^,^.6
'*•*■' ■•.'*~iT'"^'ijr.c»'.»l'5.'*fii2*?i"^«#-»'*^'*'*'!
No
In the Supreme Court
OF THK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
ANDREW McNAMEE.
Respondent,
vs.
DANIEL McCUSKER d al.
AppeUanfs.
s
if tmsif Iff %% mttiii^
R S. BK0UK8,
for Appellants.
A. CRAIG,
for Respondent.
San Francisco :
IVotnetis Unio?i Prun^ 424 Montgomery Street.
1874.
Ffif f «• f f f f *Tlf «f f <
^
Cop. ±
INDEX.
FOLIO-
Answer 9
Certificate of Clerk 220
Complaint 1
Judge's Statement and Order denying
New Trial 11)5
Judgment 11
Notice of intention to move for New
Trial 17-21
Notice of Appeal and Pi'oof of Service . . 209
Opinion of Judge, denying motion for
New Trial 201
Order denying motion for New Trial. . . 195
Statement on motion for New Trial and
on Appeal - 24
Deed D. McCusker to Munro Shattuck. . 93
" Munro Shattuck to J. E. AIcFarlin 98
" Munro Shattuck to D. McCusker. . IIG
Deposition of G. II. Thompson 124
" Jas. T. Stratton 161
Motion for nonsuit 108
Patent to A. McNamee 27
" '' Rancho San Cayetano 33
11
INDEX.
FOLIO.
V
25
Smith's Survey, Exhibit A 27-32
Survey of Rancho San Cayetano 33
Stipulation as to testimony of S. TV
Smith
Testimony of J. E. McFarlin 34
u (i u <i u 102
" " «' " " recalled. . . . 105
" " Edward McNamee 49
" '' Munro Shattuck 55
" " " " in rebuttal 182
,, ,, Peter McNamee 79
" " Ebenezer Nediver 83
" " Kingsley King 87
" D. McCusker 100
" •' '' " recalled 180
Stipulation as to Statement 193
eti
IN THE SUPREME COURT
2
In, the District Court of the Third Judicial District
of the State of California^ held in and for the
County of Montereij.
Andrew McNamee,
Plaintiff,
Daniel McCusker, W. R. Frisbie,
John Doe and Richard Roe,
3 Defendants.
. /
^
Complaint.
Andrew McNamee, the above-named plaintiff, a
resident of the County of Monterey, Slate of Cal-
ifornia, comes and complains of the above-named
defendants, D. McCusker, John Doe and Rich-
ard Roe, whose real names are unknown to this
2i)lti28
2 -
plaintiff, and who are therefore sued by the name
4 of John Doe and Richard Roe, ami, for cause of
action and complaint, alleges and shows to the
Court.
That heretofore, to wit, on the 14th day of
November, a. d. 1867, the said plaintiff" was, and
ever since has been, and still is, seized in fee-
simple of, and was in the lawful possession of the
following described premises, situated in the
County of Monterey, State of California, bounded
and described as follows, namely: being a part
of lots numbers 6 and 7 of section number 31 in
Township number 12, south of range No. 2 east,
*^ beginning at a post marked M 2, on the south-
erly boundaiy line of the rancho Bolsa de San
Cayetano, at the point where the division fence
between the lands of D. McCusker and Andrew
McNamee intersects the said rancho line, and
running thence southwestei'ly and paialle! with
said division fence 4f,~^ chai is to a fen:ie; thence
in a southeasterly direction, and along said last
mentioned fence and paiallel with the said south-
ern bo.mdai'y line of said Rmcho Bolsi de San
Cayetano 4-> chains to the division fence between
C the lands belonging to A. McNamee and the
heirs of L. P. Ciia})in, deceased; thence north-
easterly and along said fence 4 {^q chains to the
said southerly boundary line of said Rancho Bol-
Ba de San Cayetano; thence norrh 67 west along
said southerly boundary line of said Rancho Rol-
sa de Sin Cayetano to the said post marked M
2, the place of bcginniug,c;)ntaining 10^^[ acres of
land.
And the plaintiff is lawfully entitled to the
7 possession of the said land and premises.
That afterwards, to wit, on the 1 4th day of
November, a. d. 1867, the defendants wrongfully
entered into the possession of said premises, and
ousted the plaintiff therefrom, and have ever since
held, kept and detained the possession thereof
from the said plaintiff, and now unlawfully hold
possession of the same from the said plaintiff.
That the rents au'l profits of the said premises,
from the said 14th day of November, a. d. 1867,
are of great value, to wit, of the value of five
dollars per month, and plaintiff has suffered and
still suffers damage by reason of the withholding
possession of the said premises in the sum of one
hundred dollars.
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays judgment against
the said defendant for the possession of the said
land and premisas, and every part thereof, to the
plaintilf, and for damages in the sum of one hun-
dred dollars for the withholding the possession
of the premises, together with all the costs of the
action.
Craig & Barham,
g Plaintiff's Attorney.
(Endorsed) Filed Feb. 24, 1869.
[title of court and cause.]
Answer.
Come now Daniel McCusker and W. R. Fris-
bie, defendants named in the above-entitled ac-
tion, and for answer to the plaintiff's complaint
10 herein made and filed, deny each and every, all
and singular, generally and specifically, the alle-
gations therein contained, and say they areall
untrue in fact.
Wherefore, said defendants pray judgment, that
they go hence with the costs and disbursements
herein expended.
Julius Lee,
Attorney for said Defendants.
Service of copy of the foregoing answer ac-
cepted, and the same considered as filed in the
proper Court within the proper time.
^^ March 24, 1869.
Craig & Barham,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Filed March 25, 1869.
[title of court and cause.]
Judgment.
This cause coming on to be heard in its regu-
12 lar order at the April Term of said Cour^", a. d.
1870, to wit, the 7th day of April, a. d. 1870,
and the respective parties appearing by their at-
torneys, the said cause was tried by the Court with-
out a jury, and the Court having heard the evi-
dence of the parties and the argument of coun-
sel, the Court took said cause under advisement.
And now at the October Term of said Court, a. d.
1870, to wit, on the 3d day of October, a.d. 1870,
the Court bciiio; sufficiently advised in the prem-
13 iscs, rendered its judgment in favor of the plain-
tiif and against ihe said def<nidant. and orders
that judgment be entered accordingly.
Wherefore, it is ordered and adjudged that the
said plaintiff, Andrew McXamee, do have and
recover of and from said defendants, Daniel
McCusker and W. R. Frisbie, the possession of
all that certain tract of land lying and being sit-
uated in the County of Monterey, and State of
California, bounded and described as follows, to
wit:
Being a part of lots numbers 6 and 7 of sec-
■*-^ tion number 31, in Township number 12, south
of range No. 2 east, beginning at a post marked
M 2, on the southerly boundary line of the ran-
cho Bolsa de San Cayetano at the point where
the division fence between the lands of D, Mc-
Cusker and Andrew McNamee intersects the
said rancho line, and running thence southwes-
terly and parallel with said division fence i^
chains to a fence ; thence in a southeasterly di-
i-ection, and along said last-mentioned fence and
parallel with the said southern boundary line of
15 said Rancho Bolsa de San Cayetano 48 chains to
the division fence between the lands belonging
to A. McNamee and tlie heirs of L. P. Cliapiu,
deceased ; thence northeasterly and along said
fence Aj^ chains to the said southerly boundary
line of said Rancho Bolsa de San Cayetano ;
thence north 67 west along said southerly boun-
dary line of said Rancho Bolsa de San Cayetano
to the said post marked M 2, the place of begin-
ning, containing 19^ acres of land.
6
And it is further ordered and adjudged, that
16 the said phiintiff do have and recover of and from
the said defendants the sum of seventy-nine dol-
lars, damages, for the withholding of said prem-
ises and the possession thereof from the plain-
tiff by said defendants.
And it is further ordered and adjudged that
the said plaintiff do have and recover of and from
the s<iid defendants the sum of one hundred and
fourteen So dollars, for his costs herein laid out
and expended.
The foregoing judgnu-nt rendered in open
Court, this od day of October, a. d. 1870.
1^ W". M. R. Parker, Clerk.
(Endorsed) Filed Oct. 4th, 1870.
18
[title of court and cause.]
Notice of liiieution to Move for a New Trial.
Please take notice, that the defendant in the
above-entitled cause intends to move said Court
for a new trial of said cause, on the following
grounds, to wit:
1st. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify
the judgment, or decision, of the Court.
2d. That said judgment, or decision, is against
law,
3d. Errors of law, occurring at the trial, and
excepted to by said defendant.
Julius Lee,
By B. S. Brooks,
Attorney for Defendant.
To A. Craig, Esq., At'oruey for Plaintiff*.
City and County of San Francisco, ss.
19 William Leviston, being duly sworn, deposes
and says, that A. Craig is the attorney for the
plaintiff in the above cause, and resides in the
town of Watsonville, in the County of Santa
Cruz; that, on the 7th day of November, 1870,
lie sei'veil the annexed notice on said Craig, by
sending to the U. S. Post-office in said City
and County of San Francisco a true copy of said
notice, enclosed in an envelope, with the postage
thereon duly prepaid, addressed to said Craig at
said town of Watsonville.
Wm. Leviston.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 18th
day of November, 1870.
[notarial seal.] James G. Carson,
Notary rublic.
Filed November 21, 1870.
Wm. M. R. Parker, Clerk.
(Endorsed) Notice of motion for new trial.
Filed Nov. 21, 1870.
W. M. R. Parker, Clerk
20
21
[title of court and cause.]
Notice of Intention to 3Iove for New Trial.
Pleas3 take notice, that the defendant in tlie
above-entitled cause intends to move said Court
for a new trial of said cause on the following
grounds, to wit:
1st. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify
the judgment or decision of the Court.
8
2d. That said judgment or decision is against
22 law.
3d Errors of law, occurring at the trial, and
excepted to by said defendant.
Julius Lee,
By B. S. Brooks.
Attorney for Defendant.
To A. Craig, Esq.
I admit due service of the within at Watson-
ville, this 1 1th day of November, 1870, waiving no
right to move to dismiss.
A. Craig,
Attorney for Defendant.
23 Filed May 29, a. d. 1871.
[title of court and cause.]
statement on Motion for New Trial and on Appeal.
This cause came on to be tried before the
Judge, sitting without a jury, (a jury having been
waived by both parties, by consent, in open
Court,) on the 7th day of April, 1870, and were
tried together.
24 The plaintiflf, upon his own motion, dismissed
the suit as to the defendant, Frisbie.
The plaintiff, to maintain the issues joined, in-
troduced in evidence the following stipulation^
viz :
It was stipulated by and between the re-
spective parties tliat. in this case, S. W. Smith
will testify that he made a survey of the south-
west boundary of the Ranch of San Cajetano,
running from station " B. S. C. 10," lo the
2;) southwest corner of the ranch, as called for
in the patent, course north G7°\vest to the station
on the Paj.iro River ; that lie also ran a line north
68^'' west from the station " B. S. C. 10." That
he also ascertained that McCusker's fence is
erected on tlie line north G8i west.
That said Smith also ascertained, by actiiaj
survey in 1870, the corners of sections 25, 30,
31 and 36, called for in patent, by running
on the Township line one mile north from
the standard, au'l that the said corner is located
two chains and thirty links north of McCusker's
or
fence or line, north 68^*^ west, and 3 chains and
70 links south of the line north 67° west.
That s lid Smith, at the time of makins; said
survey, was County Surveyor of Monterey Co.,
and that he made a diagram or plat of the south-
w> st boundary of the rancho, which diagram is
marixcd '' Exhibit A," and is admitted in evidence,
and is made a part hereof.
It is also admitted respectively, that the survey
by which said Smith ascertain3d the position of
the section corners, was made subsequently to
27 the survey of which '' Exhibit A" is a plat.
The plaintiff then offered in evidence the U. S.
patent to Andrew McXamee, for the lots num-
bered 6 and 7, section 31, in Township 12 south
range 2 east, in the district of land subject to
sale at San Francisco, California, comprising
G2io„ acres, and dated Xovember 10th, 1S68.
There being no objection it was admitted in
" evidence.
Plaintiff next offered in evidence the patent of
10
the Rancho San Cajetano, recor leil in Book " A"
28 of Linl Parents of the County of Monterey, on
pages 74, 75, 76. 77, 78 and 79, together with
the plat or diagram accompanying said patent,
and being a part of the record thereof. Dated
December 22d, 18iJ4, and made to Jose de Jesus
Yallejo.
There being no objection it was admitted in
evidence. A copy of that part of the line in
question, and of the field-notes thereof, is as
foUows :
Patent of the United States
2^ To Jose De Jesus Valli>j(), testamentary ex-
ecutor of the late Don Ignacio V.illejo. dei;eased,
dated February 14th, 18(35, to Rancho Bolsa de
San Cayetano, bounded anil described as follows:
Beginning at a })0!nt on the Pajaro river, recog-
nized as the bound iry line between this Rancho
and the Rancho Vega del Rio del Pajaro; thence
(variation 15" 45' east) along the line of the said
Rancho Vegi lei Rio del Pajaro S. 12° 30', E. 17.20
ch^.; thence S. 85" 15', W. 20.80 chs.. S. 58° 30',
W. 27.22 chs.; thenceS. 8P, W. 2o.75clis.; then.-e
3^) N. 83" 45', W. 24.17 chs.; thence S. 57° 15'. W.
27.19 chs., S. 34" 15', W. 53.70 chs ; thence S.
10" 30', \y. 83.12 (dis.. to an oak tree 2^ ft. in
diameter, marked 1> S, C 9, on tli-j edge of an
estero ; the;icj m nx ideringal;)ngthe edgeof said
estero in a g)neral southwesterly direction to a
post marked 15 S 0 10, and sec. 4, in mound
station at intersoclion with the third standard
S.R. 2, east 31.00 chains, east of corner, to sections
4 and d; thence N. G7' west (at 21 1.20 chs inter-
11
sects lin(3 between ranges 1 and 2, T.12. S. 3' 3.70
31 chs., N. of corner to sec, 25, 30,31, and 30, at 225
chains descends into bottomland) 234.10, chs.
to a post marked HS C 11, at the end of a funce
in the bnik of the Pajaro River ; thence mean-
dering up said river, in a general northeasterly
direction, to the place of beginning, containing
8806 43 acres, and being designated upon tiie
plats of the public surx^eys as lot No 30, in T.
12, S. R. 1 K., lot No. 10, in T. 12, Si. R. 1 E.,
and lot N"(). 40, in T. 12. S R. 2 E, Mount Diablo
meridian.
Recorded April 20t!i, a. d. 1805.
^9 ...
riai tiff next offered in evidence a certified
copy of the survey of the southwestern l)oundary
(as surveyed by the U. S. Surveyor-General) of
the Ranch of San Cayetano, dated March 9th
1809.
There being no objection, it was admitted in
evidence.
See end of Transcript for map.
Plaintiff also offered in evidence the diagram,
marked " Exhibit A," which is hereto annexed,
and made part thereof,
g J See end of Transcript for map.
James E. McFarhind,
A witness called on behalf of plaintiff, being
duly sworn, testified :
I know the tract of land designated. These
lots 6 and 7. section 31 Town. 12 south, range
2 east, are located south of Smith's line, be-
tween McCusker's fence and Smith's line. I
12
mean by Smith's line the line of the San Ca-
34 3'etano Ranch. As I said before, the lard de-
scribed in this patent runs up to the line as run
by Smith. 1 don't know exactly what course
Smith's line runs. I was present when Smith
ran that line. The line which I refer to as
marked on the diagram in evidence in red is the
one as run by Smith, and the land in dispute
lies between the line markeil in red and black.
The black line on the diagram is intended to
show Stratton's survey, and the red line on the
diagram is the line as run by Smith. There was
a fence on the black line, known a^ McCusker's
fence. I don't know exactly when the fence was
built; it was built before I came there.
(Witness describes on the diagram the land
described in the complaint as the tract of land
embraced in the patent to McNamee, offered in
evidence.)
Lots 5 and G includes the Lm 1 lying be-
tween Stratton's and t^mith's fence, and em-
bracing 19^^ acres. McCusker was in possi^ssion
of this land on the 23d of January, 1869. He
j^g has been in possession since that time. He is
now in i)ossession. McCusker rented it last year
for $3 per acre. If I were going to rent the land
I would not pay more than $2 per acre for it.
That is all I consider the rental value of the land
to be worth. The distance from Smith's line N. 67^
W. to^McCusker's fence, I do not remember. The
width of it is something over 4 chains, 1 believe.
I know where the line N. 67° W., or the Smith
line, strikes the Pajaro river. I know where the
13
lower line, or Stratton's line, strikes the Pajaro.
37 The distance between these two points is six
chains, I believe. I was present when Smith ran
the line.
Cross-Examination.
I was present when Smith made the survey to
ascertain the section corners. That was when he
made his first survey.
From the calls of the patent and Smith's sur-
vey, I know lots 6 and 7, in Township 12, south.
The calls of the patent are what it sets forth.
38 I know where lots 6 and 7 are from Smith's sur-
vey. I know, because Smith's line runs north
where that patent calls for.
1 know, because 1 am acquainted with the land
and I was present when he ran the line.
How do you know what lots are designated in
U. S. Surveyor-GeneraFs Office, as lots 6 and 7
of that Township ? Answer. All I can judge
from is Smith's survey.
Smith was the County Surveyor of this County.
The only knowledge I had is what Smith told
39 "^^•
I cannot describe the boundaries of the lots,
except by Smith's survey. I suppose they run up
to the grant line.
1 have no knowledge or information on the
subject except what Smith gave me.
McCusker was in possession on the 16th Jay
of January, 1869.
Frisbie had the land rented then. He rented
it.
14
I know that McCusker owned the lani, because
40 Frisbie told me so.
M}' information on that subject is derived from
Frisbie and others. McCusker was not himself
occupying the land. I presumed McCusker to
be in possession of it, because he owned the land,
but Frisbie was in possession and cultivated it at
the time of commencing this suit.
I did not follow Smith in his survey. He
started from " B. S. C. 10." Mr. Smith used the
instrument.
I did not use it. I only know from what he
41 told me as to the distance. I followed him over
to the Pajaro river. The land is high table land
there. We did not pass any streams or water
courses — none. I waiked the whole distance —
there was one little slough where you could not
walk, it was some ten or fifteen chains from the
Pajaro river — there w.is no place, from the time
you reached the slough to that point, where you
could not walk. I crossed some road — the land
on the County road was fenced, the road which
crossed that line near the middle of it.
in When we approached the Pajaro river, we did
not go through the slough. Smith made an offset,
and went around it, north of the course.
Between that and the river, the line passed
over a point of land that ran down toward the
low land; between this water and to the north of
it the land rose to the level of the table land. I
have been along the line of the Stratton survey,
frequently, but not on any survey. T think
Smith took the course of that line — he did not
44
15
chain it — that line is marked by a fence. There
43 is a continuous fence on that line, from its com-
mencement to the river, exce[)t there is a place,
of about one-quarter of a mile, where there is no
fence. It was through a portion of McCusker's
Goveinment land. That is, it is fenced on both
sides, but does not cross his enclosed field. This
fence was on the line when I crossed it. I do
not know who put that fence there — there was a
house there. It was near the river, where
Stratton struck the river. It was not more than
12 yards from Stratton'sline, and about 50 yards
from the river. And from the Shattuck house
to the fence is about 12 or 15 yards. It looks to
be a house that might be there some years — there
were several other houses on the place. I don't
know exactly the distance from the river to
McCusker's first cross-fence. It is nearly half a
mile from where the fence on the Stratton line
strikes the cross-fence on McCusker's Govern-
ment land. That cross-fence runs a little south
of east, I believe. This cross-fence — pointing it
out on the diagiam — runs north and south. It
may run west of south. I could not tell exactly.
45 Counsel for the plaintiff here withdrew his
consent to dismiss the suit as to Frisbie, it having
been macle under a misapprehension.
Counsel for defendant objected to the with-
drawal. The Court overruled the objection and
permitted it. Counsel for the defendants ex-
cepted.
Id
Re-direct Examination.
46
I don't remember whether Smith had the patent
before him or not, at the time he made liis survey.
Was he not called upon by yourself and others
to locate the land of McNamee, described in
this patent, with reference to that line ?
Question objected to by defendants. Objec-
tion overruled, defendants excepted, and their
exception was noted. Answer. Yes, sir. He
was — I understand you, then, to say, that he did
locate the land described in this patent. Did he
or not do so ?
Question objected to by defendants. Objec-
tion overruled, and defendants excepted, and their
exception was noted.
Yes, he was requested to locate the lines of
that patent in pursuance of that request. He found
out the number of acres between the two lines,
and ran that red line, and computed the number
of acres lying between the red and black lines.
.r. Edward McNamee,
A witness called on behalf of plaintilr, being
duly sworn, testified:
I know the land described in the patent
(By the Court.) Give us your de.^cription of
lots five and six; give us their boundaries, as you
understand them.
Question objected to by defendants; objection
overruled, and defendants excepted, and their
exception was noted.
17
On the soutli side, is the lii^e where Smith ran
49 his line by the San Cayetano Ranch. The south
line is the line between the land and McCusker's.
0.1 the east it is bounded by the Township line
of Trimble. In January, 1809, McCusker had
part of it, and my father had part of it. McCusker
was in possession of the piece along the S.in Ca-
yetano ranch, eighteen acres. I l)elieve tliat is the
land described in the complaint, the part of
which he was in possession, bounded by a line
running north 07° west, on the south running
68J^ west, and on the east byMcCusker's to the
fence. That was the land McCusker was in posses
sion of. He was in possession of that in 1869 .
No one else was in possession of it. He has been
in possession of its'nce that time; he is in posses,
sion of it now. lie rented it for three dollars
per acre last 3'ear. I consider the rental value o
it now one dollar ami a h:ilfan acre. Three dol.
lars is more t!ian 1 would consent to pay for it.
Cross-Examinaticn.
I know which are lots five and six of sec. ion
51 thi'-ty-one, because I was with Smith when he
surveyed the land. 1 have no knowledge on the
subject except what Smith au'l all of them said.
My fiither and all of 'em said that those were
the lots. I don't know how^ many lots there are
in section thirty-one. Lots one, two, three and
four are down next the river. I am not certain.
I mean the Tajaio River. I don't know what
sections they were in. In section thirty-one, ac-
cordimr to the United States survey, there ought
r
18
to be four lots. Question. How c;ime two of
o2 them to bo five and six? I expect two of iheni
are corners. I don't think I can describe five an d
six and tell their boundaries, by actual objects. 1
know their location from what I heard them say
about them. I don't know whether I have or not
seen a map of the United Spates survey of that
Township. I was never in the United States Sur-
veyor-General's Office. I have not seen a Town-
ship map of that Township. Smith is a county
officer. At the time of the commencement of the
suit McCiisker claimed the land. I think he was
cultiv^atin"; and cai-ryinff it on himself. I saw
lots of men there at work. 1 did not see him at
work, but I saw him around thire.
Munro Sliattiick,
A witness called on behalf of plaintiff, being
duly sworn, testified:
I lived at Watsonville 'nost of the time during
the years 1857, 1858 and 1859. I was present
part of the time when Terrell and his deputy, Cox,
54 made the sui'vey of the boundary line of the San
Cayetano Ranch. 1 did not follow t!»em through.
I know where they established the southern
boumlary line of that ranch on the river. It was
near the same point where it was afterwards es-
tablished by the County Surveyor, Smith. Ter-
rell marked the post where we stood. We stood
on the bank of the river. I lived there ; I went
there in the fall of 1857, and lived there
until 18G7, or 18G8. Looking at the map
19
there was a fence wliicli run up and down the
55 Pajaro river, at a short distance above tlie Ter-
rell lino, to a point on the river where the line
was established by Stratton. At that point
there was a fence: at the time that Stratton ran
the line there was an old fence that ran from the
house to the river. That fence does not stand
there now ; it was not a regular fenc j all the way.
1 do not recollect how it was immediately at
that line, but above that I know that I had
some fencing to prevent stock from going on to
the bank. In some places they could get through
and in some places not, but whether it extended
from that line I could not state positively. The
course of t!ie line established by Stratton run just
below my house to the river south. The fencL;
of which I speak of ran over to my house, which
is situated below the Stratton lir.e, between two
and three rods from the Strattcv.i line, and from
forty to sixty yards from the river. That was
my yard fjn3L3 ; it was at right angles with the
river, the old fence below my house. There was
no fence running up and down the river below
the Stratton line. From the Terrell line down
57 t!ie river there was no fence. Terrell established
his line at Lhi uppjr corner of the garden I had,
that, was fenced, tlio fence running up and down
the river. He established that line at the upper
end of that fence that ran up and down the river,
or nearly so, I think. It ran a short distance, but
the exact point of that fence I cannot state, as it
was partly fenced by the bank. That was at or
near the place where Smith's line strikes the river.
It is about, I think, six chains from the stake
20
where Terrell established his line down to where
58 Strattoii's subsequently was at the time his stake
was established. I understood that Terrell and
his men wero making an official survey of the
ranch when he established his stake.
Being Cross-Examined
By Mr. Brooks, he testified :
The fence that led from my house to the river
was a regular fence ; from that along the river
there was a fence built of pickets. My memory is
that there was a fence all the way, in some places
of pickets and in others of slats — there was a
^•-^ continuous fence from the Stratton fence to a
point above the Terrell line. I don't think there
was any space between where there was no fence
at all. Possibly there might have been where the
bank of the river formed a fence. M}^ memory
is, that I had it fenced all the way — my memory is,
that there was some kind of a fence all the way.
It was between two and three chains, going from
the river on the Smith line, from the river bank,
until you began to rise on the bank, then it rose
something like twenty feet ; you don't continue
QQ on the level, you pass over an abrupt point, and
then you go over another hollow towards a lagoon
The map at tlie place marked 26, in red ink,
fairl}^ represents tht; configuration of the country,
as far as I can see. There is a point as shown
running down to the river after you pass over
that — on the line you fall into such a depression
of ground as shown on the map. It is some
distance when you pass over it before you rise
again, more than 4 chains before you rise to the
21
table land. Probably a little higher — then over
61 where the line crosses over the point. After
that, you continue on the table laiid till you stiike
the Slough, thence crossing, on iis course, the road
between Watsonville and AFonterey, The Strat-
ton line passes directly over bottom hmd for a
few rods, and then ascends on the table land.
The distance on the bottom is about 10 rods,
more or less. It runs between two and three
rods from my house. The line was right down
by the old fence, running from my house to the
river. I was present when Stratton set that
corner stake. McCusker was present also. I
did not, when Stratton established his corner
stake, admit that it was within 2 or 3 feet of the
corner established there at the regular survey
made by Tenell, but in tlu preliininar}^ survey
there had been a st.ike })hiced there, before the
survey of the ranch was ordered. That w^as
made by a siirvej'or employed l)y the owmers of
the ranch. It was so made to establish the cor-
ners when they made the application for their
grant. There was an original post put there by
this preliminary survey. I had a dispute with
(3 him about his not having got the rig.it position.
I did not state that 1 would have to own up or
back down, or that I w^ould admit that he was
within 2 or 3 feet of the corner post. I will
tell you the conversation we had. What 1 said
with regard to the two or three feet was this, the
line of this old fence, that ran from my house to
the river, in the prelin.inary survey, went to my
posts that stood down on th ? bank of the river.
22
He would not hear anything said with regard to
64 the Terrell line, but proceeded to mark the stake
on the bank, thai being on the line of th s
fence, which run at right angles with the river ;
their line running at an acute angle or triangle
made his line some two or three feet out of the
way. I told him that even if the corners had
been as he said, that still he was robbing me of
two or three feet of land. I p'lt up tliat fence
on the Stratton line, immediately alter Stratton
made his survey, i have forgotton the year ;
I suppose it was after the decree of partition. I
think it was laterthan in the fall of 1864. I put
up the fence immediately after the survey was
.made. It was intended for a boundary fence.
It was mostly of posts and slats. I don't know
whether it was a lawful fence, but it answered
the pur[)Ose of fencing out stock. (To the
Court) — t was about five feet high. I cultiva-
ted land protected by th it fence. It protected
stock. To make this fence I took down a por-
tion of the fence that ran from my honse to the
river. There may be sane posts remaining of
that fence where it strikes thj river, forming part
OG of the present d. vision fen ;e. I don't rem.^mber
whether thera are more tha i that at that point.
It is not on the same place where the old fence
was ; it runs in a dilTerent direction, and the
other fence runs at right angles j it does not
strike the river at the same point the old fence
did, because they got 5 or 6 feet more this way.
There may be postir there next to the river. 1
have forirotten about it.
23
Re-direct Examination.
67 Did Terrell point out that as the (corner where
he put his post ?
Question objected to by defotidaiits ; objection
overruled, and dei'eucLinis excL'pted and their
excei)tion was noted.
At the time that Terrell established the cor-
ner, I did not see him do it. I went to town
the morning before they left the ground, and on
my return the}' pointed out to me wliere they
bad established it. 1 think it was Terrell
who pointed it out ; it was the surveying
^^ l)arty. Terrell's stake remained there till 18G2 ,
the 3''ear the river was very high, when the
watei- washe'i stake and fence away. I think it
was in 18G2 that it was carried awa3\ I saw the
stake ever}' few days from the time it was es-
taldished until it was washed away. There was
no fence on the Pajaro river, running up and
down the liver, below the line subsequently es-
tablished by Stratton at the time Terrell made
the survey. There was none below Stratton's
corner.
^, Ue-CIIOSS FiXAMlNATrON.
1 built the fence between the two linos at dif-
fiient times. I rebuilt it aft'U' it had been
washed away in t'.ie wjitjr of 1862 — -1SG3.
There was no fence there when I purchased the
properly. I bought it from Kingsley King, in
185G or 1857, I think. I may be mistaken, but
I think there was a fence running from my house
to the river. I think tliere was a fence iicar
24
there. If there was a fence I rebuilt it. I ihink
70 there was some kind of a fence tliere, near the
river, where I built the fence, 1 built mine
of a diiFerent character, 1 think there was
no fence u\) anil down the river. I went
there along about the hrst of January, 1856 or
1S57. I guess it was 1856. 1 cannot tell how
long it was after I went there when I put the
fence there. 1 depended at first upon the fence
that King built on the river, to prevent stock
from getting in. That was a little above the
Stratton line. I think the fence was lunning
into the river a Utile above the house; the other
'^ fence ran at right angles; the fence ran right
down to the river. I cannot tell in what year
I fenced it. That was never a very substantial
fence, I put it there at different times. I don't
know exactly the period I first put a fence there.
It was probably in 1858, I occupied a piece of
land that was taken in by the ranch a quarter
of a mile above the fence, I occupied on both
sides of the line. The object of the fence built
along the bank of the i iver by King. I': ap-
peared to me that King had a lot there that he
72 used for pasture, I used that pUice as a garden^
and my object was — I fenced it to keep stock
out of tlic garden. I think that there was not
a fence there in 1858. I did not remove it.
In 1858 \ built a fence along the river, and en-
closed it with <i fence that runs across a little bot-
tom, and strikes the river at a point below Terrell's
line; it runs to a little bush in the bottom to
a point through that bushy land. There was a
25
timber fence that connected with the river still
73 above the Stratton line. I had an enclosure up
to the time that the survey was made there by
Terrell I think, in 1858, or 1859. I had a piece
of land enclosed by four lines of fence, with the
exception of a very little at the upper end where
it was fenced by the bank. The distance from
the Terrell lino to the upper end of that fence
was nearly a chain, from three to four rods. There
was a fence most of the way from the point where
the fence struck the river, down along the bank
of the Pnjaro river. As I have stated, I depend-
ed on the bank for the fence, as there was no
' chance for stock to go through there. Some of
the way there might not have been any fence,
and in some places one slat or so. That fence
extended something like seven chains down the
bank, from where the upper fence struck the
river in the year 1858. It extended the whole
distance down to the Str.itton line. I cannot
tell how far it extended before there was a break
in it. I think there was two or three ro.ls where
there was no fence at all. It might have been
four, I think there was no fence above this old
75 fence. I suppose this fence corner might be
something near three or four rods above the Ter-
rell line and Smith line. I never thought to vi }w
it so as todetermine the distance, but three or
four rods above the Terrell and Smith line. The
purpose of the fence in 1858 ami 1859 was to
enclose a small piece of land which I used as a
garden. Where Terrell established his corner
was but a few feet from the corner of the end of
2G
the fence. Tliere was a small fence at the time
76 that lie made his survey. It ran down the river.
77
Peter McNamee,
A witness on behalf of plaintiff, being duly
sworn, testified:
My father and I live on lots 6 and 7 of section
31, Township 1, Range 2, I know it. I got
Smith the County Surveyor to survey it, to see
how much there w*as in it, between the Ranch
and McCusker's end of the line.
Counsel for the defendants moved to s'rike out
the above answer, on the ground that tlie inf)rm-
ation of witness was hearsay.
The Court overruled the objection and defend-
ant excepted, and his exception was noted,
I know the land described in the complaint.
It is a part of the 1 ind described in the patent,
and surveyed by Smith. I do know who is in pos-
session of the land in controversy. It is McCus-
ker. I know the land from the description of
the fen 'e, and the boundaiies given.
Being Cross-ExamIxNEd
y^ By yi'r. Brooks, he testified:
I know lots 5 and G, because Smith ran out the
line and located the land. 1 know he did it be-
Ciiuse my father got him to locate it and run out
the line. He drew a plat of it which I suppose
is here. This is the map. I know lots 5 and
6, because Smith made the survey of them at the
request of my futher, and made a plat of them,
and I (ind on the map something about lots 6
and 7.
27
I know the land described in the coinpbiint as
79 lots six and seven of section 31, hecanse the deeds
from the Government show that. 1 know what
tliis suit is about. It is about this land my father
lives on now. I know tliat tiie land is part of
lots G and 7, because it was run out and located
by Smith. Smith ran the courses to see how much
land there was on it and how much there was on
the outside. That was what Smith did, to run
the lower line of the San Cayetano Ranch, to
see how much land there was between that and
the Stratton line. He ran tlie courses to see
liow much there was between the lines.
8')
Ebenezer Niediver,
A witness on behalf of plaintiff, being duly
sworn, testified :
I have been engaged in surveying and farming.
Some 14 years I have been engaged in surveying.
I know something about the San Cayetano Ranch*
1 do not distinctly know where the southern
boundary of the ranch, known as Terrell line,
t^l touches the Pajaro river. I know nothing
about where the survey of Smith touches the river,
but the course wh'ch was pointed out to me as
the place '' C and L."
I know where there is a post marked " B. S. C,
11," which was pointed out to me as the post es-
tablished by Stratton. The post is situated from
Shattuck's house, north, I should think, some
two or three chains. I chained the bottom of
28
that Stratton line, from the river to the table-
82 land. The width of that bottom from the river
from the Stratton corner to the table-land, is 5
chains and 80 links. My object in chaining it
was to find out the width of the bottom. 9
chains and ten links was the width of it. That
point is above the Stratton line — 3 chains and
40 links above the Stratton line. I know noth-
ing more about the Smith line than as it was
pointed out to me.
Being Cross-Examined
83 ^^y ^^^- Bi'ooks:
I only chained to the edge of the river, but
I think it would be 6J or 6J chains from the
table-land to the river, on the Stratton line. We
did not chain it only to the edsfe of the bottom.
From where I commenced to descend, fro'u the
table land to the river, it would not be eleven
chains; it would be something over 6 chains from
the table land to the river. Yes, from the bank,
at the edge of the bottom land. That is the
best of my recollection, but I did not chain it.
I was employed to chain the river to where the
^^ land commences to rise. I did not chain the land
from the point from where it commences to de-
scend.
Kingsley King,
A witness on behalf of plaintiff, being duly
sworn, testified:
29
I know the Shattuck house spoken of here.
85 The other day I saw the course established there
by Stratton in 18G2, near the house. I formerly
lived there. I took the place up in 1852, along
in the fall, and I lived there till the first day of
November, 1857. There was no fence below the
Stratton stake on the river. I did not see any
there since there was none below that on the
river.
Being Cross-Examined,
By Mr. Broohs. I have been on it twice
since 1857. I l)uilt a house there. It stands
86
there now. 1 built a fence from the house to the
river, about -JS j^ards from the present line of
fence. I think there is a poi'tion of it there now,
towards the hollow. The fence does not stand
in the same place, but I should judge, from the
appearance of the timber, that it is the same
fence. It was a rail and post fence — it was a
substantial fence I think that same timber is
there now. I did not build any fence along the
river. I did not see the fence from the time I
left it, in November, '67, for six months afler-
87 wards. I was next on the property in 1859. It
was along in the spring sometime. There looked
to be about the same fencing as when I left, [did
not notice any more. I think there was more at
the time, between me and McCusker's house. I
did not notice any fence on the river bank. There
was a fence that run along upon the Bluff. In
the summer of 1859, when I first saw it, I had
a fence that was attached to it. (Witness pointed
89
30
out on tlie map where these fences were.) This
fence was about forty yards fiom the river. It
ran up on the Bluff 200 yards. I saw where the
Smith line was said to terminate on the river. I
saw a stake there to make the point. I did not
notice any fence at that point in 1858 or 1859.
At that point there was none there, when I sold
it. The fence I speak of, which ran along the
Bluff, was about half way below that. It was
about 35 yards from the lower line up to where I
had my fence. The rnap represents the shape of
the country pretty well, where the line strikes
the Pajaro river.
Re-direct Examination.
When I lived there, there was no fence along
the bank of the river up to the Stratton line —
there was another house there besides the
Shattuck house above it. I think it was 75
yards above Shattuck's house. Shattuck suc-
ceeded me in my possession. I don't know if he
did take possession soon after. I then left for
the lower country, and he was there when I
90 came back. It stands in the same position as
when I left it.
The plaintilT' here rested.
Counsel for defendants moved for a nonsuit,
on the ground that plaintiff had not shown any
title to the land described in his complaint.
The Court denied the motion to which defend-
ant, by his counsel, duly excepted.
The defendant then, to maintain the issues
91 joined on his part, called as a witness:
Daniel McCnsker,
Who, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
I know the land in controversy in this suit. I
have known that land since 1853. I know the
point on the river where the Smith and Stratton
lines terminate. I have known that land for some
time. I was not there when the survey was made
by Terrell. There was only one fence there in the
summer of 1858. It was right on the Stratton
line. That fence did run down to the water, in-
' "' to the water. The make of the land, at that point,
was a kind of mud flat, from the bank on the
river. The make of the shore w^as a kind of
bottom land. The length of the bottom land,
from the river to the table-land, is 9 or 10 chains
on the line of the Stratton fence. On the Smith
line, it is probably 8 rods till you strike this bluff;
over the bluff till vou come to this sloii2;h, it is
probably four or five chains. There is a little
bottom land, between that high point and the
river. That map annexed to the patent represents
93 the topography of the country at the river. I
was present when Stratton ran that line. I was
present when he ran that line on the Pajaro
river. I was present at the conversation between
Stratton and Shattuck. and there must have been
eight or ten others present. What took place
was this : I didn't own the land at the time. We
were quarrelling about the line. After some con-
versation, Shattuck finally said to Stratton. that
32
he (Sliattuck) must " give it up," — that he (Strat-
94 ton) was within two or three feet of the stake
which Terrell put down. Stratton's stake or cor-
ner was right where the fence was, a little piece,
probably two or three feet, from the posts, right
up against the slats. It was a kind of a slat-fence.
It was kind of old. I would suppose it was there
some 13 or 14 years. It had been there as long
as I have known the land. There was not any
fence running along the bank from that point up.
Shattuck came there inXovember, and that stake
was put there in June following. There was no
fence there terminating at the river, above the
95 •
Stratton line. I think there was no fence there
but this one. Stratton marked the line after it
was established b}^ him. He put stakes down in
every place, so as to put a fence on. After the
line was established, the fence was put there in-
side of a year. Shattuck put up half, find I put
up some. Shattuck paid half. I put up some,
and McNamee put up some. Shattuck paid his
half, and the others paid half. 1 think that map,
(Smith's,) does not give the proper position of the
fences that cross that line. My west fence is
90 about half a mile from the Pajaro river. The
fence runs between me and McNamee, on the ranch
line, — that is, on the regular section line. The
fence nearest the river takes the course, I think,
about east and west. That fence is no regular
line between Shattuck and I. I should think it
is east and west. The fence which was put up
by me was a substantial fence and a good one ;
the other fence would turn stock. It was so cal-
33
ciliated, according to the Stratton survey, to be a
1)7 permanent boufidary; tliut line was acquiesced,
until this township was laid out, about three or
four years ug;o. I think about three years ago.
The deed from me to Shattuck was a deed of ac-
coniniodation. I lived in another township, and
we both had lands on eacli sido of the township
line. He entered Jie land for me adjoining his in
his township, and I entered land for him adjoin-
ing mine in my township. Finally, we agreed to
deed this land back again. We both made loca-
tions of school lots, and wo both quit-cl.iimed to
each other.
08
Defendants then ofiered and i-ead in evidence a
deed from Shattuck to ^[cCusker, dated March
3d, 18G4, cind recorded on the same day; page
550, Book E., which deed is in substance as
follows:
Munroe Shall iick to Daniel MeCusker.
Deed dated March od. 18G4,
Consideration, $1.
(xrants, bargains, sells, remises, conveys and
9^ quit-claims all the rig'it, title and interest of
party of the first i)art to tlie following described
land, located by the i);irty of the first part under
tlie law relative to the sale of the five hundred
thousand acres of land, donated to the Slate for
school purposes, and the seventy-iwo sections
doniited to the State for the use of a seminary of
learning. Approved April 23, 1858, and of tlie
Acts amendatory thereof. Approved Feb. 18,
34
1859 and April 22, 1861. Located by Leander
100 Ransom, State Locating Agent, on the 14th day
of March, I860, and approved by the State Sur-
veyor-General of California, on the 27th day
of June, 1863. and is the N. E. J of S. E. i sec.
Scd. of sec. 06, and that part of the S. E. i of
N. E. J Scd. of sec. 36, lying east of the present
division fence of party ^f first part and party of
the second part, and west of the east boundary
of sec. ^^>6, and north of the J section line running
west through the middle of sec. 36, township 12
south, range 1 east, Mount Diablo meridian, being
, about fifty-nine acres of land in both of the above
101 , ., ,
described tracts.
Acknowledged March 4, 1864.
Recorded March 9, 1864.
To the introduction of this deed as evidence,
plaintiff's attorney objected. Court overruled
the objection, and plaintiff excepted.
Being Cross-Examined
By Mr. Craig, he testified. I think that fence, the
fence specified in the deed, runs about east. 1 could
not tell correctly the -course it takes. It was tliere
102 lor 15 or 16 years That is not the fence run-
ning on tlie Stiatton line, but it goes to that
line. It joins to the fence. The fence between,
is nottlie lanch fence — it runs up to one side. I
was opposed to the Stratton line. It was estab-
lished about four years ago last winter. At that
time I objected to it, because we understood that
they had too much in the ranch. I did charge
Stratton with running too far down. The Ter-
35
rell stake was washed out in 1863 or 18G4. I
103 saw it there, and I was there wlien it was planted
at tlie Stratton corner. That is tlie only corner
I know. I never saw any stake at tlie upper end.
That is the Tcrixdl line, and the only line I know.
I saw the Terrell stake in 1863. I saw it when
I brought overproduce to ship; the boat was tied
to that fence. I never saw the Terrell stake up
to the Smith line; they say that Smith set it there.
Shattuck built that fence up the river from Strat-
ton line, as now surveyed, up to the Smith line
1 think it was after 1860. 1 think so. I cannot
tell you whether I am as positive of that fact as
I am of other facts to which 1 testified. I told
you that stake was put there in 1860 or 1861, I
think. 1 saw a stake there, marked. It was the
only stake I saw there.
Re-direct Examination.
There were three surveys of the ranch. A'al-
lejo had a survey made of it, jireliminarily, in
1855 or 1856. 1 knew this land at that time.
The stake that I speak of is not the Terrell stake
that stood there at that time. The stake that
X05 stood there at the end of the fence was a private
survey. It was a small stake, separate from the
fence, driven in the gi'ound on purpose. It had
some marks on it. It was right on the bank of
the river. The hanks were low at that place,
about three or four feet high. 1 suppose, in
floods, the tides go up to it — to the stake set
by Stratton, I think the water has been up to it
at hio'h water.
36
Defendant next offered and read in evidence
106 the deposition of G. H. Thompson of San P^ran-
cisco, which were in the words and figures follow-
ing:
[title of court and cause.]
It is hereby mutually stipulated and agreed by
and between the respective parties to the above-
entitled action, that the testimony of G. H,
Thompson be taken, on behalf of said defendants
before John A. Barham, Esq., a Notary Public
in and for the County of Santa Cruz, State of
107 California, at his office in Watsonville, in said
County, at the hour of 3 o'clock, p. M.,on this 9th
day of March, 1870. And that when said deposi-
tion is so taken before said notary, in writing,
upon interrogations by the respective paities and
in their presence, the same may be read in evi-
dence on the trial of said cause, subject to no
other or further objection or exception whatever
than its relevancy, competency or materiality, it
being the true intent and meaning hereof to
waive all technical objections and exceptions
hereto, such as want of time and place, and no-
tice of taking; and to agree that the same shall
be subject to the objec'ions above stated, and no
others.
Craig k Barham,
Plaintitl's Attorneys.
Julius Lee,
Attorney for Defendant.
37
100 [title of roriir and (wrsi-;.]
l^e it reinembor('(l: Tliat piii-sinml to the stip-
ulation lioruto iinuexcd and marked " A," and on
tlie Dtli day of Marcli. a. d. 1 87(1, at niy ollice in the
town of Watsonville, County ot Santa (.'ruz, and
State of California, before me, .John A. Bai ham, a
Notary Public in and for the s lid County of Santa
Cruz, duly a[)i)oin!ed, commissioned and sworn,
with due and leojal authority to administer oaths,
kc, &c., personally api)eared C II. Thompson, a
witness produced on behalf of the defendants in
11^ the above-entitled action, now pending in the said
Court, who, being by me first duly sworn, was
then and tliere examined and interrogated by
Julius Lee, Esq., of counsel for said defendants,
aiid by A. Craig, Ks(|.. of counsel for said ])]ain-
tilf, and testilied as f(;llows:
Question. What is \-our nime, age and place
of residence ?
Answer G. IT. Thompson, agi? thirty-four
years, place of residence San Francisco.
Q. What is your business or occupation, and
111 how long have you been engaged in it ?
A. I am a siu'V-yor; b -en en^a^cd in that
business for nearly thirteen years.
Q. Do you know the J^olsa de San Cayetano
Rancho, in Monterey County, and if so, how long
have you known it, and under what circumstan-
ces did you become acquainted with it?
A, I have known the rancho l^olsa de San
Cayetano since the spring of a. d. 1858. I lirst
2i) I U'^
became acquainted with it in assisting the mak-
112 ing the official survey thereof.
Q. At what time was this survey made in
which you assisted, and who was the Surveyor
making the survey ?
A. I think the survey was made in June, a. d.
1858, and James E. Terrell was the United States
Deputy Surveyor. Mr. Terrell was not himself
a practical surveyor, but he employed Mr.
Clement Cox, a practical surveyor, to run the in-
strument under his (Terrell's) direction.
Q. State all who were present at the time of
making the survey of said ranches?
A. James E. Terrell, Clement Cox, a man
named Z. Moore, a man named Perkins, myself
and some others, whom 1 don't recollect.
Q. Is 3'Our recollection distinct as to the
manner in which the southwesterly boundary
line of that ranclio must run at that time ?
A. It is quite distinct.
Q. Have you since been upon the premises to
inspect them ?
A. I have. I was thereto day.
Q. Please describe how that southwesterly
114 boundary line was run, and where the corner on
the bank of the Pnjaro river was established at
that time by that survey?
A. It was run through from the estero in
several courses, and afterwards a straight course
was calculated through, from the corner on the
estero to the corner on the Pajaro river, which
was in a small bottom, at the end of a fence.
Tlie cornor was established by a marked post im-
11.") niediatidy on tlie bank of tlio river.
Q. Wliat natural, or otlier ()])jects, did you
pass, in running thatlin(^ toestal»lish that corner,
and what distaixte from ihem did you pass?
A. About thirty rods, before reaching the
terminus of the line on the bank of the liver^
are descended from the table- land into the river
bottom, and passed about tiiree or four rods to the
east of a small house about half way between the
table-land and the livcr.
Q. When you examined the premises to-day,
as you have stated, did you rocoo^nize the place
' where you estiblishod that corner on the bank
of the river in making that survey?
A. I did.
Q. Describe now where that place is. with
reference to any objects at present there.
A. It is about at the same place where there
is now the corner of a fence, and a marked
i-ed-wood post, and the same house before
referred to is still standing there.
Q. How is the red-wood post you referred to
marked ?
A. I noticed some marks on it, but did n-it
exaujine particularly what they were.
Q. ]s the corner of the fence you speak of
the same fence that was there when you made
the survey?
A. I do not know that it is the same fence,
but think that it is
Q. Do you know who placed the stake on
the bank of the river which you saw to-day?
40
A. I <lo not.
118 Q. State whether or not there is a fence on
tlie line from this stake to the other corner on
the Estero that you spoke of?
A. I do not know whether there is a fence
exactly on the line. There is a fence near about
on a portion of the line.
Q. Following up the bank of the river from
this stake, what is the character and topography
of the country, and what objects, if any, did you
observe there ?
Objected to by plaintiff's counsel, upon the
grounds that the same is incompetent; that it
119 . .
does not appear that the witness knows anything
about the topography, or line running up the
river.
A. There is a small bottom extending about
twelve or fifteen chains; from thence the river has a
precipitous bluff* bank, and I noticed another red-
wood stake, with some letters marked on it, near
the upper end of the small bottom.
Q. Do you remember what the letters were
on this stake ?
A. I do not, as I did not examine them particu-
120 larly.
Q. What is the distam^e of this s'ake above
the other stake, at the corner of the rancii you
have mentioned ?
Objected to by plaintiff", as incompetent,
A. 1 did not measure the distance, but should
judge it to be about ten chains.
Q. Is this upper stake the corner of the ranch,
41
as established by tlie survey you speak of as
121 nia<le in a. d. 1858?
A. It is not.
Q. Is the lowor stake you speak of, at or near
the corner established by that survey ?
A. I think it is about tiie same place.
Q. Do you know the course of this southwest-
erly boundary line, from the corner you speak
of on the estero or slou<i;h ?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know how that line came to be
run in the corner it was?
A. I do not now recollect.
122
Q. Do you recollect whether that line was
established by actual surve}^ or calculation ?
A. It was established by calculation from an
actual survey.
Q. Vv^ill you explain a little more fully how
the actual survey was made from which the cal-
culation was had ?
A. By chaining a line from the estero across
to the river, in several courses from which the
straight line between the two points was calcu-
lated.
123 Q. Had the two points you have named, to
wit: the point on the estero and the point on the
Fajaro river, been established before this south-
westerly line was run or calculated.
A. The two points were established before
making the calculation.
Q. How near does this lino run to the small
house you speak of?
42
A. I think it will run or pass about three or
124 four rods to the east of the small house.
Cross-Examination.
Q. In what particular capacity was you act-
ing in 1858, the time that survey was mad a, as a
surveyor, or chain carrier, or employee of the
Deputy- Surveyor ?
A. I was employed and acting as chain car-
rier.
Q. Have you been on the premises at any
time since 1858 up to and until to-day?
A. I have not, excepting merely to pass along
"^ the road through the ranch.
Q. About how far is the road you pass from
the river at this point ?
A. About two and a half or three miles.
Q. Is the topography of the country such
that you can see the point on the river and house
you refer to, from the road?
A. I think not; I think you can't see them.
Q. Then you have not seen this point on the
river about which you swear, for twelve years ?
A. I have not seen it since the time of mak-
126 ^"g the survey, in 1858.
Q. Is not the end of the fence to which you
have referred in your examination in chief as be-
ing the lower stake and fence, the north end of
the fence which you speak of as running along
as near the line, and being the division line of
McCusker's premises ?
A. It is the north end of the fence to which I
referred as running along or near the line; but
43
as to its being a division fence of McCiisker I
127 know nothing about,
Q. Was this line-fence there at the time you
carried the chain in 1858?
A. I do not recollect of any fence excepting
in the river bottom.
Q. About how long was that fence in the
river bottom?
A. 1 think it was about thirty rods.
Q. Was you there as chain carrier at the run-
ning of the line up the Pajaro river, or northern
boundary of the rancho ?
A. 1 was present and carried the chain in
128 . .
running the line along the Pajaro river.
Q. When was that?
A. At the time the survey was made in 1858.
Q. Where did they commence to run that
line?
A. In the Pajaro river, at the northeast cor-
ner of the ranch.
Q. Was it not run from the northwest corner
of the ranch at that time — from a point on the
Pajaro river, easterly?
A. I think the two first courses from the
129 northwest corner of the ranch were run up the
lines.
Q. Your estimate of distance of rods and
chains from the house and from where the line
descends into low lands from the tei-minus of the
lines there is not made from any survey made by
you, but simply from your observation and re-
collection of the lay of the country in 18.JS ?
A. Only from my obseivation and recollec-
tion.
44
Q. About how many rods is it from the upper
130 stake on the river you spoke of, to the precipitous
or bluff batik up the river ?
A. The ascent of the bank commences at
about eight or ten rods; it is perhaps twenty-
five rods to the top of the bank up the river or
easterl}^
Q. On a line commencing at the upper stake
and running through on a straight line to the
southeast corner of the ranch on the estero, about
how many chains is it from the upper stake to
where the line would ascend into table-land ?
-„- A. About two chains.
Q. Commencing at the lower stake on the
river and running to the southeast corner of the
ranch, how far is it to where it ascends the table-
lands ?
A. About seven or eight chains.
Q. Did you notice that, particularly, to-day ?
A. I did.
Q. At the time the calculated line you say
was run from the southeast corner of the ranch
to the river, was there any stations or monu-
ments erected ?
132 A. There were no monuments erected of any
kind, that I can recollect of, excepting at the be-
ginning and terminus of the line.
Q. Do you know whether there were any sta-
tions or section corners along that line, by which
the line was established ?
A. None, excepting at the south east corner
on the estero, which is connected with the section
45
corner, which .southeast corner on estero is near
133 a quarter section corner on the starnlard line.
Q. Where the lower stake, about which you
speak, is situated, has any of the Pajaro river bank
washed away since you were there in 1858?
A. From appearances, a very little, if any,
of the bank lias been washed away.
Q. What was the course of that fence wliicli
you speak of having been there in 1858?
A. I do not know the exact course.
Q. On a Hue running through, from the lower
stake, was the bottom a level bottom in 1858?
A. In runninof from the lower stake on the
river, in the direction of the corner on the estero,
the bottom is level for seven or eight chains, to
where the line ascends the table-land.
Q. Was there any brush on that line in that
bottom in 1858?
A. I think tliere was some willows.
Q. On a line from the corner of the estero to
the upper stake, does not the line descend into
low or marshy lands, ten or twelve chains, before
reaching the bank of the river?
A. It crosses a low^ narrow place, extending
135 from the bottom lands up into the table-lands.
Q. After crossing that narrow place, over what
kiud of land would it run from there to tiie river?
A. Over high point of table-land.
Q. About what is the altitude of that table-
land immediately where the lino would cross
above the bottom land ?
A. I should think it was from twenty to thirty
feet.
4G
Q, Bo you know the course that a line run
136 from the point on the estero to either point on
the Pajaro river ?
A. I do not.
Q. Who, if any one, directed your attention
to what you have termed the upper stake in your
examination ?
A. Mr. McCusker.
Q. Do you not know that the so-called lower
stake was placed where it now is by one Sirat-
ton, after this rancho was patented ?
A. I don't know when nor by whom it was
put there.
137
Q. Is there any other fence at or near the
Pajaro river, where the said lower stake is situa-
ted, than that which runs along or near the line
of which you spoke in your examination in chief ?
A. There is a picket fence, or some pickets,
along the bank of the river.
Q. Was there any person living in the house
you speak of, at the time you speak of, in 1858 ?
A. I was not in the house at that time, though
I think it was inhabited.
Q. Are you sure that that house still stands
133 where it did in 1858 ?
A. I am quite certain that the house novV
standing there is the same house, and stands in
the same place where it did in 1858.
Q. If the north line of the San Cayetano
Rancho was run, by commencing at the north-
east corner of the ranch, down to the northwest
corner of the ranch, and the courses and distances
along the meandering of the river taken, could
47
those courses and distances be correctly given by
139 commencing at the northwest coi-ner, and run-
ning thence to the nortlieast corner, without a
survey of the line from the northwest corner to
the northeast ?
A. Certainly, just as correctly.
Q. Would that then not be what you term a
calculated line ?
A. It would not be, as it requires no calcula-
tion whatever; the courses are nearly reversed.
(t. Howard Thompson.
110
State of California, ]
County of Santa Cruz, )
I, John A. Barham, a Notary Public in and for
Siud County of Santa Cruz, do hereby certify
that the witness in the foregoing deposition
named, was by me duly sworn to testify the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That said deposition was taken at tlie time and
place mentioned in the annexed stipulation,
•^^^ marked " A.'" to wit: At my office, in said town
of Watsonville, County of Santa Cruz, in the State
of California, and on the 9th day of Marcli, a. d.
1870, between the liours of o v. m. and 9 p. m. of
that day; that said deposition was reduced
to writing by me, and, when completer], was by
me carefully read to said witness, and being by
him corrected, was by him subscribed in my
presence.
48
In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed
142 my name and affixed my seal of office, this 10th
day of March, a. d. 1870.
John A. Barham,
Notary Public.
(Endorsed) Filed April 4, 1870.
W. M. K. Parker,
Clerk.
143
Defendant also read in evidence the deposi-
tion of
James T. Strattoii,
which were in the words and figures following :
I am the surveyor who was appointed
as one of the commissioners in the decree
of partition in the case of Atherton vs. For-
tule in this Court. I am a practical surveyor,
and have been for the last twenty years in this
State, and three years before that. For nearly
ten years past I have been United States Deputy
Surveyor for California. I am lamiliar, of course,
with the practices of the Surveyor-G-eneral's
Office. I made a survey of the exterior lines of
144 the Rancho Bolsa de San Cayetano in making
the partition above referred to. I had at that
time a plat of the final survey of that rancho,
made under instructions of the United States
Surveyor-General for California, and a copy of
which is annexed to the " patent" of said rancho.
I ran over the courses and distances called for
by that plat at that time, with the plat before me,
and re-established the courses of the rancho, in
49
accordance with tliat plat. T (Ictormiiicil tlic
145 })()ints of beginning "at a point on tlie Pajaio river
recognized as the dividing line between this ran-
cho and the ranclio Vega del Rio del Pajaro,"' be-
cause it was undisputed and was fenced at that
})v)int. The witness [lost, on the sontln'rl}' Ijank of
the river, the crossing of the road and the oak tree
at which the first course terminates also fixed
the points ot beg'.nning bejond any question.
In retracing the SDUtherly e isterly boundary,
I found that the courses were evidently calculated
courses, and v iried somewhat, but I found the
oak trees terminating the 2d, 3d, 4th. 5th, Gth,
7th and 8th courses marked as on the plat.
They varied in coursi and distance both. At
the end of the 8tli course, I struck the bank of
the slougli or estero at Station No 9; from that
point I -'etracc'd the courses and disianceson the
l)lat, and established each of the stations to the
intersection of the od standard. These courses
last si)oken of, lik.' the former, I found quite
incorrect. Many of thosj lines are calculated
lines from meanderings, and I found it impossi-
ble to locate them on the ground, except by
147 reference to the natural objjcts they reler to. I
re-established the post ' H. S. C. 10," and " sec
4," by retracing tlie 3tl standard line south, ol
chains east of the corner, to sections 4 anl 5, as
described in the patent. The standard line is
fixed beyond question, as als . the coiner station
23, which is the intersection of that line with
the west bank of the slough. I retra<'ed all the
courses, after arriving at that point on the
50
Pajaro river, by returnino; to tlie place of begin-
148 niiig, and retracing each course down to station
25. T found them unusually correct. There
was not an error among them, and if the courses
and distances were followed as given in the field -
notes, they would fit the river exactly. Then,
from station marked B. S. C. 10, I ran the
closing line, along the southwest boundary of the
rancho, to station 25, on the bank of the Pajaro
river. I found the actual course and distanc'C
differed quite materially with that given in the
patent. The course or distance given in the
patent for that line, woubl bring me six or eight
chains north, or above station twenty-five, which
w6uld be on a high bluff bank of the Pajaro
river, instead of in a little valley, or bottom land,
as described in the patent.
This closing line would not descend into bottom
land and continue on about nine (9) chains to
the river, but crosses a small cafiada, and rises
iigain on high land, and so coiitinues, terminating
on a high bank or blufl^, on the bank of the
river. At that time there wasno fence terminat-
i ig at that point, nor was there any evidence of
150 any fence ever having terminated at that point.
I then ran tliat line straight between stations 15.
S. C 10, and the point where I had re-established
B. S. C. 11, without regard to coui'ses and dis-
tances, which / denominate the true line. In
the calls of the patent there is no topography of
the country given, on that closing line or course
24, except '• leaving the slough and over table-
land," and at " 225 chains it descends into bottom
51
land," and at 224 chains and 10 links reaches
151 the Pajaro river, at the end of the fence, which
exactly agree with the calls of the patent.
Question. Can you tell from your know-
ledge of the pra'3tice of the Surveyor-General's
Office, and of the Act of surveying, whether or
not that the 24th course was a surveyed or
calculated line, taking into consideration the fact
that the other three sides of the rancho are fixed
by natural ohjects, and in this connection ex-
plain the course and practice of the office, where
the decree is for quantity V
Ohjtvtion. Fliuntid" objects as incompetent and
immaterial, thec:)nclusion of the witness not being
evidence, nor is it capable of being used a^such»
anil it is likewise irrelevant, and states a hypoth-
esis not established in this cause, and seeks to
evoke a conclusion thereupon.
Answer. There is usually a much greater quan-
tity within the boundaries (exterior) of Spanish
grants th;in is given by the decrees of confirnia
tion. I can tell from my knowledge of the prac-
tice in the Surveyor-General's Office, and of the
Act of Surveying, whether thit course. 24, is a
153 surveyed or calculated line. 1 say it is a calcu-
lated line, because the other three sides of the
r.mcho are bounded by ranchosand a tide slough>
tixed lines; and the fourth line, course Xo. 24,
was run so as to include in the exterior bountlarics
the quantity confirmed, and hence, I say, was
necessarily established by calculation. Course
^4 was probably run at first, by Random, so as
to calculate approximately the quantity, and
52
afterwards slightly changed, (by calculation, in
154 which an error was made,) so as to include the
true quantity; that the true actual line was never
run actually upon the ground is evident; from
the fact, that there is no topography given along
the line, except near its terminations, and had it
been actually run, all the intermediate topog-
ra])hy would have been given, and there is topog-
raphy, such as fences, and roads, &c. There
are undoubtedly half a dozen objects to which
topographical reference wonld have been made.
Had that line been actually run, there would
have been a post placed at the intersection of
this line with the range line; the rules of the
office 'require that. I do not know, however, that
there is no post there, but I found none there,
and none is referred to in the field-notes of the
patent. End of answer.
There is a map made by me of this survey an-
nexed to the report of the Commissioners in
the partition referred to and on file in this Court
in that case, the exterior boundaries of which
exactly correspond with the exterior boundaries
^-n of the plat annexed to the patent. I marked
the closing line, and afterwards a fence was built
upon all that part of it, west of the road run-
ning to the ferry.
I marked station 25 by a good and substantial
post, marked 11 S. C. 11, at the end of a fence
on the bank of the Pajoro river, in the bottom
lands.
So much topography of the land as is on my
said map laid down, is accurate and correct.
Course No. 24 passes a few rods, say six or eight,
157 northerly of the house of Mv. Shattuck, neir the
bank of the Pajaro river, who was present when
I re-established the southwesterly corner of the
rancho, wlio stated tliat 1 had located that cor-
ner within two or three feet of where the ori-
ginal post had stood, and which iiad been washed
away by the river.
Objection. PlaintilT here objects to so much of
the answer above, as refers to or gives any state-
ment of Mr. Shattuck, as ii-relevant nnd incom-
petent, and to all such answer following here-
after.
]Vitness. He at first contended that the, true
corner was on the bluff bank which I have re-
ferred to, about 6 or 8 chains north of the true
corner ; but after I explained to him how I had
determined the true location of the corner by
meandering down the river, he replied that he
would have to give it up, and that I had located
the corner within two or three feet of where it
fermerly stood.
Objection. Renewed, same as last, to all since
last objection.
158
159
Cross-Examination.
The course and distiince of the closing line
from B. S. C. 10, given in the patent, will not run
to the point laid down for it in the patent, on
the river.
I made my survey in 1864. All traces of an
old fence or a stake, as called for, might have
been obliterated between 1858 and 18G4. The
54
old fence I found appeared to be 8 or 10 years
160 old. I found it at the point where I located the
terminus of the closing line. I believe it to be
the fence referred to. The patent line does not
call for brush 3 cliains before reaching the river ;
it does call for bottomland, at 9 chains, or there-
abouts, or rather says, it descends into bottom
land. At the time I made my survey, I do not
remember of the defendant or any other person
pointing out a stake and an old fence at the
termination of the closing line, as claimed by
the phintiflfs, and the course of which is X. 67°
west, as described in the patent ; but some one did
point a stake at that point, on the high bluff
bank, but it had on it no marks to indicate that
it was the one referred to in the patent.
There w^as but one house near my line, near
the liver, when I surveyed it. 1 know where the
corner of sees. 25. 36, 34 and -')6 should be, but
its stake had been removed when I made my
survey. With reference to that corner, my line,
wliich I denominate the true line, would run, I
suppose, a chain or two south of it. I never
connected with it.
•j^g2 J^s. T. Stratton.
Sworn to and subsciibed before me, this 1st
day of April, 1870.
J. H. Blood,
Notary Public.
I). McCusker being re-called, testified :
I sliowed Mr. Thompson, Stratton and Smith ^
stakes, the stake I showed him represented to be
55
the stake at the end of the line, that was tlie end
163 of the Stratton line. I pointed out all the stakes
around.
Testimony in Rebuttal.
M. Shattuck.
Was recalled by plaintiff, and testified as fol-
lows:
I did not hear either McCusker or myself
admit that was the line. I never did admit it. I
admitted that there had been a stake there, but
■*-'^* I disputed that it had been put there by Terrell.
I admitted that he had come within two or three
feet of wliere it was, but that stake was put there
before Ten-ell made his survey. It was put there
at the preliminary survey. The termination of the
upper line, where it strikes the river, runs over a
narrow point, then crosses a narrow bottom, some-
thing between one and two chains — less than
two chains. Then there is a bottom between the
river and that little rise. I tried to got Stratton
to go up with me to show him where the corner
j^gg was established by Terrell, but he refused to go.
I then pointed out where the stake was. I told
him that the stake, as established by Terrell, had
been washed away, and that if he would come up
with me, I would show him wliere it was situated,
but he refused to do so. I do not recollect of call-
ing McCusker's attention to the corner post, as I
thought heknew it. That stake stood there some
five years, until the winter of the high water, in
56
1861, or 1862 or 1863. It then went off, together
166 with some fencing. There was a small portion of
the land also washed away. The stake only marked
the line. It stood about four feet high. I think it
was marked " B. S. C." Whether there was a num.
ber on it or not I could not say. There was one house
there and the remains of another in 1858. The
house stood about five or six chains from the
Smith line. McCusker stated that there was no
fence built there until 18(')0 or 1861, from the
Stratton line up to the Smith line. How was
that?
167 Question objected toby defendant. Objection
overruled and defendant excepted, and his excep-
tion was noted.
There was a fence running a good portion of
the way. I built a portion of it in 1858, and a
portion of it in 1859, and I might have built
some of it later than that. There was no fence
there at the end of the Smith line, or north 67°
west of this ranch, when Stratton ran his line
and established the west corner . There was a
fence near that line that ran near bushes, some-
where between three and four rods to where
168 Terrell's stake was.
Being Cross-Examined
J3y Mr. Brooks, he testified :
I told Stratton that he had got too near to the
corner post of the preliminary survey. I under-
took to explain it to him. There was two pre-
liminary surveys made there. The preliminary
57
survey in which the stake was placed was made
1(50 before Terrell's survey.
This was all the testimony.
Thereupon the cause, after argument, was sub-
mitted to the Court, and, after due deliberation,
the Judge ren lered his decision, and directed a
judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
And thereupon, within the time allowed by law
for that purpose, the defendant gave notice of
his intention to move for a new trial, stating
therein, generally, the grounds of the motion, and
he now files this his statement, within the time
allowed by law for that purpose, and specifies the
grounds of his motion:
First. Eri-ors of law, occurring at the trial, and
excepted to l)y the defendant.
i. Allowing the cause to be reinstated, after
the same had been voluntarily dismissed as to the
defendant Frisbie.
2. Allowing witness to prove that Smith lo-
cated the land on the patent of the plaintitl in
reference to the boundary \'nv) of the Pajaro
Rancho.
3. Allowing McNamee to describe and bound
171 lots ri and () from heaisay.
4. Allowing Shattuck to testify to what
Terrell and others told him.
5. Allowing Peter McXamec to certify as to
what Smith tohl him. and refusing to strike out
his testimony.
6. Denying motion for nonsuit.
7. The conclusion of law, tliat tlie plaintiff
58
was entiiled to iiido-ment ao;ainst defendant
172 Frisbie.
S. The conclusion of law, that the plaintiff
was entitled to judgment against the defendant,
McCuskei'.
Second. And he specifies no particulars in
which he alleges the evidence to be insufficient
to justify tlie finding.
1. The evidence is insufficient to justify the
finding that the true line of thi Rancho Bolsa de
San Cayetano, as sui'veyed and located by the
Surveyor-General of the United States for Ccili-
-irrg fornia, was not as marked out by Stratton, but
was as marked out by Smith.
2. The evidence is insufficient to justify the
finding the post and station '" B. S. C. II," as lo-
cated and established by the U. S. Deputy Sni'-
veyor, Terrell, in the former sui'vey of the rancho,
was at tlie point where the line run by Smith ter-
minates at the I-*ajaro river, and not at the point
where the line run by Slratton strikes the said
river.
Third. That the decision is against law.
And inasmuch as tho matters aforesaid do not
1'^ appear by the record of said cause, the Hon. S.
B. McKee, the Judge before whom said cause was
tried, hath hereto, at the request of the defendant,
set his liand and seal, in testimony that the sam&
is a true, full and perfect statement, this Slst
day of February, a. i). 1872.
S.' B. McKee,
District Judge.
59
[title of court and cause.]
Slipulalion.
It is stipulated and a<];reed that the map an-
nexed to the patent of the llancho IJolsa de San
Cayetmo form a part of the statement in these
cases, and that a copy thereof shall be annexed
to the statements and to the Transcript if an
appeal be taken. That the motions for new
trial be, and the same hereby are, submitted on
the said statement and briefs to be filed, defend-
ants to have 10 days to serve their brief, plain-
tiffs 15 days to serve brief, and defendants to
196 have 10 days after receipt thereof to reply. The
map, Exhibit "A," to form a part of the state-
ment, and that a copy thereof be annexed to the
Transcript, if an appeal be taken.
B. S. Brooks,
Attorney for Defendants.
A. Craig,
Attorney for Plaintiff.
(Endorsed) Filed June 4th, 1872.
177
[title of court and cause.]
Judge's Statement and Order Denying Motion for New
Trial.
- The history of this case is the same as that of
McFarland vs, McCasker, just decided in this
Court, and by stipulation of counsel, the testi-
mony in one was made applicable to both.
The defendant's motion for a new trial came
6.0
on to be heard upon the complaint and answer,
178 upon the statement and motion for a new trial,
made and filed herein, and upon the deposition
of one, J. T. Stratton, taken upon the part of de-
fendant, by him used upon said trial, and now
on file herein, and upon said record and full
consideration thereof, the Court is of opinion,
that the judgment heretofore rendered in said
cause, in favor of pla'ntiff and against defendant,
was, in all respects, correct, and that there was
no error in the ruling of the Court upon the trial
of said cause, or in the judgment rendered there-
in.
Wherefore it is ordered that said motion for a
new trial, be and the same is hereby denied.
San Jose, March 9th, 1874.
D. Belden,
District Judge.
(Endorsed) Order denying motion for a new
trial.
Filed March 12, 1874.
John Markley.
Clerk.
180
[title of court and cause]
xNotice of Appeal.
Please take notice, that the defendant in the
above cause hereby appeal to the Supreme
Court of the State of California, from the judg-
ment made and rendered in said causC; and also
61
from tlie order made, entered and filed in ^aid
181 cause, the 12tli day of March, a. u. 1874, denying
said defendant's motion for a new trial, and iVoui
the whole thereof.
B. S. Brooks,
Attorney for Defendants.
To the Clerk of said Court, and to A. Craig, Esq.,
Plaintiir's Attorney, and Kliza McXamee.
(Endorsed) Notice of Appeal.
Filed April 18th, 1874.
John Marklev,
Clerk.
182
[title of court and cause.]
Affidavit of Servicp of Notice of Appeai.
State of ('alifornia, )
Montere}^ County, \
W. H. Webb, being first duly sworn, says :
First. That he is a white male citizen of the
United States, over twenty-one years of age, and
competent to be a witness on the trial of the
above-entitled cause.
183 Second. That alliant's ri'sidence and place of
business is at Salinas City, in tiic Comity of Mon-
terey, State of California.
Third That heret .fore, to wit : on thelSih
day of Apiil, a. d. 1874, he filed with the Ch'ik
of the above-mentioned District Court, in which
judgment iu said action is filed and I'utcred, a
notice of appeal from said judgment ami from
tlie order made, entered and filed in sai«i cause
62
on the 12th diiy of March, a. d. 1874, denying
184 defendant's motion for a new trial, a true copy
of which said notice as aforesaid, marked Exhib-
it '' A," is hereto attached and made a part hereof.
And that, at the same time of filing said notice as
aforesaid, he, affiant, served a true copy of said
notice on A. Craig, Esq., who is tlie attorney of
record of said plaintiff and respondent in said
cause, by putting the said copy of said notice,
enclosed in a sealed envelope, duly stamped and
postage paid by United States postage stamps,
and then and there depositing the same in the
^^^ United States Post-office at Salinas Citv, County
185 " ' "^
of Monterey, State of Califoi-nia, addressed as
follows, to wit : ''A. Craig, Attorney at Law,
Watsonville, Santa Cruz County, California."
Fourth. That the said A. Craig, Esq., is the
person on whom the service of said copy of said
notice was to be made, and that he resides in a
different phxce from the place in which resides
affiant, to wit : in the town of Watsonville, in
the County of Santa Cruz, State of California.
Fifth. That there is a regular daily communi-
cation by mail between the said places in which
186 said affiant resides, and the said place in which
the said A. Craig, attorney, as aforesaid, resides.
Sixth. And affiant further swears, tliat, at the
same time of filing said notice as aforesaid, he,
affiant, also served a true copy of said notice on
one Eliza McNamee, by putting the said copy of
said notice enclosed in a sealed envelope, duly
stamped and postage paid by United States post-
age stamps, and then and there deposited the
63
same in the United States Post-oflice, at Salinas
187 City, County of Monterey, State of California,
addressed as follows : Eliza McNamee, Watson-
ville, Santa Cruz County, California.
Seventh. That the said Eliza McNamee resitles
in a different place from the pla-^e in which afTi-
ant resides, to wit : at or near the town of AVat-
sonville, Santa Cruz County, State of California;
that affiant is informed and verily believes, and
upon such information and belief so states, that
the said town of Watsonville, " Santa Cruz
County, State of California," is the Post-office
,no address of the said Eliza McNamee.
Eighth. That there is a regular daily commu-
nication by mail between tlie said town of Wat-
sonville, Santa Cruz County, State of California,
and the said place in which affiant resides.
W. H. Webb.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this the
18th day of April, a. d. 1874.
John Markley,
County Clerk.
(Endorsed) Affidavit of service of notice of
appeal.
189 Filed April 18th, 1874. John Markley,
Clerk.
[title of court and cause.]
EXHIBIT "A."
Copy of Notice of Appeal.
Please take notice, that defendants in the
above cause hereby appeal to the Supreme Court
64
of the State of California, from the judgment
^^^ made and rendered in said cause, and also from
the order made, entered and filed in the said
cause, the day of March, a. d. 1874, denying
said defendant's motion for a new trial therein,
and from the whole thereof.
B. S. Brooks, -
Attorney for Defendants.
To the Clerk of said Court, and to A. Craig, Esq.,
Plaintiffs Attorney, and Eliza McNamee.
(Endorsed) Notice of Appeal, Exhibit " A,"
(and attached to) affidavit of service of appeal.
191 Filed April 18th, 1874.
John Markley,
Clerk.
State of California,
County of Monterey,
I, John Markley, County Clerk and ex-officio
Clerk of the District Court of the Twentieth Ju-
dicial District, in and for the County of Monterey,
State aforesaid, do hereby certify the foregoing
192 printed Transcript on appeal to be correct, and
that the papers and orders therein contained are
true, full, and correct copies of the originals now
on file and of record in said Court in said cause,
and constitute all the papers and orders in said
cause; and that said copies have been compared
by mo with the said originals, and are correct
transcripts thereof, and of the whole of said orig-
inals.
65
And I hereby further certify, that undertakings
1^'i^ on appeal, in due form, conditioned according to
the statute in such case provided, and in the penal
amount fixed by order ol the Court herein, and
for the payment of costs on appeal, were properly
filed by said appellants within the statutory time
in said cause.
In witness whereof, I have heieunto set my
hand, and affixed the seal of the District Court
of the County of Monterey, this day of
A. D. 1874.
''^ Clerk.
7 4^3
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOr^NIA AT LOS ANGELES
THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below
UC
Form L-0
ajm-1, '41(1122)
UNIVERSITY OW CALLtV
AT
GSLES
UBRARY
^S^pp
'ffTT Hif j^tf** *** *yj7Tr A 7 j^
■pBMHK
t
v/ tl I II
''3 1158 00477 0607
J
■"- :r
'l^Ti
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11