forbes about either the original articles of partnership or the copy of the same shown to you during this examination ? (Question objected to as leading and improper to be asked on the direct examination, and as introducing new matter not refer- red to in the first examination in chief.) Ans. 2. — I had a conversation with Mr. Forbes touching the original paper referred to, since I testified in (Question withdrawn) that action, in which he told me that he had found the original " Escritura de Compania," and I replied to him that he ought to put it in evidence to show that my testimony was true. (Attorney for the Claimant finding that he was mistaken by supposing that the witness had testified on his cross-examination that James Alexander Forbes had told the witness that he had the original in his possession, withdrew the question before the answer was written down.) Ques. 4. — Have you ever had a conversation with any person, since you gave your testimony in the suit of Tobin v. Walkinshaw referred to in your cross-examination, concerning the original " Escritura de Compania " or the copy of the same shown to you on this examination ? If yea, state with what person, and what was said by him in that conversation touching the said document. (Question objected to because the unsworn declarations of per- sons with whom the witness may have conversed are not compe- tent evidence.) Ans. 4. — I had a conversation with Mr. Campbell, my son-in- law, in which I told him that I had been informed by Mr. Forbes, that he, Forbes, had found among his papers the original " Escri- tura de Compania." I stated that he ought to present it to the Court to show the truth of my testimony. Ques. 5. — How did you learn that Mr. Forbes had that paper 49 650 in his possession ? (Objected to.) Ans. 5. — He told me so himself that he had it. He told me that he found it accidentally among his papers. (Objected to.) Ques. 6. — How long since he told you so ? (Objected to.") Ans. 6. — He told me so a few days after the termination of the suit of Tobin v. Walkinshaw: he came to my house and told me. He said that all that I had stated corresponded with what was written. (Objected to.) Ques. 7. — Do you know for what purpose Castillero left Cali- fornia ? (Objected to.) Ans. 7. — He left to attend to (Question withdrawn.) A Ques- tion relating to the " Ordenanzas de Mineria " which has been referred to the Court, is dropped by the United States Attorney. This disposition is taken subject to all objections, except as to the form of the questions. ANTONIO MA PICO. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th Nov. 1857. cutler McAllister, U. S. Commr. 651 Cross-Examination — A. M. Pico — Spanish. Preg. 1. — Cuando fue la primera vez que oyo Vd hablar de esta mina. Resp. 1. — Lo primero que oi fue en conversaciones con Pedro y Luis Chaboya y Robles en differentes occasiones despues Sunol me dijo a mi que les habia ay a dado el en darles algunas cosas para ver si po- dian saber que clase de metal era ese y nunca pudieron saber lo que era. Preg. 2. — En aquellos tiempos no oyo Vd hablar a otra persona tocante a esta mina fue secreto entre los Chaboyas Sunol y Vd. o era cosa de que todos en general hablaba. Resp. 2. — Se hablaba mucho de eso entre todos en general. Preg. 3. — Cuanto tiempo hace que se hablaba de eso entre todos en general. Resp. 3. — Hace muchos aiios. Preg. 4. — Cuanto anos hace poco mas o menos y en que ano poco mas o menos se empezo a hablar asi de el. Resp. 4. — Yo oi hablar de la mina primero en el ano '35 en el ano '45 cuando primero vino Castillero a San Jose la casa ya se habia olvi- dado alii. No se hablaba mas de eso, porque no se sabia si era mina de oro o de Azogue o de que era, y Castillero fue* el primero que con- osio el metal. Preg. 5. — Y que drjo Robles tocante a la mina cuando primero se hablaba de ella. Resp. 5. — Dijo que ellos habian estado alii trabajando, que mando piedra pero que no pudieron conoser la clase de metal que seria. Preg. 6. — Bajo que nombre convenia esta mina en aquellos tiempos. Resp. 6. — Se conocia bajo el nombre de la " mina de los Chabo- yes." Preg. 7. — Cuando se conocio primero como " La mina de Santa Clara." Resp. 7. — En tiempo de Castillero. Preg. 8. — Cuando empezaron a llamarlo " Nuevo Almaden." Resp. 8. — Empezaron a llamarlo Nuevo Almaden en tiempo de Cas- tillero tambier lo llamaban por los dos nombres, pero el de Nuevo Al- maden era mas general que el de mina de Santa Clara ultimamente. Preg. 9. — Cuando dice " ultimamente " que es lo que quiere Vd decir. Resp. 9. — Quiero decir que cuando Castillero tomo possesion de la mina el publico lo conocio como la mina del Nuevo Almaden o la mina de Santa Clara Preg. 10. — Quiere Vd decir que Castillero le dio el nombre de Nu- evo Almaden. 652 Resp. 10. — No se quien le pondria ese nombre pero en tiempo de Castillero lo he vido Uamar asi. Preg. 11. — Cuando dice Vd en tiempo de Castillero y cuando Cas- tillero tomo possesion quiere Yd decir que esta mina se llamaba Alma- den al tiempo que se hizo el ultimo papel en el Documento presentado por S. 0. Houghton, que Vd dijo esta manana que fue formado por Vd y por Antonio Suriol y Jose Noriega como testigos de asistencia que ahora se le muestra. Resp. 11. — No. Cuando se hizo ese papel la mina no se llamaba Nueve Almaden, asi se llamaba despues. Preg. 12. — Porque dijo Vd entonces en tiempo de Castillero y cuan- do Castillero tomo posesion que era lo que Vd queria decir. Resp. 12. — Quiero decir que despues que Castillero tomo posesion de la mina y mientras que el lo trabajaba se le dio el nombre de Nue- vo Almaden. Preg. 13. — Que quiere Vd decir cuando dice " mientras que el lo trabajaba " a que se refiere Vd. Resp. 13. — Quiero decir que desde que se empezo a trabjar la mina hasta ahora se ha llamado Nuevo Almaden. Preg. 14. — Desde que se empezo a trabajar por quien y en que ano. Resp. 14. — Por Castillero en el ano '45 al tiempo de la posesion. Preg. 15. — Entonces fue o no fue Castillero e que le dio a esta mina el nombre de Santa Clara que fui el que le dio este nombre y cuando se lo dio. Resp. 15. — No se quien le dio este nombre, se llamaba asi anterior- mente en tiempo de los Padres. Los Indios iban alii y sacaban pin- turas amarillas para la iglesia pero no era mina que se trabaja. Preg. 17. — Que ha oido Vd de los antiguos habitantes del Pueblo de San Jose y la mission de la Santa Clara tocanto al primer conoci- miento que obtuvieron la gente de razon de esta mina ; cuanto tiempo sabian que existia y como lo supierion. Resp. 17. — Yo no ne oido decir cuando se supo primero de la exis- tencia mina ; ni como lo discubieron ni cuando. Preg. 18. — Entonces no ha vido Vd ninguna tradicion entre los an- tiguos habitantes tocante a esta mina. Resp. 18. — Entre los fundadores no oi ninguna tradicion tocante a la mina todo lo que yon oi fue de las personas que he nombrado. Preg. 19. — Fue solamente desde el ano 1835 el tiempo poco mas o menos en que Vd oyo hablar de esta mina a Robles los Chaboyas y Suilol. Que los Indios tenian costumbre de ir alii a traer pintura am- arilla para la Iglesia. No fue esto la costumbre de aquellos Indios desde el tiempo de los fundadores. Resp. 19. — En el ano '35 se decia en San Jose* que los Indios iban 653 a la mina a traer pintura pero no se si iban en tiempo de los fundado res o no. Preg. 20. — Durante cuanto tiempo anterior al ano 1835 tenian los Indios costumbre de ir a la mina a traer pintura segun lo que decian los antiguos habitantes. Resp. 20. — No me acuerdo cuanto tiempo. Preg. 21. — Que si tenian costumbre de ir alii jamas antes del ano 1835 segun lo que decian los antiguos habitantes. Resp. 21. — No me acuerdo haber oido decir des de que tiempo an- terior el ano '35 eso tenian costumbre. Preg. 22. — Cuando vino Vd a vivir en San Jose. Resp. 22. — Vine a un Rancho cerca de San Jose en el ano '32 y en el aiio '34 fui a vivir en San Jose ; Esto es lo que tengo presente. Preg. 23. — Desde ese tiempo ha conocido Vd a Antonio Suiiol y donde ha vivido el. Resp. 23. — Lo he conocido desde entonces. El ha vivido desde en- tonces en la Mision de San Jose y en el Rancho donde yo vivia cerca de San Jose. Preg. 24. — No oyo Vd dccir en el ano '35 que esta mina contenia azogue. Resp. 24. — No ; no oi nada de eso. Preg. 25. — Que era el metal que se suponia que la contenia. Resp. 25. — No supe que seria, no oi decir que se suponia. Preg. 26. — Despues del ano '35 y antes del tiempo de Castillero, no oyo Vd decir que la mina contenia azogue ; durante ese tiempo que se suponia que era el metal la mina contenia. Resp. 26. — Durante el tiempo mencionado no oi decir que la mina contenia azogue. Durante ese tiempo no habia suposicion sobre lo que contenia la mina. Por Castillero se descubrio lo que contenia la mina. Preg. 27. — No oyo Vd decir a Antonio Suiiol el el aiio 1835 o des- pues del ano 1835 y antes del aiio 1845 que la mina contenia azogue ; que suponia el que la mina contenia segun lo que oyo Vd decir. Resp. 27. — No me acuerdo haber vido decir a Suiiol lo que conte- nia la mina durante el tiempo mencionado, ni lo que el suponia que le contenia la mina. Preg. 28. — Fue poco tiempo antes o poco despues de la execucion de este instrumento que contiene el Documento que presento S. 0. Houghton firmado por Vd y formado por Antonio Suiiol y Jose Norie- ga como testigos de asistencia que Vd por la primera vez oyo llainar a esta mina Nuevo Almaden. Resp. 28. — Poco antes o despues de la execucion dedicho papelfue cuando se le dio a la mina el nombre Nuevo Almaden. Estos es lo que me parece ; no lo afirmo para no mentir. No me acuerdo exactamente cuando fue que yo por primera oi el 654 nombre de Nuevo Almaden. Despues del descubrimento se conocia la mina bajo el nombre de Nuevo Almaden. Preg. 29. — Vea Yd el papel marcado " Exhibit C. D.," perteneci- ente a la deposicion de Jose Fernandez que ahora se le muestra el cual ha dicho Vd en su testimonio fue firmado por Vd y Manuel Cas- tro en presencia de Vd y diga Yd todo lo que Yd sabe tocante a la execusion de dicho papel. Como sucedio que fue firmado por Castro en la presencia de Yd ; adonde cuando y bajo que circumstancias. Resp. 29. — Fue executado en la mision de Santa Clara (esta es co- pio de la original) siendo Castro Prefecto y yo Alcalde. Fue hecho como copia de la original ; el firmo en mi presencia porque estabamos juntos ; no me acuerdo cuando fue pero el mismo papel lo justifica. Yo pienzo que se hizo a la requisicion de las partes mencionadas en el mismo papel. No me acuerdo con que objeto se hizo ; se hizo el papel en el cuarto de Padre Real adonde vivia Castillero y el Padre pintos. No se si firmamos con la misma pluma ; estabamos todos jun- tos ; fimamos en la misma. Preg. 30. — Las rubricas puestas respectivamente a las firmas de Yd y de Manuel Castro son sus respectivas rubricas . que rubricas son esas que estan en el margen de la primera paquina ; no estan los pa- peles marcados Exhibit C. D., X. Y. y T. R. todas escritos en la letra de Gutierrez manifiestamente. Compares los con el ultimo papel en el Documento presentado por S. 0. Houghton que ha dicho Yd. que le parecia que estaba escrito por Gutierrez y designe Yd culesquera semejanza que encuentre entre la letra de los papeles marcado Exhibit C. D., X. Y. y T. R. y el dicho papel. Resp. 30. — Las Rubricas primeramente mencionados en la ultima pregunta son las de Manuel Castro y la mia. Las otras rubricas men- cionadas en dicha pregunta me parece que fueron hechas por la misma persona que escribio el cuerpo del papel. Los papeles marcados Exhibit C. D., X. Y. y T. R., estan todos es- critos por Gutierrez en mi opinion La letra del ultimo papel en el Doc- umento mencionado es semejante a la letra de los tres papeles marca- dos del modo ante dicho, el dicho ultimo papel esta escrito con mas rapidez que los dichos tres papeles pero es la misma letra en mi opinion. Preg. 31. — Las rubricas que estan en el margen del papel marcado Exhibit CD., estuvieron alii cuando Yd y Castro lo firmaron ? Yea Yd el papel marcado " Exhibit T. R.," y diga se no esta escrito con rapidez y en letra pesada y con pluma gruesa y diga si encuentra al- guna semejanza entre la letra del dicho papel marcado T. R. y la ulti- ma letra contenida en el Documento presentado por S. 0. Houghton antes mencionado. Resp. 31. — No me acuerdo si las rubricas que estan en dicho mar- gen o no cuando Castro y yo lo firmamos. Para mi hai semijanza en- 655 tre la letra de los dos papeles a los cuales refiere la ultima pregunta, hai semijanza entre las jotas j las Ps. me parece que las dos letras son las de Gutierrez, en firma son semejantes a la letra de el. El papel marcado " Exhibit T. R." esta escrita con pluma y mesa y en letra pesada y escrito con rapidez. Preg. 32. — En el papel marcado Exhibit CD. firmado por Yd y Manuel Castro cual de Vds. era el testigo y cual era el funcionario que deba el certificado. Fue copia exacta y si fue como sabe que fue. Resp. 32. — Yo firme como testigo y Manuel Castro era el que daba el certificado. Fue copia exacta de la original, se que fue exacta por- que la comparamos, yo y Castro con el original. Yo tambien lo com- pare con el original. Preg. 33. — Entonces no puede Yd decir se esas rubricas estaban o no estaban en el marjen cuando Yd lo comparo y lo firmo. Resp. 33. — Yo pienso que estavian tambien, pero no examine mas que el contrato. Examine solamente el cuerpo de la contrata. Preg. 34. — Delante de quirer fue celebrado aquel original del cual saco Yd la copia. Resp. 34. — Delante de prefecto Don Manuel Castro y de mi como Alcalde. Preg. 35. — Quiere Yd decir que fue celebrado dos veces, una vez delante del Prefecto Castro y una vez delante de Yd. o que fue cele- brado delante de los dos juntos y si de este ultimo modo se hizo que laya de celebracion era esa, y bajo que ley o segun que costumbre era. Resp. 35. — Estabamos los dos Juntos cuando se secaron las copias originales y cuando se certifico esta copia. Preg. 36. — Yo no hablo de copias. Repito la ultima pregunta to- cante a la celebracion por lo cual quiero decir la execusion de la con- trata original. Resp. 36. — La celebracion de la contrata original se hizo delante de Don Manuel Castro estando yon alii tambien. Preg. 37. — Como sabe Yd que esta fue la contrata que se celebro delante de Don Manuel Castro, estando Yd alii tambien. Era Yd. testigo de asestencia sabiendo el contenido del papel o como lo sabe Vd. - Resp. 37. — Se que esta fue la contrata que se celebro delante de Don Manuel Castro porque yo consideraba que estaba alii de testigo y lei el papel y sabia lo que contenia. Preg. 38. — Quienes fueron las partes contratadas en esa contrata original cuando fue celebrado, que se hizo con el original y adonde esta ahora. Resp. 38. — Las partes fueron las mismas que dice esta copia ; fue celebrado el dia de la fecha de la contrata que se se por esta copia no se que se hizo con la original quedaria en manos de los interesados pero ultimamente ho oido decir que el Sor Forbes lo tenia. 656 Preg. 39. — Que Seiior Forbes. Resp. 39. — El Senor Forbes de Santa Clara. Preg. 40. — En que lugar fue celebrada la contrata original. Resp. 40. — En la Mision de Santa Clara. Preg. 41. — No fue depositada la contrata original en la casa donde fue firinado, en Santa Clara 6 en el Juzgado del cual era Vd. Juez en el Pueblo de San Jose*. Resp. 41. — No me acuerdo ; no me puedo accordar aunque he es- tado haciendo recuerdos. Preg. 42. — El dia de la vista del jucio de Tobin contra Walkinshaw en el juzgado que llaman " The Circuit Court of the United States, Dist. of California," Encuentro que segun las notas del Juez Hoffman uno de los Jueses que oyeron dicha causa que Vd dio el testimonio si- guente tocante a esta escritura de compania es decir. " Existia una escritura de compania entre Castillero y otros : se ha- cien en 1845. La misma escritura dira la fecha. Fue ante3 de ha- berse hecho la concesion. No conocia yo el contenido de la Escritura. Los socios eran Castillero, Castro, El Padre y los Robles. La escritu- ra fue celebrada delante de mi como Alcalde. Fue firmado por el Genl. Castro El Padre Real Los Robles y Castillero Todos ellos firma- ron en mi presencia. La original fue depositada en Santa Clara en la Casa donde fue firmada. Fue depositada en el Juzgado del cual yo era Juez en San Jose : Desde que yo sali de alii no se que se habia hecho con aquellos archivos, puede ser que esten alii todavia. Observe Yd las diferencias que hay entre el testimonio que dio Yd entonces y el que ha dado hoy y diga como puede explicar, o reconci- liar de dichas diferencias. Y segan las mismas notas ha dicho Yd. " No me acuerdo si estuvo Castro presente cuando se celebro la origi- nal " Como puede Yd reconciliar esa repuesta tambien con el testimo- nia que ha dado Yd ahora. Resp. 42. — No puede decir mas que lo que ya he dicho ante los jueses y es lo que tengo presente : quien decin que todo lo que dige ante los Jueses es la verdad o de lo cual me puede acordar con mas exactitud. Preg. 43. — Es esa la vinica explicacion que puede Yd dar de las contradicciones que existen en lo que dijo Yd delante de los jueses y lo dice Yd ahora. Resp. 43. — Si es : Por no contradecirme en lo que ya he dicho por equivocacion. Preg. 44. — Tiene Yd una memoria muy mala : No puede Yd. acor- darse por un ano de las declaraciones que ha dado bajo juramento. No puede Yd acordarse de hechos como ocurieron en su misma presencia. Resp. 44. — Se me olvidad las cosas que he dicho antes, porque no tengo cabaza para responder a preguntas sobre preguntas. Mi con- fimden. 657 Preg. 45. — El los cuatro instrumentos que componen el contenido del Documento ante dicho presentado por S. 0. Houghton cuantas let- ras diferentes encuentra Yd. sin contar las firmas. Resp. 45. — La caratula es una letra. El decreto en el margen es otra, la peticion de Castro es otra letra. La primera representacion de Castillero es otra letra, la segunda representacion de Castillero no se si es diferente de la peticion de Castro o no. Mi opinion es que el acto de posecion es en la misma letra que la caratula ; solamente que es mas pequeiia la letra del acto. Preg. 46. — No esta cada uno las dos representaciones de Castillero y el acto de posecion en letra diferente. Cuantas firmas diferentes tienen esos tres papeles, j esta alguno de los dichos tres papeles escri- tos en letra de alguno de las tres personas que los firmaron. . Resp. 46. — Los dichos tres papeles estan letra diferente : Hay en ellos cinco firmas de de las cuales cuatro son diferentes. Ninguno de dichos papeles esta en letra de cualquera de los que los firmaron en mi opinion. Preg. 47. — Como dos de estos papeles cortos fueron presentado a Vd como Alcalde y el otro fue Executado delante de Vd como Alcalde puede Vd explicar porque se emplearon siete manos diferentes en ha- cer y formarlos. Resp. 47. — Yo fuice el ultimo como Alcalde y Sunol y Noriega la firmaron como testigos. El que pedia Castillero firmaba la peticion. La segunda representacion de Castillero puede haber sido escrito por el mismo pero no estoy seguro porque se parece la enbien a letra de Benito Diaz. Hubieron tantas manos diferentes porque asi comen- diaro. Preg. 48. — Adonde se hizo ese documento que pertecede ser acto de posecion. Resp. 48. — No tiengo presente pero es documento legal. Preg. 49. — Fue o no fue hecho en el Juzgado del Pueblo de San Jose como dice el mismo documento que se hizo. Resp. 49. — Debe haber sido en el Juzgado pero no se si fue alii o en casa de Sunol en una de los dos partes se hizo. Preg. 50. — En aquellos dias tenia Yd como Alcalde algun secreta- rio si tenia quien era. Resp. 50. — Fernandez era mi secretario pero yo emple6 a Gutierrez para escribir. Preg. 51. — Empleo Yd a Gutierrez para escribir alguno de esos papeles y si lo empleo para cual de ellos. Resp. 51. — Lo emplio para escribir los todos. Menos los peticiones. El se empleo en Escribir lo que he dicho que son sus formas o saber el acto de possecion y la escritura de compania ; lo emplie con consenti- miento de los intersados. 658 Preg. 52. — El tal Fernandez que fiie* secretario de Vd. es la misma persona que fue examinado aqui como testigo hace poeos dias ? Resp. 52. — Es la misma persona. Preg. 53. — La casa de Suiiol de la cual ha hablado Vd es la misma casa donde el vive ahora en San Jose. Resp. 53. — No es la misma, la casa de que yo hablaba la quito y hizo otra nueva el mismo solar. Preg. 54. — Que ocupacion tenia entonces el tal Gutierrez de quien ha hablado Vd. Y en donde se ocupaba el en sus negocios. Resp. 54. — Tenia el durante algun tiempo una escuela cerca de la casa de Sunol : se ocupaba en sus negocios en vecindas del pueblo. Preg. 55. — Tenia el una escuela cerca de la casa de Sunol cuando escribio el acto de posesion. Resp. 55. — No tengo presente si todavia tenia su escuela el alii, puede, ser que todavia estaba alii. Preg. 56. — Escribio el, el acto de posesion en el Juzgado, en la casa de Sunol o en la escuela. Resp. 56. — No tengo presente en que punto escribio. Preg. 57. — No lo escribio el cuando Vd o las partes interesados con el conocimiento de Vd. la Emplearon para escribirlo ? Resp. 57. — Si. Preg. 58. — Entonces no tiene Vd. el manor recuerdo tocante al lu- gar donde lo escribio y si tiene que recuerdo es ? Resp. 58. — No puedo acordarme exactamente si fue en el Juzgado o en casa de Suiiol otra parte de mi jurisdiccion ; porque el Alcalde tenia jurisdiccion en todo el Pueblo. Preg. 59. — Lo escribio el en presencia de Vd. o en el mismo dia que Vd lo firmo y poco antes de haberlo Vd firmado. Resp 59. — No me acuerdo pero mi opinion es que todo se hizo el mismo dia que lo firmamos. Preg. 60. — Adonde era el lindero del pueblo del cado ; hacia la mision de Santa Clara en el aiio 1845. Resp. 60. — El Rio de Guadalupe era el lindero de ese lado pero la jurisdiccion de los Alcaldes iba hasta el arroyo de San Francisquito. El Corte Madera. Preg. 61. — No estaban el juzgado y la casa de Sunol situados am- bos en el Pueblo de San Jose\ Resp. — Si. Preg. 62. — Como sucede que en el testimonio que dio Vd. en con- testacion a las prejuntas de abogado de actor, hablo Vd con alguna duda tocante a la letra del acto de posesion y ahora dice Vd que Vd mismo o las partes interesados con conocimiento de Vd emplearon a Gutierrez para escribir ese papel. Si el fue empleado de ese modo, cemo no podia Vd hablar con certeza tocante a esa letra. Resp. 61. — Yo he dicho siempre que Gutierrez era el que escribio 659 el acto de posesion pero que habia muchos que escribieron el los asun- tos tocante a la mina habian varios Castaneda y otros. Preg. 62. — Todos aquellos que estuvieron escribiendo en los asuntos tocante a la mina estuvieron escribiendo todos al mismo tiempo. Resp. 62. — No me acuerdo. Preg. 63. — Acuerde se Vd de los nombres de todos aquellos que estuvieron escribiendo en los asuntos tocante a la mina o que estuvie- ron presente mientras que se escribia estos papeles como partes intere- sados o testigos o con otra calidad, lo mejor que puede Yd acordarse ahora. Resp. 63. — Me acuerdo que Sunol y Noriega estuvieron presente como testigos y yo como Alcalde. — No tengo presente quenes otras estavian alii en ese momento. Preg. 64. — Esos son todos de las cuales se puede Vd acordar. No estubo su secretario Fernandez presente mientras que se escribia estos papeles o cuando el acto de posesion fue executado por Vd. y firmado Antonio Sunol como testigo. Resp. 64. — No me acuerdo si estuvo Fernandez alii o no los que he nombrado son todos de los cuales me puede acordar que estuvieron alii en ese momento. Preg. 66. — Que si los Alcaldes no tenian costumbre de emplear a bus secretarios en escribir papeles oficiales y como testigos de sus actos oficiales. Porque fue que su secretario de Vd no escribio ninguno de los papeles tocante a esta mina y que se llamaron a otras personas para servir de testigos de su acto de posesion. Resp. 66. — Si tenian esa costumbre pero podian los Alcaldes llamar a otros. Mi secretario no escribio ninguno de esos papeles y otras per- sonas sirvieron de testigos porque yon quize hacerlo asi ; asi me con- vinia. Preg. 67. — Caando su acto de posesion estuvo todo completo que hizo Vd con el. Resp. 67. — Gutierrez se quedo con los papeles para arreglarlos y poner los en los archivos el se encargo de todo. Preg. 68. — Cuantos papeles habian que arreglos se tenio que hacer y siendo este un acto oficial y siendo Vd Alcalde y encargado de sus propios archivos como no se quedo Vd. con los papeles y no los archivo Vd mismo. Resp. 68. — No tengo presente cuantos papeles habian, se tenia que ponerles la caratula y cueviebos el Secretario es el que esta encargado del juzgado y Gutierrez se quedo con ellos para entregarlos al secre- tario. Preg. 69. — Hubo algun otro papel a mas del papel que ha sido pre- sentado aqui por S. 0. Houghton. La Exutara de Compania fue uno de los papeles que quedaron con Gutierrez para que el los arreglase y los pusiese en los archivos. 660 Resp. 69. — El primeramente mencionado fue uno de ellos ; pero no se si el otro fue" uno de ellos o no. Preg. 70. — Sabe Vd lo que son Rotulones y si sabe que son. Resp. 70. — No entiendo esa palabra se entiende de mil modos como nosotros lo entendemos quere decir las letras que se ponen encinia de un espediente — letras grandes. Preg. 71. — Hablando de minas que son Rotulones ? Resp. 71. — Yo entiendo que son avisos pulicos que se ponen en al- gunos parages publicos avisando a el publico el que tenga algun dere- cho 6 reclamo se debe presentar ante el juez — o si no, estando el tiem- po cumplido se dara la posesion. Preg. 72. — Quien puso los rotulos para esta mina — en que paraje los pusieron y durante cuantos dias. Res. 72. — Se pusieron en diferentes puntos en el juzgado — creo que por 60 dias, pero no no se lo que dice la ley — no estoy seguro tocante al tiempo ni sobre lo que dice la ley. Preg. 73. — Que es lo que Vd quiere decir cuando dice en diferentes puntos en el juzgado — Suponga Yd. que este cuarto fue el juzgado — de Yd una explicacion de lo que quiere decir. Res. 73. — Quiero decir que se pusieron en los lugares mas publicos en la Sala del Juzgado. Preg. 74. — Yd se informo en aquel tiempo de los requisites de la ley — puso Yd los Rotulones durante todo los dias que la ley requeria. Resp. 74. — Yo sabia entonces cuales eran los requisites de la ley — no me acuerdo bien pero creo, que cumpli con la ley. Yo y Castillero teniamos la ley. La ordenanza de mineria. Preg. 75. — En la primera representacion de Castillero que Yd esta viendo dice el que el habia descuvierto esta mina. Porque recibio Yd esa Representacion cuando Yd sabia que era falso porque los Chaboyos lo habian ocupardo en el ano 1835 — y los Indios desde mucho tiempo tenian costumbre de Yd alii a traer pintura para la Iglesia como Yd ha dicho ya en su testimonio. Resp. 75. — Castillero fud el que dio a luz el metal — el azogue — El presento ante mi el metal como prueba de lo que decia. Preg. 76. — Le a Yd esa representacion dice algo de azogue — que metal es el que dice que dice que la mina contenia. Resp. 76. — La representacion habia de oro y Plata pero se sabia que tenia azogue por que yo mismo lo vi. Preg. 77. — Si se sabia que la mina contenia azogue cuando le fue presentado a Yd aquella primera representacion porque no hablaba la representacion de azogue. Porque no se menciono juntamente con oro y plata — no se consideraba entonces que el azogue era metal precioso. Resp. 77. — No se porque no se menciono el azogue en esa represen- tacion — Se sabia entonces que el azogue era metal precioso. Preg. 78. — Si cuando se hizo la primera representacion se sabia que 661 la mina contenia, arogue como sucedio, que once dias despues Castille- ro presento una segunda representacion en la cual declaro que habia descubierto el, el azogue despues de halarse hecho la primera repre- sentacion. Antes de contestar a esta pregunta examine la segunda representa- cion de Castillero que esta Yd viendo. Resp. 78. — Yo no tengo presente porque se hizo esto — Es cosa ya muy vieja y no puedo acordarme. Preg. 79. — Si es cosa tan vieja que Yd no puede acordarse del mo- do en que fue manejado — no podria ser que estos papeles, nunca fueron presentadas ante Yd y que se equivoca Yd sobre este punto. Resp. 79. — Yo me acuerdo los documentos por supuesto porque los vi y los dege en manos de Gutierrez. Estuvieron en manos mias como autoridad. Preg. 80. — Ha dicho Yd que tenia " Las Ordenanzas de Mineria " los tenia Yd en un libro que se llama " Ordenanzas de Mineria.' ' Resp. 80. — Yo pienso que si. Preg. 81. — Conoseria Yd el libro si lo volviese Yd a ver. Resp. 81. — No se conoseria el libro ahora — porque ha pasado mucho tiempo y era cosa que nada me interesaba. Preg. 82. — Que si jamas ha visto mas que ese unico libro marcado " Ordenanzas de Mineria" si Yd ha visto mas de uno no eran todas exactamente iguales. Resp. 82. — Ese fue el unico que yo he visto. Preg. 83. — Yea Yd ahora el ultimo instrumento contenido en el Documento producido por S. 0. Houghton que esta viendo Yd — y que Yd llama su acto de posesion siendo el mismo que esta firmador por Yd como Alcalde y por Antonio Suiiol y Jose Noriega como testigos de asistencia diga Yd si puede porque se dijo el dia en bianco — esdecir de este modo. " Diciembre de mil ocho cientos cuarenta y cinco. Resp. 83. — Yo pienso que seria por olvido en la prontitud. Preg. 84. — Que quiere Yd decir cuando dice u en la prontitud," porque se apuraban ? Resp. 84. — No habia apuracion, pero no habiendo malicia ni fraude ni intenciones malas en aquel tiempe, no nos fijamos en las fechas, no hizimos atencion a eso. Preg. 85. — No fue este instrumento el papel mas importante tocan- te a la mina. Que si la fecha tomandola juntamente con la fecha de la representacion una parte muy importante de este instrumento. Pue- de Yd indie arme algun otro papel importante o no importante tocante a esta mina en lo cual la fecho esta en bianco. Res. 85. — Yo creo que ese es el mas importante de los papeles to- cantes a la mina — la fecha es parte importante de el — no se si hay o 662 no papel tocante a la mina en el cual no esta puesta la fecha o en el cual esta la fecha en bianco. Preg. 86. — Cuando Vd con los dichos Sunol y Noriega firmaron el dicho papel, estaba en la escritura o letra precedente, o estaba en bian- co y fue puesto despues la escritura o letra. Res. 86. — Cuando nosotros firmamos ya estaba hecho todo — el acto estaba todo escrito. Preg. 87. — Porque firma Vd un acto que pretendia conceder 3000 varas por todos rumbos Encontro Vd alguna autoridad para eso en las Ordenanzas de Mineria. Res. 87. — Porque me digo Castillero que le convenia 3000 varas y entonces le deje yo que las tomase por todos rumbos. El me digo que tenia ese derecho por ser primer descubridor del metal. Segun lo que Castillero me digo yo crei que yo como Alcalde tenia autoridad para hacer eso no habiendo otro juez de letra en California, El era hombre instruido en todos esas cosas. El me digo que yo era juez de letras y yo me consideraba como tal — no habiendo otro juez de letras. Preg. 88. — Que si el Pueblo de San Jose' no estaba en el Partido o Districto segundo ? si el Pueblo de San Francisco de asis no era la ca- beza del Districto en ese tiempo no era Guerrero Alcalde de primera dominacion — era San Francisco en ese tiempo y como tal no tenia el los poderes de juez de primera instancia, encluyendo a Vd y a los de- mas Alcaldes de ese partido o Districto ; y no era el el unico Alcalde que tenia el derecho de ser llamado Juez de letras. Res. 88. — San Jose estaba en el segundo districto. No me acuerdo si San Francisco de Asis 6 Monterey era la cabeza del Districto. No me acuerdo si Guerrero fue Alcalde entonces. No se si el tendria el derecho de ser llomado Juez de letras. Preg. 89. — Que laya de posesion es esta de que ha hablado Vd ? Quienes fueron con Vd a la Mina ? Que agrimensor tenian y que in- strumentos ? Que medidas hicieron ? Que obras hicieron Vds ? Cuan- tas estacas pusieron Vds ? En donde y por quien se pusieron ? Diga todo lo que ocurio. Cuanto tiempo se quedaron Vds alii. Cuando se volvieron y a donde. Diga tambien que Profesor de Mineria estaba alii presente. Res. 89. — Sunol, Noriega, el Padre Real, Castillero, Gutierrez y Fernandez tambien me parece otras personas, fueron pero no fueron con migo a la mina. No me acuerdo quienes. Estos mismos llegaron al agujero de la mina. Estuvimos alii algun tiempo y mande Uamar al sarjento Jos6 Reyes Berreyesa a su Rancho. Estos estuvieron alii y otros estuvieron tambien pero no me acuerdo quienes. No hubo agrimensor. Castillero tenia una aguja pequena de estos que se llevan en la balsa. Yo le dige a Castillero que no se podia medir con cordel porque estaba muy quebrada la tierra y que se tomara el las 3000 varas por la parte en la sierra por rumbos. 663 Todo que se hablo alii se escribio en un borrador todo lo que yo le decia a Castillero — esto fue la unica obra que hiziemos. No me acu- erdo haber puesto estaeas. No me acuerdo si se pusieron o no. Que- damos bastante tiempo en la mina no se cuantas horas estuvimos exa- minando todo. Nos volvimos a San Jose a donde Uegamos muy tarde. El unico Profesor de Mineria que estuvo alii fue Castillero porque el lo entendia. Preg. 90. — El terreno de que dice Vd que dio posesion de este modo estaba en su forma cuadrada o redondo ? Res. 90. — No se si estaba redondo o cuadrado — porque hize la di- vision por rumbos. Como le propusa a Castillero es decir que lo to- mase por donde estuviese valdio o en la sierra porque los Rancheros no querian sierra, querian puro piano. Preg. 91. — Por quien mando Vd Uamar a Berreyesa. De la mina envois Vd. Se envio decir verbalmente o por escrito cuanto tiempo lo aguardo Vd ? Como vino el ? De donde vino el ? Cuanto tiempo se quedo el en la mina. Res. 91. — Por un hijo de Berreyesa lo mande llamar. De la mina envie. Lo mande llamar verbalmente porque le habia dicho yo antes que iba a la mina en ese tiempo. El vino luego o aguardo poco tiempo. Vino a Caballo de su Rancho. Se quedo hasta que nosotros nos vi- nimos. Preg. 92. — El Sarjento Berreyesa y ese hijo de el estan vivos? En donde estaba el Genl. Jose* Castro en el mes de Noviembre del aiio 1845 y quien fue' su Secretario de el si tenia uno. Res. 92. — El Sarjento Berreyesa esta muerto pero no se si ese hijo esta vivo o muerto porque no me acuerdo cual de los hijos era pero se que fue uno de ellos. No se donde estaba el Genl. Castro en ese mes. Castaiieda fue Secretario de el pero no se si lo fue en ese mes puede ser que halla sido. Aque se empezo de nuevo el examen por parte del actor. Filed Dec. 29th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. 664 DEPOSITION OF SALYIO PACHECO. United States District Court, ) Northern District of California. ) San Francisco, Nov. 19, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the United States for the Northern District of California, duly au- thorized to administer oaths, &c, &c, came Salvio Pacheco a wit- ness produced on behalf of the Claimant in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and set- tle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows — his evidence being inter- preted by Edwin C. Palmer — a sworn interpreter. Present. — The United States Attorney by E. Randolph; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Questions by Attorney for Claimant. Question 1. — Your name, age, and place of residence ? Answer 1. — Salvio Pacheco ; 65 ; I reside in Martinez, in Contra Costa County. Ques. 2. — Look at the Document now shown you marked " A B n attached to the deposition of Jose Fernandez and say if you know in whose hand-writing are the various instruments therein con- tained, and state whether you are acquainted with the signature of Pedro Chaboya and whether the name of Pedro Chaboya where the same occurs in said document is the genuine signature of the said Chaboya. Ans. 2. — This writing was made in the Pueblo of San Jose in the year 1846. The whole of the body of this document is in my hand-writing ; I am acquainted with the signature of Pedro Cha- boya ; the signature of Chaboya wherever it occurs in this docu- ment is his genuine signature. Ques. 3. — Look at the date of the certificate signed by Pedro Chaboya on the last page of the Document, and state what office you held at that time, and also what office if any was held by Chaboya at the date of said instrument. Ans. 3. — I was Secretary of the County at that time ; at that time, Pedro Chaboya was Alcalde of either second nomination, or third, I am not certain which. Ques. 4. — Look at the document produced by S. 0. Houghton, on his examination taken in this cause on the 23d day of October 665 1857, and examine the marginal decree on the first page, and state if you know in whose hand-writing is the body of said decree, and whcB3 signature is affixed to the said decree. Ans. 4. — The hand-writing of the body of the marginal decree is my own hand-writing, and the signature is that of Dolores Pacheco, First Alcalde ; at that time there were three Alcaldes ; Dolores Pacheco was the first, and Pedro Chaboya and Valentin Higuera were the other two ; I do not remember which was the second Alcalde of those two, but the first was Dolores Pacheco. Ques. 5. — Was Dolores Pacheco a relative of yours; if so, how related ? Ans. 5. — He was ; he was my brother, he is dead : he died at the Pueblo of San Jose\ about two years ago more or less. Ques. 6. — At the time referred to in the 3d question, you ans- wered that you were Secretary of the County. Please explain what you mean by that ? Ans. 6. — At the time of the date of the certificate, I was " Es- cribiente " or Secretary of the Judge, or of the Justice of the Court of the County ; I was nominated by the Judge of the County, who was Dolores Pacheco, and the appointment was con- firmed by the Government. Cross Examination. Examination adjourned until to-morrow at 11 o'clock A. M., Nov. 20, 1857. San Francisco, Nov. 20, 1857. Deposition of Salvio Pacheco this day resumed. Present. — United States Attorney by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Ques. I. — When did Dolores Pacheco cease to be Alcalde, and who succeeded him? Ans. 1. — His successors were the Yankees when they took the place in the year 1846 ; Valentin Higuera and myself delivered the Archives of San Jose to the troops that came there ; I do not speak of the Commodore, but of the people who rose to take the country ; 15 armed men came to the house. Ques. 2. — Who were the people who rose to take the country ? Were they the same who raised the Bear flag, in Sacramento Valley ; who captured Genl. Vallejo at Sonoma, and who killed Sergeant Jose* Reyes Berreyesa, and the two young Haros near San Rafael ? 50 666 (Objected to.) Ans. 2. — I do not know whether they were the same who raised the Bear flag, or those who came with the Commodore or others ; what is certain is, that even the naturalized foreigners nearly all of them took up arms to assist the Americans. Ques. 3. — What office was it you say you held ? (Objected to.) Ans. 3. — Secretary of the county ; clerk ; in the year 1846: Ques. 4. — How many counties were there in California ? (Objected to.) Ans. 4. — In each town there were Alcaldes and Judges, now they are called a county ; I suppose that County and Jusgado, or Court are the same thing. Ques. 5. — What was the duties of the first Alcalde? (Question objected to as asking the witness' legal opinion.) Ans. 5. — To give to everybody what belonged to him; to do justice to those who were entitled to it according to the laws by which he was governed. Ques. 6. — What were the duties of the second Alcalde and of the third Alcalde ? (Question objected for the same reason as to the foregoing question.) Ans. 6. — The same ; in the absence of the first and second the third acted. Ques. 7. — Was not Valentin Higuerco second Alcalde, or first Supplente ? Ans. 7. — I do not remember whether he was first or second Al- calde, but I think he was third Alcalde, because the Documents shown me yesterday appear to be signed by Pedro Chaboya as second Alcalde, this must have been on account of the sickness or absence of the first. Ques: 8. — Did you see in the paper shown you yesterday that Pedro Chaboya was second Alcalde ? (Question objected to on the ground that it is asking the wit- ness' remembrance as to the contents of a written document about which the witness was examiued in chief only as regards the hand- writing and the signatures.) 667 Ans. 8; — The paper does not say that he was second Alcalde, but according to my view he acted as such. Ques. 9. — After the 15 armed Yankees took the office, and the papers, what became of you ? Where did you go to and what did you do ? Ans. 9. — I came to my Rancho of the "Monte del Diablo," to attend to my private affairs. Ques. 10. — Have you lived at your Rancho, and been attending to your private affairs ever since ? Ans. 10. — I have. Ques. 11. — When the Yankees took the Plaza, the office, and the papers, where was Genl. Jose Castro ? Ans. 11. — He had retired towards the Pueblo of Los Angeles, I learned that he went to Sonora in Mexico. Ques. 12. — How long after Genl. Castro retired, was it, that the Yankees entered ? Ans. 12. — I do not remember how many days after. Ques. 13. — How long after the Yankee Commodores took Mon- terey and San Francisco, was it, before you gave up the papers at San Jose, to the 15 armed men ? Ans. 13. — When I delivered the papers at San Jose, the Com- modore was here, and he afterwards left to raise the flag at Mon- terey. Ques. 14. — Who asked you to make that copy which was shown you yesterday ? Ans. 14. — The Alcalde Pedro Chaboya. Ques. 15. — When did he ask you ? (Question objected to.) Ans. 15. — The year that he was in office, which was 1846. Ques. 16. — How long before the Yankees came was it that it was made ? Ans. 16. — I do not remember how long, nor how many months be- fore the Yankees arrivedafterwards ; by the arrival of the Yan- kees. I "mean the time when thej took the archieves of the govern- ment from us. Ques. 17. — Was it on the 27th or the 29th, that you entered the marginal decree on the petition of Genl. Castro ; in the copy of which you have testified, the seven seems to have been changed into a nine ; was that change made by yourself? (Question objected to, because it asks the witness to state from his memory the date of an official act, which act is in writing, which wri- ting is in the hands of the Att'y for the U. S. the signatures of the same having been duly proved.) 668 (The documents then referred to were then handed to the witness by the United States Att'y, and after having examined them he an- swered as follows.) Ans. 17. — Twenty-nine is written in both, this is clear, there is no change. I have not said that it appeared to have been changed. (The question as propounded to the witness in Spanish, contained a statement that the witness had testified that there appeared to be a change in the copy, " A. B.") Ques. 18. — Was Genl. Jose* Castro, in San Jose* on the 27th, 28th, or 29th of June, 1846 ? Ans. 18. — I do not remember ; he retired in June or July. He was in Santa Clara at that time, June or July ; while he was there they were up this way, and when he retired, the Yankees entered and took the archives from us. Ques. 19. — Who handed Genl, Castro's petition to you for you to write the marginal order on it ; was it Gen. Castro himself ? (Question objected to as leading, and asking about new matter.) Ans. 19. — Dolores Pacheco, the Alcalde, gave it to me. Ques. 20. — Did Gen. Castro himself bring it to the Alcalde : was he at the Jusgado, or in San Jose*, on that day ? Ans. 20. — I do not know. Ques. 21 — Was this marginal decree entered on the Alcalde's books, or not ? When Dolores Pacheco made concessions of lots in June, 1846, did he not have his orders entered on the book ? (Question objected to, especially the latter part of it, as being en- tirely irrelevant.) Ans. 21. — That decree was placed, or copied in the book. When Dolores Pacheco made those concessions, they were written in a book. Ques. 22. — Will you take the pen and write the following words as they are read to you, and sign your name with your rubric ? Ans. 22 — The witness writes, (Before the witness writes, the attorney for the claimant objects to this proceeding.) " Pueblo de S. Jose G. Junio 29, de 1846. Como lo pide inclullase este y Archibase. SALVIO PACHECO." (The witness states if there is any difference in this handwriting 669 and the handwriting of the decree, it is because he has not written for 8 or 10 years.) Ques. 23. — Now please write the words " June 27," and tell me if that is the way you always sign your name, or make you rubric ? (Att'y for claimant objects to the whole proceeding, in making the witness write in this deposition.) " Junio, 27." Ans. 23. — At first I signed differently, but afterwards I have al- ways signed and made my rubric in this manner. Ques. 24. — Do you know how to make the rubric of Dolores Pa- checo ? Ans. 24.— No. Ques. 25. — Do you not know that there exists among the archives in San Jose, a declaration of your brother Dolores Pacheco, made be- fore James W. Weeks, Alcalde, to the effect, that on the 17th or 18th day of June, 1846, or thereabouts, he, the said Dolores Pacheco, turned over the Alcaldeship to Valentin Higuera, and never after- wards occupied himself in it, or performed any official act ? (Question objected to on the ground that it asks the witness what are the contents of a written instrument, whose existence the question seems to acknowledge, as well as the place where it may be found.) Ans. 25. — When Castro departed for the South with the people, Pedro Chaboya, and Valentin Higuera were left by him in charge of the administration of justice, he left them as 2d and 3d Alcaldes, Dolores Pacheco being first; a few days after the withdrawal of Castro, Chaboya fell sick, and Valentin Higuera became Alcalde in his stead. The Americans arrived soon after, and he and I delivered the house and archives to the American Government. Deposition taken subject to all exceptions, except as to the form of the questions. SALVIO PACHECO. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20 Novr. 1857. cutler McAllister. U. S. Com. SEAL 670 Cross-Examination of Salvio Pacheco. Preg. 1. — Cuando Salio Dolores Pacheco del empleo de Alcalde y quien fue su successor. Resp. 1. — Sus successores fueron los Yankees cuando tomaron la plaza en el ano 1846. Yo y Valentin Higuera entregamos los archi- vos de San Jose* a la tropa que vinieron alii. No hablo del commodore sino de la gente que se levantaron para tomar el pais, vieron a la casa quenice hombres armados. * Preg. 2. — Quienes fueron los que se levantaron para tomar el pais. Fueron los mismos que levantaron la bandera del oso en Yalle del Sa- cramento ; que tomaron preso al General Vallejo en Sonoma y que mataron a Jose Reyes Berreyesa y los dos jovenes Haros cerca de San Rafael. Res. 2. — No se si fueron los que levantaron la bandera del oso o los que vinieron con el Comodore, otros. Lo cierto es que hasta los es- trangeros naturalizados casi todos tomaran las armas para ayudar a los Americanos. Preg. 3. — Que empleos dijo Vd que habia tenido. Res. 3. — Secretario del Condado, escribiente, en el ano '46. Preg. 4. — Cuantos Condados habian en California ? Res. 4. — En cada poblacion habian Alcalde y jueces ; ahora los llaman Condado yo pienzo que Condado es lo mismo que Juzgado. Preg. 5. — Cuales eran los deberes del Alcalde primero. Res. 5. — Dar a cada uno lo que era suyo y hacer justicia a el que la tenia ; segun las leyes que le regian. Preg. 6. — Cuales eran los deberes del Alcalde segundo y del Al- calde tercero. Res. 6. — Los mismos. En ansencia del primero obraba el segundo. En ansencia del primero y segundo obraba el tercero. Preg. 7. — No era Valentin Higuera Alcalde segundo o suplente primero ? Resp. 7. — No me acuerdo si era Alcalde primero o segundo pero, me parece que era el tercero porque en los documentos que me ensen- aron ayer ; se ve firmado Pedro Chaboya como Alcalde segundo y eso seria por enfermedad 6 ansencia del primero. Preg. 8. — Vio Vd en el papel que le ensenaron a Vd ayer que Pe- dro Chaboya era Alcalde segundo. Res. 8. — El papel no dice que el era Alcalde segundo, pero a mi concepto el obio como tal. Preg. 9. — Despues que los quince Yankees armados tomaron la ofi- cina y los papeles que le sucedio a Vd ; a donde se fue y que hizo Vd. Res. 9. — Me vine a mi Rancho del Monte del Diablo a ocuparme de mis negocios particulares. 671 Preg. 10. — Desde ese tiempo se ha quedado Vd viviendo siempre en su Rancho y ocupado en sus negocios particulars ? Res. 10.— Si. Preg. 11. — Cuando los " Yankees " tomaron la plaza la oficinay los papeles en donde se hallaba el Genl. Jose* Castro. Res. 11. — Estaba el retirado en direccion del Pueblo de Los An- geles. Supe que despues se retiro el para Sonoma en Mexico. Preg. 12. — Cuanto tiempo despues de la retirada del Genl. Castro entraron los Yankees. Res. 12. — No me aeuerdo ; cuantos dias despues. Preg. 13. — Cuanto tiempo despues que los Comodores Yankees to- maron Monterey y San Francisco, fue cuando Vd entrego los papeles en San Jose* a los quince hombres armados. Res. 13. — Cuando yo entregue los papeles en San Jose* el Comodore estaba aqui y despues se fue a levantar la Bandera en Monterey. Preg. 14. — Quien le dijo a Vd que hiciese esa copia que le ensena- ron ayer. Res. 14. — El Alcalde Pedro Chaboya. Preg. 15. — Cuando le digo que lo hiciese. Res. 15. — El ano de su empleo que fue en '46. Preg. 16. — Cuanto tiempo antes de la llegada de los Yankees se hizo eso. Res. 16. — No tengo presente cuanto tiempo cuantos meses antes ; despues llegaron los Yankees. Entiendo yo por llegada de los Yan- kees, cuando nos quitaron los archivos, el gobierno. Preg. 17. — Fue en el dia 29 or en el dia 27 que Vd escribio el de- creto en el margen sobre la peticion del Genl. Castro en la copia del cual ha dicho Vd en su testimonio, que el 7 parece haber sido cambi- ado a un 9 ; ese cambio fue hecho por Vd mismo. Resp. 17. — 29 esta escrito en los dos. Esto esta claro no hay cam- bia ninguno. Yo no he dicho que parecia haberse cambiado. Preg. 18. — Estuvo el Genl. Jose* Castro en San Jose* el dia 27, 28, 6 29 de Junio del ano 1846. Res. 18. — No me aeuerdo, en Junio o Julio se retir6 el. Estuvo en Santa Clara en ese tiempo Junio o Julio. Mientras que el estava alii ellos estuvieron por aca y cuando el se retivo entraron los Yankees y nos quitaron los archivos. Preg. 19. — Quien le entrego a Vd la peticion del Genl. Castro para que Vd escribiese en el decreto en la margen. Fue el mismo Genl. ? Res. 19. — Dolores Pacheco, el Alcalde me lo entrego. Preg. 20. — El mismo Genl. Castro trajo al Alcalde. Estuvo el Castro en el juzgado o en San Jose en ese dia. Res. 20.— No se. Preg. 21. — Este decreto en el margen fue escrito o registrado en el 672 libro del Alcalde ? Cuando Dolores Pacheco hizo consesiones de sola- res en San Jose* en el mes de Junio ano 1846 no hacia poner sus or- denes en el libro ? Res. 21. — Ese decreto fue puesto o copiado en el libro : cuando Dolores Pacheco hacia esas concesiones se escribian en un libro. Preg. 22. — Tome Yd la pluma y escriba las palabras seguentes ordean, " Pueblo de S. JosS, G. Junio 29 de 1846. Como lo fide inclullarse este y archibarse." firme Yd con su rubrica. Preg. 23. — Escriba Yd ahora las palabras " Junio 27 " y digame si asi es como siempre firma y hace su rubrica Yd. Res. 23. — Al principio firmaba de otra manera pero siempre des- pues he firmado y hecho mi rubrica de este modo. Preg. 24. — Sabe Yd hacer la rubrica de Dolores Pacheco. Res. 24.— No. Preg. 25. — No sabe Yd que existe entre los archivos en San Jose*, una declaracion de su hermano Dolores Pacheco, hecha delante de Santiago W. Weekes Alcalde que dice que en el dia 17 o 18 de Junio del ano 1846 o por alii en esos dias el dicho Dolores Pacheco entrego la alcaldia a Yalentin Higuera y que nunca despues hizo ningo acto oficial ni se ocupo" mas de dicho empleo. Res. 25. — Cuando se fue Castro para abajo con la gente dej6 a Pe- dro Chaboya y a Yalentin Higuera encargados de la Justicia ; los dejo de alcaldes segundo y tercero siendo Dolores Pacheco alcalde primero. Pocos dias despues de la retirada de Castro se enfermo Chaboya y Yalentin Higuera quedo de Alcalde en su lugar, y luego llegaron los Americanos y yo y el entregamos la casa y archivos al Gobierno Ame- ricano. Filed Dec'r 29th, 1857. JOHN A. MONROE, Clerk. By J. Edgar Grymes, Deputy. 673 DEPOSITION OF T. F. GRANT. United States Distict Court, Northern District of California. San Francisco, Nov. 20, 185T. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the Uni ted States for the Northern District of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, &c, &c, came T. F. Grant, a witness produced on behalf of the United States in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present : The U. S. Attorney, by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. Questions by U. S. Attorney. Question 1. — Your name, age, occupation, and place of residence ? Answer 1. — T. F. Grant ; 30 years; Deputy County Recorder of Santa Clara County ; I reside in San Jose'. Ques. 2. — Take this exhibit " C D," attached to the deposition of Jose' Fernandez, being the " Escritura de Compania," look at it and say what manufactures' marks, or water-marks you find on it. (Question objected to on the ground that the witness has not shown that he has any knowledge of water or other marks, put by manufac- turers on paper, nor has he said that he has any knowledge or skill in describing, tracing, or knowing such marks.) Ans. 2.— I find " G. J. 0. R° . M. A. G. N. A. N. J. E." I can't make out what the rest of that is, it looks more like an " F " than any other letter ; this is on the first leaf, second page of said document ; over the letter " F " there is a small " o 7 '; under it an " N," at the end a little round dot, a period I suppose ; over the period there is a sort of a dash. Ques. 3. — Look on the second leaf of said document and tell what you find there. Ans. 3.— I find an " R " with a letter " S "on the top of it. Ques. 4. — Now take the document produced by S. 0. Houghton, look at the first instrument therein, being the petition signed Jose* Cas- 674 tro, -with the marginal decree signed Pacheco, and say what water- marks or manufacturers' mark you find on it. Ans. 5. — I find a " P " or an " R."; I don't know which it is, with an " S " over it ; this is on the first leaf of said instrument. On the second leaf of said instrument I find " G. J. 0. R°. M. A. G. N. A. N. J. E. E°." and a period at the end. Ques. 6. — Take now the second instrument in said document, heing the first petition signed Andres Castillero, and say what water or man- ufacture marks you find on said instrument. Ans. 6. — I find something similar to a coat-of-arms with a pair of scales on it, this is on the first leaf of said instrument ; on the second leaf I find something, I do not know what to call it ; I do not know what it is meant for ; I should not call it a flower ; I never saw a flower like it ; in the corner of the same leaf I find something like a pair of scales. Ques. 7. — Take now the next instrument in said document, being the second petition of Castillero, and say what water, or manufactu- rer's mark you find on said instrument. Ans. 7. — On the first leaf of said instrument I find a " P 8 "; also in the corner of the same leaf I find an " "; on the second leaf I find " G. J. 0. R°. M. A. G. N. A. N. J. E. F°." a period after it, and one on the same line, not exactly under it. Ques. 8. — Look now at the next and last instrument in said docu- ment, being the act of possession signed by Pico, and witnessed by Sunol and Noriega, and say what water or manufacture's mark you find there. Ans. 8. — On the first leaf I find " P s " and a period, also an " " in the corner of the same leaf; an the second leaf I find u G. J. 0. R°. M. A. G. N. A. N. J. E. F ., a period at the end, and another period underneath. Cross-Examination. Ques. 1. — Look at the sheet within which are found the documents concerning which you have been testifying, and state what water-marks you find on the same. Ans. 1. — On the first page I find what I should call a coat-of-arms ; also the letters " G. B. F. E. M. V. E D. 0. V. A." On the last leaf of said sheet I find " F. A. B." There is a hole in the paper, and then comes what I should call " A. J." with " 12 " underneath. Ques. 2. — Look at the document marked " A. B." purporting to 675 be a copy of the Houghton document, concerning which you have been examined, and say what water-mark or manufacturer's marks you find on said paper. Ans. 2. — On the first leaf I find a coat-of-arms with the letters " G. B. F. E. M. V. E. D. 0. V. A." which appears to me similar to the one described in the last answer ; on the other leaf of the same sheet, I find "F. A. B.J. A.N. J." " 12. " I find the second sheet of said document to have the same marks as the other. Ques. 3. — Look upon the Exhibit " T. R." attached to the deposi- tion of Jose Fernandez, and answer the same question with reference to that, and state whether the water-mark thereon resembles any of those you have before described. Ans. 3. — I find upon the said Exhibit, being a half leaf of paper, the upper portion of a coat-of-arms, such as I have already described, as being on the first leaf of each sheet of the Chaboya copy, being Ex- hibit " A. B." attached to the deposition of Jose* Fernandez. Ques. 4. — Answer the same question in reference to " Exhibit X. Y." attached to the deposition of Jose* Fernandez. Ans. 4. — On the first leaf of this sheet I find the same marks as on the first leaf of each sheet of the Chaboya copy, " Exhibit A. B." above referred to. On the second leaf of this Exhibit I find the same letters and figures as those on each leaf of the second sheets of the Chaboya copy, " Exhibit A. B." above referred to. Above deposition taken subject to all exceptions, except as to the form of the questions. T. F. GRANT. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 20th Nov., 1857. cutler McAllister, U. S. Commissioner. Filed December 29th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. 676 DEPOSITION OF BENITO DIAZ. United States District Codrt, Northern District of California. San Francisco, Nov. 25, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the United States for the Northern Distrtct of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, &c, &c, came Benito Diaz, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissions to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows — his evidence being interpreted by Richard Tobin, a sworn interpreter: Present : U. S. Attorney by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. Questions by U. S. Attorney. Question 1. — Your name, age, residence, what offices have you held in California, if any, and when ? Answer 1. — Beneto Diaz ; 43 ; I reside in Monterey ; I was em- ployed in the Custom House, and a lieutenant in the State Militia. Ques. 2. — Please look at the document now shown you, being the document produced by S. 0. Houghton, and look at the first instru- ment in that document, being the petition signed Jose* Castro, and state if you know the handwriting of the body of that instrument, and if yea, whose handwriting it is. Ans. 2. — The body of that instrument is in my handwriting. Ques. 3. — At what time was it written, if you remember? If you do remember, state what circumstances you can now recall which en- ables you to fix precisely the date. (Question objected to on the ground that it is asking the witness the contents of a written instrument.) Ans. 3. — I do not remember the date. Ques. 4. — In what year was it written, or about what year ? Ans. 4. — I remember having written it, but I do not know in what year. Ques. 5. — Endeavor to recall the circumstances under which it was 677 ♦ written ; on what occasion ; at what place ; by whose request ; who was with you, &c. Ans. 5. — I remember that I wrote it at Santa Clara, at the request of Father Real, he told me to make him the copy of a paper, which he had in his hand ; I think this is what I wrote ; there were two per- sons there ; one was Juan Castaiieda, and the other was the porter of the Mission. Ques. 6. — Was the Mission your residence ; if not, what were you doing there at that time, and what was Castaiieda doing there ? Ans. 6. — We came, myself and Castaneda, to attend to some busi- ness with Father Real ; we came to solicit possession of the orchard of Santa Clara. Ques. 7. — Where did you come from when you came to solicit pos- session of the orchard from Father Real ? Where had you been ? Ans. 7. — We came from Monterey, we had been there. Ques. 8. — And to Monterey, where did you come from ; where had you been ? Ans. 8. — We had been at Monterey ; we had not come from any place. Ques. 9. — How long had you been staying at Monterey, before you started to go to Santa Clara to demand possession of that orchard ? Ans. 9. — I lived in Monterey, and at that time Castaneda was settled there. Ques. 10. — Do you remember any thing about Gen. Castro's re- tiring from this upper part of the country, to the south, when the Americans invaded the country ? Ans. 10. — I do remember. Ques. 11. — Do you remember any of the persons who retired with him, and if yea, mention the names of such as you may remember. Ans. 11. — I remember Mr. Alvarado, Antonio Maria Pico, and Juan Pinto, and the greater part of the people. Ques. 11. — What about you and Castaneda, did you go too, or did you remain behind ? Ans. 12. — When they took Monterey I was there, and three or four days afterwards I joined the division under Castro, and which was on the plain of Monterey, and I found Castaneda there. He was also going with the division under Castro. Ques. 13. — After joining Gen. Castro on the plain of Monterey, where did you go next ? Ans. 13. — To Los Angeles. Ques. 14. — How long did you remain in the southern part of Cali- fornia, before you came back to Monterey ? Ans. 14. — A month more or less. Ques. 15. — Was it before the Americans took Los Angeles the first time, or after that event, that you returned to Monterey ? 678 Ans, 15. — I left the night before they took it the first time. Ques. 16. — Who came with you? Ans. 16. — There were several came, I remember Fernandez, Cha- boya, Antonio Maria Pico, and many others. Ques. 17. — Was Juan Castaneda one ? (Question objected to as leading.) Ans. 17.— No. Ques. 18. — About how long afterwards was it before you saw Juan Castaneda in Monterey ? Ans. 18. — Three or four months after. Ques. 19. — Was it before you saw Juan Castaneda in Monterey, on that occasion, that you and he went to Santa Clara to solicit pos- session of the orchard from Father Real ? I mean was it before or after Castaneda returned from the South ? Ans. 19. — It was after Castaneda's return from the South. Ques. 20. — About how long after, as well as you can now remem- ber? Ans. 20. — It was five or six months after. Ques. 21. — Was it on that visit of yourself and Castaneda, that you wrote the paper of which you have testified, or was it on any other occasion ? (Question objected to as leading.) Ans. 21. — It was at that time. (The objection to the above question was made after witness had given his answer to the interpreter.) Ques. 22. — Do you remember any incident which occurred at that time, fixing in your mind the fact oi your writing that paper ? Ans. 22. — I only remember that Father Ileal dictated to me from a paper, and that Castaneda was there also. Ques. 23. — Look at the paper again, look at the signature to the paper ; look at the marginal order thereon, and say whether the said signature, and the said marginal order were upon the paper at the time you wrote it ; or whether they were afterwards put on in your presence, or whether you know anything about them. Ans. 23. — I know nothing about them ; there was no decree, upon it when I wrote it, immediately after I finished writing it, Father Real took it and put away. Ques. 24. — Look at the three other instruments in the document referred to contained, viz. in the S. 0. Houghton document, and say 679 if you know anything about the hand writing of them, and if so what ? And say if you know anything about the writing of them, or any one of them, and if yea, what ? Ans. 24. — The first petition of Castillero, I know to be in the hand writing of Castaneda, I no not know the hand writing of the other two instruments. I know nothing about the writing or preparation of any of them. Ques. 25. — Did Father Real give possession of the orchard to you and to Castaneda ? Ans. 25.— No. Ques. 26. — Who is the present holder of your claim to that or- chard, under which you sought to get possession ? Ans. 26. — Charley Clayton is the present holder of that claim. Ques. 27. — When, a few days after the taking of Monterey by the Americans, you joined Gen. Castro in the plain of Monterey, as you have testified, was that the first time you had joined him during that campaign against the Americans ? Ans. 27. — That was not the first time. Ques. 28. — When and where had you been with him before during that campaign ; when, and at what place had you left him ? Ans. 28. — I had been with him before at Santa Clara, and at Con- tra Costa ; I left him at Santa Clara, three or four days after we re- turned from Contra Costa, and I went to Monterey. Ques. 29. — Do you know on what days you were in Contra Costa with Gen. Castro; at what day you got back to Santa Clara ? Ans. 29. — I can't remember. Ques. 30. — How many days was it before the Americans took Mon- terey, that you met Gen. Castro at Santa Clara ? Ans. 30 — I remember that I left Santa Clara on the 4th July, and the Americans took Santa Clara on the 7th July. Ques. 31 . — Did you, or did you not, when you were in Contra Costa, or when you were in Santa Clara, at the time referred to last, write any paper relating to this mine, at the request of Gen. Castro, or of Father Real, or of any body else, or at your own suggestion ? Ans. 31. — No, none. Ques. 32. — Is not Castaneda now dead ? Ans. — Yes, he is dead. Examination adjourned until to-morrow, at 11, A. M., Nov. 26, 1857. 680 San Francisco, Nov. 26, 1857. Deposition of Benito Diaz, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, this day continued. Present : U. S. Attorney, by E. Randolph, Esq. ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Cross-Examination. Ques. 1. After you copied the document shown you by Padre Real, when did you next see the copy you made ? Ans. 1. I saw it here in this room, about fifteen days ago. Ques. 1. Who was with you when you saw it ; did you come here to look at it ; if yea, who brought you here ? Ans. 2. Messrs. Cambuston and Laurencel, were with me when I saw it. I came to see it because Mr. Laurencel told me to come here to see whether I knew the handwriting of some papers that were here. Ques. 3. Were no other persons with you at that time, or on that occasion ? Ans. 3. There were several other persons there looking at the document, and amongst them this gentleman. (Witness pointed to Mr. Thompson, the Recorder of Santa Clara County.) Ques. 4. When did you next see the document ? Ans. 4. — Some five or six days ago I saw it here in the other room. Ques. 5. — At whose instance did you come to examine it the second time, and who was present at the second examination ? Ans. 5. — I came at the request of Mr. Laurencel the second time ; Mr. Laurencel and these other gentlemen were present. Ques. 6. — When did you next inspect that document, and at whose instance ? Ans. 6. — I did not see it again until yesterday, when I saw it here. Ques. 7. — Have you any permanent place of residence, and what do you do for a living ? Ans. 7. — I have a permanent place of residence, and I make a liv- ing by working. Ques. 8. — Where do you reside, and what kind of a work do you do for a living ? Ans. 8. — I live at Monterey ; my house is there ; I have a part of 681 a ranch, and there I have another house, and on the same rancho I am cultivating an orchard. Ques. 9. — What is the name of that rancho, and who owns the other parts of it ? Ans. 9. — It is called " El Piogo "; my wife's brothers own the other parts of it. Ques. 10. — How long have you been in San Francisco this time ? Ans. 10. — About three weeks. Ques. 11. — What have been your business here ? Ans. 11. — I came to attend to some business with Mr. Alvarado. Ques. 12. — Who first told you that there was a document used in this case in your handwriting ? Ans. 12. — Nobody told me ; I did not know there was until I saw it. Ques. 13. — What was said to you by Mr. Laurencel about this doc- ument when he requested you to come and inspect it ? state every- thing that was said by him you on that occasion. Ans. 13. — He came and told me to do him the favor to come and see whether I knew the handwriting, and we came, Cambuston and I ; I recognized that of Castaneda and my own, but I said that I only recognized that of Castaneda ; three or four days afterwards I went to San Jos£, and returned here again, and Mr. Laurencel sent for me again ; I think it was Friday, and he asked me if it was true that that was my handwriting ; and he asked me several other ques- tions, and he said it was all right, and that he was much obliged to me, and on Saturday the Marshal took me a subpoena. Ques. 14. — Did Mr. Laurencel speak to you in Spanish, or did he converse with you by means of an interpreter ? Ans. 14. — He spoke to me in Spanish. Ques. 15. — What were the other questions Mr. Laurencel asked you on that occasion ? Ans. 15. — He asked me when I had written that document, where and in whose presence, and several others, which I don't remember, nearly the same that was asked yesterday. Ques. 16. — After your first inspection of this document, and before your conversation with Mr. Laurencel, mentioned in your last answer, had you ever conversed with any person about that document ? if yea, name all the persons with whom you have held such conversation, and state what you said to them, and what they said to you, about it. Ans. 16. — I had a conversation with Fernandez, with Antonio Maria Pico, with a person named James Crane ; Fernandez knew my hand- writing, and he asked me if I had really written it, and I replied to him, yes, that I had written it. Antonio Maria Pico and James Crane were present when Fernandez put me these questions. Afterwards* Don Antonio Maria Pico told me that he would cause my testimony to. 51 682 be taken, and I replied to him that he should do me the favor not to involve me in the matter, because I intended to leave soon. Ques. 17. — On how many occasions did you ask Padre Real for the possession of the orchard of Santa Clara ? Ans. 17. — On two occasions. Ques. 18.— The date of the first? Ans. 18. — I do not remember the date, but it was before we went in person to ask it, it was through the medium of Don Antonio Osio. Ques. 19. — State the dates as well as you can remember ; on your direct examination you appear to have a very good memory for dates, please exercise it now a little. Ans. 19. — If I remember I will tell it, but after ten or twelve years it is difficult to remember the date ; I remember that I sent Osio the first time, but I don't remember the date. I don't remember the date of the second time, but I now remember that the date can be ascer- tained from the newspapers, because they gave an account of a diffi- culty I had with Father Real touching the possession of the orchard. Ques. 20. — What newspapers ? Ans. 20. — The first newspaper that was established here, I think ; I think the editor was that very tall man they used to call Simple or Semple. Ques. 21. — Was your first application to Padre Real for the pos- session of this orchard before, or after, you went south with General Castro ? Ans. 21. — It was after we came from the south, because when we came from the south, we brought the titles to the orchard of Santa Clara. Ques. 22. — Have you now any interest in the orchard of Santa Clara, under the title of which you have first spoken, or under any other ? '.(Question objected to as irrelevant, even on a cross-examination.) Ans. 22. — I have no interest. Ques. 23. — Did you sell your interest in said orchard derived from the title of which you have spoken ; if yea, to whom, for what price, and when? (Question objected to as before.) Ans 23. — I sold it to Charley Clayton in the year 1849 or 1850, but I don't remember for how much. Ques. 24. — Try to remember for how much. Ans. 24.— From $1,200 to $1,600. 683 Ques. 25. — Where was that title written out and signed, and when ? I mean your title to the orchard of Santa Clara. (Question objected to, because it is irrelevant, inasmuch as it is the Claimant's title to the Almaden mine, which is now on trial, and not the witness' title to the orchard.) Ans. 25. — It was written by Juan Castaneda, and signed by Pio Pico ; it was written and signed at Los Angeles ; I don't know when. Ques. 26. — Do you remember the date of it ? (Question objected to because the paper is the best evidence of the date.) Ans. 26. — In the last days of June, 1846. Ques. 27. — What did you give the Government for that orchard ? (Objected to as immaterial.) Ans. 27. — If I am allowed I will make a suggestion ; I have been sworn to tell the truth in the case of Andres Castillero, but now I see I am being examined in another case. Ques. 28. — I repeat the question, please answer it. Ans. 28. — I gave it nothing. Ques. 29. Was the orchard granted to you alone, or with others, and if with others, whom ? Ans. 29. It was granted to me, Juan Castaneda and Luis Arenas. Ques. 30. By the terms of the grant, was it a donation, or a sale ? (Question objected to as before, and the counsel for the United States here requests the Commissioner to instruct the witness that he is under no obligations to answer questions respecting any of his pri- vate affairs in no manner connected with the claim of Castillero now on trial.) (Commissioner refused to give such instruction upon the ground that the questions have some bearing to the answers of the witness in his examination in chief.) (Ruling excepted to.) Ans. 30. — I think it was a sale. (Objected to.) 684 Ques. 31. Did neither Castaiieda nor Arenas, pay the Govern- ment anything for the orchard under that grant ? Ans. 31. I think they did pay it, the Government. Ques. 32. What did they pay it ? (Objected to.) Ans. 32. According to what they told me, they paid cattle and seed, and a small amount of money. Ques. 33. How many cattle, how much seed, and how much money did they pay, and when did they pay it ? (Objected to.) Ans. 33. I do not know the quantity, nor when they paid it. Ques. 34. Did they obtain a receipt for the same from the Gover- ner, or any other official ? (Objected to.) Ans. 34. Yes, there was a receipt. Ques. 35. In whose handwriting was that receipt, and by whom signed ? (Objected to.) Ans. 35. It was signed by Pio Pico, the Governor. I think it was in the handwriting of Castaiieda, but I am not sure. Ques. 36. What was the date of the receipt ? (Objected to.) Ans. 36. June, 1846, 1 think, about the end of the month. I am not sure, because I only saw the receipt once. Ques. 37. How do you know that Castaiieda wrote that Grant ? (Objected to.) Ans. 37. Because I saw it written. Ques. 38. In what house in Los Angeles was it written ? (Objected to.) Ans. 38. At the house of Luis Arenas. 685 Ques. 39. Was Castaiieda in Los Angeles in the month of June, 1846? (Objected to.) Ans. 39. No, he was not there. Ques. 40. Was Pio Pico in Los Angeles, in the month of June, 1846 1 (Objected to.) Ans. 40. I don't know, I was not there in June, 1846 ? Ques. 41. Did you see Pio Pico sign that Grant ? ' (Objected to.) Ans. 41. No. Ques. 42. In what month did Castaiieda write that Grant ? (Objected to.) Ans. 42. In July, or August, 1846. Ques. 43. Is this man Crane, with whom you had the conversa- tion mentioned in your 16th answer on this cross-examination, the same person to whom you stated under oath when you appeared as a wit- ness on behalf of the United States before the Land Commission, in the Claim of Redman & Clayton, for the Orchard of Santa Clara, that you had told many lies ? (Question objected to as incompetent, because Counsel for the Claimant should first exhibit to the witness the deposition or state- ment to which he refers, before cross-examining the witness as to that deposition. The Counsel for the United States asks the Commissioner to require of the Counsel for the Claimant to produce and exhibit to the witness the deposition or statement to which he refers, before putting the question.) [The Counsel for the Claimant here states that he will save the Commissioner the trouble of ruling upon said request of the U. S. Attorney, by asking an adjournment of this examination until to- morrow, when he will produce said deposition.] Examination adjourned until to-morrow Nov. 27,1857, at 11, A.M. 686 San Francisco, November 27, 1857, 11 A. M. Cross-Examination of Benito Diaz, a witness produced on behalf oi the United States this day continued. Present : The United States Attorney by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Ques. 43, withdrawn. Ques. 44. — Did you appear as a witness on behalf of tne United States, before the United States Land Commission, in December, 1854, in the claim of J. W. Redman and others, for the orchard of Santa Clara, and was your deposition taken in that case ? Ans. 44. — Yes. Ques. 46. — Look at the 13th question and your answer thereto, on the cross-examination, as it appears written in your deposition taken before the Land Commission on the 28th Dec. 1854, in the said claim, and filed in the office of the said Commission, which said question and answer, are in the following words : " 13th Question. — Have you had any conversation with James C. " Crane, in the City of San Francisco, on the subject of the affidavit " which you made on the 4th Dec. 1854, before this Board, or about " your giving testimouy in this case, if yea, when did that conversa- " tion occur, and what did you say as to money which was to be paid " to you for testifying against this claim ? " Answer. — I have had a conversation with said Crane on the sub- " ject of said affidavit. Crane proposed to me that he would give " testimony in this case, and asked me how much Padre Nobles would " pay. I told him I did not know, he could go and see the Padre, and " arrange it himself. Crane told me he had not been able to affect an " arrangement with the Padre about it. " I and Crane have had many conversations in which we have both " made misrepresentations to each other to deceive each other. " The conversation I had with Crane about said affidavit was held " at the St. Francis' Hotel, in this city, some three or four days " after I made said affidavit. " As to what I said to Crane about what money I was to receive " for testifying against this claim, I have told Crane many lies." Look also to your answer to the II 5th question on the cross-exami- nation in the said deposition, which question and snswer is in the fol- lowing words : 687 " 15th Question. — Did you ever mention to said Crane the sum of " $2000, in the conversations you say you had with him, as a sum to " be paid to you either directly or contingently, for testifying against "this claim ?" " Answer.— I have mentioned to him $1000, $2000, $3000, and " $4000, at different times, as sums which I am to receive for testify- " ing against this claim. It was false, but I told him so to get rid of " him. " Crane told me I had done a poor business by taking sides with " the Padres, that if I had only taken sides with him, he could pro- " bably have got me $4000, or $5000, from the attorneys." And state if said questions were propounded to you, and whether those answers were made to said questions, and whether the Crane who is mentioned in said questions and answers is the person of that name with whom as you have stated in your 16 th Answer of your cross-examination in this deposition, you conversed on the subject of this petition of Castro's, written by you at the request of Padre Real? (The U. S. Attorney admits that the deposition of this witness re- ferred to in above question, and shown to the witness, is the same de- position which is on file among the papers of the Land Commission in the claim of Joshua W. Redman, Chas. Clayton, and the Heirs of James M. Jones, dec'd, to the Orchard of Santa Clara, and that the same was produced on this examination by a deputy from the Survey- or General's office, in charge of the archives.) Ans. 45. — I am not a lawyer, and do not know whether I should answer this question, but I think it is unnecessary to answer this ques- tion, because the records are public, and I am here to testify in ano- ther and different case. Ques. 46. — I repeat the question and insist upon your answering it? (The U. S. Attorney requests the Commissioner to instruct the witness that his answer just given is sufficient, except as to the iden- tity of Crane, and with that exception he cannot be compelled law- fully to give any other answer.) [Commissioner refuses to give such instructions, and takes the ans- wer subject to objections.] Ans. 46. — With reference to Crane he is the same person of whom have spoken in this deposition. (Witness refuses to answer further ihan as he had already answered.) 688 (Commissioner rules, that the witness is bound to answer the ques- tion fully, unless it will tend to criminate.) (The witness claims the right to counsel and the judgment of the Court, on the ground that he has already sufficiently answered the question.) (Examination on this point suspended until reference is had to the Court.) Ques. 47. — Where were you when Padre Real showed you the pa- per which he asked you to copy ? Ans. 47. — Padre Real did not show me any paper. Padre Real was in his room, and he dictated to me with a paper in his hand, but I did not see the paper. Ques, 48. — Where did that take place ? Ans. 48. — At the Mission of Santa Clara. Ques. 49. — In what year ? Ans. 49. — I have already said several times that I do not remem- ber the year. Ques. 50. — Have you no idea what year it was in ? Ans. 50. — I have an idea, but I have no certainty. Ques. 51. — What is your idea on the subject ? Ans. 51. That it was at the close of 1846, or in the year 1847. Ques. 52. — Who was present when Padre Real asked you to make a copy of that instrument ? Ans. 52. — Juan Castaneda, and a person who was the porter of the Mission. Ques. 53. — Who was the porter of the Mission ; was he Indian, or Mexican ? Is he living ? Ans. 53. — He was a person named Gutierrez ; I don't know whether he was a Mexican, or Spaniard ; I don't know whether he is dead or alive. Ques. 54. — Do you know where he is ? Ans. 54. — I do not. Ques. 55. — In whose handwriting was the instrument which Padre Real asked you to copy ? Ans. 55. — I have already said that I have not seen it. Ques. 56. — How do you know that Padre Real had in his hands an instrument in writing, if you did not see it ? Ans. 56. — Because I saw a paper in his hands and he dictated to me. Ques. 57. Did you ask the Padre if the paper he had in his hands was signed by any person ? Ans. 57. No. 689 Ques. 58. Did you ask the Padre why in December 1846, or in the early part of the year 1847, he asked you to copy a paper bearing date the 27th June, 1846 ? (Question objected to because it assumes that the witness has stated that he wrote the paper in question during the latter part of December 1846, or first of January 1847, whereas the witness has stated that he had an idea that he wrote it in the latter part of the year 1846, or sometime during the year 1847, and the circumstances which the witness has stated whereby to ascertain the time show that it must have been late in the year 1847, if not in the year 1848.) Ans. 58. No ; because it was a matter which did not concern me. I wrote what I was told to. Ques. 59. Who was present when you demanded possession of the orchard from Padre Real ? Ans. 59. Castaneda, myself and the Padre. Ques. 60. No one else ? Ans. 60. When we spoke to him about that matter, there was no one else present. Ques. 61. What right did you have for demanding possession of the orchard from Padre Real, and what reasons did you give him for demanding it ? (Question objected to as irrelevant.) Ans. 61. The title which we showed him. Ques. 62. Did you show him your title when you made your de- mand for the orchard ? (Objected to.) Ans. 62. ^ We showed him a copy, because Don Antonio Osio had lost the original. Ques. 63. Where is Don Antonio Osio ? (Objected to.) Ans. 63. In Lower California. Ques. 64. Was the copy which you showed him an accurate copy of the original ? (Objected to.) Ans. 64. Yes. 690 Ques. 65. Did you have any difficulty with Padre Real about that affair ? (Objected to.) Ans. 65. Yes. Ques. 66. Was it before or after you made this copy that you had the difficulty with him ? Ans. 66. After. Ques. 67. When you demanded possession of Padre Real, did you tell him that although your title bore date the latter part of June 1846, that in fact it was not made until the latter part of July, or beginning of August of that year, that you saw Castaneda with the document of title in Los Angeles in the latter part of July or the early part of August, 1846, after his arrival there in the expedition of Jose Castro, which was not begun until the 11th or 12th of July 1846 ? (Question objected to.) Ans. 67. I told him no such thing, because I was not aware that it contained such a defect. Ques. 68. What defect do you allude to ? Ans. 68. Of being ante-dated. Ques. 69. Did you find out ^he defect oft its being ante-dated before or after you sold out your interest in that title ? Ans. 69. Afterwards. Ques. 70. When you saw these documents in company with Mr. Laurencel, and recognized on the first inspection of them your own handwriting in the instrument which you say you copied for Padre Real, and also the handwriting of Castaneda, in Castillero's first peti- tion, why did you say that you recognized only Castaiieda's handwrit- ing ; why did you not tell Mr. Laurencel and the gentlemen in whose presence you were inspecting these documents, that you also recog- nised your own handwriting ? Were you keeping yourself in reserve, so that you might sell yourself to the party who would bid highest, and how much has Mr. Laurencel promised to pay you for your tes- timony in this case in behalf of the United States ? (So much of the question objected to as assumes that there were bidders for the testimony of the witness. Counsel for the claimant in this cause having a right to speak only for his own clients ; and as to so much of the question as asks the witness how much Mr. Laurencel has promised to pay him. It being proper first to ask the witness if Mr. Laurencel had promised to pay him anything.) (Counsel for the claimant withdraws the words " and how much has 691 Mr. Laurencel promised to pay you for your testimony in this case in behalf of the United States," and substitutes as follows : And has Mr. Laurencel promised directly or indirectly to pay you anything for your testimony in this case on behalf of the United States ; if yea, how, much ?) Ans. 70. When we first looked at the documents I did not wish to say that it was my handwriting, because I dislike to testify, and if it had not been that one of the witnesses recognised my handwriting, I never would have said that it was mine ; with reference to the insult which is offered me, that I was reserving myself for the highest bidder, I do not know his motive for saying it. When I complained to Mr. Laurencel of the trap which they had laid for me, and that the fees allowed by government would be insufficient to pay my expenses, he promised me that if I would make out my account, and deduct there- from the amount received from the government, he would pay the deficit. Ques. 71. Are you on terms of friendship with James Crane, of whom you have spoken ; have you seen much of him of late ; where does he reside ; has he been in San Francisco during the last month ? Ans. 71. We have known each other for a long time ; I see him nearly every day ; his place of residence is San Rafael ; I think he has been here in the past month. Ques. 72. When you saw this document that you copied, as you say you have an idea you did, in the latter part of the year 1846, or in the year 1847, I mean when you first inspected it at the instance of Mr. Laurencel, seeing it signed by Jose* Castro, seeing on it a mar- ginal decree dated 29th June, 1846, which marginal decree was signed by Pacheco with his rubric, and name, and seeing that this paper bears date June 27, 1846, did you think it honest to conceal your knowledge of your handwriting in this paper, and of everything else you knew about it, tending to show that it was fraudulent, and ante-dated, for the purpose of avoiding the inconvenience of being made a witness on behalf of the United States in this case ? Ans. 72. — The first time I looked at it I did not see the date ; it was the second time I saw the date. Ques. 73. — How many days intervened between your first and se- cond inspection of this document ? Ans. 73. — About fifteen days, more or less. Ques. 74. — Whom did you first tell that this document was ante- dated ? Ans. 74. — I have told no one that it was ante-dated. Ques. 75. — Whom did you first tell that this document was written by you, sometime after it purports on its face to have been made ? . Ans. 75. — I have said no such thing to any one. 692 Ques. 76. — On your first inspection of this document did you read it ? Ans. 76.— No. Ques. 77. — Did you see the whole document at that time ; did you see the signature to it ? Ans. 77 — No ; as soon as I recognized my handwriting, I retired to avoid being questioned. Ques. 78. — Did you not turn over the leaf, or were you satisfied at your glance at the first page ? Ans. 78. — I did not ; as soon as I saw my handwriting I retired. Ques. 79. — You have said you came to inspect this document with Mr. Laurencel on that occasion, why did you not make the inspection ; why did you not examine the document so far as to learn its contents ; why did you not look at the signature and the marginal decree, and the signature to the same, and why did you not note the date if you took the trouble to come all the way here to inspect that paper ; is it not somewhat singular you should have been content with a glance at the first page ; did no one ask you to examine it more minutely ? (So much of the above question as assumed that the witness came from a distance, that is to say, from his hotel or some place without the building, whereas he has testified that he was in the building in com- pany with Mr. Cambuston on other business, objected to.) Ans. 79. — I did not come here expressly to examine the paper ; near Mr. Delia Torre's room Mr. Laurencel invited us, myself and Cam- buston, to see if we knew the handwriting of a document, and the first he showed us was Castaneda's ; ; they afterwards turned to the first to see if we knew it ; then they all remained there, and I as soon as I saw my handwriting went away ; I did not wish them to put me any more questions ; no one told me to examine it more minutely. Ques. 80. — Did not the gentleman at whose instance you went into the room to examine the handwriting, as you have stated, ask you in whose handwriting you believed those documents to be ? Ans. 80. — He just showed me Castaiieda's, and I did not give time for anything further. Examination adjourned until Monday, Nov. 30, 1857, at 11 A. M. San Francisco, Nov. 30, 1857. Examination of Benito Diaz, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, this day continued. Present : The United States Attorney, by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. 693 The parties and the witness having appeared before the Court ; and the Court, after hearing argument upon the point, having decided the ruling of the Commissioner upon question 45 to be correct, and that the witness must fully answer that question, it is put to the witness by the Attorney for the claimant, as follows : Ques. 81. — I repeart question 45, please answer it fully ? (The witness before answering this question insists upon seeing his answer to question 16 of his cross-examination, referred to in question 45 ; his answer is read to him.) Ans. 81. — In relation to the said questions and answers, I think they are the questions which were put to me, and the answers which I gave, unless it be a mistake or misinterpretation, because I cannot remember them exactly after so long a time ; James Crane is the same person to whom I referred in my said answer, No. 16. Ques. 82. — Was the deposition in which you gave those answers to those questions made under oath ? Ans. 82.— It was. Ques. 83. — Have you any reason from your present recollection or remembrance of the matter to which your answers to the said ques- tions related, to doubt that your answers to the same as given by you on the taking of the said deposition are correctly set forth as they are written in the 45th question ? Ans. 83. — That deposition may be correct, but I do not exactly re- member what my answers then were. Ques. 84. You state in your 80th answer on your cross-examina- tion that Mr. Laurencel first showed you the Houghton document, and showed you Castaneda's handwriting in the said document, and that you did not give him time for any thing further ; did he not afterwards seek you and enquire if the Castro petition was in your handwriting ? Ans. 84.— No. Ques. 85. — Did Mr. Laurencel have any conversation with you on the subject of those papers before you went to San Jose', as you stated you did ? Ans. 85.— No. Ques. 86. — Did any person converse with you about those papers after you first saw them, and before you went to San Jose* ; if yea, who? Ans. 86. — I had a conversation with Fernandez and Antonio Maria Pico. Ques. 87. — Did you not have a conversation with Mr. Crane ? Ans. 87. — I think not, because he was not here in those days. Ques. 88. — You say during that interval you had no conversation whatever with Mr. Laurencel upon that subject ; did you have no con- 694 versation with any one sent to you by Mr. Laurencel, or whom you suspected to have been sent by him to you about that matter ? Ans. 88. — No. During that interval I had no conversation with anybody sent to me by Mr. Laurencel, nor with Mr. Laurencel about it. Ques. 89. — During your visit to San Jose*, did you meet with James Alexander Forbes ? Ans. 89.— No. Ques. 90. — I mean did you see Mr. Forbes in the interval between your departure from and return to San Francisco, on the occasion of that visit ? and not simply whether you saw him in San Jose\ Ans. 90. — I did not see him from the time I left San Francisco un- til I returned. Ques. 91. — During that interval did you converse with any person upon the subject of these papers, or the matters to which they relate ! Ans. 91.— Yes. Ques. 92. — With whom ; and state particularly your conversation. Ans. 92. — Yes. I conversed with Fernandez, who was on board of the steamer going down to San Josd ; I do not remember of con- versing with any body else. Ques. 93. — On your return to San Francisco, with whom did you first converse on the subject of those documents, or the matter to which they relate ? Ans. 93. — Mr. Laurencel was the first person with whom I spoke. Ques. 94. — How many days elapsed between your first inspection of these documents and your return from San Jose' ? Ans. 94. — Eight or ten days, more or less. Ques. 95. Did you seek Mr. Laurencel, or did Mr. Laurencel seek you, for the conversation you had with him on your return from San Jos6? Ans. 95. — We met on Montgomery street. Ques. 96. — Did you meet by appointment? Ans. 96.— No. Ques. 97. — Between the times of your first inspecting this doc : ument, and your meeting Mr. Laurencel on Montgomery street, as stated in your answer before the last, had you received from Mr. Laurencel, or from any other person, any written communica- tion upon the subject of this document, or upon the matter to which it relates ? Ans. 97. — No, I have not received any communication. Ques. 98. — What did Mr. Laurencel say to you when you met him on Montgomery street ? Ans. 98. — It was then he invited me to come and see the papers on the next day. Ques. 99. — Was that all he said to you on that occasion ? Ans. 99. — After having saluted each other, that was all we said. 695 Ques. 100. — Are you sure you said nothing more to him on that occasion, or he to you ? Ans. 100. — Yes, I am sure. Ques. 101. — With whom did you have the next conversation on that subject ? Ans. 101. — After that conversation I do not remember to have conversed with any body about that matter. Ques. 102. — You have stated that Mr. Laurencel met you in the Hall of this Building, and invited you into this room to inspect the papers in the Houghton Document, that on that inspection you recognized an instrument in that Document to be in the hand- writing of Juan Castaneda, that you also recognized the Castro petition to be in your own hand-writing, that you stated to Mr. Laurencel that you recognized only Castaneda's hand-writing, and left him hurriedly so as to give him no time to enquire in whose hand-writing was the Castro petition, that you held no conversa- tion or communication with Mr Laurencel or any agent of his di- rectly or indirectly on the subject of those documents, or on the matters to which they relate, until you met on Montgomery street as you have stated. Is this not so ? Ans. 102.— Yes. Ques. 103. — You have stated that after your conversation with Mr. Laurencel on Montgomery street you, do not remember to have had any farther conversation w r ith any person whatever on the sub- ject of these documents, or the matters to which they relate. Is it not so ? Ans. 103.-~.Yes. Ques. 104. — You have said that your conversation with Mr. Laurencel on Montgomery street was nothing more than a saluta- tion, and an invitation on the part of Mr. Laurencel to you to in- spect these documents the next day. What answer did you give Mr. Laurencel ? Ans. 104. — That I would come to see them. Ques. 105. — Did you, and when ? Ans. 105. — I came the next day. Ques. 106. — Where did you come from, and with whem ? Ans. 106. — I came from the California Hotel ; I think I came in company with Crane. Ques. 107.— What Crane? Ans. 107. — James Crane. Ques. 108. — Did Crane accompany you to the room next to this, and did he too inspect those documents ? Ans. 108. — He did not come to the room, nor did he examine the documents. Ques. 109. — Where did you leave Crane when you came in the room to inspect the document ? Answer particularly. Ans. 109. — I do not remember whether I left him at the door 696 of this building below, or at the corner, at the corner of the street. Ques. 110. — How far is the corner of the street from the en- trance to'the building ? Ans. 110. — It may be about 30 or 40 varas. Ques. 111.— Well, you came in to examine the papers. State everything that was said, and done, on the occasion of that ex- amination. Ans. 111. — I have already answered that. ' Ques. 112. — I am not satisfied with the answer. I repeat the question; answer it. Ans. 112. — I came in, and Messrs. Randolph and Laurencel and I think the gentleman who brought the papers from San Jose, were present. Mr. Randolph asked the latter gentleman for the papers, and he gave them to Mr. Laurencel, and then he showed them to me one by one, and he asked me if that really wa3 my hand-writing, and after asking me several questions he went on to show me the document written by Castaneda, and another pe- tition which is there made by Castillero, and he asked me if I knew the hand-writing and signature of Castillero, and after- wards if I knew that of the document of posession. I answered the questions which he put to me, and when I saw he asked noth- ing further I prepared to leave. This was all that occurred. Ques. 113. — You say that after asking you if a certain paper was really in your hand-writing, Laurencel asked you various other questions; what answer did you give to the question whether that document was in your hand-writing, and what were the vari- ous other questions asked you by Mr. Laurencel ? Ans. 113. — I answered him that it was really my hand-writing, He asked me when I wrote it, where, and who were present, and several other questions which I do not remember. Ques. 114. — Where did you go after you left the room ? Ans. 114. — I think I went to take some coffee in Clay street ; I went alone. Ques. 115. — Did not Crane wait for you ! Ans. 115.— No. Ques. 116. — When did you next see Crane? Ans. 116. — The night of the following day. Ques. 117. — Are you sure you had not seen him in the mean- time ? Ans. 117. — I am, because I was looking for him to have him translate the Subpoena for me. Ques. 118. — When you and Crane were coming together to this building on your last visit of inspection, did you have any con- versation with him about the object of your visit ? Ans. 118. I told him I was coming to see the papers; that was all the conversation 1 had with him. 697 Ques. 119. — Did you tell him what papers you were coming to see? Ans. 119.— Yes. Ques. 120.— What did he say ? Ans. 120. — He asked me whether I was coming to see the same which I had seen first. Ques. 121.— What did you tell him ? Ans. 121. — That I was coming to see the same papers. Ques. 122. — Did Crane ever ask you any questions about those papers before or after that time ? Ans. ] 22. — When he heard the conversation which I had with Fernandez, he asked me if it was really my hand-writing, and I replied to him that it appeared to be. Ques. 123. — Did you never have any other conversation with Crane after that ? Ans. 123. — Touching the papers I had none. Ques. 124. — Did you and Crane ever have any conversation touching Mr. Laurencel ? (Objected to as irrelevant.) Ans. 124. — We have had several. Ques. 125. — Did you have them about the time that you first ex- amined these documents or at any time afterwards ? Ans. 125. — After having received the Subpoena we have con- versed considerably about him ; never before. Ques. 126. — Did Crane ever tell you that he had conversed with Laurencell about these"papers, or on this subject ? (Question objected to as irrelevant and hearsay.) Ans. 126.— No. Ques. 127. — Did this man Crane ever give his deposition in the claim of Redman, Clayton and others for the Orchard of Santa Clara, before the United States Land Commission ? Ans. 127. — I do not know. Examination adjourned until Dec. 1. at 11 A. M. San Francisco, Dec. 1, 1857. Examination of Benito Diaz, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, this day continued until to-morrow Dec. 2, 1857, at 11 A. M. 52 698 San Francisco, Dec. 2. 1857. Examination of Benito Diaz, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, this day continued* Present. — The United States Attorney by E. Randolph; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Ques. 128. — Do you remember ever to have sworn in any suit that you would not believe James Crane on oath ? Ans. 128. — I remember to have sworn that I would not believe him in the testimony he gave in that matter, or something of that kind. Ques. 129. — Where were you in the month of May 1846 ? name all the places. Ans. 129. — I cannot tell exactly where I was. Ques. 130. — Where were you in the month of June 1846 ? name all the places. Ans. 130. — Here in San Francisco, at Santa Clara and Contra Costa. Ques. 131. — Where did Gen. Castro have his head quarters in the month of June 1846 ? Ans. 131. — In Santa Clara. Ques. 132. — On your return from Los Angeles to Monterey how many days did it take you to make the journey ? Ans. 132. — I cannot remember, but I think I was some ten or twelve days. Ques. 133. — How many days did it take you to make the jour- ney from the plains of Monterey to Los Angelos on the Castro Expedition ? Ans. 133. — I think we were ten or twelve days also. Ques. 134. — How many days did you remain in Los Angeles ? Ans. 134. — I do not remember, but I know that it was the night before they raised the American Flag ; that was when it was taken by Commodore Stockton the first time. Ques. 135. — Who came up with you from Los Angeles ? Ans. 135. — Several ; I remember Jose Fernandez ; a person named Chabolla, (not Pedro) : Antonio Maria Pico ; (Castaneda did not come) ; Bernardino Soto ; Lazaro Soto ; I do not remem- ber any more, tho' there were more. Ques. 136. — How long after your return to Monterey was it, before Juan Castaneda returned ? Ans. 136. — Three or four months 1 think, I am not sure. Ques. 137. — You say the papers noticed a controversy you had with Padre Real about this orchard. Do you remember what the papers said about it ? but first, state if you can, the nature of the controversy. 699 Ans. 137. — It was about a letter which I wrote to Father Real ; I do not remember what the papers said. Ques. 138. — Did Padre Real reply to that letter 1 Ans. 138.— I think he did. Ques. 139. — Where was your letter to Padre Real written ? Ans. 139. — In Monterey. Ques. 140. — Was that letter written before or after you wrote the Castro petition ? Ans. 140. — I think it was written after ; I cannot remember how long after ; I think it was a short time after. Ques. 141. — Was it as much as a month after ? Ans. 141. — I cannot recollect. Ques. 142. — How long after you returned from Santa Clara to Monterey was it that you addressed the letter to Padre Real ? Ans. 142. — I cannot recollect. Ques. 143. — Your title to the orchard bears date the 30th day of June 1846 ; why did you allow so much time to elapse between the date of your title and your application for the possessien of this orchard ? Ans. 143. — Because when we returned from Los Angeles I was as a prisoner in Monterey ; I could not leave there ; also because I had not the titles ; Castaiieda had them. Ques. 144. — How long after you received your titles from Castaii- eda was it that you made the demand for possession which resulted in the difficulty of which you have spoken ? Ans. 144. — Shortly after Castaueda arrived, and when we heard one day that Don Antonio Osio was coming to Santa Clara, we sent the title by him that he might solicit possession in our name, the Padre replied to us when Osio returned after some time, that he could not give us possession, because he alleged that he held a title of the In- dians, and Don Antonio Osio said to us that he had lost our title, and a little while after this we learned that Father Real had given posses- sion to Osio of the Garden, under a title as we learned afterwards made by Father Real, upon one of the blank sheets which Gen. Castro had left with him signed ; this was the origin of our quarrel. Some- time after we sent the title by Osio, it was when I had the difficulty with the Padre of which the papers spoke. I cannot remember how long after it was. Ques. 145. — How long after you entrusted Osio with this commission did you learn that Padre Real had put Osio in possession of the orchard under the title you have referred to ? Ans. 145. — I do not recollect, but my reply in the newspaper must mention something about that. Ques. 146. — Was it before or after your visit to Santa Clara in person to make the demand which resulted in the correspondence which was published in the papers as you have stated ? Ans. 146. — It was after this visit. 700 Ques. 147. — Look at the document shown you, purporting to be a grant from Pio Pico to Benito Diaz of the piece of land known under the name of " Punta de Lobos," situated in the port of San Francisco, which paper is brought from the archives of the Surveyor General of the State of California by a deputy from said office, being apart of the archives of the United States Land Commission existing in said office, and endorsed " No. 515. Joseph C. Palmer, et al, Punta de Lobos, " Doc. H. I. T. No. 1, annexed to Dep. of Benito Diaz, taken before " Com. Harry I. Thornton. Filed in office April 2d, 1853, Geo. « Fisher, Sec'y." " A No. 1 G. T. B. attached to deposition of Pio " Pico, July 5th, 1854, taken before Com. G. Thompson Burrill,' , and state if you know in whose handwriting is the said document ; if you know the signatures to the same, and if said signatures are genuine ? (Question objected to as immaterial, the genuineness or falsity of that grant being irrelevant in this case.) Ans. 147. — The handwriting is my own, and as far as I know the signatures are genuine. Ques. 148. Is this a genuine document, and was it made at the time it purports to have been made ? (Question objected to as irrelevant to this cause, and because the grant referred to has been tried before the District Court for this dis- trict, who now hold the same under consideration.) Ans. 148. I have already given my testimony about that. Ques. 149. In that document I find the following words : " Dado " en la ciudad de Los Angeles a veinte y cinco de Junio de mil ocho " cientos cuarenta y seis en este papel comun por falta del sellado.' , Are not these words in your handwriting ? And were they not writ- ten by you at the time you wrote the other part of the body of the instrument ? (Question objected to because it seeks to impeach the witness by a proof of a particular transaction. Ans. 149. Yes. Ques. 150. You have testified in this deposition frequently in answer to questions which have been propounded to you, that in the month of June 1846, you were in Santa Clara and Contra Costa, and not at Los Angeles. How can that be, seeing that the words quoted from your grant in the preceding question purport to have been writ- ten in the city of Los Angeles on the 25th day of June, 1846 ? (Question objected to as to the preceding question.) 701 Ans. 150. I have already said in other depositions why that docu- ment was dated at Los Angeles, although I had written it in San Francisco. Ques. 151. Did you write that document in San Francisco ? (Question objected to as before.) Ans. 151. Yes. Ques. 152. When did you write it ? (Objected to.) Ans. 152. I do not remember. Ques. 153. It purports to have been written on the 25th day of June, 1846, does not the document tell the truth in that particular ? (Objected to.) (Before the answer of the witness is interpreted from Spanish into English, the counsel for claimant requests that so much of the answer as refers to depositions made by the witness in other cases for an answer to this question be not written down. Answer written down subject to exceptions by counsel for claimant.) Ans. 153. I do not know if it does tell the truth ; according to the testimony which I have already given in the case of that title, I think it tells the truth. Ques. 154. Was this title written by you at Los Angeles on the 25th day of June, 1846? (Objected to.) Ans. 154. No sir. Ques. 155. Where was it written and when ? (Objected to.) Ans. 155. It was written in San Francisco as I have already said, in the month of June, 1846. I do not remember on what day of the month it was written. Ques. 156. The document is in your own handwriting, and is before you, yon have inspected it, you find the date written out in full, and yet you say you cannot remember the day on which it was written ; have you any reason to suppose that it was written on a different day from that which is its date ? 702 (Objected to.) (The counsel for claimant asks the Commissioner to instruct the witness that he must not answer these questions by referring to any thing he has said in a former deposition on this subject, as an answer.) (United States Attorney object^ to the Commissioner giving such instruction, or prescribing in any manner how the witness shall answer.) (The Commissioner instructs the witness as requested, subject to the exception of the U. S. Attorney.) Ans. 156. — It was written some days before the day it bears date. Ques 157. — I have asked you before if the document tells the truth with regard to its date, you have answered as follows : " I do not know if it does tell the truth, according to the testimony which I have al- ready given in the case of that title I think it does tell the truth ;" how do you reconcile that answer with what you have stated in your answer 156 ? (Objected to.) Ans. 157. — Because I wrote that title five or six days before the day on which it bears date, and I sent it to Los Angeles, and I do not know whether they signed it exactly on the 25th or not. Ques. 158. — What right had you, writing at San Francisco in the month of June, 1846, a document of title to be signed by the Gover- nor of California at Los Angeles, to fill up the date and write it out in full in said document ? (Objected to.) Ans. 158. — The right which I had was, that my agent at Los An- geles wrote to me that the country was in a state of considerable dis- order, and that I should send him the papers and " Informes" quickly, and if possible the title, so that there should be nothing to be done but to sign it. Ques. 159. — Did you infer from the communication of your agent at Los Angeles that the country was in such a disordered condition that the Governor of California and his Secretary could not find time to fill up a blank in your title, with a date, and the name of the place where executed ? (Objected to.) 703 Ans. 159. — I thought nothing about it, I made the title and set it. Ques. 160. — You say that the title was written by you some four or five days before its date, why did you select the 25th day of June, 1846, to be the date of your title ; why did you not put in the date on which you wrote it ; does not the selection of that particular day out of all the days in the year, show that you did think about it, and that it was not inadvertently dated ? (Objected to.) Ans. 160. — I put that date because I calculated the number of days that it would take the mail to reach there. Ques. 161. — Was not that a very singular proceeding on your part ; did you not consider it wrong for the Governor to sign, and the Secre- tary to counter-sign, an important document like this, on any day different from the date written in it ; did you not fear at the time that the Governor and Secretary might be prevented by the document of title, not reaching them as early as the 25th June, or by pressure of business, or by some other circumstance, from signing that document on the day you selected for its date, and did you not think, if such were the case, that the date you had written out so fully, would have to be erased, and the real date of its execution put in, and that such alteration might subject your title to suspicion ? (Question objected to because it asks the witness' opinion upon cer- tain points of morals and of law as to which his opinions are not admis- sible as evidence.) Ans. 161. — I do not consider this a question but an accusation ; at that time I did not consider that ; this charge should rather be made against the Governor for having signed it ; but I consider the title quite legal as the Governor consented to sign it. Examination adjourned until to-morrow morning, Dec. 3d, 1857, at 11, A." M. San Francisco, Dec. 3d, 1857 : 11 A. M. Cross-Examination of Benito Diaz, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, this day continued. Present : The United States Attorney, by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy, for Claimant. 704 Ques. 162. — Was Jose* Matias Moreno, who countersigned the title of Point Lobos, and whose name appears under the memorandum in these words : " Queda tomada razon de este titulo en el libro corres- pondiente," the same man who countersigned your title to the orchard of Santa Clara, and signed a similar memorandum in your title to the orchard of Santa Clara ? (Objected to.) Ans. 162. — He is the same. Ques. 163. — You say you wrote that title, you sent it by mail ; who carried the mail ; and how long did it ordinarily take the mail to to reach Los Angeles from San Francisco ? Ans. 163. — I do not remember who carried the mail ; the time re- quired for making the trip depended upon the class of mail carrier ; the ordinary one required six or eight days, but the extraordinary went in less time ; when I say mail, I mean the person who carried the com- munication ; there were no post-offices established by the government at that time, nor any person regularly employed by the government to carry the mail. Ques. 164. — I understand you to have said that you made two, and only two applications to Padre Real for the possession of this orchard, one application through Antonio Osio, your agent, and the other, you and Castaiieda made in person at Santa Clara to Padre Real, and that it was during your visit for that purpose to Santa Clara that you wrote the petition of Castro concerning which you have testified ; am I not correct ? (Objected to.) Ans. 164 —Yes. Ques. 165. — Did you not authorize Thomas 0. Larkin to take pos- session of this orchard ? (Objected to.) Ans. 165.— Yes. Ques. 166. — Did Larkin make application to Padre Real, or any other person under that authority ? (Objected to.) Ans. 166. — I know that he took some measures to obtain the pos- session, and afterwards he told us that he could not obtain it. Ques. 167. — Did you and Castaiieda give a joint authority to Mr. Larkin, or did you give it alone ? (Objected to.) 705 Ans. 167. — He was authorised by both of us. Ques. 168. — Did you confer that authority by a written instrument, or merely verbally ? (Objected to.) Ans. 168. — We made him a conditional sale of the orchard of Santa Clara. Ques. 169. — Was that conditional sale in writing, and did it con- tain the only authority to Mr. Larkin to take possession of the orchard of Santa Clara ? (Objected to.) Ans. 169. — It was in writing, but I do not remember the particulars of the sale. Ques. 170. — I repeat question 170 ; answer it. (Objected to.) . Ans. 170. — I do not remember whether we gave it to him in writing or verbally. Ques. 171. — Where was Mr. Larkin when you and Castaneda gave him this authority ; and where was he when you made this conditional sale of which you have spoken ? (Objected to.) Ans. 171. — At Monterey. Ques. 172. — How long was this after Castaneda's return from Los Angeles ? (Objected to.) Ans. 172. — I cannot fix the time, but a considerable time had elapsed ? Ques. 173. — Was it before or after you had made application for the possession of the orchard through Osio ? (Objected to.) Ans. 173. — It was after. Ques. 174. — How long after ? (Objected to.) 706 Ans. 174. — I have an idea merely that it was two or three months. Ques. 173. — You say that you and Castaiieda made a conditional sale of this orchard to Mr. Larkin ; did you not afterwards make an absolute sale of this orchard to Mr. Larkin ? (Objected to.) Ans. 175. — The sale we made absolute, but the conditions are in a separate document. Ques. 176. — Was this absolute sale to Mr. Larkin made before, or after, your application for the possession of the orchard through Osio ? (Objected to.) Ans. 176. — It was afterwards. Ques. 177. — Was this absolute sale made before or after your visit to Padre Real, when you wrote the Castro petition ? (Objected to.) Ans. 177. — It was before, and I remember that we made the visit at the instance of Larkin himself, and I have an idea that he himself furnished us with the means of making the trip. Ques. 178. — You have said that your conditional sale to Larkin was made a considerable time after your application for the possession of the orchard by Osio. You have also said that Osio lost your ori- ginal title paper. How long after the said loss was it before you found them ? (Objected to.) Ans. 178. — I do not remember the time, but I must have a letter which was written to me by Jose' Fernandez when he found them. Ques. 179. — Have you no idea of the time ; was it one, two, three, or four weeks ? I want your best recollection. (Objected to.) Ans. 179. — I cannot recollect ; but to satisfy you I will say that it was three, four, or five weeks. Ques. 180. — What did you do with the title papers when you re- covered them ? (Objected to.) Ans. 180. — I think it was then we made the sale to Larkin. 707 Ques. 181. — What did you do with the papers ? Ans. 181. — When I received them from Fernandez, I delivered them to Castaenda. Ques. 182. — In your answer 180, which do you mean, your condi- tional or your absolute sale to Larkin ? (Objected to.) Ans. 182. — There was only one sale to Larkin, but that sale was upon the condition that if he took possession of the Orchard he would pay us the money, and if not, it should all remain void ; these condi- tions were written in a document separate from the sale. Ques. 183. — Was that document of sale and the instrument con- taining the conditions written at the same time ? (Objected to.) * Ans. 183.— Yes. Ques. 184. — Look at the document shown you, and say if you know the hand-writing? (Attorney for Claimant showing witness a document.) (Objected to.) Ans. 184. — Yes, I know it. Ques. 185. — Do you know the signatures ? (Objected to.) Ans. 185.— Yes. Ques. 186. — Whose are they ? Ans. 186. — One is mine, and the other is Juan Castaneda's. Ques. 187. — What date does that instrument bear ? (Objected to.) Ans. 187.— Sept. 27, 1846. Ques. 188. In whose handwriting is the body of it ? Objected to.) Ans. 188. It is my handwriting. Ques. 189. Look at this document and say if you know the hand- writing and signature ? (This is another document.) (Objected to.) Ans. 189. Yes. ros Ques. 190. In whose handwriting is the document ; whose are the signatures ? (Objected to.) Ans. 190. The handwriting of the document is that of Juan Cas- taneda, and the signatures are his. and mine. Ques. 191. In whose handwriting are the words " Monterey, Sbre. 27 de 1846," on the first document shown you, and in whose hand- writing are the words " Y para que conste lo firmamos en el Puerto de Monterey, a 27 de Sebr. de 1846;" in the last document shown you ; and were not these words intended to express the place where these documents were executed, and the date of their execution ? (Objected to.) Ans. 191. The words mentioned and which are in the first docu- ment, are in my handwriting, and those of the second document are in Castaneda' s handwriting, these words were used to express the place where the documents were executed, and* the date of their ex- ecution. Ques. 192. Were these documents made at the time and place they purport ? (Objected to.) Ans. 192. Yes. Ques. 193. Is the Castaneda whose name is signed to them, the same Castaneda of whom you huve spoken all along in this deposition ? (Objected Jo.) Ans. 193. He is the same. (It is admitted by the U. S. Attorney, that the two papers shown the witness, and concerning which he has testified in his answer on his cross examination, Nos. 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, are part of the archives of the United States Land Com- mission, in the claim of Thomas 0. Larkin for the Orchard of Santa Clara, No. 744, which archives exist in and are a part of the archives of the U. S. Surveyor General for California, and that they were brought before this Commissioner by a deputy from the said Surveyor General's office, in charge of said archives.) (A copy of the paper concerning which the witness has* testified in 709 his answers on cross-examination from No. 184 to 188, both inclusive, is attached to this deposition, and marked " Exhibit No. 1. X., an- nexed to deposition of Benito Diaz.") (Also a copy of the paper concerning which the witness has testi- fied in his answers on cross-examination from No. 189 to 193, both in- clusive, is attached to this deposition, and marked " Exhibit No. 2, X. annexed to deposition of Benito Diaz.") Ques. 194. Did Castaneda sign both of these documents in your presence ? (Objected to.) Ans. 194. Yes, he did. Ques. 195. You have stated that after you received a subpoena to testify in this case, you looked for James Crane for the purpose of getting him to translate it for you. Did you find him ; did he trans- late it for you, and hpw long after you received it ? Ans. 195. I met him the same evening that I received the sub- poena, and he translated it for me. Ques. 196. Look at the document now shown you, purporting to be your deposition on behalf of the Claimants in the case of the United States vs. Joseph C. Palmer, No. 394, being an appeal from the Board of the U. S. Land Commission in Case No. 515 on the Docket of said Board, which deposition purports to have been begun on the 7th May, 1857, and to have been sworn to and subscribed on the 11th May, 1857, before J. Edgar Grymes, Special Commissioner, and look especially at the following words in said deposition : " I know Mr. James C. Crane well, it is doubtful if he is a man of veracity, I would not believe him on his oath." State if you made this deposition on oath, and if that part to which you have been referred, correctly expresses the testimony you gave on that occasion ? Ans. 196. I think it is not very correct ; I remember that I said that I would not believe his oath in the aforesaid case. Ques. 197. Who was the interpreter ? Ans. 197. The person who wrote the deposition, the Commis- sioner. Ques. 198. Did you not say shortly after you made your first in- spection of these documents, to Antonio Maria Pico and Jose Fernan- dez, or either of them, at the St. Francis Hotel in this city, that this document (meaning the Castro petition) was written by you, before you went south in the expedition of Castro which you have mentioned ? Ans. 198. No. They asked me if I had written the document, 710 and I told them I had, but I believed it very good, because I had written it in Father Real's room ; we said nothing about the expedi- tion of Castro, nor of my having gone with it. Ques. 199. You said, when you first examined these documents, you told Mr. Laurencel, that you only recognised the handwriting of Castaiieda, and that you left immediately, so that Mr. Laurencel did not have an opportunity to question you concerning your own hand- writing in the Castro petition, and this because you did not wish to be a witness in the case ; you also testified that you had no communica- tion with Mr. Laurencel, or any agent of his, directly or indirectly, until you met him on Montgomery street on your return from San Josd, on which occasion all that passed between you was a salutation, and an invitation from Mr. Laurencel thas you would inspect the same papers the following day ; you also stated that you accepted the invi- tation, and did inspect the papers accordingly, and that on such in- spection Mr. Laurencel asked you quite a number of questions, all of which you answered. By what means had your repugnance to giving your testimony in this case been overcome ? Ans 199. I never expected to be a witness ; I never told Mr. Laurencel in my answers that I remembered when I had made it, I therefore considered they would not require me ; if I had known they were going to take me by surprise, I would have endeavored to avoid it. Ques. 200. It appears then you were not so much on your guard when you made the second inspection of these documents as you were when you made the first, and you had no suspicion then that Mr. Laurencel desired your testimony in this cause ; why were you so much more confiding on the last inspection of the papers than on the first, and what reason had you to believe that the time of your writing the Castro Petition was a matter of importance to Mr. Laurencel, and that if he could not prove by you that it was written on a day different from that on which it bears date, yo i were in no danger of being called on to testify in this case ? Ans. 200. — I did not know that it was a matter of importance to him ; I was not acquainted with the affair. Ques. 201. — Have you nothing more to say in answer to the last question ? Ans. 201. — As Mr. Laurencel asked me several questions which were not very clear I answered him, and I did not suspect that he wonld call me as a witness : I knew nothing about the affair. Ques. 202. — You have already declared positively that while yon were making the second examination of ttiese documents you censidered that Mr. Laurencel would not require your testimony because you had not yet told him when you wrote the Castro pe- tition, and yon now declare positively, that at the time you made 711 the second examination of the papers you knew nothing about this affair. These two declarations are contradictory; which do you now say is the true one ? (Question objected to because it assumes a contradiction where there is none, and asks the witness to admit that an answer which he has given is false, without any reason for assuming the false- hood of such answer.) Ans. 202. — I do not understand the question : I see no contra- diction in these two answers ; I never supposed that my testimony was important. Ques. 203. — When was the last time you saw the newspaper which spoke of the difficulty you had with Padre Real? Ans. 203. — It is many years ago ; I have only seen it once or twice since it was published. Ques. 204. — Have you seen it during the last year ? Ans. 204.— No. Ques. 205. — Has any one told you anything about it during that time? Ans. 205.— No. Ques. 206. — State fully what you remember of the publication in the newspaper you have mentioned ? Ans. 206. — I do not remember what the newspaper stated ; 1 have an idea it spoke about the possession of the orchard. Ques. 207. — Did that publication contain a letter of yours to Padre Real; if yea, did it contain the Padre's reply to your letter? You have stated in your Cross Examination that you made a reply to some letter of the Padre's after you had discovered the treat- ment of the Padre and Osio of which you have spoken. When was your reply made ? Ans. 207. — I do not remember, but I think there is a letter in the publication, a letter of mine to Father Real ; he first published a letter of mine, and I afterwards published my r^ply ; Father Real said something no doubt accompanying my first letter. Ques. 208. — Was Mr. Larkin's name mentioned in your letter to Padre Real which was published ? Ans. 208. — I do not remember, Examination in Chief Resumed. Questions by United States Attorney. Ques. 1. — You have been asked a great many questions on your Cross Examination, and a great many subjects have been intro- 712 duced; do you now desire to say anything in explanation of any of the answers you have made ? Ans. 1. — I would like to read all my deposition. Ques. 2. — Was there any newspaper published in California in the year 1846, before the Americans took possession of the coun- try, and how long after was it before one was published ? Ans. 2. — There was no newspaper published in California be- fore its conquest by the Americans, shortly after that there was. Ques. 3. — When in June 1846 Genl. Castro had his head-quar- ters at Santa Clara, did he have a Secretary, and if so, who was he? Ans. 3. — He had ; sometimes Castaneda was his Secretary, and at other times Arce. (Question and Answer objected to as intraducing a new subject after the direct and Cross Examination of the witness has been concluded.) Ques. 4. — Was one of these Secretary and the other Assistant, and if so which ? Ans. 4. — Juan Castaneda was the Secretary and the other was the Assistant. (Objected to as before.) Ques. 5. — Were both of these persons, or either of them pres- ent with Genl. Castro at Santa Clara during the said month of June 1846? Ans. 5. — Yes, they were both there. (Question and Answer objected to as before.) Ques. 6. — During that time did you write for Genl. Castro any paper whatsoever ? Ans. 6. — I do not remember to have written. (Objected to as before.) Ques. 7. — Do you remember to have acted as his Secretary at any time during that campaign ? Ans. 7. — I never was his Secretary. (Objected to as before.^ Ques. 8. — Do you remember anything which occurred on the occasion of your visit to Padre Real when you wrote the petition 713 signed Jose Castro which fixed in your recollection that circum- stance ? I .mean anything occurring between you and Castaneda, whom you have said was your companion ? Ans. 8. — What I have fixed in my memory is that we went on that occasion to claim the orchard of Santa Clara. (The United States Atorney here asks the Commissioner to read the question again to the witness. To which the Counsel for the Claimant objects, on the ground that the witness has al- ready answered the question, and that a second reading might have the effect of reminding the witness that he has left unsaid some- thing which is expected from him.) (Question is read again to the witness under exception.) Ques. 9. — Do you remember anything which passed between yourself and Castaneda during that visit, or soon after leaving, or at any time subsequent, which tends to fix in your recollection the fact of your having written that petition at that time ? Ans. 9. I remember something ; when I and Charley Clayton and James Crane went to Sonoma in the year 1849 or 1850 to buy Castaneda's share in the Orchard of Santa Clara Castaneda made some explanations to me and some complaints of Padre Real, about the bad treatment he had given him in the affair of the orchard, that we did not take possession of the orchard on ac- count of Father Real, and he then told me that he had written some things to Father Real, and that he had hopes of some day getting revenge. He did not tell me what he had written to Fa- ther Real. Ques. 10. — Is not the Crane of whom you have testsfied a per- son well known to a great many of the native Californians, and is he not very frequently employed by persons interested in law suits growing out of matters which happened under the Mexican Government of this country, as an Agent to hunt up witnesses and procure testimony? (Question objected to as leading.) Ans. 10. — Yes. Examination adjourned until 12 o'clock, Dec. 4, 1857. 53 714 San Francisco, Dec. 4, 1857. Examination of Benito Diaz, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, this day continued. Present. — United States Attorney, by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Counsels for the respective parties having no more questions to put to the witness, and his deposition being read over to him, he desires to correct the following statement made by him injhis 18th Ans., on his direct examination, which correct statement is as fol- lows : " Having examined the documents which were shown to me yes- terday, on Cross Examination, being the document numbered No. 1 X, annexed to the deposition of Benito Diaz, and No. 2 X, an- nexed to the deposition of Benito Diaz, I see that Castafieda re- turned to Monterey three or four weeks after I arrived there." BENITO DIAZ. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th Dec. 1857. cutler McAllister, seal £ U. S. Com. 715 EXHIBIT "No. 1 X," ATTACHED TO THE DEPOSITION OF BENITO DIAZ. Por el presente damos poder ampleo y bastante al Sr D. Tomas 0. Larkin para que tome posecion de las huertas de St a Clara y S. Jose* que hemos comprado legalm te al Gobierno de el Departam t0 como con- sta de las escrituras que con esta fha, entregamos & dcho., Sor e para su constancia y que hago el uso que combenga k ambas partes. Monterey Sbre 27 de 1846. (Signed) BENITO DIAZ. (Signed) "J. DE CASTASEDA. (Endorsed) NO. 754. Thomas 0. Larkin, I of Orchard of Santa Clara. Exhibit No. 3. Filed in office July 25, 1854. GEO. FISHER, Setfy. Recorded in Rec. of Evid., vol. 18, p. 594. (Endorsed) Power of Attorney from Diaz & Castaneda respecting two orchards, Santa Clara & San Jose*. " Exhibit No. 3." Recorded in the Book B of records of the municipality of Monte- rey, page 31. March 2nd, 1850. WM. S. JOHNSON. 716 EXHIBIT " No. 2 X," ANNEXED TO THE DEPOSITION OF BENITO DIAZ. Todas los q las presentes rieren Sabed, q los q abujo firmamos nos comprometamos & vender & D. Tomas 0. Larkin la parte de las huer- tas de Santa Clara y San Jose, q nos pertenecen por la compra que de ellas hicimos al Gobierno del Departm 10 como consta de las respectivas escrituras q en esta fecha entregamos al espresado. Sor Larkin siendo las condiciones de la venta las siguientes a saber que dentro de dos jueses contadas desde esta fecha, si se verifica la venta, el Sor Larkin nos dara dos mil y quinientos pesos en plata, y en caro de no conve nirle, que dara el contrato sin efecto, devolviendonas las apresadas es- crituras. Por tanto, si dentro del tiempo mencionado faltavemos alo estipulado en el presente documento ; nos obligamos k satisfaces al referida Sor Larkin los perjucios q por la falta de complimento nos hago de cargo. Y para que conste lo firmamos en el puerto de Mon- terey a 27 de Sbre de 1846. (Signed) BENITO DIAZ. (Signed) J. DE CASTANEDA. (Endorsed) No. 754. Thomas 0. Larkin. \ of Orchard of Santa Clara. Exhibit No. 4. Filed in office July 25, 1854. GEO. FISHER, Sec'y. Recorded in Rec of Evid vol 18 page 594, 595. DEPOSITION OF BENITO DIAZ IN SPANISH. Preg. 3. — Cuando fue escrito. Si se puede Vd acordar, y si se acuerda diga cuales son los circumstancias que le hacen a Vd acordar- se de la fecha con tanta precision. Res. 3. — No me acuerdo de la fecha en que se escribio. Preg. 4. — En que ano, o en que ano poco mas o menos se escribio. 717 Res. 4. — Me acuerdo haberlo escrito pero no me acuerdo en que ano. Preg. 5.— Acuerdese Vd si puede de las circunstancias bajo las cuales se escribia ; en que ocasion en que lugar a instancia de quien, quien estaba con Vd &c. Res. 5. — Me acuerdo que lo escribi en Santa Clara, a mego del Padre Real el me digo que le Secaia una copia de un documento que el tenia en la mano y yo creo que es esta misma es lo que escribi. Habian dos personas alii uno era Juan Castaneda y otro el llamo de la mision. Preg. 6. — Vivia Vd en la mision entonces, y si no que hacia Vd alii entonces, y que hacia Castaneda alii. Res. 6. — Habiamos venido a un negocio yo y Castaneda, con el Pa- dre Real, habiamos venido a solicitar posecion de la puerta de Santa Clara. Preg. 7. — De donde vinieron Vds, cuando vinieron a solicitar pos- sesion de la puerta del Pardro Real ? adonde habian estado ? Resp. 7. — Venimos de Monterey alii habiamos estado. Preg. 8. — Y a Monterey de donde vinieron, adondone habian es- tado. Res. 8. — Habiamos estado en Monterey ; no habiamos venido de ninguna parte. Preg. 9. — Cuanto tiempo pennanecieron Vds en Monterey antes de salir para Santa Clara para solicitar possecion de ese huerta. Res. 9. — Ya vivia en Monterey y Castaneda en esa vez estaba rad- icado alii. Preg. 10. — Se acuerda Vd de algo tocante a la retirada del Genl. Castro de por aca ariba para el sur cuando los Americanos invadieron el pais. Res. 10. — Si me acuerdo. Preg. 11. — Se acuerda Vd de algunos de los que se retivaron con el y si se acuerda a Vd los nombres de aquellos de quienes se puede Vd acordar. Res. 11. — Me acuerdo del Sor Alvarado, Antonio Maria Pico un tal Pinto y la mayor parte del pueblo. Preg. 12. — Como fue con Vd y Castaneda Vds tambien se fueron o quedaron. Res. 12. — Cuando tomaron Monterey Yo estaba alii y a las 3 o 4 dias despues me uni con la division que iba con Castro y que estaba en el llamo de Monterey, y encontre a Castaneda alii, iba el tambien con con la division de Castro. Preg. 13. — Despues de haberse Vd unido con el Genl. Castro en el llano de Monterey para donde se fue" Vd. Res. 13. — Para " Los Angeles." 718 Preg. 14. — Cuanto tiempo se quedo Vd por el sur de la California antes de volverse a Monterey. Res. 14. — Un mes mas 6 menos. Preg. 15. — Se volvio Yd a Monterey antes que los Americanos to- maron Los Angeles la primera vez o despues. Res. 15. — Sali la noche antes que lo tomaron la primera vez. Preg. 16. — Quien vino con Vd. Res. 16. — Vinieron varios, me acuerdo de Fernandez, Chaboya, An- tonio Maria Pico y muchos otros. Preg. 17. — Juan Castaneda fue uno de ellos. Res. 17.— No. Preg. 18. — Cuanto tiempo despues poco mas o menos fiie* cuando Vd vio a Juan Castaiieda en Monterey. Res. 18. — Tres o cuatro meses despues. Preg. 19. — Fue despues que Vd vio a Juan Castaneda en Monte- rey en esa ocasion que Vd y el fueron a Santa Clara para solicitar po- sesion de la huerta al padre Real '{ Quien decir fue antes o despues de la vuelta de Castaneda del sur. Res. 19. — Fue despues de la vuelta de Castaneda del sur. Preg. 20. — Cuanto tiempo despues fue segun puede Vd acordarse ahora. Res. 20. — Fus cinco o seis meses despues. Preg. 21. — En esa visita de Vd y Castaneda fiie* cuando Vd escri- bio el papel de que se ha hablado en su testimonio o fue en alguna otra ocasion. Res. 21. — Esa vez fue'. Preg. 22. — Se acuerda Vd de alguna ocurrencia que tuvo lugar al tiempo que Vd escribio el papel que le hace acordarse del hecho de haberlo Vd escrito ese papel. Res. 22. — Me acuerdo solamente que el Padre Real me dictaba con un papel y que estaba alii Castaneda tambien. Preg. 23. — Vea Vd el papel otra vez vea la firma del papel vea el decreto que tiene el papel en la margen y diga si la dicha firma y el dicho decreto en el margen estuvieron en el papel cuando Vd lo escri- bio, o si se pusieron despues en su presencia o si sabe Vd algo tocante a ellos. Res. 23. — No se nada tocante a ellos, no habia firma ni decreto en el cuando yo lo escrivi. Luego que acabe de escribirlo lo tomo el Pa- dre Real y lo guardo. Preg. 24. — Vea Vd los otros tres instrumentos contenidos en dicho Documento es decir el Documento presentado por S. 0. Houghton y diga si tiene algun conocimiento tocante a la letra de ellos, y si tiene que es ? Y diga si sabe algo tocante a la escritura o preparacion de ellos y si sabe, que es lo que sabe ? Res. 24. — La primera representacion de Castillero conosco que esta 719 escrito en la letra de Castaueda no conosco la letra de los otros dos instrumentos. Ne se nada tocante a la escritura o preparacion de nin- guno ellos. Preg. 26. — Quien es el pose'e ahora el derecho de Yds. a en esa huerta bajo el cual quisieron obtener possecion. Res. 26. — Charley Clayton es el que lo posee\ Preg. 27. — Cuando algunos dias despues que los Americanos toma- ron Monterey se unio Yd con el Genl. Castro en el llano de Monterey como ha dicho Yd. en su testimonio, fue esa la primera vez que Yd se unio con el durante esa Campana contra los Americanos. Res. 2T. — No fue esa la primera vez. Preg. 28. — Cuando y en que lugar habia estado Yd con el antes durante esa Campana y cuando y en que lugar lo dejo Yd a el. Res. 28. — Habia estado con el antes en Santa Clara y en la Contra Costa ; lo dege en Santa Clara tres o cuatro dias despues que volvi- mos de la Contra Costa y me fue para Monterey. Preg. 29. — Sabe Yd en que dias estuvo Yd en Contra Costa con el Genl. Castro y en que dia se volvieron a Santa Clara. Res. 29. — No, me puedo acordar. Preg. 30. — Cuantos dias antes que los Americanos, tomaron Mon- terey fue cuando Yd dejo el Genl. Castro en Santa Clara. Res. 30. — Yo me acuerdo que sali de Santa Clara el dia 4 de Julio y los Americanos tomaron Monterey el dia 7 de Julio. Preg. 31. — Mientras que estuvo Yd en Contra Costa o en Santa Clara en el tiempo ultimamente mencionado Escribio Yd o no algun papel tocante a esta mina a mego del Genl. Castro o del Padre Real o de alguna otra persona, o por su propia voluntad. Res. 31. — No. Ninguno. Preg. 32. — No esta muerto Castaneda ahora. Res. 32. — Si esta muerto. Cross-Examination. Preg. 1. — Despues que Yd copio el Documento que le enseno el Padre Keal cuando volvio Yd a ver la copia que Yd saco ? Res. 1 — Lo vi aqui en este cuarto hace como quince dias. Preg. 2. — Quien estuvo con Yd cuando lo vio ? vino Yd aqui para verlo ; y si para eso vino, que le trajo a Yd aca. Res. 2. — Los Sores Cambuston y Laurencel estuvieron con migo cuando lo vi. Yine a verlo porque el Sor Laurencel me digo que vi- niese aqui para ver si yo conocia la letra de algunos papeles que exis- tian aqui. Preg. 3. — No estuvieron otras personas con Yd en ese tiempo o en esa ocasion. 720 Res. 3. — Habian varias otras personas alii viendo el documento y entre ellos estuvo el Sor. Preg. 4. — En segunda cuando volvio Vd a ver el dicho documento. Res. 4. — Hace cinco o seis dias que lo vi aqui en este otro cuatro. Preg. 5. — A mego de quien vino Vd a examinarlo por segunda vez y quien estuvo presente cuando hizo el segundo examen el. Res. 5. — A mego del Sor Laurencel vine la segunda vez. Estu- vieron presentes el Sor Laurencel y estos dos Sores. Preg. 6. — Despues cuando examino ese documento y a mego de quien. Res. 6. — No lo he vuelto a ver hasta ayer cuando lo vi aqui. Preg. 7. — Tiene Vd alguna residencia permanente en algun lugar como gana Vd la vida. Res. 7. — Tengo una residencia permanente y gano la vida traba- jando. Preg. 8. — En donde vive Vd y que clase de trabajo hace Vd para ganar la vida. Res. 8. — Vino en Monterey, alii tengo mi casa, tengo una parte de un Rancho y alii tengo otra casa y en el mismo Rancho estoy cultivan- do una huerta. Preg. 9. — Como se llama ese Rancho y quienes son los dueiios de las otras partes de el ? Res. 9. — Se llama " El Piojo " los hermanos de mi muger son los duenos de las otras partes de el. Preg. 10. — Cuanto tiempo hace que esta Vd en San Francisco esta vez. Res. 10. — Como tres semanas mas o menos. Preg. 11. — En que se ha ocupado Vd aqui. Res. 11. — Vine a arreglar un negocio con el Sor Alvarado. Preg. 12. — Quien le dijo a Vd primero que habia un documento que se estaba usando en esta causa, en su letra de Vd. Res. 12. — Nadie me lo digo. No supe que habia uno hasta que lo vi. Preg. 13. — Que le digo a Vd el Sor Laurencel cuando le digo que viniese Vd a examinarlo diga todo lo que el le digo a Vd en esa oca- sion. Res. 13. — Vino el y me digo que le hiciese el favor de venir a ver si conocia yo las letras y venimos, Cambuston y yo. Yo reconosi la de Castaneda y la mina pero dige que conocia solamente la de Castan- eda. Despues a los 3 o 4 dias me fui para San Jose* y volvi aqui otra vez ; y me volvio a mandar llamar el Sor Laurencel me parece que fue el viernes ; y me pregunto si era verdad que era mi letra esa, y me hizo otras varias preguntas, y me digo que estaba bueno que me agra- decia mucho. Y el sabado el Marshal me llevo una subpoena. 721 Preg. 14. — El Sor Laurencel le hablo a Vd en Espaiiol o converso con Vd por medio de un interprete. Res. 14. — Me hablo en Espanol. Preg. 15. — Cuales fueron las otras preguntas que le hizo a Vd el Sor Laurenzel en esa ocasion. Res. 15. — Me pregunto que cuando habia escrito yo ese documen- to, adonde y en presencia de quien, y varias otras que no tengo pre- sente, casi las mismas que me hacieron ayer. Preg. 16. — Desques del primer examen que hizo Vd de este docu- mento y antes de la conversacion que tuvo Vd con el Sor Laurencel a la cual se refiere. Vd en su ultima respuesta habia Vd tenido alguna conversacion con cualquiera persona tocante a ese documento y si tuvo de" Vd los nombres de todas las personas con quines tuvo Vd tales con- versaciones y diga lo que Vd les digo a ellos y lo que ellos le digeron a Vd tocante a el. Res. 16. — Tuve conversacion con Fernandez, con Antonio Maria Pico, con un tal Santiago, Crane ; Fernandez conocia mi letra y -me pregunto si efectivamente yo lo habia escrito y yo le conteste que si que lo habia escrito. Antonio Maria Pico y Santiago Crane estaban pre- sentes cuando Fernandez me hizo estos preguntos. Despues Don An- tonio Maria Pico me digo que iba a hacer porque yo diera mi testimo- nio y yo le conteste que me hiciera el favor de no mes clarme en eso porque tenia que irme pronto. Preg. 17. — En cuantas ocasiones le pidio Vd al Padre Real poseci- on de la Huerta de Santa Clara. Res. 17. — En dos ocasiones. Preg. 18. — La fecha de la primera. Res. 18* — No me acuerdo de la fecha pero fue antes que nosotros en persona fuimos a pedirlo, fue' por medio de Don Antonio Osio. Preg. 19. — Diga Vd las fe'chas lo mejor aue Vd puede recordar ; cuando daba Vd su testimonio en favor del actor en esta causa parecia Vd tener una memoria muy buena para fechas, tenga Vd la bondad de ejacerlo ahora un poco. Res. 19.-— Si yo me acuerdo lo dire pero despues de 10 o 11 anos es dificil acordarse de la fecha. Me acuerdo que mande a Osio la pri- mera vez pero no puedo acordarme de la fecha. No me acuerdo de la fecha de la segunda vez, pero ahora recuerdo se puede saber la fe- cha por los Periodicos porque en ellas se dio cuenta de un choque que tuve con el Padre Real tocante a la posecion de la huerta. Preg. 20. — Que Periodico. Res. 20. — El primer Periodico que hubo aqui me parece. Me pa- rece que el Redactone era ese hombre muy grande que llamaban sem- ple o simple. Preg. 21. — La primera aplicacion que hizo Vd al Padre Real para la posecion de esta huerta fue' para al sur con el Genl. Castro. 722 Res. 21. — Despues que venimos del sur. Porque cuando nosotros veninios del sur trajimos los titulos para la huerta de Santa Clara. Preg. 22. — Tiene Vd ahora algun interes en la huerta de Santa Clara bajo el titulo de que acaba de hablar o bajo de cualesquiera otro titulo. Res. 22. — Ningun interes tengo. Preg. 23. — Vendio Vd su interes en dicha huarta, bajo el titulo de que ha hablado y si lo vendio, a quien lo vendio, porque precio y cuando. Res. 33. — Lo vendi a Charley Clayton en el aiio '49 o '50 pero no me acuerdo por cuanto. Preg. 24. — Recuerde Vd si puede por cuanto. Res. 24.— De 1200 a 1600 pesos. Preg. 25. — En donde se escribio y firmo ese Titulo, por quien fue escrito y finnado y en donde y cuando. Querro decir su titulo para la huerta de Santa Clara. Res. 25. — Fue escrito por Juan Castaneda y firmado por Pio Pico fue escrito y firmano en Los Angeles. No se cuando. Preg. 26. — Se acuerda Vd de la fecha de el. Res. 26. — En los ultimos dias de Junio '46. Preg. 27. — Que le dio Vd al Gobierno por esa huerta. Res. 27. — Si me es permitido hare una refieccion. Yo he prestado juramento para decir la verdad en la Causa de Andres CastiUero, pero Ya veo que me esta examinando sobre otra causa. Preg. 28. — Repito la pregunta. Tenga Vd la bondad de contes- tarla. Res. 28.— Nada le di. Preg. 29. — La huerta fue concedida a Vd solo 6 a Vd eon otros y si con otros, quienes ? Res. 29. — Fue concedida a mi a Juan Castaneda y a Luis Arenas. Preg. 30. — Segun los terminos de la concesion fue donacion o venta. Res. 30. — Me parece que fue venta. Preg. 31. — Que se Castaneda ni Arenas le pagaron nada el Gobier- no por la huerta bajo esa concesion. Res. 31. — Creo que si le pagaron. Segun lo que ellos me cligeron le pagaron Reses y semillas y un poco dinero. Preg. 33. — Cuantas Reses, cuanta semilla y cuanto dinero y cuando lo pagaron. Res. 33. — No si la cantidad ni cuando lo pagaron. Preg. 34. — Tomaron recibo del Gobierno o algun otro empleado pub- lico por lo que pagaron. Res. 34. — Si habia recibo. Preg. 35. — En letra de quien estaba ese recibo y pero quien estaba firmado. 723 Res. 35. — Estaba firmado por Pio Pico el Gobernador. Me parece que estaba en letra de Castaiieda pero no estoy seguro. Preg. 36. — Que fecha tenia el recibo. Res. 36. — Junio '46 creo que a fines del mes, no estoy seguro por- que lo vi una vez no mas. Preg. 37. — Como sabe Vd que Castaiieda escribio esa concesion. Res. 37. — Porque yo lo vi escribir. Preg. 38. — En que case en Los Angeles se escribia. Res. 38. — En casa de Luis Arenas. Preg. 39. — Estuvo Castaiieda en Los Angeles en el mes de Junio del ano 1846. * Res. 39. — No. No estaba alii. Preg. 40. — Estuvo Pio Pico en Los Angeles en el mes de Junio de ano '46. Res. 40. — No se*. Yo no estuvo alii en Junio '46. Preg. 41. — Vd vio a Pio Pico firmar esa concesion. Res. 41.— No. Preg. 42. — En que mes escribio Castaiieda esa concesion. Res. 42. — En Julio o Agosto '46. Preg. 43. — Es este individio nombrado Crane con quien tuvo Vd la conversacion mencionada en su respuesta No 16, an este ultimo exa- men, la misma persona a quien dijo* V bajo juramento cuando Compa- nero Vd como testigo en favor de los Estados Unidos ante la comision de Terrenos en la cusa de Redmond vs. Clayton reclamando la huerta de Santa Clara que Vd habia dicho muchas mentiras ? Preg. 44. — Companeio Vd como testigo en favor de los Estados Unidos delante la Comision de Terrenos de los E. U. en Diciembre de 1854 en la causa de J. W. Redmond y otros reclamando la huerta de Santa Clara, y se tomo su deposicion en esa causa. Res. 44.— Si. Preg. 45. — Vea Vd la prejunta No 13 y su respuesta a ella en el contra Examen como ee halla escrita en su deposicion tomada ante la comision de Terrenos el dia 28 de Diciembre de 1854 en dicha causa y depositado en la oficina de dicha comision la cual pregunta y res- puesta se hallan en las palabras siguientes. Pregunta No. 13. Ha tenido Vd alguna conversacion con Santiago C. Crane, en la ciudad de San Francisco tocante al juramento que hizo Vd el dio 14 de Diciembre de 1854 ante esta comision o tocante en esta causa y si tuvo, cuando ocurrio esa conversacion y que digo Vd tocante al dinero que se la debia pagar a Vd. porque diese Vd testimonio contra lo que reclaman los actores en esta causa. 724 Respuesta. He tenido conversaciones con el dicho Crane tocante a el dicho jura- mento Crane me propuso que el daria su testimonio en esta causa y me pregunto cuanto pagaria el Padre Roble. Yo le dige que no sabia que podia ir a ver el Padre y arreglado el mismo Crane me digo que no el habia podido arreglado con el Padro. Yo y Crane hemos tenido varias conversaciones en las cuales ambos hemos hecho falsas representaciones uno a otro para enganar uno a otro. La conversacion que yo tuve con Crane tocante al dicho juramento tuvo lugar en el St. Francis Hotel en esta ciudad unos 3 o 4 dias des- pues que yo hizo dicho juramento. Con referencia a lo que yo le dige a Crane tocante al dinero que yo debia recibir por testificar contra lo que se reclama en esta causa. Yo le he dicho a Crane muchas mentiras. Yea Vd tambien su respuesta a la pregunta No. 15, en el contra examin en dicha deposicion la cual pregunta y respuesta se hallen en las palatras siguientes. Pregunta No. 15. Vd nombro" alguna vez la suma de $2000 00 en la conversacion que dice Vd que tuvo con el como sumo que se le dibia pagar a Vd direc- tamente o condicionalmente por que diese Vd testimonio contra lo que se reclama en esta causa. Respuesta. Yo le he* mencionado a el 11000, $2000, $3000 y $4000 en difer- entes ocasiones como sumas que yo debo recibir por dar mi testimonio contra lo que se reclama en esta causa. Era falso pero yo se lo dige para deshacomre de el. Crane me dijo que yo habia hecho mal negocio en ponerme del lado de los Padres ; que si me hubiese puesto al lado de el me habia pocu- rado $4000 o $5000 de los Abogados. Y diga si se le hizo a Vd dichas preguntas, y si esas respuestas se hicieron a dichas preguntas, y si el tal Crane que esta mencionados en dichas preguntas y respuestas es el individuo de ese nombre con el cual como ha dicho Vd en su respuesta No. 16 en el contra examen en esta deposicion, converso Vd tocante a esta peticion de Castro es- crito por Vd a mego del Padre Real. Res. 45. — Yo no soy Abogado y no se si debo contestar a esta pre- gunta, pero me parece que no es necesarie hacerme esta pregunta por- 725 que los archivos son publicos, y yo estoy aqui para dar me testimonio en otra y diferente causa. Preg. 46. — Repito la pregunta y exigo que Vd la conteste. Res. 46. — En cuanta a Crane es el inismo de quien he hablado en esta deposicion. Preg. 47. — En donde estaba Vd euando el Padre Real le ensenoel papel que le digo que copiase Yd. Res. 47. — El Padre Real no me enseiio ningun papel. El Padre Real estaba en su cuarto y me estaba dictando con un papel en la ma- no pero you no he visto el papel. Preg. 48. — En donde tuvo lugar eso. Res. 48. — En la mision de Santa Clara. Preg. 49. — En que ano. Res. 49. — Ya he dicho varias veces que no me acuerdo que afio. Preg. 50. — No tiene Yd alguna idea en que ano fue. Res. 50. — Idea si tengo pero no tengo seguridad. Preg. 51. — Que idea tiene Yd sobre eso. Res. 51. — Que fue a finis de '46 en el ano '47. Preg. 52. — Quian estuvo presente euando el Padre Real le digo a Yd que haciese Yd copia de ese instrumento. Res. 52. — Juan Castaiieda y el que era llavero de la mision. Preg. 53. — Quien era el llavero de la mision ; era Indio oMexicano " Esta vivo. Res. 53. — Era un tal Gutierrez. No se si era Mexicano o Espanol no se si estava vivo. Preg. 54. — Sabe Yd en donde esta. Res. 54.— No. Preg. 55. — En letra de quien estaba en instrumento que el Padre Real le dijo a Yd que copiase. Res. 55. — Ya he dicho que no lo he visto. Preg. bQ. — Como sabe Yd que el Padre Real tenia en sus manos un instrumento escrito si Yd no lo vio. Res. 56. — Porque vi un papel en sus manos y el me dictaba. Preg. 57. — Le pregunto Yd al Padre si el papel que el tenia en las manos estaba firmado por alguno. Res. 57 —No. Preg. 58. — Le pregunto Yd al Padre porque en el mes de Diciem- bre del ano '46 o a principio del ano '47 el le decia a Yd que copiase un papel la fecha del cual era 27 de Junio '46. Res. 58. — No ; porque como era negocio que no me importaba yo escribia lo que me decia. Preg. 59. — Quien estuvo presente euando le pedio Yd al Padre Real posesion de la huerta. Res. 59. — Castaiieda yo y el Padre. Preg. 60. — Nadie mas. 726 Res. 60. — Cuando le hablamos sobre ese negocio no habia nadie mas. Preg. 61. — Que derecho tenia Vd para pedir al Padre Real pose- cion de la huerta de Santa Clara que razon le dio Vd a el por haber lo pedido. Res. 61. — El titulo que le presentamos. Preg. 62. — Le ensenaron Vds su titulo cuando le pidieron la huerta. Res. 62. — Una copia le ensenamos porque Don Antonio Osio habia pedido el original. Preg. 63. — En donde esta Don Antonio Osio. Res. 63. — En la baja California. Preg. 64. — La copia que Yds le enseiiaron fue copia exacta de la original. Res. 64.— Si. Preg. 65. — Tuvo Vd algun choque con el Padre Real tocante a ese asiento. Res. 65.— Si. Preg. 66. — Fue despues o antes que Vd hizo esta copia que tuvo Vd el choque con el. Res. 66. — Despues. Preg. 67. — Cuando Vd pedio la posecion al Padre Real le dijo Vd a el que anique su titulo de Vd tenia fecha de fines de Junio del ano '46 no se habia hecho en realidad hasta fines de Julio o prin- cipio de Agosto de ese ano que Vd habia visto a Castaneda escribir el documento de titulo en Los Angeles a fines de Julio o a principio de Agosto 1846 despues de su llegada alii en la espedicion del Genl. Jose' Castro, que no se empezo hasta el 11 o 12 de Julio 1846 ? Res. 67. — No le dige tal cosa porque yo ignoraba que tuniese ese defecto. Preg. 68. — De quo defecto habia Vd. Res. 68. — De estar ante fechado. Preg. 69. — Descubrio Vd el defecto de que estaba ante fechado, antes de vender Vd su interes en ese titulo o despues. Res. 69. — Despues. Preg. 70. — Cuando vio Vd estos documentos en compania del Sor Laurencel y reconocio Vd a primera vista su letra de Vd en el Docu- mento que dice Vd que copio para el Padre Real y tambien la letra de Castaneda en la primera representacion de Castillero porque dijo Vd que reconocia solamente la letra de Castaneda porque no dijo Vd al Sor Laurencel y a los otros Sefiores que estuvieron presentes cuando Vd estuvo examinando estos documentos que tambien reconocia Vd su propria letra ; Se estaba Vd reservando para venderse a el que le ha- via la mejor oferta ; ha prometido el Sor Laurencel pagarle a Vd di- recta o indirectamente, algo por su testimonio en esta causa en favor de los E. U. y si ha prometido cuanto ? 727 Res. 70. — La primera vez que vimos los documentos no quize decir que era me letra porque me repugna dar testimonio y si no hubiera sido, por undo de los testigos que conocio mi letra ya nunca hubiera dicho que era mia. Tocante al insulto que me hace de que me estaba reservando el mejor postor no se que motivo tiene para dicirlo. El Sor Laurencel quejandome yo con el de lo trampa que habian puesto y que no tenia modo de cubrio mis gastos con lo que el Gobierno da para gastos, el me prometio que hiciera mi cuenta, y lo que fataria despues de pagado por el Gobierno el lo cubriria. Preg. 71. — Existen relaciones amistosas entre Vd y Santiago Crane de quien ha hablado Vd se ha visto Vd con el muchas veses ultima- mente. En donde vive el. Ha estado el en San Francisco en el mes to. Res. 71. — Somos coviedos de mucho tiempo pero amistad estruba no tenemos, casi todos los dias lo veo. El tiene su resedencia en San Rafael creo que ha estado el.aqui en el mes pasado. Preg. 72. — Cuando vio Vd primero este documento que copia, como dice Vd que tiene idea que hizo, a fines del ano '46 o en el ano '47 quiero decir, cuando Vd lo examino primero a mego del Sor Lauren- cel viendolo firmado por Jose' Castro, viendo sobre el un decreto en el margen fue firmado por Pacheco con su rubrica y su nombre y viendo que este papel tiene fecha Junio 27 del ano 1846 consideraba Vd que era honrado suprimir el conocimiento de su letra en este papel y todo lo demas que Vd sabia tocante a el que tendria tendencia a probar que era falso y ante fechado con el objeto de entar el trabajo que le causa- ria el ser testigo en esta causa en favor de los E. U. Res. 72. — La primera vez que yo lo vi no vi la fecha. La segunda vez fue cuando vi la fecha. Preg. 73. — Cuantos dias se pasaron entre la primera y segunda vez que Vd examino este documento. Res. 73. — Como 15 dias mas o menos. Preg. 74. — A quien dijo Vd primero que este documento estaba an- tefechada. Res. 74. — A nadie he* dicho que esta antefechado. Preg. 75. — A quien dijo Vd primero que este documento fue escrito por Vd algun tiempo despues de la fecha que esta puesto en el mismo documento. Res. 75. — A nadie he dicho semejante cosa. Preg. 76. — Cuando examino Vd primero este documento lo leyo ? Res. 76.— No. Preg. 77. — Vio Vd entonces todo el documento vio Vd la forma que tenia. Res. 77. — No. Luego no reconosi mi letra me retire para que no me hicieran preguntas. 728 Preg. 78. — No volvio Vd la pagina o estuvo Yd satisfecho con una mirada a la priraera pagina. Res. 78. — No. Luego que vi mi letra me retire. Preg. 79. — Vd ha dicho que habia venido para examinar el docu- mento con el Sor Laurencel en esa ocasion ; porque no lo examino Vd ; porque no lo examino suficiente para saber el contenido de el ; porque no examino Vd las firmas ; porque no miro Vd al decreto en el margen j a la firma de el ; como no miro Vd a la fecha si Vd se tomo el trabajo de venir hasta aqui para examinar ese documento ; no es al yo estrano que Vd se contento con una mirada a la primera pagina. Nadie le digo a Vd que lo examinase con mas cuidado o mas a me- nudo. Res. 79. — Yo no he venido aqui espresamente a examinar el papel, cerca del cuarto del Sor Delia Torre el Sor Laurencel nos convidaron a mi j a Cambuston para ver si conosiamos las letras de un documento y la primera que nos enseno fue la de Castaneda y despues volvieron a la primera a ver si la conocimos entonces se quedaron todos alii y yo luego que vi mi letra me fue ; no quize que me hicieran mas prejuntas nadie me dijo que lo examinase mas a menudo. Preg. 80. — El caballero que le invito Vd adentro del cuarto para examinar las letras, como Vd ha dicho no le pregunto a Vd de quien creia Vd que eran las letras de esos documentos. Res. 80. — Me presento primero las de Castaneda y yo no di lugar a mas. Preg. 81. — Repite la pregunta No. 45. Tengo Vd la bondad de contestar a ella plenamente. Res. 81. — Tocante a las mencionadas preguntas y respuesta creo que son las preguntas que me hizieron y las respuestas que yo di a no ser algun equivoco o mala interpretacion porque no puedo acordarme exactamente de ellas despues de tanto tiempo. Santiago Crane es el mismo a quien me reficio en mi dicha respuesta No. 16. Preg. 82. — La deposicion en la cual dio Vd esas respuestas a esas preguntas fue hecha bajo juramento. Res. 82.— Si. Preg. 83. — Segun lo que Vd ahora recuerda de la materia a que se refieren sus respuestas a las dichas preguntas tiene Vd alguna causa o razon para dudar que sus respuestas a las dichas preguntas como las dio Vd cuando se tomo esa deposicion estan correctamente puestas co- mo se hallan escritas en la dicha pregunta No. 45. Res. 83. — Puede ser que sea exacta esa deposicion pero no me acu- erdo exactamente de las respuestas que di entonces. Preg. 84. — En su respuesta No. 80 en su contra examen dice Yd el Sor Laurencel le enseno a Vd primero el Documento que llaman " The Houghton Document,' ' y que le enseno la letra de Castaneda en el dicho Document y que no dio Vd lugar a mas no fue el despues 729 a buscarle a Vd y le pregunto que si la peticion de Castro estaba en su letra de Vd ? Res. 84.— No. Preg. 85. — Tuvo el Sor Laurencel alguna conversacion con Yd to- cante a esos papeles antes de haberse Vd ido a San Jose* como digo Vd que hizo. Res. 85.— No. Preg. 86. — Tuvo Vd alguna conversacion con cualesquiera persona despues que Vd los vio primero y antes de irse Vd a San Jose*, y si tuvo con quien. Res. 86. — Tuve conversacion con Fernandez y con Antonio Maria Pico. Preg. 87. — No tuvo Vd conversacion con el Sor Crane ? Res. 87. — Creo que no porque el no estuvo aqui en esos dias. Preg. 88. — Dice Vd que durante ese intervalo no tuvo Vd ninguna conversacion con el Sor Laurencel. No tuvo Vd alguna conversacion con alguno que le envio Vd el Sor Laurencel, o quien sospechaba Vd que le fue enviado a Vd por el Sor Laurencel tocante a eso. Res. 88. — No. No tuve conversacion en ese intervalo con nadie enviado por el Sor Laurencel ni con el mismo. Preg. 89. — Durante su visita a San Jose* se encontro Vd con San- tiago Alexandro Forbes. Res. 89.— No. Preg. 90. — Quiero decir si vio Vd al Sor Forbes, entre el tiempo en que salio y el tiempo en que volvio Vd a San Francisco en la oca- sion de esa visita y no solamenti si lo vio Vd en San Jose*. Res. 90. — No lo vi desde que sali de San Francisco hasta que volvi. Preg. 91. — Durante ese intervalo converso Vd con alguna persona tocante a estos papeles o a las cosas a que ellos se lefieren ? Res. 91. — Si. En el vapor platique con Fernandez, que iba abordo del vapor, en el camino para San Jose. No me acuerdo haber hablado con nadie' .mas. Preg. 92. — Cuando Vd volvio a San Francisco con quien converso Vd primero tocante a esos papeles o a las cosas a que ellas refieren. Res. 92. — El Sor Laurencel fue el primero con quien liable. Preg. 93. — Cuantos dias se pasaron entre la primera vez que exa- mino Vd estos papeles y su vuelta de San Jose*. Res. 93. — Ocho o diez dias mas o menos. Preg. 94. — Vd le fue a buscar al Sor Laurencel o el le* fue* a buscar a Vd para la conversacion que tuvo Vd con el cuando estuvo Vd de vuelta de San Jose. Res. 94. — Nos encontramos en la calle de Montgomery. Preg. 95. — Se encontraron Vds en conformidad con arreglo anterior que tuvieron con ese fin. 54 730 Res. 95.— No, Preg. 96. — Entre el tiempo que examino Vd por primera vez este documento y el tiempo en que encontro Vd al Sor Laurencel en la calle de Montgomery como esta dicho en su penultima respuesta habia Vd recibido del Sor Laurencel o de alguna otra persona alguna comu- nicacion por escrito tocante a este documento a" las cosas a las cuales el se refiere. Res. 97. — No. No he recibido ninguna comunicacion. Preg. 98. .Que le digo el Sor Laurencel a Vd cuando lo encontro Vd en la calle de Montgomery. Res. 98. — Entonces fue cuando el me convido que viniese a ver los papeles el dia siguiente. Preg. 99. — Eso fue todo lo el le digo a Vd en esa ocasion. Res. 99. — Despues de saludarnos fue todo lo que hablamos. Preg. 100. — Esta Vd seguroque no le dijo mas Vd a el en esa oca- sion ni el a Vd. Res. 100. — Si estoy seguro. Preg. 101. — Con quien tuvo Vd la primera conversacion despues de esta tocante a eso. Res. 101. — Despues de ese conversacion no recuerdo haber conver- sado con nadie sobre eso. Preg. 102. — Ha dicho Vd que el Sor Laurencel le encontro a Vd en el corredor de esta casa y que le convido adentro de este cuarto para examinar los papeles en el documento que llaman " The Hough- ton Document,' ' que en ese examen reconosio Vd que ese instrumento en ese documento estaba en la letra de Juan Castaiieda y que tambien reconosio Vd que la peticion de Castro estaba en su letra de Vd que Vd le dijo el Sor Laurencel que reconosia Vd solamente de letra de Castaneda y que si retiro de el principitamente para no darle lugar a que le preguntase el a Vd de quien era la letra de la peticion de Cas- tro, que no tuvo Vd ninguna conversacion ni comunicacion con el Sor Laurencel ni con ningun agente de el directa ni indirectamente tocante a esos documentos ni tocante a las cosas a que ellos se refieren hasta que se encontraron en la calle de Montgomery como Vd ha dicho. No es esto asi ? Res. 102.— Si. Preg. 103. — Ha dicho Vd que despues de su conversacion con el Sor Laurencel en la calle de Montgomery se acuerda haber tenido con- versacion alguna con cuales quiera persona tocante a estos documentos o a las cosas a que ellos se refieren. No es esto asi. Res. 103.— Si. Preg. 104. — Ha dicho Vd que su conversacion con el Sor Lauren- cel en la calle de Montgomery no fue mas que saludarsc y el convi- darle a Vd que viniese el dia siguiente a examinar estos papeles. Que le contesto Vd al Sor Laurencel. 731 Res. 104. — Ques vendria a verlos. Preg. 105. — Vino Vd y cuando? Res. 105. — Vine el dia siguiente. Preg. 106. — De donde vino Vd y con quien. Res. 106. — Vine del California Hotel me parece que vine acompa- nado con Crane. Preg. 107. — Que Crane. Res. 107. — Santiago Crane. Preg. 108. — Crane le acompaiiio a Vd hasta el cuarto que esta contigno a este y el tambien examino esos documentos. Res. 108. — No vino el al cuarto ni examino los documentos. Preg. 109. — En donde lo dejo Vd a Crane cuando entro Vd al cuar- to para examinar los documentos. Conteste Vd con precision. Res. 109. — No recuerdo si lo deje en la puesta de esta casa abajo o en la esquina de la calle; Preg. 110. — A que distancia esta la esquina de la calle de la puer- ta de esta casa. Res. 110. — Puede haber como 30 o 40 varas. Preg. 111. — Bien pues Vd entro para examinar los papeles ; diga todo lo que se hizo y se dijo en esa ocasion de ese examen. Res. 111. — Ya he contestado eso. Preg. 112. — No estoy satisfecho con su respuesta, repito la pregun- ta, conteste la Vd. Res. 112. — Entre yo, y estaba el Sor Randolph el Sor Laurencely creo que el Sor que trajo el papel de San Jose. El Sor Randolph le pidio a Sor este ultimo los papeles y se las dio al Sor Lauren- eel y entonces el me las enseno uno por uno y me pregunto si efectiva- mente era mi letra y despues de varias preguntas que me hizo signio ensenandome el documento escrito por Castaneda y otra peticion que esta hecha alii por Castillero y me pregunto si conosia la letra y firma de Castillero y despues si conosia la del documento de posesion, con- teste a las preguntas que me hizo y cuando vi que no me preguntaba mas trate de espedirme. Eso fue' todo lo que paso. Preg. 113. — Dice Vd que despues de haberle preguntado a Vd si cierto papel estaba efectivamente en su letra de Vd, el Sor Laurencel le hizo varias otras preguntas, que le contesto. Vd cuando el le pre- gunto si ese documento estaba en su letra, y cuales fueron las varias otras preguntas que le hizo el Sor Laurencel a Vd. Res. 113. — Le conteste que era mi letra efectivamente. Me pre- gunto cuando lo habia escrito, adonde quenes estaba presentes, y vari- as otras preguntas que no recuerdo. Preg. 114. — Adonde fue Vd cuando salio del cuarto. Res. 114. — Me parece que fui a tomar cafe* en la calle de Clay. Fui solo. Preg. 115. — No le aguardo Crane a Vd. 732 Res. 115.— No. Preg. 116. — Cuando lo volvio Vd a ver a Crane. Res. 116. — La noche del dia siguiente. Preg. 117. — Esta Yd seguro que no lo vio en el inter. Res. 117. — Si estoy. Porque lo buscaba para que me tradesjera el supoena. Preg. 118. — Cuando Yd y Crane venieron juntos a esta casa en su ultima visita de examen tuvo Yd alguna conversacion con el tocante al objeto de su visita. Res. 118. — Le dije que venia a ver los papeles es toda la conversa- cion que tuve con el. Preg. 119. — Le dijo Yd a el que papeles venia Yd a ver. Res. 119.— Si. Preg. 120.— Que dijo el. Ros. 120. — Me dijo que si venicia yo a ver los mismos que habia visto primero. Preg. 121. — Que le dijo Yd a el. Res. 121. — Que venia a ver los mismos papeles. Preg. 122. — Crane le hizo a Yd algunas preguntas tocante a esos papeles alguna vez ; antes o despues de esa ocasion. Res. 122. — Cuando el oyo la conversacion que yo tenia con Fernan- dez me pregunto si era de veros mi letra y yo le conteste que parecia que si. Preg. 123. — Nunca despues tuvo Yd alguna conversacion con Crane. Res. 123. — Tocante a los papeles no tuve ninguna. Preg. 124. — Yd y Crane tuvieron alguna vez alguna conversacion tocante al Sor Laurencel ? Res. 124. — Hemos tenido varias. Preg. 125. — Los tuvieron Yds en el tiempo que Yd examino estos documentos o despues de eso. Res. 125. — Despues de tener la subpoena hemos platicado bastante nunca antes tocante a el. Preg. 126. — Le dijo Crane a Yd que el habia conversado con el Sor Laurencel tocante a estos papeles o a esto de que se trato. Res. 126.— No. Preg. 127. — Este hombre Crane dio alguna vez su deposicion en la causa de Redmond, Clayton y otras para la huerta de Santa Clara an- te la Comision de Terrenos de los E. U. Res. 127.— No se. Preg. 128. — Se acuerda Yd haber hecho juramente alguna en algun pleito que no creivia Yd a Santiago Crane bajo juramento. Res. 128. — Me acuerdo haber jurado que no creiria a el en el testi- monio que habia dado en ese asunto o una cosa asi. 733 Preg. 129. — En donde estaba Vd en el mes de Mayo del ano '46 diga todas los lugares en donde estaba. Res. 129. — No puedo decir el lugar fixo en donde estaba. Preg. 130. — En donde estuvo Vd en el mes de Junio del aiio '46 diga todos los lugares en donde estuvo. ** Res. 130. — Aqui en San Francisco ; en Santa Clara, y en la Con- tra Costa. Preg. 131. — En donde tenia el Genl. Castro su cuartel General en el mes de Junio del ano '46. Res. 131. — En Santa Clara. Preg. 132. — Cuando volvkrVd de Los Angeles a Monterey cuantos dias estuvo Yd en el carmino. Res. 132. — No puedo acordarme pero tengo idea que puse unos 10 o 12 dias. Preg. 133. — Cuantos dias estuvo Vd en el camino de los llanos de Monterey a Los Angeles cuando fue Vd en la espedicion de Castro. Res. 133. — Estuvimos creo que como 10 o 12 dias tambien. Preg. 134. — Cuantos dias estuvo Vd en Los Angeles. Res. 134. — No me acuerdo pero se que sali de alii la noche antes que pusieron la bandera Americana ali. Eso fue cuando lo tomo el Comodore Stockton la primera vez. Preg. 135. — Quien vino con Vd de Los Angeles. Res. 135. — Varios me acuerdo de Jose* Fernandez, un tal Chaboya ; Pedro No. Antonio Maria Pico (Castaneda no vino) Bernadino Soto, Lazaro Soto, y no me acuerdo de mas, aunque habian mas. Preg. 136. — Cuanto tiempo despues de su llegada de Vd a Monte- rey fue cuando llego alii Juan Castaneda. Res. 136. — Tres o cuatro meses ; me parece pero no estoy seguro. Preg. 137. — Dice Vd que los diavios hablaron de un choque que tuvo Vd con el Padre Real tocante a esta huerta. Sabe Vd lo que dijeron los diavos sobre eso pero primero diga si puede de que natural- eza era ese choque. Res. 137. — Fu6* sobre una carta que yo le escribi el Padre Real. No recuerdo lo que dijeron los diavos. Preg. 138. — El Padre Real contesto a esa carta. Res. 138. — Me parece que si. Preg. 139. — En donde rue* escrito su carta de Vd al Padre Real. Res. 139. — En Monterey. Preg. 140. — Esa carta fue* escrita antes o despues que Vd escribio la peticion de Castro. Res. 140. — Me parece que fue* escrita despues. No puedo recor- dar cuanto tiempo despues ; me parece que fue poco tiempo despues. Preg. 141. — Fue un mes despues. Res. 141. — No puedo hacer memoria. Preg. 142. — Cuanto tiempo despues de su vuelta de Vd de Santa 734 Clara a Monterey fiie* cuando Yd le escribio esta carta al Padre Real. Res. 142. — No puedo hacer memoria. Preg. 143. — Su titulo de Vd para la huerta tiene fecha del dia 30 de Junio del ano '46 porque permitio Vd que tanto tiempo se pasara entre la fecha de su titulo y su pedimiento de la huerta. Res. 143. — Porque cuando venimos de Los Angeles yo estuvecomo prisionero en Monterey. No podia salir de alii ; tambien yo no tenia los titulos los tenia Castaneda. Preg. 144. — Cuanto tiempo despues que Vd recibio sus titulos de Castanedas fue cuando Vd pidio posesion de la huerta que tuvo por resultado el choque de que ha hablado-Vd. Res. 144. — Poco tiempo despues que llego Castaneda y un dia que supimos que Don Antonio Osio venia a Santa Clara mandamos el titulo con el que para que solicitara en nuestro nombre la posesion el Padre nos contesto cuando volvio Osio despues de algun tiempo que no podia damos posesion por que alegaba tener mi titulo de los Indios y Don Antonio Osio nos digo que habia perdido nuestro titulo y poco tiempo despues de esto supimos que el Padre Real le habia dado posesion a Osio de la huerta bajo un titulo segun supimos despues ; fabricado por el Padre Real, en una de las firmas en bianco que le habia dejado el Genl. Castro ; ese fue el origin de nuestro choque ; algun tiempo des- pues que mandamos el titulo con Osio fue cuando tuve el choque con el Padre de que hablaron los diarios. No puedo hacer memoria cuanto tiempo despues fue. Preg. 145. — Cuanto tiempo despues que Vd le confio a Osio este encargo fue cuando Vd supo que el Padre Real habia puesto a Osio en posesion de la huerta bajo el titulo de que ha hablado Vd. Res. 145. — No recuerdo ; pero mi contestacion en los periodicos ha de decir algu de eso. Preg. 146. — Fue antes o despues de la visita que hizo Vd personal- mente a Santa Clara para hacer la demanda que tuvo por resultado la correspondencia que. fue publicado en los diarios como ha dicho Vd. Res. 146. — Fud despues de esa visita. Preg. 147. — Vea Vd el documento que se le enseiia a Vd, que pre- tende ser una concesion de Pio Pico a Benito Dias, de un pedazo de tierra conocido bajo el nombre de Punto de Lobos situado en el Puerto de San Francisco, el cual papel recive de los archivos del Surveyor General of the State of California, por medio de un empleado en dicha oficina siendo parte de los archivos de la Comision de Terrenos de los E. U. existiendo en esa oficina y Rotulado del modo siguiente No. 515 : Joseph C. Palmer et als. Punto de Lobos, Doc. H. I. T. No. 1 annexed to dep of Benito Dias taken before Com. Harry I. Thornton. Filed in office April 2d, 1853. Geo. Fisher, Sec'y. A. No. 1, G. T. B. attached to deposition of Pio Pico July 5, 1854, taken before Commr. G. Thompson Burrill. Y diga si sabe de quien es la letra del 735 dicho documento si conose las firmas que estan en el j si dichas Armas son verdaderas. Res. 147. — La letra es mia y las firmas segun mi conocimiento son buenas. Preg. 148. — Es este un documento verdadero y fue' hecho en el tiempo que esta fechado. Res. 148. — Ya he dado mi testimonio sobre eso. Preg. 149. — En ese documento encuentra las palabras siguientes ; " Dado en la ciudad de Los Angeles a veinte y cinco de Junio de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis, en este papel comun por falta del sellado." No estan estas palabras en su letra de Vd y no fueron escritos por Vd al mismo tiempo que escribio Yd lo demas del cuerpo del instrumento. Res. 149.— Si. Preg. 150. — Ha dicho Yd en esta deposicion varias veces, en res- puesta a las preguntas que se le han hecho a Yd que en el mes de Junio del aiio 1846, estuvo Yd en Santa Clara y Contra Costa y no en Los Angeles. Como puede ser eso viendo que las palabras toma- das de su concesion en la pregunta anterior pretenden haber sido escri- tos en la ciudad de Los Angeles en el dia 25 de Junio del ano 1846. Res. 150. — Ya he' dicho en estos deposiciones que hs dado porque fue* fechado ese documento en Los Angeles habiendolo escrito en San Francisco. Preg. 151. — Escribio Yd ese documento en San Francisco. Res. 151.— Si. Preg. 152. — Cuando. Res. 152. — No me acuerdo. Preg. 153. — El documento esta fechado el dia 25 de Junio del ano '46, no dice el documento la verdad en ese particular. Res. 153. — No se si dira la verdad ; segun lo que dice mi testimo- nia que ya he dado en la causa de este titulo yo pienso que dira la verdad. Preg. 154. — Este titulo fue' escrito por Yd en Los Angeles el dia 25 de Junio del auo 1846 ? Res. 154.— No. Preg. 155. — En donde fue escrito y cuando. Res. 155. — Fue* escrito en San Francisco como ya he dicho, en el mes de Junio del ailo '46 ; no me acuerdo en que dia del mes. Preg. 156. — El documento esta en la letra de Yd, y esta en su pre- sencia de Yd, Yd lo ha examinado. encuentra Yd la fecha escrito ple- namente, y sin embargo dice Yd que no se acuerda del dia en que fue escrito, tiene Yd alguna razon para suponer que fue* escrito en algun dia diferente del clia de su fecha ? Res. 156. — Fue escrito algunos dias antes del dia de su fecha. Preg. 157. — Yo ya le he preguntado a Yd si el documento dice la verdad tocante a la fecha. Yd ha contestado. No se si dira la ver- 736 dad segun lo que dice mi testimonio que ya he dado en la causa de este titulo yo pienso que dird la verdad como puede Vd reconciliar esa respuesta con lo que ha dicho en su respuesta No. 156. Res. 157. — Porque yo escribi ese titulo cinco o seis dias antes de la fecha que tiene y lo mande para Los Angeles y no se si lo firmaron exactamente el dia 25 o no. Preg. 158. — Que derecho tenia Yd escribiendo en San Francisco en el mes de Junio del ano 1846 un documento de titulo que debia ser firmado por el Gobernador de California en Los Angeles para ponerle la fecha y escribirlo enteramente en el dicho documento. Res. 158. — El derecho que yo tenia rue* que me escribio de Los Angeles el encargado que yo tenia alii diciendome que estaba el pais algo revuelto y que le mandara los papeles y informes apriesa y si po- sible era el titulo para que no mas lo firmaran. Preg. 159. — Infirio Vd de la comunicacion de su encargado en Los Angeles que el pais estaba en un estado tan revuelto que el Goberna- dor de California y su secretario no tendrian tiempo para llenar un bianco en su titulo con una fecha y el nombre del lugar en donde fue* executado ? Res. 159. — Yo no pense nada. Yo hize el titulo y lo mande. Preg. 160. — Dice Yd que el titulo rue* escrito por Yd unos tres o cuatro dias antes del dia de su fecha porque escojio Yd el dia 25 de Junio 1846 para la fecha de su titulo porque no le puso la fecha del dia en que lo escribio. El haber escojido Yd ese dia de todos los otros dias del ano no demuestra que Yd penso sobre eso y que no fue fecha- do por casualidad. Res. 160. — Puse esa fecha porque hize el calculo de los dias que tardaria el correo en llegar. Preg. 161. — No fue' esa conducta de Yd muy estrana. No consid- eraba Yd que seria un mal que el Gobernador y su secretario firma sen un documento importante en un dia diferente del de su fecha. No tenia Yd que el no llegar el titulo tan luego como el 26 de Junio o sus muchos que haceres o alguna otra circumstancia, impediria el Gober- nador y su secretario de firmar el documento en el dia que Yd habia escogido para su fecha ; y no penso Yd que si asi susediese que lo fe- cha que Yd habia escrito tan plenamente se tendria que borrar y que se tendria que poner la fecha verdadera y que tal cambio podria dar lugar a sospechas toe ante a su titulo. Res. 161. — Yo no considero que esa es una pregunta sino un cargo que se me hace. Yo en ese tiempo no pense en eso. Este cargo se le podia hacer mas bien a el Gobernador por haberlo firmado pero yo lo creo el titulo muy legal pues el Gobernador consintio en firmarlo. Preg. 162. — Que se Josd Matias Moreno que firmo como secretario su titulo de Yd para el puerto de los Lobos y el nombre de quien esta puesta bajo la nota en estos palabras. " Queda tomada razon en el li- 737 bro correspondiente," fue el mismo hombre que firmo como secretario su titulo de Vd para la huerta de Santa Clara y que firmo otra nota semejante en el titulo de Yd para la huerta de Santa Clara. Res. 162. — Es el mismo. Preg. 163. — Dice Vd que cuando escribio Yd ese titulo lo mando por el correo, quien era el que llevaba el correo, cuanto tiempo ponia ordinarimente en el correo en ir de San Francisco a Los Angeles. Res. 163. — No me recuerdo quien llevaba el correo. El tiempo que ponian pare hacer el viaje dependia de la clase de correo era, el ordi- nario ponia 6 o 8 dias pero el extraordinario iba mas pronto cuando digo correo quiero decir la persona que llevaba las comunicaciones. No habian correos establecidos por el Gobierno en ese tiempo ni habia nadie que estimase constantamente en el empleo del Gobierno para Ue- var el correo. Preg. 164. — Segun lo que yo entiendo Yd ha dicho que hizo dos esfueszos ; y dos no mas ; para obtener del Padre Real la posesion de la huerta de Santa Clara un pedimiento por medio de su agente Anto- nio Osio y el otro Id hicieron Yd y Castaneda personalmente en Santa Clara al Padre Real y que fue durante la visita que hizo Yd a Santa Clara con ese objeto cuando escribio Yd la peticion de Castro del cual ha hablado Yd en su testimonio ; no es esto asi ? Res. 164.— Si. Preg. 165. — No autoriso Yd a Thomas 0. Larkin que tomarse el posesion de esa huerta. Res. 165.— Si. Preg. 166. — Larkin le pidio al Padre Real o alguna otra persona posesion de la huerta bajo esa autoridad. Res. 166. — Yo se que el auduvo corriendo transcitos para tomar la posesion y despues el nos dijo que no podia tomarlo. Preg. 167. — Larkin fue* autorisado por Yd y Castaneda o por Yd solo. Res. 16T. — Fue autorisado por los dos. Preg. 168. — Se dieron esa autoridad por escrito o verbalmente. Res. 168. — Le hizimos una venta condicional de la huerta de Santa Clara. Preg. 169. — Esa venta condicional fue* por escrito y contenia ellala unica autoridad que le dieron al Sor Larkin para tamar posesion de la huerta de Santa Clara. Res. 169. — Fuo* por escrito, pero no me acuerdo de los pormerons de la vuelta. Preg. 170. — Repito la pregunta No. 168 conteste la Yd. Res. 170. — No me acuerdo si se lo dimos por escrito o verbalmente epro nostros le dimos autoridad para que tomara posesion de la huerta. Preg. 171. — En donde estaba el Sor Larkin cuando Yd y Castane- 738 da le dieron esa autoridad y en donde estaba cuando le hizieron esa venta condicional de que ha hablado Yd. Res. 171. — En Monterey. Preg. 172. — Cuanto tiempo despues de la vuelta de Castaneda de Los Angeles fiie* esto. Res. 172. — No puedo fixar el tiempo pero pas6 bastante tiempo. Preg. 173. — Fue* antes o despues que Vd pidieron posesion de la huerta por medio de Osio. Res. 173. — Fue* despues. Preg. 174. — Cuanto tiempo despues. Res. 174. — Tengo una idea no mas que seria dos o tres meses des- pues. Preg. 175. — Dice Vd que Vd y Castaneda le hicieron una venta condicional de esta huerta al Sor Larkin. No le hicieron despues una venta absolu^i o sin condiciones al Sor Larkin. Res. 175. — La venta se la hizimos absoluta pero en un documento aparte estan las condiciones. Preg. 176. — Esta venta absoluta al Sor Larkin fu6* hecha antes o despues que Vds pidieron posesion de la huerta por medio de Osio. Res. 176. — Fue* despues. Preg. 177. — Esta venta al Sor Larkin fue hecha antes o despues de la visita que hizo Vd al Padre Real cuando escribio Vd la peticion de Castro. Res. 177. — Fue* antes y recuerdo que la visita hiziemos a instancias del mismo Larkin y tengo la idea que el mismo nos habilito para hacer el viage. Preg. 178.— Ha dicho Vd que su venta condicional al Sor Larkin fue* hecha bastante tiempo despues de haber Vds pedido posesion de la huerta por medio de Osio ; tambien ha dicho Vd que Osio perdio sus papeles de titulo originales. Cuanto tiempo despues de la dicha perdida fue* cuando los hallaron ? Res. 178. — No recuerdo al tiempo pero debo tener una carta que me escribia Jose Fernandez cuando el los hallo ? Preg. 179. — No tiene Vd alguna idea del tiempo, fue una, dos, tres o cuatro semanas ; quieros sus mejores recuerdos sobre eso. Res. 179. — No puedo recordarme pero por darle gusto dire que fueron tres, cuatro o cinco semanas. Preg. 180. — Que hizo Vd con los papeles de titulo cuando los ob- tuvo de nuevo. Res. 180. — Me parece que entonces fue ouando le hiziemos la venta a Larkin. Preg. 181. — Que hizo Vd con los papeles. Res. 181. — Luego que los recibi de Fernandez. Los entre que a Castaneda. 739 Preg. 182. — En su respuesta No. 180 a cual se refiere Vd a su venta condicional o a su venta absoluta a Larkin. Res. 182.- — No hubo mas que una venta era con la condicion de que se' tomaba el posesion de la huerta nos pagaria el dinero y si no quedaria rudo todo. Estas condiciones fueron escritos en un docu- mento a parte de la venta. Preg. 183. — Este documento de venta y el instrumento que conte- nia las condiciones fueron escritos al mismo tiempo ? Res. 183.— Si. Preg. 184. — Vea Yd el documento que se le ensena a Yd y diga si conose la letra ? Res. 184. — Si la conosco. Preg. 185. — Conose^ las firmas. Res. 185.— Si. Preg. 186. — De quienes son. Res. 186. — Una es mi y la otra es de Juan Castaiieda. Preg. 187. — Qu6 fecha tiene ese instrumento. Res. 187.— Setiembre 27 de '46. Preg. 188. — De quien es la letra del cuerpo del instrumento. Res. 188. — Es letra mia. Preg. 189. — Yea Yd este documento y diga si conose la letra y las firmas. Res. 189.— Si. Preg. 190. — De quien es la letra del documento y de quien es son las firmas. Res. 190. — La letra del documento es de Juan Castaiieda y las fir- mas son la de el y la mia. Preg. 191. — De quien es la letra de las palabras, " Monterey Sbre 27 de 1846 ," en el primer documento que se le ha ensenado a Yd, y de quien es la letra de las palabras " y para que conste firmamos en el puerto de Monterey a 27 de Set. de 1846," en el ultimo documen- to que se le ha ensenado a Yd ? Que se estas palabras no se usaron con el fin,de espresar el lugar en donde s6 hizieron estos documentOs y las fechas en que se hizieron. Res. 191. — Las palabras mencionadas y que estanen el primer doc- umento estan en mi letra del segundo documento estan en letra de Castaiieda. Estas palabras se usaron para espresar el lugar en donde se hizo los documentos y las fechas en que se hizieron. Preg. 192. — Que si estos documentos se hizieron en el lugar y al tiempo que ellos mismos demuestra. Res. 192.— Si. Preg. 193. — Que si el Castaiieda que los ha firmado es el mismo uno Castaiieda de quien ha hablado Yd en toda esta deposicion. Res. 193. — Es el mismo. 740 Preg. 194. — Castaiieda firmo esos dos documentos en presencia de Vd. Res. 194.— Si. Preg. 195. — Ha dicho Vd que despues que recibio Vd el subpoena para que diese testimonio en esta causa busco a James Crane para que se le tradujese e lo encontro Vd, se lo tradujo el, J cuanto tiempo des- pues de haberlo Vd recibido. Res. 195. — Lo encontre la misma tarde que recibi la subpoena y el me lo tradujo. Preg. 196. — Vea Vd el documento que ahora se le ensena que pa- rece ser su deposicion de Vd en favor de los actores en la causa de los E. U. contra Joseph C. Palmer y otros, No. 394 siendo apelacion de la Comision de Terrenos de los E. U. en la causa No. 515 en un reg- istro de dicha comision, la cual deposicion parece haber sido empezado el 7 de Mayo de 1857, y haber sido jurado y firmado el 11 de Mayo de 1857 ante J. Edgar Grymes Comisionado Especial y vea Vd par- ticularmente a las palabras siguientes en dicha deposicion. " Conosco bien al Sor D. Santiago C. Crane es dudoso que el seahombre de ver- cidad. Yo no lo creria a el bajo juramento," diga si Vd dio esta de- posicion bajo juramento y si esa parte de el a la cual se le refiere, ex- presa exactamente el testimonio que Vd dio en esa ocasion. Res. 196. — Me parece que no esta muy exacta, recuerdo que dige que no creiria su juramento en la causa ante dicha. Preg. 197. — Quien fue el interprete en esa ocasion. Res. 197. — Fue el mismo que escribia la deposicion el comisionado. Preg. 198. — No digo Vd poco tiempo despues del primer examen que hizo Vd estos documentos a Antonie Maria Pico y Jose' Fernandez a a uno de ellos en el St. Francis Hotel en esta ciudad que la peticion de Castro, este documento fue estrito por Vd antes de vise Vd para el Sur en la' espedicion de Castro, que Vd ha mencionao^o. Res. 198. — No. Ellos me preguntaron si yo habia escrito el docu- mento y yo les dige que si, que creia que era mui bueno porque yo lo habia escrito en el cuarto del Padre Real. No mencionamos nada de la espedicion de Castro ni de haberme ido yo con el. Preg. 199. — Vd dijo que cuando primero examino Vd estos docu- mentos lo dijo Vd al Sor Laurencel que reconocio Vd unicamente la letra de Castaiieda y que Vd se retiro luego para que el Sor Lauren- cel no tuviese lugar para hacerle a Vd preguntas tocante a su letra en la peticion de Castro y este porque no queria Vd ser testigo en la causa. Tambien ha dicho Vd que no tuvo comunicacion alguna con el Sor Laurencel ni con ningun agente de el directamente hasta que le encontro a el en la calle de Montgomery cuando volvio Vd de San Jose*, en la cual ocasion todo lo que ocurrio entre Vds fud un saludoy una invitacion del Sor Laurencel a Vd que volviese Vd a examinar los mismos papeles el dia siguiente. Tambien ha dicho Vd que accepto 741 la imitacion y examino los papeles por consiguiente y en el tal examen el Sor Laurencel le hizo a Vd bastantes preguntas, a todos las cuales contesto Vd, de que contesto Vd, de que modo le quitaron a Vd la re- pugnacion que tenia de ser testigo en esta causa. Res. 199. — Yo nunca creia ser testigo nunca dije al Sor Laurencel en mis respuestas que me acordaba cuando lo habia hecho y por eso mismo crei que no me necesitaba. Yo si hubiera sabido que me iban a sorprender hubiera procurado evardirlo. Res. 200. — Entonces parece que Vd no tuvo tanto cuidada cuando hizo el segundo examen como tuvo cuando hizo el primer examen y entonces no sospechaba Vd que el Sor Laurencel deseaba su testimo- nio en esta causa : porque estuvo Vd tanto mas confiado cuando hizo el ultimo examen de los papeles que cuando hizo el primer examen. Y porque razon pensaba Vd que el tiempo en que Vd escribio la peti- tion de Castro era cosa de importancia para el Sor Laurencel y que si el no podia probar con Vd que fue escrito en un dia diferente de el de su fecha, no tenia Vd que temer que le llamarian como testigo en esta causa ? Res. 200. — Yo no sabia que era cosa de importanr,a para el. No estaba impuesto del asunto. Preg. 201. — Es todo lo que tiene Vd que decir en respuesta a la pregunta anterior ? Res. 201. — Como el Sor Laurencel me hizo unas preguntas no mui claras yo le conteste y no sospechaba que me llamaria como testigo. No conocia nada del asunto. Preg- 202. — Ya ha declarado Vd positivamente que Vd considera- ba mientras que hacia el segundo examen de estos documentos que el Sor Laurencel no necesitaria su testimonio porque todria no le habia dicho Vd cuando habia escrito la peticion de Castro y ahora declara Vd positivamente que al tiempo que hizo el segundo examen de los papeles no sabia Vd nada de este negocio ; estas dos^declaraciones son repugnantes una a otro ; cual de los dos dice Vd ahora que es la ver- dadera. Res. 202. — No entiendo la pregunta. No veo contradiction en esas dos respuestas. Yo nunca pensaba que mi testimonio era importante. Preg. 203. — Cuando fue la ultima vez que Vd vio el periodico que hablaba del choque que tuvo Vd con el Padre Real. Res. 203. — Hace muchos anos ne le he visto mas de uno o dos ve- ses desde que se public6. Preg. 204. — Lo ha visto Vd un el alio proximo pasado. Res. 204.-?-No. Preg. 207. — Durante ese tiempo alguno le ha dicho a Vd algo to- cante a el. Res. 205.— No. 742 Preg. 206. — Diga Vd plenamente todo lo que recuerda de la publi- cacion en el periodico de que ha hablado Vd. Res. 206. — Do lo que decia el periodico no recuerdo ; pero tengo idea que hablaba sobre la posecion de la huerta. Preg. 207. — Contenia esa publicacion una corta de Yd al Padre Real ; y si asi fue, contenia tambien la respuesta del Padre a su carta de Yd. Ha dicho Yd en su contra examen que Yd contesto en los periodicos a la carta del Padre cuando Yd supo como le habian trada- do a Yd el Padre y Osio cuando se hizo la contestacion de Yd ? Res. 207. — No recuerdo pero me parece que hay una carta de por medio de la publicacion. Carta mia al Padre Real. El puso primero una carta mia y yo despues puso mi contestacion segun recuerdo. El Padre Real sin duda puso algo con mi primera carta. Preg. 208. — Se mencion6 el nombre del Sor Larkin en su carta de Yd al Padre Real que fue publicado ? Res. 208. — No recuerdo. Direct Examination Resumed. Preg. 4. — Uno de estos fue Secretario y el otro ayundante del Sec- re tario y si asi fue' cual ? Res. 4. — Juan Castaneda era el Secretario, y el otro era el Ayu- dante. Preg. 5. — Estuvieron estas dos personas o alguno de ellos presentes en Santa Clara con el General Castro durante el dicho mes de Junio de 1846 ? Res. 5. — Si estuvieron los dos. Preg. 6. — -Durante ese tiempo escribio Yd para el General Castro algun papel cuales queria. Res. 6. — No recuerdo haber escrito. Preg. 7. — Se acuerda Yd haberle servido de Secretario en cuales- quier tiempo durante esa campana. Res. 7. — Nunca lo servi de Secretario. Preg. 8. — Se acuerda Yd de alguna cosa que occurrio en la ocasion de su visita al Padre Real cuando escribio Yd la peticion firmado por Jose' Castro que fixa en su memoria esa circumstancia. Quiero ciecir alguna cosa que alia ocurrido entre Yd y Castaneda quien ha dicho Yd que fue su companiero ? Res. 8. — Lo que tengo fixo en mi memoria es que fuimos en esa ocasion a reclamar la huerta de Santa Clara. Preg. 9. — Se acuerda Yd de alguna cosa que paso entre Yd y Cas- taneda durante esa visita o luego despues de su salida de alii o en al- gun tiempo despues que fixa en su memoria el hecho de haber Yd es- crito easa peticion en ese tiempo. Res. 9. — Recuerdo algo ; cuando yo y Charley Clayton y Santiago 743 Crane fuimos a Sonoma en el ano '49 o '50 a comprarle a Castaneda su parte de la huerta de Santa Clara me hizo Castaneda algunas espli- caciones y me dio algunas quejas del Padre Red sobre lo mal que lo habia tratado en la asunto de la huerta que nosotros no habiamos to- rnado la posecion de la huerta por causa del Padre Real, j entonces me conto que el habia escrito algunos cosas al Padre Real y que tenia esperanzas de vengarse algun dia. El no me dijo lo que habia escrito al Padre Real. Preg. 10. — Que si el tal Crane de quien Vd ha hablado es unhom- bre muy conocido entre los antiguos habitantes de California y no es el un individuo que los interesados en pleitos tocantes a cosas que ocur- rieron bajo el dominio el Gobierno Mexicano en este pais suelen em- plear muy amenudo como agente para bascar testigos y procurar testi- monio. Res. 10.— Si. Filed Deer. 29th, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. DEPOSITION OP JOHN M. MURPHY. United States District Court, Northern District California. San Francisco, Dec. 23, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, Commissioner of the United States for the Northern District of California, duly authorised to ad- minister oaths, &C, &c, came John M. Murphy, a witness produced on behalf of the claimant, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present. — United States Attorney by E. Randolph ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Questions by Attorney for Claimant. Question 1. — Your name, age and place of residence ? Answer 1. — John M. Murphy ; I am 33 years of age ; I reside in Santa Clara County. 744 Ques. 2. — How long have you resided in Santa Clara County ? Ans. 2. — Twelve years. Ques. 3. — Did you ever live in the Pueblo of San Jose ? Ans. 3. — I lived there from May or June, 1845, somewhere in the spring of 1845, until 1848. Ques. 4. — What was your employment there in 1845 ? Ans. 4. — I was a clerk in Charles M. Weber's store. He now resides in Stockton. Ques. 5. — Do you know when the stockade was built by the Americans around the Jusgado at San Jose*, and were you engaged in military service at that time ; if so, on which side ? Ans. 5. — The stockade was built some time in the month of No- vember, or beginning of December, 1846, my impression is it was in November ; I was a lieutenant in Capt. Weber's company of mounted Rangers, organized under the supervision of Capt. Hull, of the U. S. Navy, on the side of the Americans. Ques. 6. — Did you know Burton, former Alcalde of San Jose* ? If yea, state when he was elected to that office. Ans. 6. — I did know Burton ; he must have been elected some time in October or November, 1846. Ques. 7. — Who was Alcalde in the months of August and Septem- ber, 1846 ? Ans. 7. — In the month of August, Pedro Chaboya was, and I think September. Ques. 8. — Did you vote at the election of Burton ? Ans. 8. — I did. The election was held in a room back of Weber's store ; we voted viva voce. Ques. 9. — Was that in the dry or the wet season ? Ans. 9, — The rains had commenced, it was raining that day. Ques. 10. — Do you know Salvio Pacheco ? Ans. 10.— I do. Ques. 11. — Do you know whether he was living in San Jose*, in the Pueblo, in 1846 ? Ans. 11. — Yes, he was. Ques. 12. — Do you mean the whole year ? Ans. 12. — Yes ; that was his place of residence in 1846. Ques. 13. — Do you know what his employment was in 1846 ? Ans. 13. — No, I don't know what employment he was in ; he was living there and had a vineyard and a little orchard. Ques. 14. — Are you acquainted with the handwriting of Salvio Pacheco, and with the signatures of Dolores Pacheco, and Pedro Chaboya ? Ans. 14. — I am better acquainted with the signatures of Dolores Pacheco and Pedro Chaboya, than I am with the handwriting of Sal- vio Pacheco, because I have seen them write ; but I have seen the 745 handwriting of Salvio Pacheco so often, that I think I should recog- nize it. Ques. 15. — Look at exhibit " A. B." attached to the deposition of Jose' Fernandez, and say if you know the handwriting of the body of this instrument, and say if the signature of Chaboya, wherever the same appears, is his genuine signature. Ans. 15. — I do not know the handwriting of the body of the in- strument : I do recognize the signature of Pedro Chaboya here tho', and it is his genuine signature, it occurs four times in said docu- ment. Ques. 16. — Did you know Andres Castillero, the claimant ? Ans. 16. — I did ; I was not particularly intimate with him ; I have seen him and spoken with him. Ques. 17. — Did you ever hear of his having discovered the mine called New Almaden, and of his having had possession of it' given him ? if yea, state where you first heard it. Ans. 17. — I heard it first in 1845 ; it was in Weber's store ; Cas- tillero, Pico, and Fernandez, and some others, were in there taking a drink, and I heard them speak of having been out at the newly dis- covered quicksilver mine, giving or taking possession of the mine. Pico was at that time Alcalde ; I do not remember particularly the words that they used, but they related to their having been out tak- ing possession of the quicksilver mine. Ques. 18. — Do you know when Gen. Castro left California, in 1846? Ans. 18. — I could not state positively the time ; but he left Santa Clara on his way, sometime about the middle of July, it was not over the middle of July ; some three, four or five days after the American flag was hoisted I left Monterey, and I saw him in Santa Clara at that time ; I went to Sacramento and was gone 8 or 10 days, and when I returned he had left. Ques. 19. — Do you know when he returned to California ? Ans. 19. — I do not know when he returned to California ; I know when he came to Monterey ; that was sometime in the month of Feb- ruary or March, 1848 ; it was in the wet season, after our company was discharged ; I do not know exactly the time ; I wont be positive. Ques. 20. — Did his arrival at Monterey create any sensation among the people ? State what you saw. Ans. 20. — There were several of us walked up to Gov. Mason's office, to see Castro ride up there ; we saw him ride up, dismount, shake hands with the Governor and walk into his office. Cross-Examination. Ques. 1 . — When did you join Weber's Company ? 55 746 Ans. 1. — November, 1846 ; I could not state the day, about the first of November, I guess. Ques. 2. — Where was Captain Weber then ? Ans. 2. — He was in San Jose'. Ques. 3. — What American officer first took San Jose* ? Ans. 3.— -I don't recollect that there was any taking about it ; Col. Fremont was the first officer that ever entered it with any American forces ; that was sometime before the war in Mexico. Ques. 4. — What American officer first entered it with any Ameri- can force after the war commenced ? Ans. 4. — I can tell the different officers that entered there with forces ; but I cannot tell you which was the first one that entered. There was Watmore of the Portsmouth , Fauntleroy of the Savannah, Pinckney, Fremont's battallion, with the different officers that be- longed to it ; I could not tell you who they were. Ques. 5. — About what time did any of these first enter the place ? Ans. 5. — Watmore came there some time in the summer of 1846, and Fauntleroy also ; it might have been some time in September, or the latter part of August. Ques. 6. — How long did either of these officers remain there. Ans. 6. — I do not know how long ; it was not a great while though. Ques. 7. — When were any troops first stationed in San Josd; un- der what officer ; how long did they stay there ? Ans. 7. — I have answered already, that I did not know when they first came there, but I think that Watmore's and Fauntleroy's were the first regular troops that came there, that were stationed there for any time. Ques. 8. — Then I understand you that Watmore and Fauntleroy, with regular troops, occupied San Jose' for some time ? Ans. 8. — Yes ; I told you though that I did not know for how long. Ques. 9. — Were there not also some irregular troops stationed in San Jose\ somewhere near that time ? Ans. 9. — There were some of the citizens there who joined the companies and went out to the Tulare plains after some Indians; Ques. 10. — When the troops were in San Josd, where were they quartered V Ans. 10. — They were stationed in the room that ran back of Web- er's store, I mean Watmore's and Fauntleroys. Ques. 11. — Were not any portion of them quartered in the Jusgado ? Ans. 11. — Of those companies, I think not. Ques. 12. — Of any other companies ? Ans. 12. — Not at that time. Ques. 13. — Where were you during the months of July and August, 1846, and what was your occupation V 747 Ans. 13. — In the month of July I was in Monterey, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Marin, Napa, and on to Sacramento ; I carried some dispatches from Commodore Sloat to Sutter's Fort, and went through those counties on my way to Sacramento : I rode from Monterey to Sacramento in three days, and from Monterey to San Francisco between six o'clock in the morning and a little before dark ; from Sacramento I returned to San Jose* ; I was taken sick at Sacra- mento and came down to General Vallejo's house at Sonoma, where I remained some days, and then came to San Jose* ; I was gone from the time I started about eight or ten days. The distance between Monterey and San Francisco is about 129 miles ; Capt. Montgomery had me landed in a boat at Sonoma ; there I got horses, and went on to Sacramento. Ques. 14. — Where had you been in that month before Commodore Sloat gave you the dispatches to carry up to Sacramento ? Ans. 14. — I was in Santa Clara county before I went to Monterey. Ques. 15. — At what place in Santa Clara county, and when did you go to Monterey ? Ans. 15. — Either at the ranch, or in the town, I don't know which ; I got to Monterey some days after the American flag was hoisted, and stayed there one night and left the next day with dispatches. Ques. 16. — Did Weber keep his store open in July, 1846 ? Ans. 16. — He did. Ques. 17. — After your return from Saeramento, where did you spend the rest of that month of July ? Ans. 17. — Either on the ranch or at San Jose\ Ques. 18. — Were you still a clerk of Weber's in July, 1846 ? Ans. 18.— No. Ques. 19. — Where did you spend the month of August, 1846, and what was your occupation ? Ans. 19. — I think I spent the entire month in Santa Clara county ; I used to go out and lasso a bullock occasionally, &c; it might have been in the latter part of August that I went out with Watmore ; I am not positive. Ques. 20. — How do you know that Pedro Chaboya was Alcalde in July and August, 1846 ; what do you remember to have seem him do as Alcalde ? Ans. 20. — I do not know that I could state any official act that I saw him do ; I know that he was by seeing him in the Jusgado, and by his being recognized as the Alcalde of the Pueblo. Ques. 21. — Do you remember no circumstance whatever of the first entrance of Fremont's men, or any other Ameriean troops into San J0S<3? Ans. 21. — None, except what I have told you. Ques. 22. — Do you not remember that they took the Jusgado and 748 public offices, and that one of Fremont's men struck Pedro Chaboya a severe blow with a pistol ? Ans. 22. — I did not see the circumstance, but I recollect something about it ; Charley Mcintosh, one of Fremont's men, having some diffi- culty with Chaboya, but that was a short time before Fremont went below in 1846, the last time ; he must have left San Jose in October or November. Ques. 23. — By what circumstance do you remember that it was in the year 1844, that you heard Pico, Castillero and Fernandez, &c, speak about taking possession of the mine ? Ans. 23. — Because it was in 1845 that I was hired in Weber's store. Ques. 24. — Were you employed in that store at any time during the year 1846 ? Ans. 24.— No. Ques. 25. — At what time did your employment there cease ? Ans. 25. — It was before Christmas • how long before I do not recollect. Ques. 26. — How long before your employment ceased there was it that you heard the conversation referred to ? Ans. 26. — I could not state how long before it was. Ques. 2T. — Was it on the very last day of your employment there ? Ans. 27. — I do not know ; our store was the public resort there at that time. Ques. 28. — Was it within the last week of your employment there ? Ans. 28. — I haue no idea, I cannot tell. Ques. 29 — Was it within the last month of your employment? Ans. 29. — I can't say ; I do not know. Ques. 30. — Did your employment there continue up to Christmas ? Ans. 30. — I think not. Ques. 31. — Do you remember where you were the Christmas of 1845? Ans. 31. — At that time I was in San Jose', and on New Years too. Ques. 32. — Can you remember now whether on those two days, or either of them, you were still a clerk for Weber ? Ans. 32. — I think I was not. Ques. 33. — Can you remember whether it was the dry season or the rainy season when you heard the conversation referred to ? Ans. 33. — I can not. Ques. 24. — You say Castillero, Pico, Fernandez, &c, were in the store taking a drink when they spoke something about having been to the mine taking possession, was it not part of your duty as a clerk to wait on them, and did you not wait on them on that occasion ? Ans. 34. — I waited on them ; yes. 749 Direct Examination Resumed. Ques. 1. — Have you lately examined in the city of San Jose* the old records of the Alcalde's office, for the purpose of seeing whether Chaboya in the month of August and September, 1846, performed any official act as Alcalde ? (Question objected to on the ground that claimant should produce the records or certified copies, and not ask the witness if he had seen such.) Ans. 1. — I examined in the County Recorder's office of Santa Clara county, the old Alcalde records there, and found records there signed by Chabolla, bearing date August and July, 1846 ; I would not be positive whether there is or is not any records there bearing date Sep- tember, 1846. (Question and answer objected to upon the ground also that the legal custodian of said records is the proper person to prove whether books in that office are books of record or not.) • JOHN M. MURPHY. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23d day of December, 1837. cutler McAllister, U. S. Commissioner. Filed September 6, 1858. W. H. CHEVERS, Clerk. DEPOSITION OF DOMINGO DANGLADA. United States District Court, Northern District California. San Francisco, Dec. 29, 1857. On this day, before Cutler McAllister, a Commissioner of the United States for the Northern District of California, duly au- thorized to administer oaths, &c. &c, came Domingo Danglada, a witness produced on behalf of the United States, in Case No. 420, being an appeal from the Board of Commissioners to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California, in 750 Case No. 366 on the Docket of the said Board of Commissioners, and was duly sworn and testified as follows : Present. E. Randolph for United States Attorney ; A. C. Peachy for Claimant. Questions by U. S. Attorney. Ques. 1. — Your name, age, business, place of residence? Ans. 1. — My name is Domingo Danglada ; I am 50 years old ; I reside in the Mission of Dolores, but attend to my business here in San Francisco ; I am a Merchant. Ques. 2. — Look at the paper attached to the deposition of John Paty which purports to be a certificate of Carlos Horn under the seal of the "Capitania del Puerto de San Bias" Mexico, with an- other certificate by Ignacio Echagaray, under the seal of " Gobi- eino Politico del Canton de Topic " Mexico, and say whether you have ever seen that paper before, this paper being the same marked " J P. No. 5," attached to the deposition of John Paty ? (Question objected to on the ground that whether the witness has or has not seen that paper before is an irrelevant fact.) Ans. 2. — I have seen this paper before. Ques. 3. — When, and in what manner did it come to your knowl- edge ? (Question objected to on the ground that the manner in which the paper came to the witness 7 knowledge is an irrelevant fact.) Ans. 3. — I don't reccollect exactly when I first saw it, but a person of the name of H. Laurencel applied to me in the month of June last, requesting me to ask from the Captain of tne Port of San Bias a certificate of the arrival of the Kanaka ship '* Don Quixote n Captain John Paty, which vessel the said Laurencel said had sailed in the year 1846 from Monterey to San Bias some- time in the month of April, although he was not very sure of the date of the sailing ; as Mr. Laurencel was a person unknown to me, after I took some information, I wrote to Mr. Casmiro Men- doza of Tepic, stating that the said vessel must have arrived about the month of April and May at the port of San Bias, and I wished him to apply to the Captain of the port of San Bias, and get a certificate of the arrival according to the records which must be kept in the archives of the office of the Captain of the port in the book of the arrivals and departures of vessels, consequently my friend Mendoza forwarded to me the certificate which has been 751 shown to me, which I gave to Mr. Laurencel in a letter dated 16th September 1857 ; this is all I know of this thing. Ques. 4. — Of whom did you take information before you wrote; what person or persons do you refer to ? Ans. 4. — As Mr. Lanrencel left a note stating that he wanted to see me, and I was not acquainted with him, I enquired what kind of a person he was ; I enquired of Messrs. Casseau, Pouton and others. Ques. 5. — Did you send any formula by which to have the cer- tificate made out ? Ans. 5. — I think I only sent the name of the vessel and the Captain, stating that I wanted the certificate, certifying the day of the arrival of the vessel in the port of San Bias in conformity with the records kept in the book of the arrivals in the office of the Captain of the port ; I could not have sent a form when I did not know in what month or on what day she arrived. Ques. 6. — Who is this Mr. Mendoza, what is his business in Tepic ? (Question objected to on the ground that Mr. Mendoza's busi- ness is irrelevant.) Ans. 6. — He is one of the most respectable gentleman in Tepic ; he has stores, houses and ranches. DOM . DANGLADA. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of December 1857. cutler McAllister, U. S. Com. Filed Sept. 6, 1858. W. H. CHEVERS, Clerk. 752 DEPOSITION OF JOHN M. MURPHY. Unted States District Court, ) Northern District of California. J On Appeal from U. S. Land Commission. Andres Castillero, ) v * [ The United States. ) Question 1. — What is your name ; age ; and place of residence ? Answer 1. — My name is John M. Murphy ; my age 33 years, and I reside in Santa Clara County. Ques. 2r — Are you tne witness of the same name who has hereto- fore testified in this case ; how long have you resided in Santa Clara County, and what public offices have you held ? Ans. 2. — I am the same witness ; I have resided in Santa Clara County since the year 1845, some time in May or June ; I have held the offices of County Treasurer, County Recorder, and am now Sheriff of Santa Clara County ; I have also been Mayor of the city of San Jose* in that county. Ques. 3. — Look at the document now shown you marked " Exhibit No. 1." annexed to the deposition of John M. Murphy, purporting to contain copies of certain official acts done by Pedro Chabolla, Alcalde of San Jos6, as they appear of record in a book now in the office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, and state whether you have compared all of the copies in this. Exhibit with their originals, and whether the said copies are exact and true. State also whether you are acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of said Pedro Chabolla and Salvio Pacheco, and whether their signatures to the original documents are genuine ; and further whether you are ac- quainted with the book in which said original acts are written and signed, and if you know where the said book formerly existed. Ans. 3. — I have compared the papers in the said Exhibit with the record in County Recorder's office of Santa Clara, and they are a cor- rect copy of the record ; I am acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of said Chabolla, and said Pacheco; I have seen them both sign their names, but of the writing of Chabolla I have seen but little ; I believe their signatures to the said original documents in the record, are their genuine signatures; I know the book referred to in the question, it existed formerly in the Alcalde's office at San Jose ; I 753 saw it in the Alcalde's office in 1846 and 1847, I might have seen it there in 1845 for all I know, about that time there were very few books kept in the Alcalde's office. Cross-Examined. Ques. 1. — Were you employed in the Alcalde's office in the years 1845, 1846 and 1847, or either of them, as clerk, or in any other public capacity ? Ans. 1. — I was not employed in the office, I acted as sheriff or something of that sort, to collect a license tax in the year 1846 or 1847, I can't be positive which, under the orders of the Alcalde. Ques. 2. — Were the orders of the Alcalde which you executed, or your returns upon them, entered upon them, entered in that book to which you have referred in your direct examination ? Ans. 2. — They were not ; my impression is that book was kept en- tirely for recording grants of solares, and marks and brands ; the Al- calde under whom I acted was John Burton, to the best of my recol- lection. Ques. 3. — Did you read all the papers in " Exhibit No. 1," of which you have testified on your directed examination, in the book of which you have testified, at the time when you first saw said book ; Do you know of your own knowledge whether said papers were then written in said book ? Ans. 3. — I did not read the papers in the book at the time referred to ; I do not know whether they were written in the book or not. Ques. 4. — Do you know where that book has been kept or left all the time since 1846 ? Ans. 4. — I do not. JNO. M. MURPHY. Stipulation. This witness having been sworn in this case on a former day, it is hereby stipulated that the foregoing questions and answers may be offered and read in evidence by the claimant on the trial of this case, with the legal effect they would have if the same had been propounded and given in a deposition of the said John M. Murphy, regularly taken, subscribed and sworn to in open court, or before a Commissioner au- thorised to take the same. San Francisco, Jany. 25th, 1858. EDMUND RANDOLPH, P. DELLA TORRE, U. S. Att'y. Filed Jan'y. 26, 1858. W. H. CHEVERS, Dep. Clerk. 754 EXHIBIT No. 1, ANNEXED TO THE DEPOSITION OF JOHN M. MURPHY, Pedro Chabolla, Alcalde, to Santiago Estoc — Grant of Land — Copy— I. Pedro Chabolla Alcalde Constitucional del Pueblo $e S. Jose* Gpe. actuando p r . receptoria con dos testigos de asistencia a falta de escri- bano Publico. En el espresado Pueblo a los veinte dias del mes de Agosto de rail . ochocientos cuarenta j seis en virtud de la representacion q e . el becino de mi mando Santiago Estoc hace y en vista de la necesidad q e . efec- tibam te presenta a nombre de su familia e" benido p r . los facultades q e . la ley de colonizacion reglam t0 antiguo y decreto sup r . que faculta k los jueces respectibos para conceder y permitir dentro de los egidos de su Poblado por lo tanto permito y a conbenido con este becindario que se le midan las dos mil varas de tierra que pretende para labores no per- iudicando la bendita Publica y que estos sean en calidad de prestamo nasta la disposicion 6 haprobacion del Gov 110 . q e . establesca, y habiendo pasado al pun to sitado de llamaron por testigos medidores a los C. C. Antonio M a . Pico y Eusebio Galindo los que prometieron hacer fielm te su oficio, y se prosedio a las medidas de las dos mil varas pretendidas y ponga sus bienes de campo en sysieno, de lo que no habiendo conti- dicion alguna quedaron las medidas echas desde la tierra que tiene consedido D n . Antonio Sunol para afuera de su llanma, y por su con- stancia se lo dio el presente testimenio, y el Juez del espresado Pueblo lo dade haber pasado como dho. es y que las medidas se han echo con la mayor legalidad p r . los medidores, y para que conste en todo tiempo y lugar lo firmaron los de asistencia con el presente Juez. Be it rem- bered that James Stakes has given up this title on conditions of get- ting one of the " Pedro Chabolla (five) " ast a " Hundred . acre Rubric lots which was granted August 19th, 1847. ANTONIO M A . PICO. ast a Rubric. CHAS. WHITE, Clk. JOHN BURTON, Alcalde. State of California, County of Santa Clara. I, Austin M. Thompson County Recorder in and for said County do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full true and correct copy of 755 a document recorded in my office on pages 7 & 8 in Book Number One of the Records of said County of Santa Clara. , — ^~ s In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and j seal [ affixed my official seal this 9th day of January A. D. 1858. ( J AUSTIN M. THOMPSON, County Recorder. By Sherman 0. Houghton, Deputy. Pedro Chabolla, Alcalde, to — Copy — 2. Pedro Chaholla Alcalde constitucional del Pueblo de S. Jose* Gpe. actuando p r . receptoria con dos tesiigos de asistencia k falta de escri- bano publico. En el espresado Pueblo & los catorce dias del me sepbre de mil ocho cientos cuarenta y seis en virtud de la presente instancia e benido en concederle al interesado sincuenta varas de solar p r . f rente, y cuarenta y dos de fondo ciendo medidores testigos los C. C. Salvio Pacheco y Antonio M a . Pico los cuales fielm te midieron dho. solar & continuacion del que sigue para el jusgado, y para su constancia le da el presente testimonio y el Juez del espresado Pueblo lo da de aber pasado como dho. es de lo q e . diga pagado su correspond 16 derecho, y traspasado es- te al libro respectibo de solares a fojas ocho lo que firmo el juez con loa de asistencia e posesion es de esta. PEDRO CHABOLLA. Rubric, asst*. ast\ SALVIO PACHECO. State of California, County of Santa Clara. ss. I, Austin M. Thompson County Recorder in the County of Santa Clara in the State aforesaid do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full true and correct copy of an instrument of writing on record in my office on page 8 in Book Number One of Deeds, of the Records of said County of Santa Clara. x In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand affixed seal [ my official seal this 9th day of January A. D. 1858. — * > AUSTIN M. THOMPSON, County Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. 756 Pedro Chabolla, Alcalde, to Fra?icisco Matey — Grant of Solar — Copy — 3. Por cuanto a la presente instancia yo Juez constitu 1 . Ciudadano Pe- dro Chabolla 4 los diez y seis dias del mes de Sbre. de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis havitud de no aber inconvin te p a que la persona del Sa. Fran co Matey, fabrique en este lugar e benido en concederle siento cincuenta varas de solar p r . frente y sincuenta de de fondo a continu- acion del que tiene medido D n Pedro Davis, siendo testigos y medido- res los que subscriben, quienes fielin te au cumplido su oficio y para su constancia se le da el presente testimonio de le que deja pagado su dro. correspond 16 y le doy firmado. PEDRO CHABOLLA. Rubrica. SAVIO PACHECO. ast a . Rubrica. DIEGO GUILLERMO WEEKES. Rubrica. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara, j * I, Austin M. Thompson County Recorder in and for the County of Santa Clara in the State aforesaid do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full true and correct copy of an instrument of writing of record in my office on page eight in Book Number One of Deeds of the Records of said County. — — s In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand and seal [ affixed my official seal this 9th day of January A. D. 1858. — ~ ' A. M. THOMPSON, County Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. Pedro Chabolla, Alcalde, to Diego Gill™ Weekes — Grant of Solar — Copy — 4. Por cuanto k la presente instancia yo Juez constitucional Ciudadano Pedro Chaboya 4 los diez y siete dias del mes de Sbre de mil ocho- cientos cuarenta y seis ha virtud de no haber inconveniente para que la persona del Sor. Diego Guillermo Weekes fabrique en este lugar 4 benido en consederle cincuenta varas de frente y cincuenta de fondo en continuasion de los tierros que posee* Don Jose* M a Flores asia el 757 Sur en donde puecle poner su casa y para su constancia se le da el presente testimonio de haver pasado como dho. es y que los medidos fueron hechas fielm te por los medidores testigos que firmaron con el presente Juez y deja pagado sus derechos en este Jusgado. Lo que quedo sentada en el libro Respectibo a fojas 9, nueve. PEDRO CHABOLLA. Rubric. ast a SALVIO PACHECO. ast a Rubric. VICENTE JUARES. Rubric. State of California, County of Santa Clara. I, Austin M. Thompson County Recorder in and for the County of Santa Clara in the State of California do hereby certify that the fore- going is a full true and correct copy of an instrument of writing of record in my office on page Nine in Book Number One of the Records of Santa Clara County. r — — ^ In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and ] seal [ affixed my official seal this 9th day of January A. D. 1858. < ] AUSTIN M. THOMPSON, County Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. Pedro Chabolla, Alcalde, to Peter Davis — Grant of Solar — Copy — 5. Por cuanto ala presente instancia, yo Juez constitutional Ciud . Pe- dro Chabolla, 4 los veinte y cinco dias del mes de Septiembre de mil ocho cientos cuarenta y seis, ha virtud de no haber inconvent e para que la persona del Senor Pedro Davis, tomo sincuenta varas de tierra para favricar casa e* benido en consederle las sincuenta varas de tierra que pide en seguida del que tiene comprado & la Sra Rosa Patron p r . delante al sur con las medidas de cuarenta y tres de frente y de fondo las dhas. sincuenta siendo medidores testigos los que subscriba y para su constancia se le da el presente testimonio lo que queda pasado al libro de asientos a fojas nuebe, y deja pagado su dho. en este jusgado de mi cargo. SALVIO PACHECO. Rubric a. PEDRO CHABOLLA. Rubrica. MARIANO CASTRO, f 758 State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. ] ss * I, Austin M. Thompson County Recorder in and for the County of Santa Clara in the State of California do hereby certify that the fore- going instrument of writing is a full true and correct copy of a docu- ment of record in my office on page 9 in Book Number one of Deeds of the Records of the said Counta of Santa Clara. — — ^ In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand and seal [ affixed my official seal this 9th day of January A. D. 1858. — ] AUSTIN M. THOMPSON, County Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. Pedro Chabolla,) Alcalde, to Salvio Pacheco — Grrant of Solar — Copy — 6. Pueblo S. Jose Gr. Junto 16 de 1846. Por presentado la parte interesado en este jusgado pase k darle la posesion q e . p a . ley merese y queda tomada razon en el libro respectibo de solares a fogas sinco q e . es en los terminos sig tes . Por cuanto a las facultades que la ley de treinta y cuatro me con- fiere : Yo Juez de 2 a nominacion C°. Pedro Chabolla actuando por re- septorio con dos testigos de asistencia. En el mismo dia mes y ano pase ala casa del Ciud°. Salvio Pacheco y tomando la medida del frente de su finca con otras mas V e . segun demuestra los simientos anteriores resultan medidas beinte y sinco varas por frente y de fondo sesenta y siete hasta la seria de guerta, en seguida se an medida siento once ba- ras de dh°. guerta de largo y cuarenta de frente por lo que ni incenti- ando contidicion alguna y ha satisfacion del interesado se le dio la po- sesion juridica lo que pedio p a . testimonio, y el Juez del espresado Pue- blo la da de haber pasado como dho. es y que las medidas tanto de solar como de guerta se han hecho con la mayor legalidad p a . las me- didas y para que conste en todo en todo tiempo y lugar firmaron los de asistencia con una serial de Cruz, con el presente Juez. PEDRO CHABOLLA. Rubric. ast a . MARIANO CASTRO, f asst a . , JOSE FELIZ. f 759 State of California, ss County of Santa Clara. ' I, Austin M. Thompson County Recorder in and for the County of Santa Clara in the State aforesaid do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full true and correct copy of an instrument of writing recorded in Book Number One of Deeds on pages 5, of the Records of said County. . — — j In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and } seal [ affixed my official seal this 8th day of January A. D. 1858. I I AUSTIN M. THOMPSON, County Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. Pedro Chabolla, Alcalde, to — Grant of Solar — Copy — 7. Pueblo de S. JosS Ag t0 19 de 1846. Por cuanto 4 las facultades que la ley de colonisation y reglam to antiguo me confiere que es respecto & solares. Yo Juez de 1*!. nomination C°. Pedro Chabolla actuando p r . reseptoria con dos testigos de asistencia & falta de escribano publico. Pase* en el mis- mo dia mes y ano a virtud de la presente instancia y se prosedio a la medida de su solar tomando el frente de veinte y cinco varas y cuadro con sesenta de fondo completandosele dhas. baras del frente para el otro lado del callegdn p a . lo que no aviendo contradicion alguna y a" satisfacion del interesado se dio la posecion juridica lo que pidio por testimonio y el Juez del espresado Pueblo la da de aber pasado como dho. es y que ks medidas de solar se an echo con legalidad* por los me- didores y para q e . conste en todo tiempo y lugar firman los testigos con causa senal de Cruz, con el presente Juez. PEDRO CHABOLLA. Rubric. ast a . JOAQ N . MORAGA. f asistencia, MANUEL CANTUA. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. J I, Austin M. Thompson County Recorder in and for the County of Santa Clara in the State aforeseid do hereby certify that the foregoing instrument of writing is a full, true and correct copy of a document re- corded in Book Number One of Deeds, on page 6, of the records of said County. 760 The erasure of the words " treinta y cuatro " and the interlineation of the words " colonizacion y reglamt antiguo " being made upon the record. — — s In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal | affixed my official seal this 8th day of January A. D. 1858. — ~ > AUSTIN M. THOMPSON, County Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, Deputy. Pedro Chabolla, Ale* 1 *, to Tomas Pacheco — Grant of Solar — Copy — 8. Pueblo de San JosS Gr. Agosto 18 de 1846. Por cuanto a las facultades q e . la ley de treinta y cuatro me confi- ere yo juez de 2 a nominacion Ciudadano Pedro Chabolla actuando p r . reseptoria cos dos testigos de acistencia & falta de escribano publico En el mismo dia mes y ano aviendo pasado a la casa y solar del C. Tomas Pacheco y di principio k las medidas de su solar siendo medido por frente veinte y sinco varas y de fondo sesenta por lo no aviendo contradicion alguna ya satisfacion del ynteresado sedio la posecion ju- ridica lo q e . pidio por testimonio y el Juez del espresado Pueblo lo da de aber pasado como dueno es y q e . las medidas del solar se han echo con legalidad por los medidores, y p a . q e . conste en todo tiempo y lugar Firman los de asistencia con una de cruz y el presente Juez. PEDRO CHABOLLA. Rubric. ast a . JOAQ N MORAGA. f ast a . MANUEL CANTUA. State of California, ) County of Santa Clara. ( * I Austin M. Thompson County Recorder in and for the County of Santa Clara in the State aforesaid do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full true and correct copy of an instrument of record in the Coun- ty Recorder's of said County in Book Number One on pages 5 k 6, of the records of said County. , j In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and ] seal [ affixed my official seal this 8th day of January A, D. 1858. ( — ~ 3 AUSTIN M. THOMPSON, County Recorder. By S. 0. Houghton, . Deputy. 761 State of California, County of Santa Clara. l On this Eleventh day of January A D 1858 before me Austin M Thompson a Notary Public within and for the County aforesaid per- sonally came John M Murphy who being duly sworn deposes and says. That he is well acquainted with the signature of Pedro Chabolla who was 2d Alcalde of the Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalupe in the year 1846 — that he has examined the original record book of the County of Santa Clara from which the annexed copies Nos 1 to 8 inclusive were copied and certified to by the county recorder of said Santa Clara County, and that he believes the said signatures of Pedro Chabolla alcalde aforesaid are genuine and true as they appear on said record book No 1 of the said records of Santa Clara County. JNO. M MURPHY. , «-m — * Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 11th day of J seal [ January AD 1858. ' — i — ' Witness my hand and official seal, AUSTIN M THOMPSON, Notary Public, Filed Jan'y 26, 1858. W. H. CHEVERS, Dep. Clerk. TRANSLATION OF " EXHIBIT NO. 1." Pedro Chavolla, Constitutional Alcalde of the Pueblo of San Jose* Guadalupe, acting ex officio with two witnesses of assistance for want of a Notary Public. In the said Pueblo on the 20th day of the month of August, 1846, in virtue of the representation of the citizen James Estoc, and in view of the necessity which he effectively presents in the name of his family, I have by the powers which the laws of colonization formerly in force, and the superior decree which empowered the respective magistrates to grant and permit witnin the common lands ot their population, therefore permitted, and it has been agreed with the community, that there be measured the two thousand varas of land which he asks for cultivation, without prejudicing the said public, and understanding that it may be in the nature of a loan, until the disposition or approval which the Government may establish, and having passed to the said point, there were called as witnesses of the measurement, citizens An- 56 762 tonio Maria Pico and Eusebio Galindo, who promised faithfully to per- form their office, and proceeded to the measurement of the two thou- sand varas asked for, and he placed his stock, of which there being no opposition, they left the measurements made from that which Don An- tonio Suiiol has granted to him outside of his plain, and in proof of which I gave him this present testimony, and the justice of said Pueblo give it as having passed as aforesaid, and as the measurements arc made with the greatest legality by the measurers, and as a testimony for all time and place, those of assistance signed it with the present magistrate. PEDRO CHAVOLLA. Assisting : Assisting : Antonio Maria Pico. Chas. White. Pedro Chavolla, Constitutional Alcalde of the Pueblo of San Jose* Guadalupe, acting ex officio with two witnesses of assistance for want of a. Notary Public. In the said Pueblo on the 14th day of the month of September, 1846, in virtue of the present proceeding, I have granted to the party interested a lot of fifty varas front by forty-two deep, being measurers the witnesses citizens Salvio Pacheco and Antonio Maria Pico, who faithfully measured said lot to the continuation of that which follows for the Court, and in proof of it the present testimony is given, and the Magistrate of the said Pueblo gives it as having passed as is said, the corresponding fees are paid, and this transferred to the res- pective book of lots on the leaf 8, which the Magistrate signs with those of assistance, and possession is of this. PEDRO CHAVOLLA. Of Asssistance : Of Assistance : Salvio Pacheco. Whereas, at the present instance of the Constitutional Magistrate, citizen Pedro Chavolla, on the 16th day of the month of September 1846, there appears no objection that the person of Francisco Matez may build in this place, I have granted a solar of fifty varas front and fifty in depth, in continuation of that which Don Pedro Davis has measured, being witnesses and measurers those who subscribe, and who faithfully performed their office, and for its proof the present tes- timony is given, that his corresponding fees all paid, and I give this ligned. PEDRO CHAVOLLA, Of assistance : Of assistance : Salvio Pacheco. Diego Guillermo Weeks. 763 Whereas, at the present instance of the Constitutional Magistrate, citizen Pedro Chavolla, the 17th day of the month of September 1846, in virtue of there being no objection that the person of Seiior Don Diego Guillermo Weeks may build in this place, I have granted to him fifty varas front and fifty in depth, in continuation of those which Don Jose' Ma. Flores has to the south where he can put his house, and for the proof of it there is given the present testimony of having passed as is said, and that the measurements were faithfully made by the measurers, the witnesses who sign with the present Magistrate, and the fees are paid in this Court. It is recorded in the respective book, at leaf nine (9.) PEDRO CHAVOLLA. Of assistance : Of assistance : Salvio Pacheco. Vicente Juares. Pueblo of S. Jose Guadalupe, June 16th, 1846. The party interested having presented in this Court, I proceeded to give him the possession of which by law he is entitled, and note is taken in the respective book of lots at leaf 5, which is in the following terms : Whereas, by the powers which the law of thirty-four confers on me, I the Magistrate of 2nd nomination, citizen Pedro Chavolla acting ex officio, with two witnesses of assistance. In the same day, month and year I passed to the house of citizen Salvio Pacheco, and taking the measurement from the front of his im- provement with others more old, as the anterior masonry shows, their result measurement twenty-five varas front and sixty-seven in depth, to the garden enclosure, in continuation there are measured one hun- dred and eleven varas of said garden in length, and forty of front, to which there being no objection, and the party interested being satisfied the juridical possession which was asked for is given for testimony, and the Magistrate of the said Pueblo gave it as having passed as is said, and which the measurements as well of the lot as of the garden are made with the greatest legality, for the measurements and for proof in all time and place those of assistance sign with the mark of the cross with the present Magistrate. PEDRO CHAVOLLA. Of assistance : Of assistance : Mariano Castro f Jose Feliz f 764 Pueblo of San Jose, August 19th, 1846. Whereas, by the powers which the law of colonization and the ancient regulations confer on me with respect to lots, I the Magistrate of the second nomination, citizen Pedro Chavolla, acting ex officio with two witnesses of assistance for want of a notary public. I passed in the same day, month and year, in virtue of the present instance, and proceeded to the measurement of his lot taking the front of twenty-five varas and a quarter by sixty in depth, the said varas of front being completed by the other side of the alley, by reason of their being no opposition and to the satisfaction of the party interested, the juridical possession which is asked is given for testimony, and the Magistrate of the said Pueblo gives it as having passed as is said, that the measurements of the lot are made with legality by the measurers, and as a proof of it in all time and place the witnesses sign with the mark of the cross, with the present Magistrate. PEDRO CHAYOLLA. Of assistance : Of assistance : Joaquin Muraga ♦ Manl. Cantua f Pueblo of San Jose Guadalupe, August 18th, 1846. Whereas, by the powers which the law of thirty-four confers on me, I the Magistrate of second nomination, citizen Pedro Chavolla, acting ex officio, with two witnesses of assistance for want of a Notary Public. In the same day, month and year, having passed to the House and lot of citizen Tomas Pacheco, and began the measurements of his lot being measured by the front twenty-five varas, and in depth sixty, there being no opposition and the party interested being satisfied, the iuridical possession which was asked for is given for testimony, and the Magistrate of the said Pueblo gives it as having passed to him as owner, and that the measurements of the lot were made with legality by the measurers, and as a proof in all time and place, those of assist- ance sign with a cross, and the present Magistrate. PEDRO CHAYOLLA. Of assistance : Of assistance : Joaquin Muraga f Manuel Cantua f Filed, January 26th, 1858. W. H. CHEYERS, Dep. Clerk. 765 DEPOSITION OF RAFAEL SANCHEZ. United States District Court, ) Northern District California. ) San Francisco, Jan'y 30, 1858. On this day, before Geo. Pen Johnston, a Commissioner of the United States for the District of California, duly authorized to administer oaths, . n Juan B. Alvarado Gobernador Constitutional del depart- Seal. I amento de los Californias. Por cuanto el ciudadano Justo — — * Larios ha pretendido para su beneficio personal y el de su familia el terreno conocido con el nombre de las Capitancillos, colin- dante con la Sierra con el Arroyo Seco, por la parte del estableci- miento de Sta. Clara y con el Rancho del Ciudadano Jose' R. Berrey- esa el cual tiene por lindero el angulo que forma el arroyo Seco y el de los Alamitos run/bo al Sur la falda de la Loma cituada en el sentro de la Canada acia el Este, hasta llegar k la Sierra, practicadas previ- amt e las diligencias y averiguaciones consernientes segun lo dispuesto por leyes y reglamentos usando de las facultades que me son conteri- das k nombre de la Nacion Mejicana he venido en concederle el ter- reno mencionado declarandole la propiedad de el por las presentes letras. Sugetandose a la aprobacion de la Exma. Junta Departamen- tal y bajo las condiciones siguientes. l a . Podra sercarlo sin perjudi- car las travecias, caminos y servidumbres lo disfrutara libre y esclusiv amt e destinandolo al uso o culto que mas le acomode pero dentro de un ano fabricara casa y estara habitada. 2 a . El terreno de que se hace mencion es de un sitio de ganado mayor poco mas o menos segun es- plica el diseno qu ecorre en el espedt e respectivo. El Juez que diere la posecion lo hara medio conforme a Ordenanza, quedando el sobrante que resulte a la Nacion para los usos convenientes. 3 a . Solicitara del Juez respectivo que le de la posecion juridica en virtud de este despa- cho por el cual se demarcaran los linderos en cuyos limites pondra las correspondientes mojoneras. 4 a . Si contraviniere a estas condiciones perdera su derecho al terreno y sera denunciable por otro. En con- secuencia mando que teniendose por firme y valadero el presente titulo se tome razon en el libro a que corresponde y se entregue al 779 interesado para su resguardo y demas fines. Dado en Monterey a l 1 de Sepbre, de mil ochocientos cuarenta y dos. JUAN B. ALVARADO. Queda tomada razon de este deapacho en el libro de acientos sobre adjudicaciones de terrenos valdios 4 foja. Exmo Sor. Gobernador has dispuesto se tome razon de esta con- cesion en la Prefectura del ler. Distrito. TRANSLATION OF GRANT. First Seal. Six dollars. Authorized by the Maritime Custom House of Monterey, for the years of 1842 and 1843. ALVARADO. ANTONIO MARIA OSIO. r .A. C Maratime I Custom House ] of Monterey. ^ Seal. ) Juan B. Alvarado, Constitutional Governor of ^ / the Department of the Californias. ^ Whereas, the citizen Justo Larios has asked for his own benefit and that of his family, the land known by the name of the Capitancillos, bounded by the Sierra, by the Arroyo Seco on the side of the Estab- lishment of Sta. Clara, and by the Rancho of the citizen Jose R. Ber- reyesa which has for boundary a line running from the junction of the Arroyo Seco and Arroyo de los Alamitos Southward to the Sierra, passing by the Eastern base of the small hill situated in the centre of the Canada, the necessary steps having been taken, and enquiries made according to the law and regulations on the subject,. by virtue of the powers conferred upon me in the name of the Mexican Nation, I have granted him the said land, declaring it his property by these presents, subject to the approval of the Departmental Assembly and to the following conditions : 780 1st. He may enclose it without injury to the passes, roads and ser- vitudes, he may enjoy it freely and exclusively, using or cultivating it as may best suit him, but within one year he shall build a house and it shall be inhabited. 2d. The land herein referred to is one league of the greater size, a little more or less, as is explained by the map accompanying the Espe- diente. The Judge who shall give the possession shall have it meas- ured in conformity to law, leaving the surplus to the nation which remains for the purposes which may suit it. 3d. He shall solicit the proper Judge to give him Juridical posses- sion in virtue of this Decree, by whom the boundaries shall be marked out, and upon which he shall put the proper land marks. 4th. If he should violate these conditions he shall lose his right to the land and it shall be open to be denounced by another. Wherefore, I order that this title being held firm and valid shall be registered in the proper book, be delivered to the grantee for his pro- tection and other purposes. Given at Monterey the 1st of September, 1842. JUAN B. ALVARADO. This is recorded in this office in the Book of Entries of Adjudica- tions of vacant lands page. His Excellency the Governor has ordered that this grant be recorded in the Prefecture of the 1st District. [Here follows diseno.] Filed, January 30th, 1858. W. H. CHEVERS, Dep. Clerk. 781 ESPEDIENTE OF JOSE R. BERREYESA. Espediente Promovido por el Ciudadano Josi Reyes Berreyesa en so- licitud del parage nombrado la Canada de los Capitancillos. 293. Uspediente promobido, p r . el Ciudadano Jose R. Berreyesa, en solid- tud del parage, nombrado Canada de las Capitancillos. Mont™, Junto*. ExMQ# g R# Ynforme el Juez de Paz, del puebio de sn jj ciud0> j ose R Berreyesa, Vecino del Puebb alvarado. ss. City of San Jose. ) I hereby certify that the foregoing on pages. 1. 2. 3 and 4 of this, contains a true, and correct copy of an original Document now on file in the Archives of the City of San Jose, County and State aforesaid, and at this present time under my charge. !■ . n Witness my hand and the Seal of the aforesaid City, here- seal ( to affixed this 29th day of August A. D. 1857. > CHAPMAN YATES City Clerk. Exhibit No. 5, Annexed to the Deposition of Chapman Yates. The following communications from the Mayor and Wm. F. Lovett were ordered transcribed on the minutes, and the originals placed on file: To the Honorable Common Council of the City of San Jose — Gen- tlemen : In accordance with a resolution of the Common Council I called upon Mr. White, former Alcalde, and demanded of him whatever 813 papers and public documents he might have pertaining to the lands of the Pueblo de San Jose. The only papers of the kind which he had are papers relating to sureties, and which are herewith transmitted to your honorable body. In accordance with another resolution I have employed Mr. F. Lovett, who is well acquainted with the Spanish language, to examine and arrange all the Publick Documents and papers in the City Ar- chives. Under my supervision, he has made a thorough examination, and has well arranged the papers there found, as will be shown by the accompanying report. I regret that the search did not exhibit any thing which will throw much light upon the Pueblo title *or grants made within its limits ; except the field notes of the survey of the 500 acre tracts and the notes of Lyman and a few deeds and grants, but little has been discovered. And I regret to say that many of the books and papers have been cut and mutilated, and no doubt much matter of great importance has been removed or destroyed in years gone by, whether through design or carelessness I cannot say. Yet it is certain that at some time past important papers have been re- moved or destroyed, leaving now but little of much consequence. THOS. WHITE, Mayor of San Jose. To the Hon. Thomas White, Mayor of the City of San Jose : Sir : In accordance with your instructions I have diligently exam- ined the Archives of this city now in the Mayor's Office, and after a careful examination, I am able to make you the following report. The papers are all arranged in alphabetical order and are as follows : A — Papers in case of Antonio Valencia for murder ; Old election returns ; Papers in the Estate of Graves Bernal and Jones Horse ; Charles White's Docket ; Papers in case of Walkinshaw vs. Forbes ; Papers in case of B. H. Thompson ; Papers in case of Ord ; Official papers of perfectura for 1842 ; Census for 1845 ; Journal of Town Council 1849 ; Papers relating to Naglee and Neleigh, 1848 ; Notes and declarations of Geo. W. Bellamy, Oct. 27, 1847 ; Alcalde's Cor- respondence, 1840 ; Official Letters of Charles White ; Papers relating to a Quicksilver Mine of Alvardo ; Plan of San Jose Cemetery ; Memorial presented by the Secretary of the Interior and Exterior Re- lations, 1829 ; Alcalde's Letters ; Petty cases before Alcalde's Courts ; Loose and Miscellaneous papers (of no value ;) Official Documents of Perfectura for 1841, 1842 and 1843 ; Alcalde's Correspondence of San Franciscita ; Correspondence of Priests of Santa Clara ; Testimony of Duart and de La Mancha. B — Alcalde Dimick's Docket ; Election of Alcalde 1843 ; Miscel- laneous Papers ; British Consuls Letters ; Papers in case of Territory of California vs. Juan Gonsales ; Papers in case of Territory of Cali- 814 fornia vs. Chavolla ; Papers in case of Haun vs. Bellamy ; Alcalde's Letters from Monterey ; Part of Testimony in case of Chavolla ; Let- ter from Padre Real ; Auxiliary Alcalde de Santa Clara ; Official Documents of the Jusgado de Pueblo 41, 42, 43 ; Letters and loose papers from Gov. Bonica and Aguillo from 1777 to 1815 ; Of money paid and received for the year 1846 ; Petitions for Land ; Testimony before the Alcalde ; Election 1843 ; Government Correspondence 1843 ; Papers of Jusgado and Census of San Francisco 41, 42, 43 ; Military Correspondence 41, 42, 43 ; Expenses of Jusgado de 1846 ; Election for Delegates to the meeting of the different Pueblos of California: C — Loose Papers year 1841 ; Complaints before Alcaldes' 41, 42, 43 ; Miscellaneous Papers in the case of Robelus vs. Campbell ; Papers in the Court of First Instance ; Printed copy of Acts of First Legis- lature. D — Thirteen packages of Alcaldes' Correspondence from 1795 to 1827. E — Eleven packages of Alcaldes' Correspondence from 1828 to 1833. F — Fifteen packages of Alcaldes' Correspondence from 1834 to 1341. G — Five packages of Alcaldes' Correspondence from 1842 to 1846 ; and one package of Alcaldes' old Dockets. H — Papers relating to the Pueblo Lands consisting of the field notes of J. D. Hutton, &c. ; Grants and Deeds ; Notes of Lyman. I would also state that there are but few or no papers in the Ar- chives for the years 1844, 1845, 1846, except such as are mutilated, and torn and cut. The different maps of the city are now in the hands of Thomas White, Surveyer. I remain yours, &c, WM. E. LOVETT. City of San Jose, March 3d, 1852. An important Document accompanying the above communications relating to suerte lands was ordered to be carefully filed. City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, and State of California. I hereby certify that the above and foregoing on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, inclusive, is a full, true and correct copy from a book in the Archives of said City, in which is recorded the minutes or proceed- ings of the Common Council from the year 1850 to the year 1855, and that the same is now under my charge. 815 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 24th day of September, 1857. j sial I CHAPMAN YATES, < ) City Clerk. Exhibit No. 6, Annexed :to the Deposition of Chapman Yates. G. C. Cook, ) vs. > James Alex. Forbes. ) On complaint of plaintiff that Andreas Castillero, James Alex. Forbes, Jose* Maria del Ecul, Jose* Castro, Secundino Robles, and Chota, alias Theodore Robles, were to work on his land contrary to law, and prayed that they be removed. A summons was issued bear- ing date March i7th, 1847, returnable on Friday next, which were served and returned according to law. The parties having appeared the case is continued until the mine can be surveyed. Two men were sent to the mines to measure and report thereon, who went and re- turned their report. Two notifications were issued to said commis- sioners who charge the sum of five dollars for two witnesses, and the same for the Secretary who went with them. After thus much the case stands still until further orders at the cost of plaintiff. Costs taxed at twenty-seven dollars and seventy-five cents. Clerks for surveying fees, $7 each ; Witnesses, $5 each. Capt. Fisher and Isaac Branham, witnesses. Jose* Fernandez, Clerk. Belden became responsible for costs April 6th, 1847. Justices' Fees, $3 50 ; Clerk's, $3 25 ; Sheriff's, $4. Costs paid in full April 7th, 1847. Clerk's Office, City of San Jose, County of Santa ) Clara, and State of California. j I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a record now on file in the public Archives of the City of San Jose\ Given under my hand and seal of said City, September 31st, A. D. 1857. ( M — j CHAPMAN YATES, ) seal ( City Clerk. 816 Exhibit No. 7, Annexed to the Deposition of Chapman Yates. NOTICE. Aviso al Publico. El C. Dolores Pacheco, Jues de l a Nominacion del Pueblo de S. Jose* Gpe. El Ciudadano Lorenzo Pinedo se ha presentado en este Jusgado denunciando una mina de Plata con ley de oro y asogue cituada en el paraje de Capitaneillos Rancho conosido de Justo Larios, en esta Jurisdiccion y cumpliendo con lo que previene la ordenanza de mi- neria, mando se publique para que pasandos los cuarenta dias sino uviese quien alegue mejor dro se le de la posecion Juridica. Pueblo S. Jose, Junio 7 de 1846. DOLORES PACHECO. State of California, County of Santa Clara, ) City of San Jose. J ss * I hereby certify that the foregoing contains a true and correct copy of an original document now on file in the archives of the City of San Jos6*, County and State aforesaid, and at this present time under my charge. Witness my hand, with the seal of the aforesaid city hereunto af- fixed, this 31st day of August, A.D. 1857. j seal | CHAPMAN YATES, ( > City Clerk. Filed Nov. 21st, 1857. J. EDGAR GRYMES, Deputy. # Translation of " Exhibit No. 7," Annexed to the Deposition of Chapman Yates. Notice to the Public. The citizen Dolores Pacheco, Judge of the 1st. Nomination of the Pueblo of San Jose*, Guadalupe. Whereas the citizen Lorenzo Pinedo, has presented himself in this court, denouncing a silver mine, with alloy of gold and quicksilver, situated on the Capitaneillos Rancho, known as that of Justo Larios, 817 in this jurisdiction, and complying with the provisions of the mining ordinance, I order the same to be published, in order that at the end of forty days, should there be no one who can allege a better right thereto, the Juridical possession thereof be given to him. Pueblo of San Josd, June 7th, 1846. DOLORES PACHECO. Exhibit No. 8, Annexed to the Deposition of Chapman Yates. NOTICE. Aviso al Publico. El Ciudadano Dolores Pacheco, Juez de l a . Nomin 11 . del Pueblo de S. Jose Gpe. El C. Bueno Balencia, se ha presentado en heste Jusgado denun- ciando una mina cituada en el Rancho de Dn. Jose de Jesus Vallejo, Jurisd de la Contra Costa al N to y cumpliendo con lo que previene la ordenanza de mineria mande se publique para que pasados los cuar- enta dias sino uviese quien alegue mayor dro. selede la posecion Ju- ridica Pueblo de San Jose', Gpe., Abl. 24, de 1846. DOLORES PACHECO. Araneco Altamerano. State of California, County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an original document now on file in the archives of the City of San Jose, County and State aforesaid, and at this present time under my charge. Witness my hand with the seal of the aforesaid City hereto affixed, this the 31st day of August, A.D. 1857. | seal | CHAPMAN YATES, < ' City Clerk. 818 Translation of " Exhibit No. 8," Annexed to the Deposition of Chapman Yates. Notice to the Public. The citizen Dolores Pacheco, Judge of 1st Nomination of the Pueblo of San Jose Guadalupe. Whereas the citizen Bruno Balencia, has presented himself in this court, denouncing a mine situated on the Ranch of Don Jose' de Jesus Vallejo, Jurisdiction of Obntra Costa north, and complying with the provisions of the mining ordinance I order the same to be published, so that at the expiration of forty days, should there be no one who can allege a better right thereto, the juridical possession thereof be given to him. Pueblo of San Jose* Gpe., Apl. 24, 1846. DOLORES PACHECO. Exhibit No. 9, Annexed to the Deposition of Chapman Yates. NOTICE. Aviso al PMico. El Ciud n . Dolores Pacheco, Alcalde de 1*. Nominacion del Pueblo de S. Jose* Guadalupe. El C. Pedro Hernandez se ha presentado en este Jusgado denun- ciando una mina cituado en el Rancho del ojo de la Coche de esta Jurisd". y cumpliendo con lo que previene la ordenanza de mineria, mando se pregone publicam te p a que pasados los cuarenta dias sino huviese quien alegue mejor derecho se la de la posecion Juridica. Pueblo de S. Jose* Gpe., Mro. 2, de 1846. DOLORES PACHECO. State of California, County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose. I hereby certify, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an original cocument now on file in the archives of the City of San Josd, County and State aforesaid, and at this present time under my charge. RETURN J\g T0-^> -*« M 1 2 3 4 5 6 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS DUE AS STAMPED BELOW SEtfTONILL Km) I 1998 U. C. BERKELEY MAR g 9 2000 Ifiniv "• *"■■ FORM NO. DD 19 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY, CA 94720 u / I **o 7