(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Before the United States Surveyor-General of California, in the matter of the Rancho Corte Madero del Presidio : testimony and proceedings"

HD 

211 

C2 

B4 

1876 

BANC 







BEFORE THE 




jlttM %\^\t% %nnin-mmtt^ 



OF c!.A.ijiFo:R.Kri.A.. 



IK THE MATTER OF THE 



Rancho Corte Maderoudel Presidio, 



TESTIMONY @ PROCEEDINGS. 



anoia Si VnleiitiiiB. Printers ami Engrarers, 317 Clay Clrtft. o. 



^^Me/cM^mc^^ 


I) (y 

University of California • Berkeley 


The Peter and Rosell Harvey 


Memorial Fund 





INDEX. 



PAGE* 

Appoaraiice 1-2 

Testimony of 

AUardc, G, F 84 

'' Kocallod 110 

'< *• 227 

" 235 

276 

*' << 288 

Au,sa:i, Hiiam 202 

'■ Kecalled 248 

'• <' 259 

Borotra, John 238 

Brouks, B. S 218 

Kcealled 232 

Brown, Charle? 17 

Brown, R. S 206 

Davis, Wm.H 72 

De Silva, Antonio ¥ 23 

Gardner, Peter 93 

<' Recalled 207 

" '' 221 

'< '' 241 

'< " 300 

Hopkins, R. C 24 

Recalled 35 

" " 70 

'* '< 164 

'• 179 

♦ < " , 206 

" '- 208 

'< << 233 

" " 242 

<' " 243 

*« " 271 

Lent, Silas 59 

Lewis, William J 182 

Lyford, Benj. F 283 

Ne hall, H. C 293 

Read, Juan J 172 

" Recalled 254 

Robinson, J. A 233 

Soto, Francisco 167 

Throckmorton, S. R 298 

Valencia, Candelario 6 



II INDEX. 

Testimony of PAGt-.. 

Valencia, Jose B,... 11 

" Recalled 30 

Valentine, Thos. B H4 

" Becalled 97 

♦* *' 241 

«' u 242 

♦' " .1V.'.V.'.V ; !..^!!!J!!!"""!!!!!!!!! 292 

" 293 

Wilde, J. H £6i> 

^< Recalled 307 

'* 289 

Offered by Thos. B. Valentine. 

T. B. v., No. 1.— Opinion and Decree of the Board of Land Commis- 
sioners in case of Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio 179 

T. B. v., No. 2.~Tracedcopy of Expediente of same rancho, Juan Read, 

confirmee 179 

T. B. v., No. 3.— Agreement James C. Bolton with John J. Read, et 

al.j dated August 12, 1865 179 

T. B. v., No. 4»— Deed H. A. Boyle to T. B. Valentine, dated Jan*. 

10, 1872 179 

T. B. v., No. 5.— Deed H. A. Boyle to T. B. Valentine, dated Sept. 

23, 1872 179 

Field notes of survey of Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, 
confirmed to heirs of Juan Read, made by L. Ransom, Deputy- 
Surveyor, in September and October, 1873, with map attached 246 

T. B. v., No. 6. -Deed James C. Bolton to T. B. Valentine, dated 

July 25, 1868 246 

T. B. v., No. 7.— Deed John J. Read. Hilaria M. Read, Thos. B. Def- 
febach and Inez Deffebach, to James C. Bolton, dated August 
12, 1865 246 

T. B. v., No. 8. — Testimony of EusebioGalindo, taken in case of Bolton 

ys. Van Reynegom, e^ aZ 246 

T. B. v., No. 9. — Testimony of Jose de la Cruz Sanchez, taken in case 
of Bolton vs. Van Reynegom, et al., and Bolton vs. Kashaw, in 
U.S. Circuit Court 247 

T. B. v.. No. 10.— Judgment Roll in the case of James C. Bolton vs. 

Israel Kashaw, et. al 290 

Offered by S. R. Throckmorton. 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 1.— Objections to survey of the Rancho Corte Madera 

del Presidio, by B. S. Brooks, filed May 1st, 1875 103 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 2. — Stipulation requesting confirmation of Ransom 

survey 104 

Plat of Ransom Survey, marked " L. R., Dep. Sur." 104 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 3. — Notice that objections to Ransom survey would 

be insisted on 105 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 4.— Stipulation withdrawing claimant's and T. B. 

Valentine's first objection to survey 106 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 7. — Certified copy of the translation of a portion of 

the expediente of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio 121 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 8.— Diseno of the Mission of San Rafael 121 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 9. — Certified copy of a translation of a portion of the 

expediente of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio 122 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 10.— Certified copy of a decree of the District Court, 

No. 83, dated February 11th, 1856 126 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 11.— Deed John J. Read to Hugh A. Boyle, dated 

May 11th, 1869 127 



INDEX* 111 

' " ~^ PAGfi. 

Ex. S. K. T., No. 12.— Deed, Ylaria Kead to Hugh A. Boyle, dated 

May 24, 1869 127 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 13.— Deed, Deffebach and wife, Boyle and wife, Val- 
entine and Newhall to Julius McCeney, dated February 1st, 1871 128 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 14.— Deed, Julius C. McCeney to S. R. Throckmor- 
ton, dated January 19, 1875 * ••" 128 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 15.— Copy, plat and field notes of survey of G. F. 

Allardt of land deeded by Doffebach, et al., to Julius C. McCeney 128 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 17.— Decision of the Secretary of the Interior in the 
case of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, dated January 6th, 
1872 » 179 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 18.— Instructions to L. Ransom to make survey of 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, dated July, 1873, according 
to certain lines therein described >..»....... 240 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 19.— Instructions to G. F. Allardt to run a certain 

line on the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, dated May 8th, 1874 240 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 20.— Power of attorney, Thosv B. Valentine to S. D. 

Valentine, dated April 28, 1870 241 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 21.— Plat of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio 
finally confirmed to the heirs of Juan Read, by L. Ransom, U. S. 
Deputy Surveyor, October, 1873 242 

Ex. Sb R. T., No. 22. — A scale of cordeles, conforming to 40 chains to 

the inch .- 242 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 23. — Map annexed to deposition of William Hartnell, 
referred to in objections of S. R. Throckmorton, filed May 26, 
1875 242 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 24.— Deed, Juan J. Read, Hilaria M. Read, Thomas 
B. Defifebach and Inez Deffebach to James C. Bolton, dated Au- 
gust 12,1865 297 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 25.— Deed, James C. Bolton to Thos. B.Valentine, 

dated July 25th, 1868 297 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 26.— Deed, James C. Bolton to Rudolph Steinbach, 

dated September 16th, 1865 297 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 27.~Deed, Rudolph Steinbach to Emil Steinbach, 

dated March 28, 1866 298 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 28.— Power of attorney, Emil Steinbach to Rudolph 

Steinbach, dated February 18, 1864 298 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 29.— Deed, Emil Steinbach to Emil Grisar, dated 

June 16th, 1866 * , ,. 298 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 30.— Deed, Emil Grisar to S. R. Throckmorton, dated 

June 19, 1866 298 

Ex. S. K. T., No. 31.— Deed, S. R. Throckmorton to Bugh A. Boyle, 

dattd January 28, 1871 298 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 32.— Deed, S. R. Throckmorton to Thos. B. Valen- 
tine, dated January 28th, 1871..... 298 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 33.— Deed, S. R. Throckmorton to Inez Read de Def- 
febach, wife of T. R. Defifebach, dated January 28, 1871 298 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 34.— Deed, Hugh A. Boyle to H. C. Newhall, July, 

1871 : 298 

Ex. S. R. T., No. 35. — Notice of motion to dismiss proceedings in U.S. 

District Court in case of U. S. vs. Heirs of Juan Read 309 

Offered by Mullen & Hyde's Clients. 
Certified copy of expediente, translation, and diseSo in the case of Jose 

M. Limentour, No. 549, Land Commission 22 

Opinion and decision of Land Commission in same case, filed February 

12, 1856 22 

Ex. to De Silva's Island Claim, J. A. R. — Deed from Board of Land 

Commissioners to Antonio F. Silva, dated August 24, 1872 ..>v 2^^ 



ly INDEX. 



PAGE. 

Ex. A, Mullen & Hyde.— Oi:der and decree dismissing proceedings in 
the District Court o.f the U. S. in the case ot' U. S. vs. Heirs of 
Juan Beed 116 

Ex. Mullen & Hyde D. E. P., April 5, 1876.— ^Record in case of BoltOin 

vs. Van Beynegom et al. in XJ. S. Circuit Court 23iO 

Complaint in case of Bolton vs. Van Reynegoin et al., U. S. Ci?c^it 

Court 239 

Ex. Mullen & Hyde G. H. I., April 5, 1876. — Answer in sapie case of 

Philip Ray, tenant of S. R. Throckmorton 239 

O. K. — Diagram , 240 

Ex. Mullen & Hyde A. B. C, April 5, 1876.— Testimony of Eusebio 

Galindo, James T. Stratton, and Juan Read, in same case. 240 

Ex. L. M. N. Mullen & Hyde. — Map of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio according to the original diseno and juridical measure- 
ments by C. C. Tracy 240 

Ex. Mullen & Hyde O. P. Q., April 5, 1876.— Motion ol Mullen & 

Hyde to dismiss all proceedings in the case 240 

Ex. Mullen «& Hyde K., April 5, 1876. — Copies of various papers per- 
taining to the claim of land 1 N., 6 W., M. D. M., as ceirtified 
by James T. Stratton, July 20, 1875 240 

Ex. Mullen & Hyde R. S. T., April 5, 1876.— Letter of Mullen & Hyde 

to S. I. Burdett, Commissioner of General Land Office^ 240 

Ex. Mullen & Hyde "W. V. W., April 5, 1876.— Certified copy of mt^p 
attached to the deposition of W. E. Hartnell, in case No. 104, of 
the late Board of Land Commissioners 240 

Ex. Mullen & Hyde A. B. C, April 5, 1876.— Instructions of WilHs 
Drummond, Commissioner, to J. R. Hardenburgh, U. S. Sur- 
veyor-General for California, dated February 5, 1872. 240 

Ex. Mullen & Hyde D. E. F.— Deppsition of Chas. C. Tracy in the case 
of Bolton vs. Van Reynegom et al., with Exhibit No. 2 thereto 
annexed, 243 

Offered by Ed^win Gardner. 

Ex. G. R., No. 1. — Edwin Gardner's objections and subdivisions of the 

Mathewson survey by the heirs of John Read 299 

Ex. G. R., No. 2. — Probate Court, Marin County ; in the matter of the 
estate of Jno. Read, deceased. Certified copy of order appoint- 
ing John S. Gibbs administrator, or guardian for minor heirs 299 

Ex. G. R., No. 3. — Certified copy of deed, Jno. S. Gibbs, administrator, 

to B. R. Buckelew 299 

Ex. G. R., No. 4. — Certified copy of appointment of Jas. McM. Shafer 

and T. Murphy as guardians 299 

Ex. G. R., No. 5. — Complaint, Answer and Decree, Garcia, et al.j vs. 

Buckelew and Gibbs ; 7th Dist. Court, Marin County 299 

Ex. G. R., No. 6. — Complaint, Answer and Judgment, Albert Gardner 

vs. B. R. Buckelew ; 7th Dist. Court, Marin County.. 299 

Ex. G. R., No. 7. — Complaint, Answer and Judgment, Edwin Gardner 

vs. B. R. Buckelew ; 7th Dist. Court, Marin County 299 

Offered by Peter Crardner. 

Ex. P. G., No. 1. — Instructions from Commissioner General Land Of- 
fice, Washington, to U. S. Surveyor-General for California, dated 
Februarys, 1872, as to fixing eastern boundary line of the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio....... 150 

Ex. P. G., No. 2.— Map of the said rancho, with its surroundings, etc., 

by Hiram Austin, surveyor, January 15, 1876 203 

Ex. P. G., No. 3. — Ancient Record Book, containing descriptions of 

Missions, etc., prior to 1824 206 



INPEX, y 



PAGE, 

Ex. p. G., No. 4.— Translation of page 4 of last Exhibit... ...........vv— 20t> 

P. G., No. 1. — Gardner's objections to survey 300 

P. G., No. 2. — Gardner's map, heretofore offered...... ...••••••"• •••v •.•••• 30p 

P. G., No. 3. — Certified copy instructions to R. 0. Mathewson......-...^.- 300 

P. G., No. 4.— Heretofore pffered ,,..,.. ...v •.••.. 30p 

P. G., No. 5. — Depositions of Francisco Sanchez, J. J. Papy, and M. 

G. Vallejo 300 

P. G., No. 6. — Petition of "Widow Read for the lands adjacent to the 

Rancho Corte Maderft del Presidio... 300 

P. G., No. 7. — Certified copy of pre-emption claim of John J. Read, of 

May 28, 1863 300 

P. G., No. 8. — Agreement James C. Bolton with John J. Read, et al., 

dated August 12, 1865 (T. B. V., No. 3) 300 

P. G., No. 9. — Certified copy of location of school land warrant and 

plats, T. B.Valentine, et al 800 

Offered by J. B. Howard. 

Ex. Solar No. 1. — Petition of Throckmorton to Surveyor-General, dated 

J^Xarch 3, 1869, locating solar .^....,., 110 

Ex. Solar No. 2. — Plat and field ^lotes of part of boundary of the Rancho 
Corte I^adera del Presidio, xe-surveyed by G. P. Allardt, Dep. 

Surveyor — 110 

fix. Solar No. 3. — Instructions to G. F. Allardt for re-surveying part of 

line 110 

Ex. Solar No. 4. — Letter of instructions, issued May 28, 1874, by Jas. 
T. Stratton, U. S. Surveyor-General for California, for re-survey 
of the western boundary of the Rancho Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio 112 

Public Lands Survey, T. 1 N., R. 6 W.— Survey of public lands, T. 1 

N., R. 6. W., M. D. Mer., approved November 27, 1874 112 

Ex. No. 1 J. A. R. — Complaint as amended in Bolton vs. Van Reyne- 

gom et al., No. 190, Circuit Court, California 214 

Ex. No. 2 J. A. R.— Answer of Mary King (same case) 214 

Ex. No. 3 J. A. R. — Testimony of S. R. Throckmorton (same case) 214 

Ex. No. 4 J. A. R. — Testimony of George F. Allardt (same case) 214 

Ex. No. 5 J. A. R. — Testimony of "William J. Lswis (same case 214 

Ex. No. 6 J. A. R. — Judgment of the Court (san e case) 214 

Ex. No. 7 J. A. R. — Stipulation (same case) 214 

Ex. No. 8 J. A. R. — Stipulation (same case) 214 

Ex. No. 9 J. A. R. — Afiidavit of James M. Seawell (same case} 214 

Ex. No. 10 J. A. R.— Affidavit of S. R. Throckmorton (same case) 214 

Ex. No. 11 J. A. R. — Deed, Mary King to Francis D. Barlow, dated 

October 28, 1873 217 

Ex. No. 12, J. A. R. — Decision of Secretary of the Interior of Janu- 
ary 6th, 1872 221 

Offered by Sharp for Mrs. Hilaria R. de Lyford et al, 
Claimants. 

H. R. L. A. — Agreement for partition of the Rancho Corte Madera del 

Presidio 280 

H. R. L. B. — A report of arbitrators or commissioners, with plats 280 

H. R. L. C. — Plat and description of the part allotted to Hilaria Read.. 280 
H. R. L. D. — Deed of partition from John J. Read and Inez Read 

Deffebach to Hilaria Read 280 

H. R. L. E. — Map of Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, Ex. 2, to de- 
position of Tracy, showing location of said rancho as partitioned 
and according to Mathewson's survey in 1858 280 



mm ift 1; A m 



Mi INDEX. 

PAGK. 

H. K. L. F. — Deed of partition, Hilaria Kead and Inez Read Deffebach 

to John J. Read 281^ 

H. R. L. G. — Deed in partition from John J. and Hilaria Read to Inez 

Read Deffebach .,. 283! 

Ex. B. R. Buckelew, No. 1. — Buckelewmap of California City 260 

"Whitney's State Geological Survey, of 1873, of San Francisco and vi- 
cinity.... ...v ,, 28» 

Offered by the United States. 

Ex. Mathewson. — Plat of Mathew?on survey G8 

U. S. A. No. 1. — Motion to dismiss proceedings, etc 29(y 

IT. S. A. No. 2.^0rder of approval of said Mathewson survey by the 

Surveyor-General, dated August 15, 1860......... , 296 

U. S. A. No. 3. — Certificate of publication of said survey, under act of 

June :f4, 1860 296 

U. S- A. No. 4. — Order entered, directing return of survey into District 

Court on Sept. 13, I860 296 

U. S. A. No. 5. — Order of said District Court approving said survey, 

Sept. 28, 1865 296 

tJ.-S. A. No. 6.— Decree of the U. S. District Court, dated October 16, 

1865, ordering approval set aside and proceedings dismissed 296 

U. S. A. No. 7. — Map of the region adjacent to the Bay of San Fran- 
cisco, State Geological Survey of California, by J. D. Whitney... 297 

Motion to dismiss.r..... .....^ ., 300 



DISCREPANCIES IN REFERENCES. 

Reference at printed p. 48, to manuscript p. 132, may be found at printed p. 47 

" << *' 109, " 192 & 193, *' '' '* 68 & 69» 

u it .t 119^ ti u 200, " '* '* ♦' 71 

" '' " 140, " *< 39^, '* '< " «' 139 

u " " 140, «* " 400, " '' " " 139 

II ii ii 145^ u u 239, ♦' <♦ «* <* 84 

u ti a 185^ u u 509^ a K a n jgi 

a u a 214, *<' *' 591, «< *< <« *' 213 

« u i; 275, <' *' 752, <' «' " " 272 

u u a 282, «' " 761, " " " '<■ 276 

r( ii u 282; '' << 776, '< " "' '' 281 

ERRATA. 
Omitted in Index. 

EXHIBITS OF S. K. THROCKMOKTON. 

S. R. T. No. 5— T. B, Valentine's objections to survey. ^ 

S. 11. T. ijo. 6— Map accompanying objections of S. R. Throckmorton, filed -^ 

Mav 26 1875 " i age i.^ 

S. R. T. No. 93^-Tracing of plat of Township IN., R. 6 W., M. D. M Page 123 

S. R. T. No. Iti— Scale of cordels to be used with Ex. No. b i age idi 

EXHIBITS OF EDWIN GARDNER. 

Ex. G. R. No. 8— Deed Val. D. Doub (Sheriff) to Edwin Gardner Page 299 

EXHIBITS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Ex U. S. A. No. 8— Bill San Francisco HeraM for advertising Page 309 

Ex. U. S. A. No. 9— Bill Sonoma Co. Journal for advertising Page rfU9.^ 

EXHIBIT OF MULLAN & HYDE. ^ 

X, Y, Z— Plat of Corte de Madera del Presidio Page 261 



Before the Xiaited States Surveyor -General for Calif ornica 

Thursday, June 3cl, 1875. 

Pursuant to notice duly given by the attorneys, the case 
■of the contested survey of the Rancho Corte Madera, Juan 
Read, heirs' confirmee, is duly Called. 

Present, Jas. T. Stratton, IJ. S. Surveyor-General; J. A. 
Robinson, U. S. Commissioner. 

W. H. Patterson appearing for S. R. Throckmorton. 

S. L. Cutter appearing for Edward Gardner. 

J. W. Shanklin appearing for S. R. Throckmorton. 

John B. Howard appearing for John L Cushing, F. 1). 
Barlow, Thomas Jj. Riley. 

B. S. Brooks, by Mr. Leviston, appeal^ for Valentine and 
Throckmorton, and for the Claimant. 

Sol. A. Sharp appears for the heirs of Juan Read, 
•claimant, Mrs. YJaria Read, Lyford, Mrs. Deffebach, and 
John J. Read. 

Application by Brooks for continuance, opposed by Jno. 
B. Howard and Sharp, who hisist upon his motion to strike 
out the opposition of those parties named in his application 
to strike out, on file herein. 

Resisted by Patterson. 

Peter Gardner appeared in his own behalf. 

Walter Van Dyke, U. S. District Attorney, appearing for 
the U. S. 

Case continued by the U. S. Surveyor-General, till Tues^ 
•day, July 13th, 1875, at 10 o'clock a. m. 

Continued till July 27th, 1875, at 11 a. m. 



Tuesday, July 27th, 187-5. 

Corte Madera del Presidio. 

The case is resumed. 

Present James T. Stratton, U. S. Surveyor-General ; J. 
A. Robinson, U. S. Commissioner. 

B. S. Brooks appears for claimants, and for Thos. B. 
Valentine. 



Sol. A. Sharp, Esq., appears for Benj. Lyford and wife^ 
John Eead and Inez Dettebach, children and heirs of said 
John Read, deceased, who are the claimants of the rancho 
in this case. 

S. L. Cutter appears for Edwin Gardner, Thos. Collins. 

John B. Howard appears for John I. Cushing, F. D. Bar- 
low, Thos. L. Kiley, and for Walter Van Dyke, U. S. District 
Attorney, in his absence. 

Mullen & Hyde, attorneys for claimants, under State 
University locations. 

Peter Gardner, attorney for himself. 

J. W. Shanklin, attorney for S. R. Throckmorton. 

Mullen & Hyde, for Antonio De Silva, W. T. Coleman, 
A. B. Forbes. 

J. B. Southard appears for Wormouth. 

John B. Howard appears for Leonard B. Story, claiming 
tide lands, under State locations. 

Brooks says he represents the claimants. 

Sharp replies, that he is the only attorney for the heirs 
of Juan Read, and has done for twenty years. 

Sharp objects to Brooks' appearing for claimants, and 
insists that Brooks designate and name who he appears for. 

Brooks says he appears for all the claimants of the Read 
Rancho. 

Upon inquiry, Mr. Sol. A. Sharp says he appears for John 
Read and Benj. Lj'ford, and for all the heirs except Mrs. 
Detfebach, and asks that question be suspended till he can 
see Mrs. l)efFebach. 

Mr. Brooks asks that his name be erased from the protest 
on behalf of Mr. S. R. Throckmorton. 

Mr. Sharp objects to the erasure of the records of this 
office. 

The Surveyor-General rules that Mr. Brooks be allowed 
to erase his name from said protest, for Mr. Throckmorton. 

Mr. Sharp objects to his erasing his name, as it is altering 
the records of this office. 

J. W. Shanklin here enters his appearance as attorney 
for S. R. Throckmorton. 

The Surveyor-General rules that Mr. Brooks must define 
the names specifically and individually for whom he appears 
in this case. 

Mr. Brooks says he appears for the claimants, and T. B. 
Valentine. 

Mr. Sharp denies his right to appear for claimants, and 
calls for his authority to appear. 



Mr. Sharp moves for a continuance for two days, that all 
parties may show their authority, and protests against an}^ 
proceedings till it is done. 

Motion granted, and case continued till Thursday, at 10 
o'clock A. M. 



Thursday, July 29, 1875. 

All parties present. 

The Surveyor-General decides that Mr. B. S. Brooks has 
the right to appear for the claimants as to the land which 
lies OQtside of the former survey, known as the Mathewson 
Survey, subject to and under the contract with James C. 
Bolton, and that Mr. Sol. A. Sharp has the right to appear 
for the claimants as to the land inside of the said survey. 

John J. Williams, Esq., enters his appearance as of coun- 
sel for S. K.. Throckmorton. 

B. S. Brooks claims the right to appear for Mrs. Deffe- 
bach in the whole case, by appointment of hei- husband, 
now present. 

Objected to by Mr. Howard, on the ground that Mrs. 
Deffebach has filed a notice with the Surveyor-General, 
that no attorney appears for her, or is entitled to appear for 
her, in this controversy. 

Sol. A. Sharp claims to appear for John J. Bead, Inez 
Deffebach, Ylaria Read Lyford, claimants of the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Walter Van Dyke appears in person on behalf of the TJ. 
S., the preemptors, and General J. M. Schofield. 

J. J. Williams, on behalf of S. R. Throckmorton, moves 
that the present survey be so modified as to include the land 
sold by the claimants to S. R. Throckmorton, which he 
contends is within the limits of the juridical possession. 

Objected to by S. Ij. Cutter, attorney for Edwin Gardner, 
on the ground that the survey is not within the juridical 
possession. 

J. B. Southard, attorney for Wormouth, makes the same 
objection, and the further objection, that the deed to 
Throckmorton was made with the view and in reference to 
the line established by the present survey, and not with a 
view of extending the line further north-west than it is at 
present, and that said deed was made by way of com- 
promise. 

Messrs. Mullen & Hyde, attorneys for certain parties, file 
herewith a written motion to discontinue all further pro- 



ceeclings, on the ground that no legal survey lias been 
made by the U. S. Surveyor-General. 

Mr. Sharp objects to the motion, that it is not in time^ 
and is defective in its allegations, and asks that the survey 
be now confirmed, as it now stands. 

The Surveyor-General rules that the survey in this case 
is not vitiated or illegal on account of the adoption by the 
Deputy Surveyor of the tide land survey, without any actual 
survey in the field. All of the counsel in the case, except 
Mr. Howard and Mr. Brooks, object to the ruhng. 

Here the Attorney-General adjourns the case to await the 
decision on the above point, with ten days from this day to 
file briefs, and fifteen days' notice to be given counsel of the 
decision, to prepare for trial, and of the date when this 
investigation wnll be continued. 

This adjournment is agreed to by all the attorneys, except 
Mr. Howard, for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the 
Department on the above question of survey. 

Mr. How^ard, for his clients and Mr. Sharp* s, excepts to 
the ruling and continuance, and appeals directly to the 
Commissioner on the merits of the survey, and asks that all 
the papers and plat, and ruling of the Surveyor-General be 
sent up. 



October 15, 1875. 
Notified all parties to appear Tuesday, October 26, 1875^ 
at 10 A. M. 



Tuesday, 26th October, 1875. 
Case called and continued by consent, to lOJ oclock a. m. 
to-morrow, October 27, 1875. 



Wei>nesdaYj October 27, 1875, at 10 J o'clock a. m. 

All the parties being present, the case is called, and the 
examination commenced. 

J. B. How^^ard reads and files a motion that the case be 
sent up to the Commissioner General Land Oflice, without 
the taking of any testimony. 

The Surveyor-General denies the motion. Counsel ex- 
cepts to the ruling. 

Sol. A. Sharp, Esq., counsel for certain claimants, moves 
that all the objections filed be struck out, on the ground^ 
tlmt they were filed too Me. 



The motion denied by the U. S. Surveyor-General. 

Counsel excepts to the ruling. 

Cjim^el Sol. A. Sharp objects to any testimony being 
read in opposition to the survey, on the ground that it is 
too late. 

Objection overruled by the U. S. Surveyor-General. Coun- 
sel for claimants excepts to the ruling. 

Messrs. Mullen & Hyde offer a written motion, asking 
that the survey be sent to the Commissioner, and that all 
proceedings be suspended in this oiiice, until a decision of 
the Commissioner General Land Oflice, and his reply be 
received. 

J. B. Howard files an objection to Messrs. Mullen & 
Hyde's motion. 

Mr. Sharp objects to the Mullen & Hj^de motion, as com- 
ing too late, and being without any authority of law. Also, 
that it is inconsistent. He tiles them as objections to the 
survey, and says, at the same time, there is no survey. 
Also, that it is incumbering the record, being in the form 
of an argument addressed to the Commissioner at Wash- 
ington. 

J. B. Howard objects to said motion because the U. S. 
Surveyor-General has no jurisdiction, as both parties rep- 
resented by Mullen & Hyde. 2d. Because said parties are 
not disclosed. 3d. Because said parties do not claim or 
show any interest in the land embraced within the survey. 
4th. Because the objections are not filed in time. 5th. Be- 
cause no party to the record, and showing any interest, has 
objected to the form of survey. And, 6th. Because the case 
is closed. 

B. S. Brooks oVgects that the matter of the Mullen & Hyde 
communication presents no ground for a continuance in 
this case. 

The motion by Messrs. Mullen & Hyde for a continuance, 
is overruled by the IT. S. Surveyor-General, and orders the 
paper and plat filed, but refuse to respond to the proceed- 
ings. To which ruling counsel excepts. 

J. B. Howard files a motion to strike out the papers filed 
by Mullen & Hyde, for the reasons on file. 

Mr. Mullen now having, by his afiGidavits, shown that he 
represents parties not entitled to appear in this case, Mr. 
Brooks objects to his filing his afiidavits, or appearing at all 
in this case, for the parties therein named. 

The Surveyor-General reserves his ruling on the matter 
of Messrs. Mullen & Hyde's affidavit, until 10 A. m, to- 



morrow, to allow Mr. Mullen to tile his autliorit}^ to appear 
in this case. 

J. W. Shanklin, attorney for S. R. Throckmorton, and 
8. L. Cutter, attorney for Edwin Gardner, and Peter Gard- 
ner, for himself, here enter their protest against the order 
of the U. S. Surveyor-General to take the testimony in the 
•case at this time, on the ground that the preliminary ques- 
tion of the validity of the survey should be first settled by 
the Commissioner General Land Office. 

Tlie Surveyor-General directs that the testimony of the 
witnesses of contestant T. 13. Valentine be first taken in 
this case. 

T. B. Valentine calls as a witness in his behalf, Candelario 
Valencia, who being duly sworn and examined by Louis 
Prince, sworn as an interpreter in this case. 

Q. 1. What is your name, residence and occupation? 
A. My name is Candelario Valencia; residence. Mission 
Dolores, which is in San Francisco. My age is 70 years, 
and occupation none. 

Q. 2. Did you know Juan Read in his lifetime, and if 
so from what time? A. Yes. I have known him since 
forty or fifty years ago. 

Q. 3. Did you know the Rancho Corte del Presidio, and 
if so, from what time? A. I served as a soldier in San 
Francisco, and had known the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio ten (10) years prior to my entering as a soldier. 

Q. 4. When did you enter service as a soldier, and at 
what point were you stationed ? A. I served as a perma- 
nent soldier at the Presidio of San Francisco for ten years 
and four months. I do not remember the year. 

Q. 5. Were you stationed there as a soldier at the time 
the Bear Flag was raised in Sonoma, in 1846? A. No. I 
was in San Francisco. 

Q. 6. How long before that had you been discharged ? 
A. About ten or eleven years. 

Q. 7. How did you know Juan Read ? What was your 
intimacy with him ? A. He w^as a nephew of my wife. 

Q. 8. Did you ever visit him at hi& Rancho Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio, while he resided there? A. Yes. I 
went to see him, during his lifetime, at the mill which he 
had on his rancho. 

Q. 9. How frequently did you visit him ? A. We were 
invited to the Rodios then every year. 

Q. 10. How long did you stay there on those occasions? 
A. From eight to fifteen days, while the Rodios lasted. 



Q. 11. Why were ^'-ou invited to the Rodios? A. We 
were invited as members of the family, to assist him in 
marking cattle. 

Q. 12. Where did you stay during those visits ? A. At 
the adobe house of Juan Read. 

Q. 13. Do you know the peninsula which fronts Angels 
Island, and is connected with the main land by a narrow 
neck ? A. I know it. It was called the Point Tiburon. 

Q. 14. At the time you speak of, during the life of 
Read, was this peninsula occupied, and if so, how ? A. It 
was occupied by Read, with cattle pastured in it. 

Q. 15. Here the official plat of the survey of the Rancho 
Corte de Madera, now in question, is shown the witness, and 
he is asked to point out the land of which he is speaking ? 
A. The point projecting into Richardson's Bay is called 
" Punta Almejas," and this point is called Point Tiburon. 
The point designated as Point Tiburon, is the tract shown 
on the plat of the official survey as "Peninsula Island." 

The Counsel for the U. 8. here objects that this is not the 
best evidence of the fact. 

Q. 16. Was any special, particular use, made of this 
Peninsula Tiburon ? A. It was occupied by cattle, which 
were taken from said peninsula to the Rodio, for the purpose 
of marking. 

Q. 17. Vyas any particular class or kind of cattle kept 
on this island ? A. There were about a hundred head of 
cattle kept there. 

Q. 18. Were the cattle on the peninsula separated in any 
way from those on the other part of the rancho? A. They 
went in and out. Some remained inside, and some went 
outside. 

Q. 19. Then I understand you that the cattle on this 
peninsula, and on the rancho, were not separated, but passed 
in and out ? 

Objected to by Mr. Cutter, as leading. 

A. Yes. 

Q. 20. Do you know the Arroyo J olon? A. 'No. 

i}. 21. Was there any fence or bars on the Tiburon, or 
causeway leading to it? A. There were none. 



Cross- Examination, 
Here adjourned for one hour, for lunch. 



OrosS' Examination . 

Q. 1. Do you understand this map, (the official plat is 
here shown to witness)? A. I understand it as it is presented 
to me. 

Q. 2. Can you read anythins: on this map ? A. Yerv 
little. 

Q. 3. Did you use your spectacles this morning when 
you testified ? A. Ko. 

Q. 4. Can you see well without your spectacles ? A. No ; 
not very well. 

Q. 5. Could 3'ou see well enough to understand the ma[> 
without your spectacles ? A. Ko ; now I can with m^^ 
spectacles. 

Q. 6. Did any person point out anything on this or a 
similar map to you, before you testified this morning ? A. 
No. 

Q. 7. Which point do you say is Point Tiburon, after 
looking at the map through your glasses ? A. Now, that I 
can see with my spectacles, I find that this is the Point of 
Tiburon, pointing to the most eastern point on the plat, and 
is marked "Point of Tiburon " on the plat, and this was 
the Potrero Tiburon connected with the main land, point- 
ing to the "Peninsula Island," shown on the official plat. 

Q. 7, repeated. A. Witness points to the whole eastern 
end of the tract embraced in the survey marked " Point 
Tiburon." 

Q. 8. Did the tide ever ebb and flow over the narrow 
strip connecting Tiburon Potrero with the main land ? 
A. The water comes up to on both sides but never passed 
over the neck. 

Q. 9. Was there any fence across that strip? A. Yes; 
there was about half way, to keep the cattle and stock in 
on the place marked " Peninsula Island." 

Q. 10. Was you ever in the Potrero Tiburon; if so^ 
how often ? A. Yes ; every year we went there for the 
purpose of taking out cattle for marking or killing them. 



Cross- Examination by S. L. Cutter. 

Q. 1. Have you had any conversation with any person 
concerning this map during recess to-day ? A. No. 

Q. 2. Have you had any conversation concerning the 
land in question to-day ? A. I have not. 



9 

Q. 3. Have you had any conversation concerning Point 
Tiburon to-day ? A. No. 

Q. 4. Has any one spoken to you concerning a fence 
across the isthmus to-day? A. ]S"o, sir. 

Q. 5. Will you point out on that map the place you des- 
ignated in your testimony this morning as Point 'f iburon ? 
A. This is Point Tiburon, and this is Potrero Tiburom 
(VV^itness points to the places designated as such on the 
official map.) 

Q. 5^ repeated. A. This, pointing to Peninsula Island^ 
belongs to Point Tiburon. 

Q. 5, repeated. A. I did not see well ; now that I have 
my spectacles on ; now, that I can see, I can point to the 
correct spot. 

Q. 6. Is what you say now derived from your knowl- 
edge of the land, or from what you see laid down on this 
map ? A^ Kow, that I see well, I say that this is the Po- 
trero, (pointing to the Peninsula Island) appertaining or be- 
longing to Point Tiburon. 

Q. 7. Where was the house in which Juan Read lived 
\n 1835 pointed out on the map with a pencil ? A. Wit- 
ness pointing to the Estero, says, here is an Estero ; the 
house w^as on the margin of the Estero. The Estero he 
designates is on the extreme south-western corner of the 
official survey in question. 

Q. 8. Was there more than one Estero near the house ? 
A. This water reaches verj^ nearly to where the house was. 
Witness pointed to the arm of the bay above the word 
^' Mount'' on the plat. 

Q. 9. Do you remember if there was one or more streams 
of fresh water near the house ? A. There was a stream 
ran up from the bay near the house. 

Q. 10. How far from the house at its nearest point? 
A. About 200 yards, more or less. The Embarcado was 
about 500 yards distant from the house, more or less. 

Q. 11. On which side of the house was the Estero— 
east or west? A. The Embarcadero was in sight. You 
could see it from the house. It was on the east side. 

Q. 12. How far north of the house did the rancho ex- 
tend tow^ard the mountain ? A. I do not know. I can 
not tell. 

Q. 13. Have you seen the place ^vhere the house stood 
in 1835, recently ? A. About three months ago. 

Q. 14. What is there at that point at this time. A. The 
•same house, and an orchards 



10 

Q. 15. Do you mean the same house that stood there in 
1835 ? A. Yes, the same house. 



Be-Direct Examination, 

Q. 1. Describe more particularly the fence that was 
across the neck of land connecting the Potrero with the 
main land ? A. About halfway from the main land to the 
peninsula. 

This question is objected to by Walter Van D^'ke, Dis- 
trict Attorney, on the s^round that they seek to include 
lands not embraced in the survey. 

Q. 2. What is this fence macle out of ? 

Same objections as to last question. 

A. The fence was made of redwood. It had an opening 
closed by bars. 

Q. 3. How far on each side of the bars did the fence 
extend ? 

Same objection. 

A. From water to water. 

Q. 4. In what year did you first see these bars there ? 
A. I do not remember. 

Q. 5. Do you remember to have seen it, at any time, 
any different during Juan Read's lifetime ? A. No, I do 
not remember. 

Q. 6. Did the fence exist there the first time you ever 
saw it ? A. Yes, Sir. 

Q. 7. Do you know the Arroyo Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio ? A. I do not. 

Q. 8. Was there an arroyo came down into the estero 
you have spoken of? A. Yes. That is the arroyo that 
comes down from the Sierra, on one side of the house. 

Q. 9. Was there a Corte Madera on that arroyo ? A. 
There was a saw-mill there. 

Q. 10. Question 9 repeated. A. Yes. The deceased 
cut timber for fences and corrals. 

Q. 11. Do you know^ the Punta de Sausal ? A. Yes. 
It is on one side of the house. 

Q. 12. How near was that sausal to the arroyo ? A. All 
along the arroyo. 

Q. 13. How near was the Punta de Sausal to the estero? 
A. I cannot tell the difference. It was not far off. 



11 



Re-Cross-Examinatmi hy J. B. Howard^ Esq. 

Q. 1. Was there a redwood forest near the house of 
Head? A. Yes. 

Q. 2. Were there redwood trees above the house, a 
little to the left, as you go from the house? A. There was 
at that time. They may have been cut down since. 

Q. 3. How far from the house were the redwood trees ? 
A. About one hundred ^^ards from the house of Read. 

his 

CANDELARIO M VALENCIA. 

mark 

This witness says he knows how to write, but his hand is 
disabled, and he signs with his mark. Commissioner. 
Here adjourned till 10 a. m. to-morrow. 



Thursday, Oct. 28, 1875. 
Met pursuant to adjournment. All present. 

Jose Ramon Valencia, a witness called by T. B. Valen- 
tine, being first duly sworn deposes and says : 

Q. 1. What is your name, age, residence, occupation ? 
A. My name, Jose Ramon Valencia ; my age is 45 ; resi- 
dence, San Rafael, Marin Co., Cal. ; occupation, farmer. 

Q. 2. When were you born, and where have you resided 
since your birth, and how long at each place respectively ? 
A. I was born in the city of San Francisco, Cal.; I was 
born in 1829 ; I have resided at the Presidio of San Fran- 
cisco till 1840, when we removed to the Mission Dolores in 
San Francisco; I lived at the Mission Dolores until 1865 ; 
I at that date removed to Marin Co., Cal, and have resided 
in said county continuously ever since said date. 

Q. 3. Did you know Juan Read in his lifetime ; when 
and how did you become acquainted with him, and what 
was the extent of your intimacy with him ? A. I knew 
Juan Read in his lifetime ; I became acquainted with him 
in 1835 or 1836 ; he was married to my aunt, Ylaria San- 
chez, at the time we were living at the Presidio. 

Q. 4. Was Juan Read at that time occupying the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. Yes ; he was. 

Q. 5. What was the extent of your intimacy with Juan 
Read ? A. I knew him well ; I was living with him at his 
rancho at times ; he often came to the Presidio and stopped 



12 

there while I Wcis living there ; I often went to his rancho, 
to the rodeos, and assisted him in marking and killing catle. 

Q. 6. Did you know the Hancho Corte Mad"fera del Pre- 
sidio; when and how did you become acquainted it, and 
what was the extent of \^our knowledge respecting it? A. 
I knew said rancho; I became acquainted with it first in 
1839 or 1840 ; I became acquainted with it by rodeoing cattle 
on it; I knew well enough to describe every part of it, 
almost. 

Q. 7. Did you know the place called Tiburon ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. 8. Where was it ? A. It was in Marin County. 

Q. 9. Point it out on the official map in contest ? A. 
The witness put his hand on the extreme eastern point of 
the survey, and moves his hand along the survey and says it 
extends up to the H.)lon, to the Corte Madera; it is called 
Corte Madera de San Pablo. 

Q. 10. Do you know a point which, at that time, Was 
known as the Punta del Tiburon ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 11. Which was it? A. It was all the point sur- 
rounded by the bay. 

Q. 12. Did you know the creek called Holon ; if so, how 
is it designated on the survey ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 13. How is it designated on this map ? A. It is 
marked on the official map "Arroyo Holon;" it runs from 
Tamalpais Mountain and discharges itself into a creek at 
the end of the Arroyo Holon. The creek goes up to Ross^ 
Landing ; this creek empties into the bay. 

Q. 14. Do you know the peninsula fronting Angel Island, 
and connected with the main land of the rancho, which is 
marked on the official map as Peninsula Island ? A. Yes, 
I know it. 

Q, 15. When and how did you become acquainted with 
it ? A. It was in 1839 or 1840. I became acquainted with 
it by puttins: cattle and horses on it for Juan Head. 

Q. 16. Was there any special use made of that tract ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 17. What use was it put to ? A. It was used to put 
in some fat cattle and some horses. 

Q. 18. Was it in any way enclosed, if so, how and by 
whom ? Yes, sir. By a fence made by Juan Read, and 
afterwards it was inclosed by myself and one of the De 
Harro family. 

Q. 19. Was the fence you speak of there when you first 
saw this piece of land — 'this peninsula ? A. Yes, sir^ 



13 

Q. 20. Where was this fence ? A. The fence I first 
saw was near the main land of the peninsula. 

Q. 21. AVhat was the means of access to the peninsula ? 
A> There were bars in this fence* 

Q. 22. When did you and the J)e Ilarro build the fence? 
Where was it, and for whom did you erect it? A. I think 
it was in 1845. It was at the narrowest point of the neck. 
The old fence had become broken, and we put it there, as it 
took less fence. We were doing the work for the interest 
of the rancho. Francisco De Harro was the mayor domo. 
He was a son of Francisco De Harro, the Alcalde. He was 
one of the twins afterwards killed in the war. 

Q. 23. By what name, if any, was this piece of land 
designated at that time? A. It was called El Potrero. 

Q" 24. What is the meaning of the word Potrero, as 
used by the Californians ? A. It means field ; an enclos- 
ure where n^ou put in stock or cattle. 

Q» 25^ Are potreros usually used for a particular class of 
cattle ? If so, what class ? A. It is used to put in some fat 
cattle that are to be killed every year. It is used to put in 
the bell-mare with the horses. Also to keep the tame cows 
when they have them. 

Q. 26. In what manner were the salt marshes bordering 
this rancho used, and by whom ? A. tt was used by Juan 
Read's stock, and for a landing on some of the creeks by 
Juan Read. 

Q. 27. Did you know the Corte Madera del San Pablo? 
If so where was that? A. It was at the creek called the 
Arroyo Hoi on. 

Q. 28. Did you know the Corte Madera del Presidio ? 
If so, where was it ? A. Yes. It is marked on this map 
Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 29. It was on that arroyo ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 30. Did you know the Punta de Sausal, lying near 
the estero, east of the house ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 31. How is it designated on the map ? A. It is 
dose to the entrance of this creek. Witness points to a 
point marked " C. M. P. 177," on the ofiicial plat. 

Q. 32. How far did that sausal extend inland, and how 
near to the arroyo ? A. It extended all along the creek, 
for a distance of, I think, a mile and a half 

Q. 33. Did it extend as much as a mile originally, when 
you first knew it ? A. It might have been as much as a 
mile. 

Q. 34. How near did that reach to the edge of the 



14 

forest of redwoods, called Corte Madera del Presidio? A. 
They were close by. 

Q. 35. Did you know a peak called "Palmas," if so, i)y 
what other name is it known ? A. It is called now ■■' Ta- 
malpais." 

Q. 36. Did you know^the remains of a Rancheria called 
"Animas," if so, where was it, w^ith respect to the honse of 
Juan Read and the creek and sausal ? A. Yes, sir; it lies 
between the house and the creek; it w^as closer to the creek 
than to the house ; the creek now washes the bank of it, 
bat it did not then in 1839 or 18 iO, but was close to it. 

Q. 37. Did yon know the Punta Caballos ; if so, by 
what name is it now kno\vn ? A. I know the point, it is in 
the Rancho Saucelito. 

Q. 38. Do you know Luui Point? A. Ko, sir. 

Q. 39. How did Point Cavallos lie with respect to Fort 
Point ? A. Directly opposite; I have not been there since 
they have been given their new names ; but Point Cavallos 
w^as directly opposite the old Spanish Fort. 

Q. 40. How was the Potrero connected with the main 
land of the Rancho ? A. By a natural causeway of sand 
and gravel. 

Q. 41. Do you know of any of that gravel having been 
taken away from there ? A. I don't know of my own 
knowledge. 

Q. 42. Was that causeway ever overflowed by the tide ? 
A. No, sir. 

Here the proceedings are suspended to hear a ruling on 
Messrs. Mullen & Hy'de's application to be heard in this 
case. 

The Surveyor- General holds that Messrs. Mullen have 
a right to appear and represent his client ; but the protest 
tiled by Messrs. Mullen & Hyde, having been filed after the 
expiration of the 90 days, the Surveyor-General rules that 
even under this circumstance, Messrs. Mullen & Hyde can 
and may appear for his clients and object to the surveyor's 
question. To which ruling counsel for claimants excepts. 

Messrs. Mullen & Hyde \vithdraw their appearance for A. 
F.De Silva, he appearing in person herein. 

Mr. J. B. Howard withdraws his appearance tor Mr. A. 
F. De Silvia, he appearing in person herein. 

Messrs. Mullen & Hyde consent to the withdrawal of 
the objections filed July 29, 1875, so far as Antonio F. De 
Silva is concerned, and Mr. De Silva insists upon his objec- 
tions herein filed in this case. May 1875. 



15 



Cross- Examination of J. R, Valencia: 

Q. 1. Bj U. S. Attorney. — Did Juan Eead have Penin- 
sula Island occupied with stock since the American occupa- 
tion? A. Yes, sir. 

(i 2. How long since ? A. Up to 1848, I was then 
mayor-domo of the rancho at that time. 

Q. 3. Has it been occupied adversely since you left 
there? A. I do not know; I left there in 1848; I don't 
know about its occupatian since I left. 

Q. 5. Did you ever see the diseno of this rancho ? A. 
No, sir. 

Q. 5. Do you know the juridical possession of this 
rancho? A. I was not there and don't know anything 
about it. 

Q. 6. Did Juan Read ever point out to you the juridical 
possession ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 7. By Mr. Cutter? AVhere did Juan Bead's house 
he occupied stand? Point it out on the map. I mean the 
old house. A. When I first went there he had a frame 
building. It was quite near — about fifteen feet — from the 
point marked Juan Bead's house on the ofiicial map. He 
then built an adobe kitchen to that, and afterwards he built 
the present adobe house. 

Q. 8. Which way did the land slope from that house ? 
A. Towards the city. Towards the bay. Towards the 
rancheria. 

Q. 9. Which direction was the rancheria from the 
house ? A. Towards the west ; between the house and 
the creek. 

Q. 10. How near were any redwoods to the rancheria? 
A. There were a few redwoods in the willows. I could 
not give the distance. It might be a half a mile or more. 

Q. 11. Do you remember the position of a gate near 
the rancheria ? A. Yes. There was a gate cross the 
lane, 

Q. 12. State if there were a clump of redwood trees 
near that gate. A. I do not recollect of any. 

Q. 13. By Mr. Van Dyke. The question 6 I intended 
to ask you was, Did Juan Bead ever point out to you the 
monuments of the juridical possession ? A. I never saw 
any. He just pointed out certain creeks as boundaries. 

Q. 14. By J. W. Shanklin. — Please to state what creeks 
he 23ointed out to you as boundaries. 



1^ 

Objected to by J. B. Howard, as being incompeteut, im- 
material, and not the best evidence. 

Objected to by Sol. A. Sharp, Esq., on same gromids. 

Question withdrawn. 

Q. 15. Where is Point Cavallos, and what is its extent ? 

Objected to for same reasons as last question. 

A. It is on the Saucelito Rancho. I don't know its 
extent. It points towarns the Presidio of San Francisco. 

Q. 16. What does the word Tiburon mean in English ? 
A. It means " Shark." 

Q. 17. Why did they call it Shark Point? A. Because 
there were plenty of sharks at that place. 

AVitness designates the place as "Haccoon Straits." 

Q. 18. Do you know of a high hill called Mount Tiburon, 
on this peninsula ? If so, point it out on the map. A. oSi o, 
sir. I don't know it by that name. 

Q. 19. Where is the high hill you speak of, and how 
far does it extend ? A. There is a ridge commencing at 
the extreme eastern point, and extending along the Tiburon 
to the black line (township line). The highest point is close 
to Station :N'o. 537. 

Q. 20. By Capt. Mullen. Do you know of a line of 
fence that formerly ran across the Point Tiburon, in 1839, 
1840, or about that time ? A. The only fence I ever saw 
was the fence across the neck of land connecting Peninsula 
Island with the main land. There was a fence built across 
the land, from one side of the marsh land to the other, in 
1858 or 1859. I do not recollect verj^ well. 

Q. 21. Do you know of any fence in that vicinity earlier 
than 1859 ? A. Ko. There was no other fence, except the 
corral, near the rodio ground. 

Q. 22. Was not there a fence earlier than 1855, and 
before 1848 ? A. No. I never saw any fence there, except 
the corral at the house, corral at the rodio ground, and the 
fence at the narrow neck connecting the potrero with the 
main land. 

He-Direct 

Q. 1. What were the boundaries of the juridical posses, 
si on, as pointed out to you by Juan Read? 

Objected to by Howard, as incompetent, irrelevant and 
immaterial. 

A. It was the creek called the " Arroyo Hoi on," another 
creek called the "Arroyo Coyote," the orders from him 
were to rodeo the cattle within these two boundaries : this 



17 

Point of Tiburon was included in tliese boundaries ; this 
Point Tiburon was surrounded b3^the bay. 

Q. 2. Did he point out to jou the boundaries on the other 
two sides ? A. Ko ; he pointed out to me these two 
creeks. 

Q. Did he point out to yon '^Raccoon Straits" as one 
of the boundaries? A. Yes; he pointed out the place 
marked '' Raccoon Straits " on the map. 

Q. By Mr. Gardner. — -Please point out the Arroyo Coy- 
ote on this map ? A It is not on this map. 

Chas. Brown is called by B. S. Brooks, and being first 
duly sworn, deposes and says : My ao:e is 61 years; resi- 
dence, San Francisco ; occupation, real estate dealer. 

Q. 1. What country are you a native of? w^hen did you 
come to California? how long- have you lived in each place 
respectively ? A. Born in ISTew York ; come to California 
in 1829; have lived in San Francisco, Cah, since 1849, con- 
tinuously ; I came to San Francisco in 1829, staid here then 
only a short time ; crossed the bay then, and lived between 
Pinole and Sonoma and San Rafael and the Read Rancho, 
different places, for seven or eight years; then came to San 
Antonio, opposite San Francisco, staid there till the fall of 
1838 ; then went to the redwoods above Redwood City, 
San Mateo Co., now called Searsville, w^here I resided till 
184:9, when I came to San Francisco and resided till 1849, 
at Mission Dolores. 

Q. 2. Did you know Juan Read in his lifetime ? A! I 
did. 

Q. 3. When and how did you become acquainted with 
him ? A. The first time I got acquainted with him was 
in 1834, at Saucelito ; I met him there when I went after 
some beef; I was working on his rancho. 

Q. 4. Did you see him afterwards ; if so, how frequently 
and how well did you become acquainted with him? A. I 
saw him afterwards very frequently ; I became intimately 
acquainted with him from that time till the time of his 
death. 

Q. 5. Did you know the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio? A. I did. 

Q. 6. When did you first become acquainted with it ? 
A. In 1834. 

Q. .7. What w^as the extent of that rancho? A. I 
worked on the rancho, and made shingles for Mr. Yount, 
then. 



18 

Q, 8. Did you become acquainted with boundaries of 
the rancho, and the natural objects within those bounda- 
ries ? A. 1 did not. 

Q. 9. When did you make the shingles, ond out of 
what? A. On the Read Rancho, out of redwood. 

Q. 10. IIow could you make shingles out of redwood, 
on the Read Rancho, without becoming acquainted with 
some of the natural objects? 

Objected to, as the witness says he does not know the 
boundaries of said rancho. 

A. I knew the trees were there, but I did not know the 
boundaries of the rancho. 

Q. 10. Question 10 repeated. A. I became acquainted 
with the timber, and the land I was on. 

Q. 11. Did you participate in any the rodios on that 
rancho? A. I was there as a looker-on, but was not en- 
gaged in the rodio myself. 

Q. 12. Did you become acquainted with a stream called 
the Corte Madera del Presidio ? 

Objected to by Mr. Howard, as being incompetent, irrele- 
vant and immaterial, and because no stream is mentioned in 
the juridical possession. 

A. I don't think I know it. I knew a Corte Madera 
de San Pablo, when I worked on the other side, for two 
years. 

Q. 13. On the other side of what? A. You go on the 
east side of the Point Tiburon, and go up the Corte Madera 
Creek. I had to go up the creek to get to the Corte 
Madera. 

Q. 14. Was the Corte Madera de San Pablo on the 
Corte Madera Creek, or on a branch leading into that? 
A. I don't know the names of the creek. I know the wood 
was up in there, and we cut there and delivered the wood 
down at the landing. 

Q. 15. What landing ? A. At the landing at the creek 
called Embarcadero, where the boat came to get the lum- 
ber. I hauled the lumber to the Embarcadero of Corte 
Madera Creek. I have not been there for (30) thirty years. 

Q. 16. Was the Corte Madera where you cut the lumber, 
or on a creek ? A. No. It was not. I had to go a mile 
for lumber, from the creek. 

Q. 17. Did you know the point called Punta de Tiburon? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 18. Where was it ? A. Opposite Angel Island. 



19 

Q. 19. Did you know the place .vhich is marked on the 
map a3 Peninsula Island ? 

Objected to by the U. S. as irrelevant and immaterial. 

A. Yes, sir. It was known as the Potrero of Point Ti- 
buron. It was all called Point Tiburon. 

Q. 20. Was that occupied at that time ? If so, and 
liow ? 

Objected to by Messrs. Mullen & Hyde, as incompetent 
and immaterial. 

A. The cattle of Juan Eead bad free access to all of 
that potrero, from 1835 to the time of his death. 

Q. 21. When was that ? A. I think in 1842 or 1843. 

Q. 22. Do you remember whether or not there was a 
fence, with bars, or gate, across the neck of this potrero? 
A. There was. 

Q. 23. Did you know an arroyo that came down near 
the house of Juan Head ? A. I do. 

Q. 23. Do you know what that was called ? A. I do 
not. 

Q. 24. Do you know if there was a Corte Madera on 
that part ? A. There was. It had a mill and — 

Objected to by Mr. Howard, as being incompetent, imma- 
terial and irrelevant. 

Q. 25. Was there a high mountain thereabouts called 
Las Palmas? A. There was a mountain there called 
Tamalpais. I never heard it called Las Palmas. It might 
have been. 

Q. 26. Did the stream you have last spoken of come 
down from that mountain ? 

Objected to by Mr. Howard, representing the U. S. Dis- 
trict Attorney. 

A. I never followed it up to its head, but I suppose it 
does. 

Q. 27. After leaving the forest of redwoods, did this 
arroyo flow through a sausal, or willow swamp ? A. It ran 
through a sausal. 

Q. 28. Into what did it empty or discharge itself? A. 
It empties Into the mud in the creek. 

Q. 29. Did it communicate with the salt water ? A. It 
ran out into salt water. 

Q. 30. Did you know the house of Juan Read ? 

Objected to for the game reason as before stated, and be- 
cause the objector calling the witness has disclaimed and 
withdrawn all objections to the western boundary line. 



20. 

A. Yes ; I know the house of Juan Read. 

Q. 31. When you last saw that house, was it in the same 
phice that you first saw it ? A. It was not in the same place, 
and it was not the same house; there was a wooden house 
facing the east ; the present adobe house, was in the course 
of construction when he died; it was about 15 feet from the 
old wooden house, which faced to the oast. 

Q. 32. Did you know an estero to the east of that house? 
A. There was an estero to the south-east of the house. 

Q. 33. Did the arroyo that you have spoken of, commu- 
nicate with that estero ? A. It did not; there was an estero 
on the south-west side. 

Q. 34. Did you know the Punta de Sausal ? A. Yes, 
sir ; the Punta de Sausal by Read's house. 

Q. 35. How did that lie, with respect to the two estero 
mentioned ? A. It la}^ almost due north from the estero 
w^hich was on the soutli-west side of the house, and distant 
about 150 yards. 

Q. 36. IIow is that point designated on the official plat ? 
A. It is marked " Willow Thicket " on the map. 

How is the point of the sausal designated, or noted on 
that map? A. I can't tell; the willows used to extend 
further down than they do now ; they extended down to the 
shell mound; there might have been a few scattering wil- 
lows down in the marsh ; the shell mound was about due 
west of the house. 

Q. 38. Did you know the remains of an ancient Indian 
rancheria called "Animas ?" A. I know an old Indian 
rancheria at this old shell mound, lying w^est of the house, 
near the creek; I did not know the name of it ; there was 
no other in that neighborhood that I knew of. 

Q. 38. Did you know an enciiiada whicli ran up between 
Point Cavallos and Tiburon? A. I knew a cove running 
up between those points ; I do not know what it is called 
now. 

Q. 39. What is it called on that map? A. I cannot 
tell ; I have not been there for 30 years. 

Q. 40. Was the causeway leading from the mainland 
to the Potrero of Tiburon ever overflowed by the sea ? 
A. i^ot so that you could not get on it ; at least I never 
saw it. 

Q. 41, Was it a natural causeway ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 42. How was the marsh land adjoining the ranch 
land occupied, and by whom ? A. It was marsh land not 



21 

occupied by anybody at that time ; it was a part and parcel 
of the rancho. 

Q. 43. Was it occupied by cattle; and if so, whose ? A. 
As far as cattle could go on it, Read's cattle occupied it. 

Q. 44. Was the potrero used for any particular kind or 
class of cattle ? 

Objected to as in^'ompetent. 

A. It was; any time they wanted to pick out any cattle 
for killing they put them in there; when the grass was good 
they left the gate open. 



Cross-examination. 

Q. 1. Do you know by whose permission, or by what 
authority, Read occupied the potrero by you spoken of ? A. 
I do not know. 

Q. 2. Please look at the official map and point out there- 
on all the land which you say was all Point Tiburon, where 
it began and where it terminated ? A. The witness points 
to the map and says : This was all included as Point Tiburon, 
(the line he draws is from station 443, across the land to 
288 ; on the opposite side the land is bounded by this line 
and Richardson's Bay, Raccoon Straits and San Francisco 
Bay, as shown by the official map.) 

Q. 3. In jour last answer, do you mean the land you 
described was called Tiburon, or Point Tiburon ? A. It 
was called Point Tiburon. 

Q. 4. Point out on the map Punta del Tiburon. A. All 
the land I pointed out was called Punta Tiburon. The 
potrero was included. I never knew that one single point 
was Point Tiburon, but that all taken together was the Point 
Tiburon. 

Q. 5. Where was the point — the extreme point ? A. 
Witness points to Station 'No. 385, at the extreme eastern 
point of the survey. Witness says : If I was going through 
Raccoon Straits, I should call the Station No. 343 and No. 
360 Point Tiburon, should I land at either of these places. 
I should call Station No. 385 the Para Punta. 

Q. 6. How far west from the embarcadero did you cut 
timber under the permission of Read, on the Corte Madera 
de San Pablo? A. A good long mile up under the foot of 
the mountain. 

Q, 7. Do you remember any sausal lying east of Read's 
house ? A. f^o, Sir. 



22 

Q. 8. Bo you know where the old corral of Juan "Read's 
was? A. It was between the two houses of John, Sr., and 
John Read, Jr. 

Q. 9. Do you know of any willows near that corral ? 
A. No. It was so long ago I can't remember. 

CHARLES BROWK. 

Here adjourned till 10 a. m. Monday, October 1st, 1875. 



Monday— Met and adjourned till Tuesday, at 10 a. m. 



Tuesday— Met and adjourned to 10 A. M. to-morrow* 



Wednesday, November 3d, 1875. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. All present. 

Messrs. Mullen & Hyde, attorneys on behalf of Hart, 
Coleman, et al., and on behalf of the United States, now ofier 
in evidence a duly certified copy of tlie original espediente 
translation and diseiio in the case of Jose M. Linientour, 
No. 549 Land Commission, together with the opinion and 
decision of said Land Commission, as tiled February 12th, 
1856, confirming said lands to said Limentour. 

Objected to by the claimants and the heirs of Juan Read, 
and by J. B. Howard, representing the United States, be- 
cause said record is incomplete, as it does not include the 
record in that case on appeal to the U. S. District Court, 
and the decision of the said Court, pronouncing the said 
claim of said Limentour to be wholly forged, fraudulent, and 
counterfeit, and wholly manufactured, subsequent to the 
acquisition, by the United States, of California. 

Objected to by Judge J. B. Southard, on the same 
grounds as stated by Mr. Howard, for claimants, and for the 
United States, and for the further reason that it is irrelevant 
and immaterial, and refers to the case of Limentour v. The 
United States, Vols. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 

Mr. Brooks' objections are reserved. 

Here adjourned till lOJ a. m. Monday, 8th inst. 



23 

"Wednesday, I^ov. 8, 1875. 
Examiyiaiion Resumed, 

Claimants' examination suspended to accommodate Mr. 
De Silva. 

Antonio F. De Silva, being first duly sworn, deposes and 
says : — I am 58 years old ; I reside on Sim's Island : have 
lived there since 1859; occupation, chicken-raiser and 
tarming. 

Q» 1. By J. B. Howard, attorney for F. De Silva. — 
Can you point out your land on the official plat of survey 
of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio? A. Yes; I can. 

Q. 2. Describe the island ? A. Witness points out the 
island between courses No. 153 and Bo. 164, and says the 
neck should be represented as marsh land. 

Q. 3. What is your title to the island ? A. United 
States patent, cat. Fo. 3866 ; recorded vol. 6, page 447 
records. General Land Office, datiid Oct. 15,1873. A copy 
of said patent is on file in this case. 

Q. 4. What is the connection with the main land ? A. 
At high tide I have to take a boat, or I will wet my legs 
sometimes to the knee, and sometimes halfway to the knee. 

Q. 5. Who claims to own the tide land between the 
island and the main land ? A. I do ; I have a deed from 
. the Tide Land Board of this State, dated August 24, 1872, 
being No, 131, 3d series. 

Q. 6. Do you know of any other title to the marsh and 
tide lands or the island ? A. No, sir. 

^ Q. 7. The deed is oftered in evidence and marked Ex- 
hibit to De Silva's Island claim, J. A. E,. 

The witness being shown the protest signed A. F. De 
8ilva, dated and filed May 21st, 1875, is asked. Is that your 
protest and signature thereto? A. Tliat is my protest and 
my signature thereto. 

Q. 8. Do you claim to own the island and the marsh 
land intervening? A. Yes, sir; I do. 

Cross- Question, 

Q. 1. What is the nature of the land that connects the 
island and the main land ? A. It is marsh land. 

Q. 2. Does this marsh land connect it with the main 
land ? A. It does. 

Q^ 3. Is this marsh land similar to the marsh land along 
the bay ? A. It is of the same character. 

ANTONIO FERREIRA DA SILVA. 



24 

Mr. Brooks concurred in the objection made by J. B. 
Ho.vard and J. B. Southard, in their objection to the exhibit 
affivcd by Messrs. Mullen & Hyde, on the 3d inst. The 
question as to the admittance of said exhibit is argued and 
submitted to the Surveyor-General. The Surveyor-Gen- 
eral : that the exhibit be admitted as filed. 

The claimants (Read heirs), here state that before the 
admission of the above exhibit by the Surveyor-General, 
the said Read heirs, by their counsel, exhibited, and showed 
and oftered to read to the Surveyor-General the final decis- 
ion of the U. S. District Court rejecting the claim of said 
Jose Y. Limentour, as being forged, frauduleut, antedated 
and counterfeit in all its parts, and referred to Hoffman's 
Reports, volume I., being reports' of land cases determined 
in the IJ. S. District Court, for the Northern District of Cal., 
by Ogden Hoifman, U. S. District Judge, :N'o. 889 to 451 
inclusive, and also volumes I, 20, 3d and 4th, of the report- 
ed cases ot" the IT. S. vs. Jose Y. Limentour, and notwith- 
standing the Surveyor-General admitted in evidence said 
forged exhibit, to which the said Read heirs except, and give 
notice that they will move the Hon. Commissioner General 
Land/Oflice to strike out the same, and to enforce the pro- 
visions of the Act of 1858, relative to the use of forged 
titles in Gil., as evidence in land cases. 11th U. S. Statutes, 
page 291, etc. 

J. B. Howard, attorney for Gushing, Riley and Barlow, 
and the United States, join in the motion and notice. 

J. B. Southard, on behalf of Wormouth, makes the same ' 
objection. 

Mullen & Hyde, on behalf of Hart, Coleman, and the 
United States, excepts, and calls attention to the fact that 
one of the objects of the introduction is not to set up or to 
establish any claim in this case against the United States, 
but for the purpose of showing, establishing, maintaining 
and defending a claim in behalf of the United- States, whose 
claim thereto Hart and Coleman recognize and respect, and 
that motion of counsel is m9,de either in ignorance of the 
law and the object of its passage, or is intended as a threat 
or intimidation, which is irrelevant. 

2d. Because it goes to show the traditions of the country, 
to the efi'ect that there was vacant land at Point Tiburon. 

R. C. Hopkins is called by B. S. Brooks, as a witness, 
and being first duly sworn, deposes and says : My age is 



25 

fifty-nine; residence, San Francisco; occupation, Clerk of 
Spanish Records^ 

Q. 1. How long have you been in charge of the Spanish 
archives in the U. S. Surveyor-General's Office? A. I 
have been constantly conversant with the Spanish archive^ 
in the office of the U. S. Surveyor-General for California, 
for the last twenty years. 

Q. 2. To what extent have you become familiar with 
the language of said archives ? A. I have such famiharity 
with the language of the archives as a man of ordinary in- 
telligence would have, who twenty years had a good knowl- 
edge of the Spanish language, and whose daily business for 
the last twenty years has been mosjtly.in connection with the 
Spanish language. 

Q. 8. Have you had occasion during that time to search 
said records, and how frequent ? A. For the last 20 years I 
have had occasion and have been constantly called upon to 
make searches in said archives. 

Q. 4. Have you during that time been called upon by 
the government to make searches through said archives for 
record evidence on particular subjects, and how often? A. 
I have. How often I cannot say, but a great many times. 

Q. 5. Did you make any such examination and report in 
regard to the Limentour claims? A. I spent nearly the 
whole of the year 1858 in making investigations in relation 
to the Limentour claims in connection with the late Hon. 
^d. M. Stanton, who was sent out by the government to ex- 
amine those claims in that year. 

Q. 6. Did you, under his direction, select from the grants 
and espedientes in the archives and arrange certain classes 
of espedientes? A, I do so. 

Q. 7. How much of the volume Jose Y. Limentour vs. 
XJ. S., archives exhibits, is your work ? A. I think the ar-- 
chive exhibits was all my work. 

Q. 8. Did you make the collection contained in the 
Land Commission Exhibits ? A. I think so. 

Q. 9. Did you perform similar services in the Pueblo of 
San Francisco ? A. I think I did. ^ 

Q. 10. In the Castilien Almaden case ? A. Yes sir ; 
I presume in those three cases I gave ^ve years of steady 
hard labor. I was also employed in the Bolton and Barron 
case. 

J. W, Shanklin, foi^ Messrs. Mullen and Hyde, objects to 
the examination on the ground that it is irrelevant. 



26 

Q. 11. Did you in the course of these investi.tyations be- 
came familiar with theLimentonr seal ? A. I did. 

Q. 12. Did you became familiar with the hand writing 
of the Mexican officials, and particularly of that of Michel^ 
torena? A. I did. 

Q. 13. Did you examine the Espediente 'No. 549 offered 
in evidence by Mullen & Hyde Nov. 3d inst, in this case, 
and admitted to-day by the U. S. Surveyor-General? A. I 
did so* 

Q. 14. Is that a genuine or fabricated espediente ? A. 
it was fabricated. 

Q. 15. What are the badges of fraud that distinguish it 
as fabricated ? A. This espediente is written upon paper 
bearing the Limentour Custom House seal. The records 
in the archives show that in Feb. 1843, there was no stamp- 
ed paper in the Department of California, and that there was 
none used till May, 1843. The Limentour grant to the City 
of San Francisco, bears date Feb. 22d, 1843, and is written 
upon paper, identical, printed heading and seal, with the 
paper on which this is written. The seal upon this paper is 
not the genuine Custom House seal. The written petition ^ 
grant and signature is that of Jose Yoes Limentour; the 
marginal w^riting or order, on the first page, is certainly in 
the hand-writing of Don Manuel Micheltorena ; but inas- 
much as I have seen a number of sheets of paper bearing the 
same seal blank, except the marginal order, written and 
signed by Micheltorena himself, I do not consider the fact 
that this marginal order, wdiich was in the hand-writing of, 
and signed by Gov. Micheltorena, is any evidence that the 
document is genuine, or made at the time it bears date. 

Q. 16. Are you acquainted with the Rancho Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio? A. lam. 

Q. 17. When and how did you become acquainted with 
it ? A. First : for the last twenty years I have been fa- 
milliar wdth the original title papers. Secondly : I have 
been twice upon the grounds during the last three years. 

Q. 18. How long have you resided in this city ? A. 
For twenty-five years ; said rancho is in sight of the city* 

19. How long have the majority of those calls, mentioned 
in the title papers, been familiar to you ? 

Objected to by Mullen, on the grouiid that this w^itnes^s 
has not testified as to the calls. I have been familiar with 
the calls mentioned in the title papers for the last twenty 
years ; I can repeat them without the record. 



27 

Q. 20. Please do so. A. The calls of possession are as 
follows : — "Commencing at the solar, situated near the skirt 
of a redwood forest, known as Palos Colorados, in a north- 
erly d rection as far as the arroyo called Holon, where there 
is another redwood strove, called the Arroyo de San Pablo, 
and from thence to the Point of Tiburon ; thence there are 
two more calls to the point of beojinning. From the point 
of the sausal, which lies near the house (east of the house); 
from that point 16 cordeles to the point of beginning." 
I will give, now, the boundaries given of the grant to Kead, 
are: — "The Mission of San Rafael and the Port of San 
Francisco." 

Q. 21. Do yon know the bay, or cove, formed by the 
Point Tiburon and Point Caballos ? A. I do. 

Q. 22. What is the meaning of the word ensenada? A. 
It means a sm ill bay or cove. 

Q. 23. How long have you known that, and by what 
name i»it called ? A. I have known it for the last 25 years ; 
I only know it by the name of Richardson's Bay; for a long 
time I did not know it by any name. 

Q, 24. Do you know the short estuary, in which that 
bay terminates? A. I know that this bay terminates in a 
Canada, which continues up to a grove of redwoods. 

Q. 25. Did you know the Corte Madera del Presidio ? 
A. I know a place where tliei'e is, or has been, a forest of 
redwoods, which I learned that in ancient times was called 
Corte M-idera del Presidio. 

Q. 26. Entering the cove between Point Tiburon and 
Point Caballos, passing up to its head and through the 
short estero, and continuing on in the same direction, follow- 
ing the Canada, how does the redwood forest you have 
spoken of, lie, with respect to the Canada ? A. My recol- 
lection of the locality is not sufficiently distinct to be able to 
answer this question accurately ; farther than that, following 
the Canada up some distance, I think you reach the red- 
wood forest ; how this forest lies, in relation to said Canada, 
I cannot answer, as my memory does not serve me. 

Q. 27. What is a caiiada 'i A. It is a narrow valley. 
It is from the word canon. 

Q. 28. What is a corte de madera ? A. It is a place 
where timber is cut. It is from corte, to cut ; madera^ 
timber. 

Q. 29. What is " cerro alto ?" A. It is " high hill." 

Q. 30. Was there not in that direction a high hill, and 



28 

how was it known ? A. There was in that direction a liio^h 
hill, which is now called ^* Tamalpais." 

Q. 31. How long have you known that? A. For ihe 
last 20 years or more. 

Q. 32, Do you know the Pueblo de San Rafael ? If sc, 
how long have you known it ? A. I know the Mission of 
San Rafael, and have known it for the last 25 years. 

Q. 33. Was there a village there when you first came to 
the country ? A. There was. 

Q. 34. How has it ever since been known, and now 
known? A. It has ever since been knowj as San Rafael. 

Q. 35. Did you know another redwood f )rest lying to 
tlie north of the one spoken of, and called Corto Madera de 
San Pablo ? A. A place has been pointed out to me as the 
spot where formerly stood a grove of redwood trees, form- 
erly called Corte Madera de San Pablo. 

Q. S<6. What do yon understand by the nieanin<j: of the 
wo I'd s: '"" por la parte del oriente termmando en la dichd^Puida 
del Ttburon?'' A. On the side of the east, terminating at 
the point, or in the Point of Tiburon. 

Q. 37. Does that convey exactness of location to a cer- 
tain point ? 

Objected to by Cutter, it being simply a matter of opinion. 

A. It doos. 

Q. 38. What is that certain point ? A. The word is La 
Punta. The Spanish word la punta means a point, sneh as 
the point of a needle. In other words, it is an imaginary 
or mathematical point. El piinto, on the other hand, means 
a place or locality. Heni-e, the word used there. Termi- 
iiando en la dicha punta, means terminating at said mathe- 
matical or imaginary Point of Tiburon. 

Q. 89. What is the signification there of the word ter- 
minal! ? A. They terminate. 

Q. 40. What is the meaning of the words hasta la Punta 
del Tiburon f A. As far as the Point of Tiburon. 

Q. 41. To what portion of Point Tiburon, wherever that 
may be, would such a course extend ? 

Objoc'el to by Cutter as immaterial. 

A. It would extend to the uttermost or extrerfie point of 
land, where it joins the water. 

Q. 42. What is the. force of the expression ''que dijeron 
ser teriiiiiio r" A. Which they said was the "terminus." 

Q. 43. In speaking of the Arroyo San Pablo, it is spoken 
of "dijeron ser lindero;" while speaking of la pun'a, the ex- 



29 

pression is "dejeron ser termino ;" what is the difference of 
the signification of those two expressions? A. The first is, 
*'they"said was the bi)undarj;" and the second is, "they said 
was the terminns." I think thej convey the same meaning. 

Q. 44. What is the force of the expression, " se continuo 
la medida, hasta k punta del TiburonV" A. It means that 
the measurement was continued as far as the point at Ti- 
buron. 

Q. 45. Well, how far is that? A. To the ultimate or ex- 
treme point, where the land and water meet. 

Counsel Mullen & Hyde move that the foregoing answer 
bo stricken out, as being incompetent. 

Q. 46. What is the significance of the expression, "y ser- 
vieiido de termino y serial decha punta?" A. It means, 
"and said point serving as a terminus and sign." 

Mullen & Hyde move to strike out last answer as incom- 
petent. 

Q. 47. What is the exact meaningof the word "senal?" 
A. Sign or mark. 

Q. 48. When did you first visit the raucho of Corte de 
Madera? A. I was on the land for the first time about 
three years since, but I have seen it from the bay many 
times during the last twenty-five years. 

Q. 49. "W hat was your object in visiting the rancho on the 
occasion of your first visit ? 

J. B. Howard objects to question on behalf of the United 
States, on the ground of immateriality. 

A. I went at the request of parties interested, to examine 
the same at the boundaries, as called for in the original title 
papers. 

Q. 50. Did you have with you any of the original title 
papers at that time? A. I did. 

Q. 51. Did you have with you the record of juridical pos- 
session? A. I had the original or a copy. 

Q. 52. Who accompanied you on that occasion? A. To 
the best of my recollection, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Jose de la 
Cruz Sanches, Dr. Lyford, Mrs. Lyford, and perhaps some 
others. 

Q. 53. In that visit, did you enter the encinada between 
Point Tiburon and Caballos? A. We did. 

Q. 54. Did you proceed up to the head of the encinada? 
A. We did, by land from Saucelito, which is situated oa 
the western shore of the encinada, a short distance inside, at 
the entrance of the same. 



go 

Tuesday, IN^ovember 9tli, 1875. 
J. R. Valencia's cross-examination resumed. 

Q. 43. Wljat position, if any, did you occupj^ on the 
Rancho Corte de Madera del Presidio, prior to 1859 ? A, 
I was then living with my aunt and John Read in 1857 and 
1858 ; I worked around the rancho. 

Q. 44. Were you on said rancho prior to 1858 ? If so, 
in what capacity ? A. I was there in 1839, '40, '41, and in 
1845, '46, up to 1849. I left there in October, 1849. 

Q. 45, Was your aunt, the wife of John Read, the 
claimant of said rancho? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 46. In what capacity were you occupied on said 
rancho during said times, if any ? A. Helping rodeo cattle, 
helping to kill cattle, and in 1846 I acted as mayor-domo of 
the rancho. 

Q. 47. Who was mayor-domo when you first went on 
this rancho? A. There was no mayor domo. 

Q. 48. Whom did you find in general charge of said 
rancho and the property thereon? A. John Read. 

Q. 49. Do you know how long thereafter he continued 
in such charge ? A. I think until he died ; I think in 
1842 or '43. ^ It might have been in 1844. 

Q. 50. By whom were you appointed mayor-domo ? 
A. By Mrs. Read. 

Q. 51. Did Mrs. Read ever point out to you any monu- 
ments on this rancho as boundary, or marking boundaries 
of the same ? A. She never pointed it out to me, but she 
told me how far she claimed. 

Q. 52. Did any one ever point out to you the monu- 
ments marking the boinidaries of said rancho ? A. I was 
shown by John Read the lines how far he claimed. 

Q. 53. Did you ever see on said rancho anj^ structures 
of masonry more than a vara high that were put as bounds 
or boundaries of said rancho? A. I only saw one. 

Q. 54. How high was that one, and describe it. A. It 
was not very high. It was a pile of rock on the top of a 
small ridge on the side of the hill Tamalpais. 

Q. 54. You state you first went to this rancho in 1839, 
and that John Read died in 1842 or 1843; during these 
times did you have any conversation with John Read in 
relation to any structures of masonry established by him, 
marking the boundaries of this ranch ? A. Only these 
natural boundaries and this pile of rocks I have just men- 
tioned, and a cross he put in on the top of Tamalpais. 



31 

Q. 55. On page 36 of your direct testimony, Answef 
jVo. 22, you state" that Francisco De Harm was the mayor- 
»tlomo of tljis rancho, and that he was the son of Francisco 
De H irro the Alcalde. How do you explain that you were 
tlie first mayor-dorao between 1*840 and 1846, and yet in 
tliis answer state that Francisco He Ilarro was mayor-domo 
in 1845? A. I never said I was mayor-domo prior to 1846. 
I went thei'o in 1846. From the time of Jolm Read's 
death in 1842, or '43, Francisco He Harro was tlie mayor- 
tjomo till he (He Ilarro) died in 1846. Then I was ap- 
pointed mayor-domo of said rancho, and continued to act 
its such to October, 1849. 

Q. 56. Please describe the length of the land (beginning 
^at Kaccoon Straits) which was called " La Panta del Tibu- 
ron." 

Olyected to by Howard, that it does not appear from the 
evidence that tliere ever was a tract of lajid call " La Punta 
del Tiburon." 

A. I cannot describe it without a map. 

Mullen & Ilj'de here show to witness the official survey 
of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, as surveyed by 
Ransom & Allardt in 1874, and question No. 56 is repeated. 

A. This is the Point of Tiburon (pointing to the ex- 
treme point of land in the survey). It runs back towards 
Taraalpais Mountain. 

Q. 57. How many varas in length, from Raccoon Straits 
und in the direction of Tamalpais Mountain, would be what 
is called La Punta del Tiburon ? 

Objected to by Howard — 

1st. It does not appear from the evidence that there is 
any place called La Punta del Tiburon, and it does appear 
that the counsel has confused " Tiburon," being the body of 
Jand with the boundaries or limits of said land. 

2d. Because it is not the best evidence, as it is shown, 
both by the official plat of survey and by the original di- 
seno, that said tract of land, designated by the counsel as the 
Point of Tiburon, is called simply Tiburon ; and the point 
is designated as the place where this land joins the Raccoon 
Straits, being a mathematical point or line. 

3d. Because it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant 
to the issue. 

4th. Because the witness is removed from the room in 
which testimony is being taken, for the purpose, as alleged 
hj counsel, of preventing the question from being fully ex- 



32 

plained and made known to liim in assisting- his under- 
standing thereof. 

5th. Mr. Brooks adds: The said witness beins^ of Mex- 
ican descent, and the English not being his mother tongue, 
it is only fair to all parties that all the counsel should see 
that he understands the meaning of the questions asked 
him. 

Mullen & Iljde here state that this witness is ordered to 
leave the room, in order to avoid having his answer dictated 
in the objection of counsel. 

A. I could not tell the number of varas. I never meas- 
ured it. 

Q. 58. Please point out on the map the length of what 
was called La Punta del Tiburon. How far did it extend 
inward or inhind ? A. The witness points to the extreme 
eastern point of the land and says, This point 1 can tell you, 
but how far it extends from said point westerly I don't know; 
I never measured it. 

Q. 59. About how far does it extend from Raccoon Straits 
inwardly; I mean the La Punta del Tiburon ? A. Just as I 
said before, I cannot say. If you ask me in miles, I could 
tell, more or less. 

Q. 60. How many miles, then, from Raccoon Straits, does 
the point called La Punta del Tiburon extend? A. It ex- 
tends from 3 to 5 miles; I know it extends over 3 miles. 
How much more I can't tell. 

Q. 61. How wide, from water to water, is what is called 
La Punta del Tiburon, and one mile distance from Raccoon 
Straits? A. It may be a Rttle over a mile in some places; 
perhaps a mile; in other places over a mile. 

Q. 62. Describe the country lying between California 
City Point and the Head of Richardson's Bay. Give a 
general idea of the face of the country ? A. It is some 
hilly, and some level. The largest portion is hilly. 

Q. 63. Please describe the land lying between Raccoon 
Straits and a line drawn from California City Point to post 
marked N'o. 272 ? A. On the California City Point side it is 
very steep. There are some little caiions running down to 
the Bay. There is a big ridge not far from the letter in red 
ink, " W," at the end of the words " T 1. NR 5 W." The 
highest place is between stations 580 and 550. From this 
ridge, on the side towards Richardson's Bay, the land is not 
so steep. There are some little flats, near the Bay. 

Q. 64. In your judgment, would what is called "La 
Punta del Tiburon" extend from Raccoon Straits, to about a 



33 

line d',)wn from <' California City Point" to Post ¥o. 272 on 
this plat, or to a line from California Cit^^ Point to a point 
between stations l^o. 242 and I^o. 243 ? 

Objected to by Howard, because the witness has designated 
the extreme point of land as Point of Tiburon, and a point is 
incapable of measurament. 

A. Starting from here it runs farther inland. It would 
go even father than that. 

Be-direct Examination, 

Q. 1. To what point inland did you consider or under- 
stand the place Tiburon to extend? A. I consider that it 
extended to the w^esterii boundary of the Rancho Corte Ma- 
deni, as surveyed, and as shown on the official plat. 

Q. 2. Where do you understand a line to terminate, meas- 
uring from Holon kasia La Panta del Tiburon sermenda de 
termino y scnal dicha punia. 

Objected to, because the call as described is incomplete, 
and the whole thereof not expressed, to wit ; the distance 
that they measured, 200 cordeles, the same being an essen- 
tial portion or part of said call. 

A. It commenced at the Arroyo Holon, and would ter- 
minate at the water at Raccoon Straits. 

Q. 3. How was the stone monument you have spoken of 
situated with respect to the place marked on this map in the 
western boundary post in stone mound marked " C. M. P." 
A. It is further west than that point, and not shown on this 
map. It is close to the Holon near Tamalpais; it is on the 
top of a ridge that comes down from Tamalpais, running 
eastwardlj^, crossing the county road. 

Q. 4. Was there pointed out to you as a boundary mark 
an oak tree near the angle of the Holon? A. The oak tree 
was not pointed out to me, but the creek and pile of rocks 
were, that I spoke of before — the creek down to the bay, 
the Holon Creek. 

Cross-examined by Mullen & Hyde : 

Q. 1. Suppose the distance from Holon "Haste la Punta 
del Tiburon serviendo de termino y serial decha punta'' of 
200 cordels, of 50 Castillian varas, should be measured along 
the line of the bay on the east, where then would be the 
end of the line of boundary of said rancho in that direction? 



34 

Objected to by Mr. Brooks as being a question of law, 
and not of Hict, it being a maxim of the law that course and 
distance yield to a call for a natural monument or object. , 

A, I don't know, I cannot tell. 

C^. 2. . AYould not the end of s^dd boundary line be at the 
end of a line of 200cordels, of oU varas each, measured from 
the Holon? 

Same objection, 

A. It would be at the oud of the 200 cordels, of 50 varas 
each. 

Bc'DirecU 

Q. 1. If the call was to run as far as the point, and that 
the point itself should serve as termino y serial, and a num- 
ber of cordels was given as the measurement, where would 
be the end of that line? A. It would be at Raccoon Straits. 

Witness points to the extreme point of land in the ofHcial 
survey on liaccoon Straits. 

Mr, Cutter moves to strike out this answer, as the witness 
has not shown himself an expert in measuring distances. 

Q. 4. Look at the diseno in tlie original espediente of 
this rancho now shown you, and say if you recognize the 
objects thereon delineated V 

Mullen & Hyde object, on the ground that said diseno 
bears upon its face evidence of having been tampered with 
in this, that the ink used in marking certain lines thereon 
is different from the ink used in the general body of the 
diseno. 

S. L. Cutter objects on the ground that the diseiio offered 
is not the diseno belonging to the papers in the claim of 
the claimants to the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, and 
that this is shown on the face of the said diseho. That the 
diseno offered is a loose paper, showing no connections with 
the espediente ]^o. 27, in connection wdth which it is 
brought forward, but bears upon its face marks that it 
belongs to other matters, and luis been altered to suit the 
supposed requirements of the espediente with which it is 
now offered; 

J. B. Howard objects to the paper presented, and to the 
witness testifying to the same, unless it is first offered as an 
exhibit, or made a part of the record, or shown to be. 

Mr. Brooks proposes to file a certified traced copy of the 
said diseno, being the diseiio in espediente l^o. 27, entitled 
" espediente sobre el paraje nombrado el Sausalito solici- 
tado per Don Juan Reid." 



85 

Mullen & Hyde interpose the same objections as those 
made by Mr. Cutter, as made on pages 98 and 99. 

A. Yes, sir. 
• Q. 25. What are the small objects marked on the 
diseiio between the figures 35 and the point ? A, It is a 
roc V there, close to the point. 

Q. 26. Wiiat point is that? A. It is what is now^ called 
Kashaw's Point. 

Q. 27» Point it out on the map of the official survey. 

Objected to by Mullen & Plyde as incompetent, and be- 
cause there is no such corresponding representi'tion on said 
otficial map, which said question assumes. 

A. Witness points to the extreme southeast point at the 
peninsular island on said map. 

Q. 28. Do you recognize on the diseiio the small oval 
object marked between the figures 1 and IH A. I do. 

Q. 29. What is that? A. Another rock; a kind of 
white rock. 

Q. 30. Where does that lie ? A. It lies on the Saucc- 
lito side. 

Q. 31. Saucelito side of what ? A. Of this peninsular 
island? J.P.VALENCIA. 

Peter Gardner moves to strike out all the testimony given 
b}^ this witness, as to the boundaries of said rancho on the 
west and easterly sides and their length and termini, as in- 
competent and being in contradiction of the record of judi- 
Kjial possession. 

Jno. B. Howard moves to strike out the testimony of Va- 
lencia, on the ground that it was signod by him without 
either being read to him or reading it over himself. 

Examination of Hopkins resumed. Continued from page 
84. 

Q. 55. What points of the rancho did you see on the 
occasion of your first visit ? A. My recollection is, that we 
went by land from Saucelito to the Read Pancli House; 
from thence to the redwood grove, to a point on the creek 
where there is the remains of a saw mill ; from this point 
\ve went, by a round-about w^ay, to the Ari^oyo Ilolon, near 
the northeastern corner of the rancho as survej^ed ; and from 
thence to the neighborhood of the southeastern extremity 
of the rancho as surveyed. In this expedition I s.iw per- 
haps nearly the whole of the rancho. 

Q. 56. In locating the calls of the grant, and the natur- 



al objects mentioned in the espediente of juridical posses- 
sion, did joQ require any aid outside of the said record '{ 

(Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, on the ground that it 
does not appear that this witness Visited said rancho in any 
official capacity, or was instructed by any official authority 
of the U. S. to visit and examine said rancho for any pur- 
pose connected with this survey.) 

A. Without oral testimony there might be some difficulty 
m locating the solar, which is called for as the point of com- 
mencement in the juridical measurement; the other points 
called for, to wit : the Corte de Madera de San Pablo, the Point 
of Tiburon, the estero and the caiiada, I think could bo as- 
certained by an inspection of the original title papers and 
an examination of the premises. 

Q. 57. Could you, unaided, find the boundary on the 
side of the port of San Francisco to the south, the cove 
.which is formed by points Tiburon and C.iballos which, 
flowing in from east to west, terminates in a short estuary, 
and a valley which follows the same direction as far as a 
wood of redwood trees ? A. I could. 

Q. 58. Could you, unaided, find the house of the ran- 
cho, the estuary east of the house which disembogues in 
said cove, the sausal near to it, the point of said sausal, and 
the arroyo flowing into the estero through the caiiada, the 
margin of the wood of high redwoods at the foot, and be- 
tween the same caiiada and some ravines which form the 
base at the high peak called Palmas ? 

Objected to by Mr. Gardner as leading. 

A. I think I could; however, the point of the sausal, 
and the margin of the wood at high redwoods, may have 
changed during the last forty years. 

Q. 59. Within what margin would these calls enable 
you to locate a place called Solar ? A. The solar referred 
to must be situated on the skirt at a redwood grove, stand- 
ing at or near the foot of a high bill or mountain. I can- 
not say how much margin this would give in making said 
location ; the calls are too general to locate the solar ex- 
actly from the title papers. 

Q. 60. Would you locate that Solar somewhere in the 
Canada between the ranch house and the foot of the 
mountain 't A. I would. 

Q. 61. If you locate it anywhere in the caiiada, and 
run north, to an arroyo called Ilolon, wdiere is found an- 
other wood of redwoods called Corte de Madera de San 



37 

Pablo, would you require any assistance in finding that 
call V A. No. 

Q. 62. Is there any uncertainty about the call of the 
" Serro Alto ?" A. I think not. 

Q. 63. What is that call now named? A. Serro, or 
mountain of '' Tamalpais." 

Q. 64. Continuing the measurement as far as the point 
of Tiburon, the said point serving as a terminus and mark, 
with the diseiio before you, and being on the ground, is 
til ere any uncertainty as to that call ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde ; 1st, because said call is 
not fully named in said question, it failing to state that the 
length of said call in said question was 200 cordels of fifty 
Castillian varas each; 2d, that the only guide for the U. S. 
Surveyor-General in this case, in making a final survey of 
this rancho, is the decree of the U. S. District Court, en- 
tered therein; and, 3d, because the said diseno of itself 
was not intended by said deed to be the only guide before 
the Survej^or-General (and therefore incompetent to be 
such for this witness) when making his final survey of this 
ranch ; 4th, because it is incompetent. 

A. I think not. 

Q. 65. Where does that line terminate, according to that 
call ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde for the same reasons as 
above set forth, and for the reason that said call has not 
been read to this witness, nor has he at this time and in 
this connection been called to it, and to the whole thereof; 
2d, incompetent until said specific call, and the whole 
thereof, is either read to this witness or until it should 
appear that this witness is fully acquainted with each and 
every part, and tlie whole of said call as named, described 
in the record of juridical possession. 

A. According to that call it would terminate at Tiburon, 
that is at the point where the land and water meet. 

Q. 66. Of what is the espediente marked " JEspedienie 
sohre el 'parage now br ado el Sausalito Solvetado por Don Juan 
Read, 27 ?" A. It is the concession to Juan Read of the 
rancho of El Corte de Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 67. Why is it entitled in this way ? A. Because, in 
the first place, Juan Read petitioned for the place of " El 
Sausalito," as is shown by the first petition in said espedi- 
ente. 

Q. 68. What was the result thereof? A. Failing, as 
set forth in his second petition, to obtain the place of " El 



Sausalito/' he asked for the place of El Corte de Madem 
del Presidio. 

Q. 69. Where does this second petition appear ? A. In 
the same espediente ahove refer^d to. 

Q. 70. Did he, witli his second petition, present a new 
diseno ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde as incompetent, and not 
the best evidence. 

A. The records seem to show that he did not. 

Q. 71. Will you please translate here the 7th page of the 
espediente refered to ? 

To the Senor General of the Territory of Alta California : 

I, Juan Read, an Irishman, before Your Honor with all 
due respect, present myself and 'say : That, since I have 
not been able to obtain the place called "El Sausalito," I 
pray you to be pleased to concede me the place at "El Corte 
do Madera del Presidio," as far as the point of Tiburon, as 
is shown by the diseiio or plan that Your Honor has in 
your possession. Wherefore, I pray Your Honor to grant 
my petition, in which I shall receive grace and favor. 

Pueblo of San Rafael, September 4th, 1834. 

JUA¥ READ. 

Marginal Order. — Monterey, September 23d, 1834. Let 
this be annexed to its antecedents. FIGUEROA. 

Q. 72. How does this tract of land appear by the diseila 
or plan which His Excellency had in his petition ? A. The 
diseno or plan referred to, is a picture showing a tract of 
land, forming a peninsula ; the extreme point of which, is 
marked *'Pta," point, written on what is represented as the 
water, and the word Tiburon, written on what is rejjresented 
by the picture as land ; the tract, as shown, is bounded to- 
tally by the waters of the bay, and on the nortliwest by a 
line drown upon said diseno through what is represented as 
a grove of timbers, at which place is written the words Corte 
de Madera. 

Q. 73. From what circumstances does it appear that 
this diseno was in his Excellency' 's possession at that time? 
A.- From the circumstance that it is found in the espediente 
belonging to the archives of the Secretary of State of the 
former Mexican Government of California. 

Q. 74. Does it appear from the espediente that a diseiio 
was presented with the original petition of Juan Read for 
*'E1 Sausalito ?" 

Objected to by J. B. Howard, because the original petir 



B9 

tion of Jiiaii Read is not in the record of testimony, as pre- 
sented to the Commissioner of the General Land Cilice, 
upon which the re-snrvej was ordered. 

Cbjected bv Mr. Mullen, becLiuse the question is ambi- 
.<ritons, no particular espcdiente beino; referred to, and be- 
cause it is not the best evidence, and further, because the 
diseno concerning which witness is called upon to testify, 
is a loose sheet of paper, not attached to any es{,)ediente 
whatever ; nor does it bear any internal evidence that it 
Was ever attached to or formed a part of any espediente. 

A. The diseno shows, besides the tract of land now 
known as the Corte de Madera del Presidio, or Read Rancho, 
another tract, situated to the west, and which is now known 
as El Sausalito. Cn tliis tract is written the words : " Ter- 
reno que solicta, Don Juan Read al otro lado del Pto de 
San Franco" — land petitioned, for by Don Juan Read, on 
the other side of the Port of San Francisco. I think, from 
this description, that this diseno was presented by Read, 
with his petition, to the Governor, for El Sausalito. The 
petition of Read for El Sausalito, sets out that he presents 
a diseno with the same. 

Q. 75. How does it appear that this is the same diseno? 
A. I think it so appears upon its face, as set forth in last 
answer. 

Q. 76. Is not the original map the work of Read him- 
self? A. I have always supposed that it was — only circum- 
stantially, however. 

Q. 77. Are not these various corrections made in the 
words used on said diseiio the corrections made by De 
llarro, to correct the spelling of the words ? A. There are 
several corrections that appear to have been made in the 
spelling of the words, and these corrections appear to have 
boen made by Franco De Ilarro. 

Q. 78, Specify those words, the original spelling and 
the corrections. A. 1st. The word found near the point, 
originally written ''Ubcrun,'' is corrected to '' Taberon." 
2d. In the words written originally "/ya de los Angeles^'" the 
•abbreviation "^a" is corrected thus, "• ysla.'' Several 
other words are not corrected by rewriting, the writing or 
spelling being simply amended. In the word spelled '^ pro- 
^idio," the spelling is not corrected. Cn a closer examina- 
tion, I find that in both cases, where the words ^' corte " are 
found, the words were originally written ^'curta,'' and the 
word Sausalito was originally written ^' SoiisolUo.'' 



40 

^ Q. 79. Do those errors indicate a native or a foreig-iier?' 
A. They indicate that the writing was originally done by a 
foreigner. 

Q. 80. Does the work on the map indicate that the same 
was made by a landsman or a sailor? A. From the fact 
that the soundings appear to be given on the map, it would 
seem to have been made by same one used to the sea. 

Q. 81. Are the soundings given in feet or fathoms? A. 
I think in fathoms. 

Q. 82. Do you know what profession Read's was ? A. 
I have understood that he was a seafaring man. 

Q. 83. How long has this map been in this espediente ? 
A. I have seen it in the espediente for the last twenty 
years ; and there is a certified trace.l copy in the files at 
the Land Commission, made, I think, in 1852 or 1853. 

Q. 84. It has been spoken of as a loose paper. Does it 
differ in this respect from other papers in the archives ? A. 
There are many other diseiios in the archives in a like 
condition. 

Q. 85. Why are they so? A. For the last twenty years 
it has constantly been necessary' to make traced copies of 
these diseiios, and to do so it is necessary to separate the 
sheets of the espedientes. 

Q. 86. How does this diseno compare with the majority 
of those on file in the archives ? 

Objected to by Mr. Gardner, on the ground that those on 
file are the best evidence. 

A. It is a more correct representation of the country 
that it purports to picture than are a majority of the disenos 
in the archives of the places designed to be represented by 
them. 

Q. 87. Can you, without uncertainty, identify the objects 
delineated thereon ? A. 1 think that I can. 

Q. 88. What are the small objects represented in front 
of the three points in the entrance to the harbor, and the 
point near the figures 35 ? A.I presume that they existed 
at the points referred to, at the date of this espediente, since 
the chister of rocks represented by the several dots near the 
figures "35," are found there at present, and I think are 
plainl}^ visible from the beach at Saucelito. 

Q. 89. Where are the rocks near figures 35 situated ? 
A. They are situated, I think, near the shore of the penin- 
sular island, that is, the western shore, near the point of 
said island. 



41 

Q. 90. Describe tlie objects delineated on this disefio, 
commencing at the south head. A. 1st, Point Lobos; 2d, 
Fort Toiu — at which there was anciently a fortification; 
a id where the fort is now situated ; to east of which was 
tlie former anchorage of vessels entering the port of Sau 
Francisco ; to the east of which is a sand point, sometimes 
called Strawberry Island; inside of which is an estuary or 
creek ; south of whicii is a figure representing the location 
of the old Presidio, still occupied by the U. S. troops ; the 
next point to the east of same point is point San Jose, on 
which there is a fortification ; the objects in front are, re- 
spectively, Alcatras, Bird Island, and Arch Rock ; the cove 
immediately east of Point San Jose forms what is now called 
]!!s'orth Beach ; following this, is I^orth Point ; to the south 
of which is the point known as Clark's Point; which is fol- 
lowed by the cove of Yerba Buena; \vhich is followed by 
liincon Point; the island to the east of which is known as 
Goat Island, or Yerba Buena, the opposite shore being 
c.dled Contra Costa. The figure on the diseno placed near 
the numbers '' 10 " and " 12," represents what is known as 
" Red Rock ;" and the six dots, situated between that rock 
and the shore, represent a reef; the point to the east, rep- 
resented on the diseno as Pta de San Pablo, is still known 
by the name of San Pablo Point ; and the two small islands 
represented as being near the same are known as " tke two 
brothers.^' 

Opposite the Point of San Pablo is found the Point of 
San Pedro; between which two points are the two islands 
described on the diseno as Yslas de Maron, which are now 
called '* the two sisters.'' 

On the upper right-hand corner of the disefio is the 
picture of a church, which shows the location of the Mission 
of San Rafael; near to which, on the coast of the bay, is the 
entrance at the San Rafael Creek, from which point, follow- 
ing the coast to the westward, is reached the point of "San 
Quentin ;" opposite to which is the representation of an 
island, which is the point at which the San Rafael steamer 
lands ; being now connected with the main laud; from which 
point, following the coast towards the northwest, is reached 
the mouth of a creek, running down from what is represented 
to be a wood or grove ; from this point, following the coast 
towards the west, the mouth of another creek is shown, which 
also flows down from what is represented on the diseno as 
a grove or wood, and along this creek is drawn a line, which 
represents on the diseno the eastern boundary of the rancho 



42 

of El Corte de Madero ; from this point, followino^ the coast 
to the south, there is a straight projection sliown on the 
diseiio, about midway- between the month of tlie creek above 
referred to and the point marked on the diseho "Pta Ti- 
buron," which midway point is^-now known as '' Cahtbrnia 
Citj^ Point." Continuing along the coast to the south, the 
place marked "Punta Tiburou" is reached, and south of 
which is situated the island known as Ysla de los Angeles. 
Between Point Tiburnou and the southwestern extremity of 
the peninsula, there is a small bay or cover, as shown upon 
the disefio ; reaching the extreme southwestern point of the 
peninsula, there is found near the same a cluster of rocks, as 
shown upon the diseno. 

From the point last referred to, following tlie coast of the 
ensenada to the north, the mouth of a creek is reached at 
the head of said ensenada, which creek is represented as 
flowing down from a grove of timber ; in point of fact, two 
creeks are shown upon the diseiio as rumiing into said en- 
senada ; one of these creeks is now known as the Arroyo 
del Corte Madero del Presidio. 

Following the eastern shore of this ensenada towards the 
south, about two-thirds of the distance from the head of the 
same and its entrance, and near the shore, is represented a 
house, marked Sausalito; following the coast, its extreme 
southern point is reached, which was formerly and now called 
Point Cabal los, the next point thereto being known by the 
name of "Lime Point." 

From this point, following the shore to the westward, ia 
reached Point Bonito, which forms the northern boundary 
of the entrance to the harbor of San Francisco. 

Besides the objects above described, tliere are represented 
on said diseiio certain lines which, I presume, are intended 
to represent boundary lines, together with figures of 
lines, etc. 

Q. 91. How does this diseiio correspond, in scale and 
topography, with the actual position of these objects on the 
ground ? A. I think that it is approximately correct, and 
that it is a very good rude picture of the tract of country 
intended to be represented thereb}^ and is one among the 
most correct diseiios found in the Spanish archives. 

Q. 92. Is the peninsula, the Potrero of Tiburon, included 
in the boundaries of the rancho on this diseno ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as it does not appear in 
this record that this witness has defined any boundaries of 
this rancho, as represented upon or deduced from this diseno; 



4B 

llic most that has been said by said witness, a presumption 
that certain lines represented on said diseno he presumes 
?ire intended to represent boundarj lines, but not necessarily 
boundary lines of this or any other rancho. 

A. I think that the picture represented by the diseno 
embraces the potrero referred to in the question. 

Q. 03. Look at the diseno, of winch a copy is filed 
herein, and the original is found in State papers, Vol. X. 
Missions, 1830 to 1846, and state what it is ? A. It is a 
map showing the. common lands of the Pueblo of San Ka- 
fael ; and is accompanied by a record found in the volume 
referred to, showing the proceedings taken in measuring and 
setting apart said kinds by the government, authorities; said 
map also shows portions of surrounding country. 

(J. 94. Is the potrero, designated the official map as 
"*' Penmsular Island,'' represented on said diseno ; if so, how? 
A. It is ; by a well defined small peninsula, connected with 
the main land by a narrow neck. 

Q. 95. Look at the disoiio, a traced copy of which is 
filed herein, and state what it is ? A. It is a copy of the 
E-ancho El Sausalito, certified to be correct by Jose Z. Fer- 
nandez, acting as Secretary of State. 

Q. 96. Please translate certificate endorsed thereon. A. 
I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Departmental Junta of 
the Californias, temporarily incharged with the office of the 
Secretary of State, certify that the foregoing plan or map 
is faithfully taken from its original, which is found in the 
respective espediente, upon which was made the concession, 
given by the government to the interested party, and the 
vapproval of the Most Excellent Junta, which is found in the 
said office of the Secretary, of which I am temporarily in 
charo-e. In witness whereof, I give the present certificate 
in Monterey, on the 20th of October, 1840. 

JOSE Z. FERJSTAi^DEZ. 

Q. 97. Does the said potrero appear on said diseno ; and 
if so, how ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde as immaterial. 

A. It does — as a small peninsula, connected with the 
main land by a narrow neck — that is, the main land de- 
scribed on said diseno as " Tiburon." 

Q. 98. Look at the diseno in the espediente of Saucelito, 
of which a certified copy is tiled herein, and say if the said 
potrero is represented thereon, and if so, how ? A. It is ; 
as a small peninsula connected with the main land of Tibu- 
ron by a narrow neck. 



44 

Q. 99. Is Tamalpais Monntaiii represented on tlie certi- 
fied copy, and what is il there called? A. It is, and is 
called Cerro de San Rafael. 

Q. 100. Do yon find on that map the name of Tanrial- 
pais ; and if so, to w]]at is it applied ? A. I find the name 
of Tamalpais on said map ; it is placed at or near a spot 
m.arked by a small circle, at the southwestern skirt, or on 
the southwestern slope of the Cerro de San Rafael, as 
marked on said diseiio ; what this small circle indicates, I 
do not know. 

Q. 101. Did you locate the call for the rancheria '"^ An- 
imas," or the remains of a rancheria called " Resgumos de 
las Animas ? A. I do not think that I did so, as to be able 
now to identify said place on the diseiio. 

Q. 102. Do you find the same name on either of the 
other diseiios — and if so, to what is it applied ? A. I find 
it on the map of the common lands at the pueblo of San 
Rafael; on which map the place '- Aniinas,'' is located, on 
the southern boundary of the lands of said pueblo, as 
shown on said map referred to, at a point nearly north of 
the point shown upon said diseiio, as the southwestern ex- 
tremity at Tiburon, and on the eastern slope of what is 
designed to represent a high hill or peak. 

Q. 103. Did you see any remains, or indications, such 
as are sometimes called remains of an Indian rancheria ; if 
so, where ? A. I saw such remains, but cannot now desig- 
nate, on the map, the place; that is, I saw shell mounds, 
which are sometimes called remains of Indian rancherias. 

Q. 104. Did you visit this rancho again; and if so, 
when and with whom? A. I did; about tw^o years since, 
with Col. Leander Ransom and Mr. Valentine — Mr. Thomas 
B. Valentine. 

Q. 105. For what purpose ? A. For the purpose par- 
ticularly of examining the northern boundary of the rancho, 
as called for in the record of juridical possession. 

Q. 106. In what capacity ? A. I went at the request of 
the parties in interest, and also at the request of Col. Ran- 
som. 

Q. 107. In what capacity and for what purpose did Col. 
Ransom go there on that occasion ? A. He went as a U. S. 
Deputy-Surveyor, for the purpose of making a preliminary 
examination of the tract to be surveyed. 

Q. 108. Did you at any time visit the said ground in 
company with anv of the parties to the juridical possession? 
A. I did. 



45 

Question 108 objected to bj Mullen & Hyde as incam- 
p3tent. 

Q. 109. When and with whom ? 

Same objection as above. 

A. On the occasion of my first visit, with Jose de la Cruz 
Sanchez, one of the parties present at the giving of juridi- 
cal possession. 

Q. 110. Did he accompany you in your examination of 
the ground? 

Objected to as incompetent and immaterial, by Mullen & 
Hyde, it appearing that this witness visited the premises in 
a private capacity, and at the request simply of some parties 
in interest, without naming these parties, and is irrelevant. 

A. He did. 

Q. 111. Did he point out to you the extent of the juri- 
dical possession on the east, south and southwest, and if so, 
what was it? 

Same objection, bv Mullen & Hyde, as made to question 
110. 

A. He did ; on the east, the Arroyo Holon and the bay; 
on the south, the Point Tiburon, and" on the southwest, the 
ensenada and the creek. 

Q. 112. How does the extreme line of the salt marsh 
correspond with the line of ordinary high water ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, because it is not shown 
that this witness is an expert on such matters, or as a sur- 
veyor, or that he visited said rancho for the purpose of mak- 
ing such examinations, or that while there he made such 
examinations. 

A. I think, from my general knowledge of such matters, 
that the exterior line of the salt marsh corresponds approx- 
imately with the line of ordinary high water; however, I 
did not make an examination of this question in this case. 

Q. 113. bo you know what has been the effect of hy- 
draulic mining upon the rivers of California ? 

Objected to as immaterial by Mullen & Hyde, and in- 
definite. 

A, I have understood, and believe it has been, to cause 
the channels of the rivers to be to some extent filled up; 
and I know that the water from this cause has become 
charged with mud, which I presume is deposited somewhere 
before the waters of the rivers enter the ocean. 

Q. 114. Do you know what effect this cause has had upon 
the marsh and tule lands on the Bay of San Francisco ? 



46 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde as irrelevant, as it d^aei^ 
not appear that any of the calls of this rancho, as recorded 
in the record of juridical measurement, were measured to or 
bordered on any tule or marsh' lands of the Bay of San 
Francisco. 

A. From personal observation, no. 

Q. 115. As a scientific fact? 

Objected to, as not calling for the best evidence. 

A. From my knowledge of the physical laws of nature^ 
I think that the effect would be to fill up such places on the 
shores, where the currents would naturally cause such de- 
posits to be made. 

Cross-Examination by Mullen ^ Hyde, 

Q. 116. What official position do you rww fill under the 
Government of the United States ? A. I am not now in the 
employment of the Government. 

Q. 117. Give the date when you first became acquainted 
with the land itself, now called Rancho del Corte de Ma- 
dera del Presidio. A. I was first on the land about three 
years since. 

Q. 118. Had you,- prior to said date, any knowledge of 
the boundary lines on the ground, or the calls of juridical 
possession on the ground of said rancho? A. I liad not; 
the only knowledge I had was acquired from an examina- 
tion of the original title papers. 

Q. 119. You state, that you have been familiar with the 
calls of the boundaries of this rancho for the last 20 years ; 
I will now read you in Spanish the first call, as set forth in 
the record of the juridical possession at said rancho : " Pie- 
ron principio a dha. medida desde el solar que mora a la. 
parte del poniente ; y puestos a la falda y pie de las lomas 
que quedan a dho. rumbo y a orillas del monte de Palos Co- 
lorados llamado el Corte de Madera del Presidio ; se dio 
principio a dha. medida, y caminando de sur a norte, se 
medieron hta. un arroyo llamado Holom, donde se halla 
otro monte de palos colorados que llanian Corte de Madera 
de San Pablo, noventa cordeles, de euarenta varas, donde el 
interesado fijando un punto conocido por senal, dijo que alii 
pondria una mojonera." What is the meaning in English 
of the words "y caminando de sur a norte se medieron hta. 
un arroyo llamado Holom, donde se halla otro monte de pa- 
los colorados que llaman Corte de Madera de San Pablo^ 
noventa cordeles, de ciucuenta vara&," as set forth in the 



4T 

said call ? A. The portion of Spanish last above quoted, 
^eans : "and proceeding* from south to north, the measure- 
ment was made as far as the arroyo called Ilolom, when there 
IS found another wood of redwoods, called Corte de Madera 
«de San Pablo, ninety cords, of fifty varas each." 

Q. 120. What then was the length of this first call of the 
.juridical call of the juridical possession of this rancho ? A. 
Ninety cords of fifty varas each. 

Q. 121. What is the meaning in English of the following 
words in Spanish : " donde el interesado, fi'jando un punto 
Hionocido por serial ?" A. Where the interested part}', 
fixing a known point as a sign. 

Q. 122. What is the meaning in English of the follow- 
ing words in Spanish : " dijo que alli pondria una mojonera ?" 
A. And he said that he would place at that point a monu^ 
ment, or lund mark. 

Q. 123. At what point was that at which that monument 
was to be placed ? A. At the end of the line, as above 
described. 

Q. 124. Is your last answer expressed by and included 
in the Spanish word "alli," as written above? A. It is. 

Q. 125. W^ould not a line of measurement of this rancho, 
therefore, be a line drawn from the solar going northwardly 
and in length ninety cords of fifty varas each, to a point 
where the interested party fixed a known point as a sign 
on the Arroyo Holon, and at which point a monument or 
land mark was promised to be placed by the party in in- 
terest ? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as being a question of law, and 
not leading to elucidate any issue of fact in this case. 

A. 1 think that the point at which the sign was placed by 
the interested party, as the place the monument was to be 
placed, would designate the terminus of the first measure- 
ment above referred to. 

Q. 126. What was the object, under the Spanish cus- 
toms in California, of establishing mojoneras at the ends of 
lines of measurements when giving juridical possessions of 
ranchos, and which fact is so often referred to in the archives 
of this office? A. For the purpose of segregating the land 
granted from the public domain, and to establish the bound- 
aries of the grantee with his colindantes. 

Q. 127. Explain how the establishment, at a well-known 
point, of a monument, say, for instance, of masonry, would 
be the establishing a boundary of a rancho with a colin- 
•dante ? A. Practically, there would be no necessity for the 



is 

establishment of an artificial monument of masonry at a 
tvell-knoivn point to fix a boundary with a colinclante. 

Q. 128. You say that the word '' punta " means point; 
does it not also mean headland' or promontory, and is it not 
often used in California, as, for instance, Punta delosReys ? 
A. It is impossible to conceive of a point, wdien used in the 
sense above referred to, except in connection with some 
matter: thus, w^e say, the point of a needle, the point of a 
sword, &c. ; and so in all cases in which it is used: thus, 
we say, the point of a headland, cape, &c. ; the term is often 
applied to headkihds in all parts of the world. 

Q. 129. AYhat is the meaning in Eng-lish of the words 
in Spanish, '-' liasta elfin de la 'paaiaf A. It mean-?, "to 
the end of the point." 

Q. 130. Assnmino: that the word '^ punta,'" as used in 
this case when the words "punta del taburon '' are used, if 
it was the intention of the measurers of the Rancho of Corto 
de Madera del Presidio, in measuring from the Arroyo 
Holon, to go to the end of the headland or promontory of 
Tiburon, would they i^oi have used either the words " Jiasta 
elfin de la Panta del 7'iburon,'' or ^ome words similar thereto, 
and would they have ceased their measurements before 
reaching said point, and, if they had done so, wxnild not so 
have expressed it ? A. I do not think that in making such 
measurement the words " hasta elfin de la Punta del Tiburon " 
would necessarily, or should be used ; and, supposing the 
line to have been exactly measured, then, if the measure- 
ment stopped short of the point called for, the discrepancy 
between the measurement and the point called for should be 
explained. 

Q. 131. What do you mean hy ^' exactly measured^' as 
by you used in the foregoing answer? A. I mean being 
carefully measured by a surveyor's chain or cord, or by 
triangnlation. 

Q. 132. Suppose that in this case the measurers of the 
Rancho of '' Corte de Madera del Presidio," in going from 
the Arroyo Holon southwardly, should, have exactly mea- 
sured two hundred cordeles of fifty varas each, would it 
have been necessary to establish at the end of said line, and 
place there a corresponding artificial monument, say of 
masonry, if a well-known point marked there the end of 
such line of measurement as a mojonera, according to your 
own theory, as expressed on ]3age 132 ? A. Practically, it 
would not have been necessary. 



49 

Q. 133. Please look at the official map, made from the 
Ransom Alai dt survey, of September and October, 1873, 
and June, 187-1, and state whether Richardson's Bay is not 
formed by tlie headland of Tiburon and headland of Ca- 
bal lo.-', with the main land. A. It is. 

Q. 138. From your long and intimate familiarity with 
the custom of the Mexican Government in making grants of 
land in California, and especially to persons therein of for- 
eign birth, does it a;)pear thut said government made grants 
of land at prominent headlands or points, of value for mili- 
tary purposes, especially in and around the Bay of San 
Francisco, having no reference to this rancho (Corte de Ma- 
dera) ? A. I find the grant made to Richardson of El Sau- 
salito, who was a naturalized foreigner. I don't now think 
of any other made to foreigners of lands embracing prom- 
inent points on the bay of San Francisco. Angel Island, 
situated opposite Point Tiburon, was granted to Antonio Ma. 
Osio, who was a Mexican citizen, which was, however, re 
jected by the courts of the United States. 

Q. 135. What is the meaning, in FiUglish, of the Spanish 
words : '* C-)rte de Madera del Presidio ?" A. The place of 
timber cutting of the presi<iio. 

Q. 136. What presidio do you thiid^ was referred to in 
this name ? A. The presidio of San Francisco. I think 
the presidio occupied the place now occupied by the U. S. 
troops, which is near Fort Point, and marked presidio, in 
the diseno referred to in my testimony. 

Q. 137. It appears in evidence in this case that the pe- 
ninsula or head land, represented on the official plat and ex- 
tending northwestwardly towards the figures and letters in 
red ink " T. 1, K R. 6 W," is now, and for a long time 
prior to this date, was called Tiburon ; and that the place 
called Corte de Madera del Presidio has been fixed by wit- 
nesses in this case as being near the Arroyo del Corte de 
Madera; do you know of any reason why the applicant Read, 
in this case, in makino: his petition for a grant, should de- 
scribe it as Corte de Madera del Presidio, in preference to 
calling it Rancho de Tiburon ? A. The only reason that I 
can give, is that the ''Corte de Madera" w^as probably a 
more noted place than Tiburon, since, from early times it 
was the ])lace from whence supplies of timber were received 
for the use of the presidio and other places. 

Q. 138. Was it not the custom in California for peti- 
tioners for land to describe or name the same, either accord- 
ing to the special names they bore, at the date of the peti- 



50 

tidn, or arising from the uses or purposes to \vl]ieli snid 
places were appropriated by the petitioners at tlie date of 
the petition ? A. The ranchos petitioned for, when not 
named after some saint, generally took their names from 
some use, legend, or circumstance connected therewith. 

Q. 139. Is there any timber at the present time grow- 
ing on the place called Tiburon, or are there any evidences 
that any timber has grown on said place; and by Tiburon 
I mean the headland or peninsula heretofore spoken of; 
and by timber I mean madera, or building material. A. 
I do not think that there is any building timber found 
upon the southern portion of the tract referred to as Tibu- 
ron, but I have never examined the place to ascertain the 
fact in relation thereto. 

Q. 140. What is the force of the expression, "Se con- 
tinuo la mededa hta la punta del Taboron, I se mederon 
doscientos Cordeles if" A. It means "The measurement 
was continued as far as the point of Tiburon, and there 
were measured two hundred cords. 

Q. 140. Supposing each cord was fifty varas in length, 
what would be the length of the line as mentioned in the 
second call of the Juridical possession in the case of this 
rancho? A. Ten thousand varas would be the length of 
the call of 200 cords. 

Q. 141. What would be the length in varas of the sec- 
ond line of measurement, as measured by those who gave 
juridical possession of this rancho, as set forth in the record 
of the juridical measurement thereof? A. The second! 
line, as called for by the measurement, is 10,000 varas. 

Q. 142. riease examine the original record of juridical 
possession and state whether the said measures placed or 
promised to place at the end of said line of measurement a 
land mark. A.^ They did not place or promise to place at 
the end of said line a land-mark ; but they said that said 
point should serve as a terminus and sign. 

Q. 143. What is the meaning in EngUsh of the words 
in Spanish, " Ofiecio poner alii la correspondente mojo- 
nera?" A. He offered to place there the corresponding 
land mark or monument. 

Q. 144. Does not the word thei-e mean the place where 
the measurers terminated or ended the measurement of the 
line at measurement of ten thousand varas in length, and 
extending southwardly from the point on the Ilolon, where 
they promised to place the first land-mark, at the end of 
the first line of measurement ? A. The measurers, or the 



51 

interestecl parties, doubtless offered to place the laiKl-mark 
"at a point which they considered as the southern boundary 
■of ihe land to be measured. 

• Q. 145. Suppose that there la}- to the east of the Arroyo 
of Ilolon, a body of Jlrm land, say of the extent often 
miles to the eastward ; and suppose that there was an ex- 
tent of firm land south of the Ilolon, and for twenty miles, 
^nd out of which the rancho of Corte de Madera del Presi- 
dio was to be carved, would not, in that case, be the ends of 
the calls in this record of juridical possession, be at the ends 
■of the lines, where the lines of measurement terminated ? 
A. They certainly would, unless there were some promi- 
nent points called for as land-marks, and as boundaries, in 
which case the certain/A/ of the landmarks would control 
'uncertain measurements. 

Q. 146. What is the meaning in English of the Spanish 
word "del ?" A. It means " of the," being a combination 
of the preposition " de" (of) and the article '-el " (the). 

Q. 147. What then do you understand the translation in 
English to be of tlie words: '-'la puata del tiburonf A. 
They mean ^' the point of the Tiburon.'' 

Q. 148. Are you acquainted with a Spanish dictionary 
oompiled by Mariano Velascpiez, commonly known as the 
Dictionary of Velasquez ? A. I have some acquaintance with 
said dictionary. 

Q. 149. Is it recognized as one of the standard authori- 
ties for the purposes of translation ? A. I think it is in gen- 
eral use for such purpose. 

Q. 150. Will you please turn to a copy of said diction- 
ary, and read the first three defiuitionsof the word '•'- ])untaP' 
A. 1st, Point, the sharp end of an instrument ; 2d, extremity 
of anything which terminates in an angle; top, head, sum- 
mit ; 8d, Point, headland, promontory. 

Q. 15L Please look at the new dictionary of the Span- 
ish language, published by the Spanish Academy, 3d edi- 
tion, as annotated by Don Vicente Salva, and write in Span- 
ish the words there given as a definition of the word punta, 
beginning with the word " Un pedazo," and ending with 
the word " promontorium," and give us your translation in 
English. A. Un pedazo de tierra que rea angostando y en- 
trando dentro del mer, '' promontoriiini/' the translation of 
which is : "A piece of land which goes on narrowing and 
entering into the sea." 

Q. 152. How does the dictionary rank as an authority 
for the meaning of words ? I refer to the last dictionary 



52 

from wliicli you have read — that is, the cTietioiiary of the 
Spanish Acafleraj. A, It is considered as a standard work. 

Mr. Valentine objects to qnestion lol, reserving the rea- 
sons, to be given by his attorney, Mr. Brooks. 

Q. 153. In the light of the authorities from which you 
have read, would not the words "/a Punta del Tiburon " be 
also translated by the words in English as follows : "the top 
of the tiburon ? A. Taking the definition of the words '' la 
punta," as given by the dictionary of the Spanish Academy, 
I think not. 

Q. 154. Taking the definition of the words, as given by 
Velasquez, would not the words '^ la Punta del Tthn.ron " be 
translated into English by the words " the top of the Tiburon f 
A. I think not. 

Q. 155. Taking the definition of the words " la punta," 
as given by Velasquez, would not the words la Punta del 
Tiburon be also translated into English by the words, the 
promontory of the Tiburon ? A. It might be so translated ; 
but if so, I do not think that it would convey the meaning 
intended to be given said words by the writer thereof. 

Q. 156. Taking the same words, aa given by the same 
authority, would they not be translated into English by the 
words, the headland of the Tiburon ? A. If so translated, it, 
would not be correct. It might be translated the point of 
the headland — that is, to correctly convey the meaning of 
the writer. 

Q. 157. Please look at diagram or plat of the rancho of 
'^ Corte de Madera del Presidio^'' which is attached to the 
field notes of Leander Kansom, of November and December, 
1873, which is marked in blue pencil " 383," and also 
marked in red ink ''including the marsh land,'' and upon 
which is topographically represented a place marked 
" Mount Tiburon.'' Please state if said measurers of Corte 
de Madera del Presidio, in measuring a line from the Ilolon 
of 200 cordeles of fifty varas each, should have terminated 
their measurement at, or near the foot or summit of said 
Mount Tiburon, would not such fact have been expressed 
by the words, " hasta la punta del IWuron, y sirviendo de 
termino y senat dicha punta V 

Objected to by J. B. Howard, for the U. S., and the U. 
S. District Attorney, on the ground that the field notes 
referred to are not filed in the case. 2d. That the plat 
attached to said field note refers to a survey made in October, 
1873, whereas the field notes refer to a survey made in 
N"ovember and December, 1873 ; said plat excluding the 



53 

marsh lands, and said field notes including the marsh lands; 
and because said papers, as exhibits, arj not offered, and are 
immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent. 

A. I think not. 

Q. 158. Please look at same map and state whether yoa 
can indicate thereon, and if so, please do so, a line which, 
drawn from the Arroyo Holon, represented on said diagram, 
and extending southerly, " hasta la Panta del 2'lburon,'' 
would measure 10,000 Castillan varas, taking as your unit of 
measure a surveyor's chain, which is 23.73 varas long, at or 
near what point on said diagram would the end of such line 
reach ? A. By referring to said map, and applying thereto 
a scale, I find that a line drawn from the Holon southerly 
10,000 varas would not reach " hasta la Panta del Tiburon " 
(as far as the Point of the Tiburon), but would terminate 
short of said point, and near a place marked on the diugram 
referred to, ''Ml. Tiburon:' 

Same objection by Air. Howard, for the U. S., as to ques- 
tion 157. 

Q. 159. Placing youi'self on the official plat of the survey 
of the Rancho of Oorte de Madera del Presidio, and a place 
marked Post 480 thereon, what would a line, extending 
from said point to the west, and 94 cordeles of 50 varas each 
in length, reach ? A. Ninety-four cordeles measured to the 
west, from Post 480, would reach a point in the bay, a little 
to the south of Strawberry Point. 

Q. 160. Taking the first map referred to and placing 
yourself at a place marked thereon " Mount Taboroii^'' and 
measuring the same number of cordeles, to-wit, 94 of 50 
varas each, and measuring w^estwardly towards the lieud of 
the " estero," which is near the base marked "House of 
John Read," and represented east of said house, and state 
where on said ranch the end of said measurement would 
terminate ? 

Objected to by Mr. Howard for the U. S. and pre- 
emption claimants, on the ground that the natural monu- 
ment being established as Point Tiburon, and the point ot 
the Sausal, courses and distances are subordinate, and the 
question immaterial. 

A. Looking at tlie first map referred to, and applying a 
scale thereto, I find that a line measured westwardly from 
the point on said map marked '' 31ount Taboron,^' a distance 
of 4,700 varas, in the direction of the point on said map 
marked '^Juan Bead's adobe house,'' ends at a point on said 
map, between B and E, wdiich point is about teu chains 



H 

short of the point on said map marked " Juan Head's adobe 
hov^eJ' 

Q. 161, It has been state<l in evidence by a witness \\V 
this case, who has known the the same lor thirty-tive years^ 
that Tibnron, or the place Tiburon, to the western bound- 
ary of the official plat, Kow will you translate into En- 
glish the Spanish words, ''Curie de Madera del Presidio f* 
A, The woi'ds referre;! to mean in English, «The timber 
cutting of the Presidio/' 

Q. 162. How far distant from Racoon Straits is there 
any timber growing at the present time on the land in 
qiestio i ? A, I cann(»t say, 

Q, 163. What particular kind of timl>er is referred to in 
the title papers ol this casij ? A, Redwood timber. 

Q, 164. What is the oiKeial name of the ranch that Juan 
Read peti[ione<l for in this case — or the land that he peti- 
tioned fbr ? A, <■' El Corte de Madera del Presidio/' 

Q, 165, You state, that the ranches, when petitioned foi% 
generally took their names from some use, legend or cir- 
cumstance connected therewith, when not named afiersome 
saint ; do you not suppose that this particular rancho derived 
its name from the jmrticular use to which it was appropriated, 
or to its contiguity to lands where timber-cutting was car- 
ried on ? A, I have in my answer to a former question 
stated that I presumed that the rancho in question derived 
its name from the place at which timber was cut for the use 
of the Presidio, the Mission Dolores and other places, 

Q, 166, Assuming to be true, as has been stated in 
evidence in this case, that alt the land represented on the 
official plat, from Raccoon Straits to its western boundary 
was called Tiburon; and assuming to be true, that part of 
s:iid-trac^ was called "Corte de Madera," in this pe:ition, 
would the entire tract called Tiburon have been granted by 
the Mexican Government, or only the particular i>lace called 
Corte de Madera ? A. It would depend upon the descrip- 
tive calls of the title papers, 

Q. 167. Are you acquainted with a place on the point of 
land projecting into the Bay of San Francisco, and laying to 
the south and east of a straight line drawn from California 
City Point, as represented on the otiicial map, to post No. 272 
thereon, and called, or named on the diagram attached to 
Ransom's tield notes " Mount Tiburon f A, I do not now 
remember the location of said point, I heard of such a place, 
and may have seen it, but I caunot give its exact locality. 

Q. 168. Assuming that there is on said point on the 



55 

ground such a place as Mount Tiburon, and that the top 
thereof, as repi'esented on the Ransom diagnnfi, is correctly 
located, and that its position on said diagram is identical 
with the plafe marked Loma Alta, as deliniated on di- 
sofio in Exhibit "X. Y. Z.;" and supposing that the me^^s- 
urers, when terminating the measurement of the second 
juridical call, terminated the same at the extremity of Mount 
Tiburon, would or would not such fact be expressed in the 
use of the words "hasta la punta del Tiburon?" A. I 
think not. 

Q. 169. If the diseno in this case had not been found 
with the papers in the case, please state whether said diseno 
bears any internal evidence of its pertaining to this case 
more than to any other case ? A. It applies as well, or bet- 
ter to the Kancho of Saucelito than it does to this case ; but 
it is manifest j^^i^ se that it is a representation of one of the^e 
ranch OS, or both, as it is. 

Q. 170. Is it not also a fair representation of the head- 
lands at the entrance of the Harbor of San Francisco, and 
certain points and islands in the bay of same ? A. It is. 

Q. 171. To this extent, might it not be regarded as a 
rough nautical chart, especially taken in connection with the 
figures thereon representing fathoms ? A. I think not, be- 
cause I find on the diagram the words "tereno que solic^ta 
Don Juan Read al otro lado del Pto. de San Francesco." 

Q. 172. Did you ever visit this rancho in any official 
position, under the authority of the United States? A. I 
did not. 

Q. 173. Have you any knowledge or information as to 
who made or compiled the body of the diserio in this case? 
A. I have no positive knowledge ; nothing more than a 
conjecture. 

Q. 174. I call your attention to question 94 of your direct 
answer thereto; please state whether the diseno, which pur- 
ports to be the diseno in this case, or had you reference to 
the diseno in some other case? A. I referred to the diseno 
at the Pueblo of San Rafael and the diseno in the Saucelito, 
and not to the diseno in this case. 

Q. 175. You state, in answer to question 109, that you 
visited this rancho with Jose de la Cruz Sanchez; is said 
mau now living ? A. I understand that he is. 

Q. 176. Was he related to John Read, or to his family, 
in any manner? A. I think he was the brother of Mrs. 
Read, widow of John Read. 

Q. 177. Do you know if he has any claim or any interest 
in. any part of this rancho ? A. I do not know. 



56 

Mullen & Hyde move that all the questions and answers 
on page 125, from question 108 to question 112, be striekeii 
out, as incompetent. 

Question by Mr. Shanklin : 

Q. 178. From your knowledge of juridical measurements, 
set forth in thevarious papers in this office in relation to the 
measurements of lands, have you found that the direct line 
of measurement between any two points, such as in theEead 
grant, from the "Solar" to the "Holon," and from the 
Holon to " La punta del Tiburon,'^ is used to designate the 
boundary line of the rancho, or that the measurement was 
niL'rely intended to mark the extremities? 

Mr. Howard, for the United States, requests counsel to 
state if the witness is being examined as an expert. 

Counsel answers that this witness has been called on be- 
half of the Read heirs, on account of his acquaintance with 
the records of the office and his acquaintance with the Span- 
ish language, and he has been questioned in relation to the 
juridical measurement of the Read Rancho, in direct ex- 
amination; and for the purpose of cross-examination I have 
asked this question, to test his knowledge in construingjuri- 
dical measument, as customarily made by the Spaniards, 
and as containino^ the intention of such measurements. 

A. The manner in which juridical surveys were to be 
made under the Spanish laws, and how tlie records of such 
surveys were to be made, is laid down and fully explained 
in a work entitled " Medidas de Terras y Aqaas^^' compiled 
by one Gal van. 

The instructions given in this work for making a survey 
of a rancho or tract of land are : To take some interior spot 
as an initial point, from which lines were run to the four 
cardinal points, the distance required, at the termini of which 
lines land marks were placed; this having been done, the 
exterior boundaries were to be run, making a square or ob- 
long, or such other figure as the topography of the country 
might require. 

In making juridical measurements of lands in California, 
but little regard appears to have been given to the rules laid 
down by Gal van, save in the manner of making up the 
records of such measurements. In fact, the measurements 
of lands in this country, as shown by the field notes of the 
same, have been made in almost any manner — sometimes, 
by measuring a line for the length, and another for the 
width of the tract, by which an estimation at the area was 



57 

made ; sometimes, two lines were measured, ona on each 
side. Always the measiiiements were carelessly made, and 
hence incorrectly; so that as to course and distance, nothing 
can be more uncertain than the courses and distances given 
in the field notes of juridical surveys, as executed in Cali- 
ibrnia, during the time of the Mexican Government; so 
that it is impossible to deduce any certain rule or custom, 
as practiced by the Mexicans, in giving juridical possession 
of ranclios in California. In making these measurements, 
the line of measurement was not always run upon the boun- 
dary of the rancho, or designed to represent the same. 

Q. 1T8. Please to look'at the diseno of the Pueblo of 
San Ralael, found in Vol. 10 of Missions, page 365, which 
Las already been shown you in your direct examination, and 
state whether or not the ranchos Saucelito and Corte de Ma- 
dera del Presidio are represented thereon ; and if so, state 
their relation to each other, and to the Pueblo of San Ea- 
fael. as shown by said map. A. The places Saucelito and 
Tiburon are shown on said map ;athey appear in the form of 
two peninsulas, running out into the bay, joined together on 
the northwest — the peninsulas being separated by an ensen- 
ada, or small bay, and being separated from each other on 
the main land by the representation of a creek; and both 
being bounded on the northwest by the line of the pueblo 
hinds of San Rafael. 

Q. 179. Please to examine the diseno of the Rancho ot 
Saucelito, as filed in case No. 101, a copy of which is filed 
as an exhibit in this case and marked and state 

whether the same two ranchos are represented thereon; 
and if so, describe their situation and relation to each other 
as represented therein. A. They are represented on said 
diseiio, their relations to each other being similar as those 
described in answer to last question. 

Question objected to by J. B. Howard, as irrelevant and 
incompetent : 1st. Because said diseno does not form part 
of the Mexican archives. 2d. Because it does not appear 
from the archives that there is, or ever has been, any grant 
represented as lying west of the Read Rancho. 3d. Be- 
cause it is shown by the archives that no such grant as that 
referred to, namely, case 104, ever existed; even the title 
papers relative thereto, as in espediente No. Ill, are shown 
to be antedated, forged and fraudulent in all respects. 

Q. 180. The disefio filed with the petition of John Read 
for a grant of land, as referred to in his second petition, and 
a copy of which is filed in this case as exhibit , and 



5S • 

question asked, please look at said diseno and state wlietber, 
ill your oj)inion, there are any iinos drawn thereoii which 
did not form any part of the ori<;inal diseno; if so, desig- 
nate them, so that we can undei^staiid their lociition. A. I 
think that all of the straight lines shown on the diseno re- 
ferred to was place I thereon after the making of the other 
portions of the map; how long afterwards I cannot pretend 
to say. The straiglit lines, intended to mark that portion 
of the Read Ranclio not bounded by the waters of the bay, 
are made witli different ink fi*om the lines designed to show 
the boundaries of the Saucelito Rancho; these lines are in 
different ink from that used in making the map. I think 
that the lines in pale ink, representing the boundaries of 
the Read Ranclio, were made subsequently to the lines rep- 
resenting the boundary of the Saucelito Rancho. 



Monday, Nov. loth, 1875, 

All present. 

S. R. Throckmorton, a party to this case, moves to ex- 
punge from the record and strike out so much of the 
objection to question No. 179 as refers to j^aper No. 104 
named in said objection to espcdiente No. Ill referred to 
in said objection, for the reasons that said assertions therein 
made, referring^ to said papers so numhered, are slanderous, 
libelous, and maliciously false and untrue, and have no 
foundation in truth, for such objection or justification there- 
for, the said cases therein referred to having been decided 
by all the courts ot the country to be good and valid. 

J. B. Howard, for the U. S. and pre-emption claimants, 
hereby accepts the issue tendered by S. R. Throckmortoi>, 
and will undertake to prove that the case referred to, as 
case No. 10-1 of the late U. S. Land Commission, and espe- 
diente No. Ill, for the Rancho of Saucelito, alleged to have 
been granted to the late Wm. A. Richardson, and now 
claimed by S. R. Throckmorton el als. ; and all the title 
papers relative thereto, are fraudulent, ante-dated, forged or 
counterfeit; that the said exhibit, purporting to be a plat 
or diseno of said rancho, is part of said case No. 104 ; that 
no juridical possession was ever given to any person or 
persons by the Mexican Government ; that the possession 
claimed was given of a small portion only of the lands 
embraced in said exhibit, without authority of law, and by 
a person, Salvador Vallejo, w^hose authority to give juridical 
possession or exercise the functions of a justice of the peace 
under the laws of Mexico was expressly denied by the Sup- 



59 

rorae Court, Fiscal, and Governor of California ; that the 
grant on which said title is claimed is filed in said case ]^o. 
104; that it is dated February 11, A. D. 1838, signed by 
Juan B. Alvarado, Governor, and Francisco Arce, as Ist 
Official to the Secretary of State ; that at the date of said 
grant the said Alvarado was not Governor, and Francisco 
Arce was not 1st Official ; and other reasons of equal force, 
showing the invalidity of said exhibit; wherefore said 
exhibit being introduced for the purpose of aiding in the 
ascertainment of the juridical possession of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio. 

The United States objects to the introduction of a forged 
or fraudulent paper for the purpose of determining a ques- 
tion of boundary, or any other question pertaining to the 
issues of this cause, under the law and the decision of the 
Secretary of the Interior, of January 6, 1872, by which the 
rancho was ordered to be resurveyed. 

Silas Lent being called as a witness by Messrs. Mullen & 
Ilvde, and being first duly sworn, deposes and says : My 
name is Silas Lent; I reside at 2105 Mason St., San Fran- 
cisco. My occupation is capitalist. 

Q. 1. Are you acquainted with the land in Marin 
County, California, claimed as the liead Rancho, and called 
the Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. I am. 

Q. 2. Please state the date when you first became 
acquainted with said lands, and the circumstances under 
which you became acquainted with the same ? A. In 
1856 I first became acquainted with it. Goodall, Hinckley 
& Curtis and myself, located 320 acres on the peninsula, 
bounded on Raccoon Straits, as Government land. We had 
the title searched by Mr. Wilson. He said 

Objected to by Mr. Brooks, that the matter of this 
answer is irrelevant and incompetent. 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp on the same ground. 

lie said the claim was Limentour's. I inquired of 
Capt. Richardson [Capt. Wm. Richardson], of the Saucelito 
Rancho, if he knew where the southern boundary of the 
Read Rancho was situated. He pointed out a large bunch 
of rocks, or a rock on a flat, a short distance above Ker- 
shaw Causeway. He Uved on the island. The pile of roCk 
lay to the north or northeast of this causewaj^ and that 
Richardson said that he was with the surveyors at the time 
it was surveyed, and that he helped pile a pile of stones 
onto this rock of which I have spoken as a boundary, 
as the southern boundary. That he said to Read at the 



60 

time, "Why did not you apply fov the whole of the land, 
meaning the point. Kead replied : I was atVaid to ask 
for too much, for fear I would not get any. 

Mr. Brooks moves to strike out the whole of the answer 
after the words " Goat Island," in his answer ]^o. 2, as 
irrelevant and incompetent. 

Mr. Sharp makes the same motion. 

Q. 3. Please state whether thereafter you went upon 
said land at said point spoken of by you as Government 
land, and if so, what did you do thereon?, A. I went 
there under the impression that it was Government land, 
built a house, and lived there between three and four 
years, until driven off by the Reads. 

Q. 4. Have you returned to said lands to reside there 
since you were driven ott by said Reads ? A. 1 have not. 

Q. 5. Was the fact that you were so driven off by the 
Reads, the only reason why you left said land ? A. It was. 

Q. 6. You state that Capt. Richardson, of the Saucelito 
Rancho, said thathe was with the surveyors at the time said 
southern boundary of the Read Rancho was surveyed. 
What surveyors have you reference to? A. The surveyors 
under the Mexican Government. 

Q. 7. What did you understand said pile of stones to in- 
dicate ? 

Objected to by Mr. Brooks, as irrelevant and incompetent. 
Same objection by Mr. Sharp. 

A. Tlie southern boundary of the Read Rancho. 

Q. 8. Did you ever see upon said peninsula, ciwd at the 
place and po.-^ition by you described, any pile of rock? A. I 
never went upon the top of said rocks to see if there was a 
pile of rocks there; I have been all around it, shooting quail. 

Q. 9. Was there any high or prominent land mark near 
to the place pointed out to you by said Richardson? A. No, 
except as I have already stated. 

Q. 10. Describe, as well as you can, as near as you can, 
the land mark you mention. A. It is some length of time 
since I saw it. It is a bunch of rocks, I should judge to be 
from 15 to 25 feet in height, somewhat in a circular form, 
and had around the top some stunted bay laurel. 

Q. 11. How was said land mark or pile of rock situated 
as to distance with reference to water on either side of the 
peninsula? A. I should judge it to be from 100 to 300 yards 
from the shore of the bay called Saucelito. 

Q. 12. Did said pile of rocks appear as if piled there by 
band, or artificially, or did the same bear the appearance of 



61 

"being a natural pile of rocks. A. Tliey were a natural pile 
of rocks, with a pile of rocks placed upon the top, as I was 
informed by Richardson, 

Objeced* to by Mr. Brooks as incompetent hearsay, and 
inadniissibk\ 

Same olyection by Mr. Sharp. 

Q. 13. Was said place ^nd pile of rocks as prominent as 
5my other land mark in that vicinity? A. More prominent, 
I should judge, it being peculiar in its shape and location. 

Q. 14.' Who was Kershaw ? A. He was a gentleman that 
lived on the island — '* Kershaw Island." 

Q. 15. Was he related to the Reads? A. Not to my 
knowiedge, 

Q. 16.^ Do you know if he occupied for himself or for 
8iii(l Reads ? A, He pretended to own it. 

Q, 17. Do you know by what name this island was called 
when you were there ? A. No, I do not. Sometimes it was 
I'alled Tiburon. Kershaw's Island was sonietimes called Ti- 
buron. 

Q. 18. Have you known the island to be called Tiburori 
as often as the point itself? A. I could not say. 

Cross-examination by Sharp. 

Q. 1, When did yon have the conversation with Capt. 
Richardson? A. In the early part of 1856. 

Q. 2. State where, and who was present. A. A num- 
ber was present. It was on the Saucelito tug and water 
boat ; I was engineer at that time ; I cannot name a single 
person who was present at that time. 

Q. 3. Where was the boat when this occurred ? A. 
She was crossijig from Saucelito; she was about a J of a 
mile from the Saucelito side. 

Q. 4. Had you any acquaintance with that section of 
country prior to 1856 ? A. No ; only I had been shooting 
over there. 

Q. 5. When was it the Reads drove you off? A, In 
1860, I think. 

Q. 6. Was you a defendant in the suit in U. S. District 
Court ? A. No, sir. 

Q. 7. How was it ? By suit ? A. No ; Read came 
there and required me to leave or pay rent ? 

OrosS' Examination by Mr. Brooks. 
Q. 1. When did you first go upon that land? A. In 



62 

1856, to settle. Ab^ut a year before I was there sliootingr 

Q. 2. How was it occupied at that time ? A. There 
was no oie hving there at that time ; there was no house. 

Q. 3. Didn't the cattle of Reed occupy it ? A, Not 
that I knew of. 

Q. 4. Was there anything to prevent the cattle of Reed 
ranging on that land as well as on the adjoining land ? A, 
There was nothing. 

Q. 5. Froin the Point of Tibnron we&t to the moun- 
tain was there anything in the way of a building or a fence 
when you first saw the land ? A. I never knew where the 
Point TiburonVas. Some called it Kershaw's Island; some 
called the point at the east entrance of the strait, and some 
called the whole point of land as the Point Tiburon. 

Q. 6. Assuming the [>oint to be the front on Raccoon 
Straits, was there any fence or obstruction to the range of 
cattle from said strait-j to the western limit of that promon- 
tory or that tongue of land ? A. None, to my knowledge, 

Q. 7. What was the exact point that you located upon ? 
A. I built a house about the place on the official map (here 
shown witness) marked " t " in the word Point, between tlie 
figures in red ink, sections 5 and 6, T. 1, S, R. 5 W.; I was 
there w^ien the Mathewson survey was made. 

Q. 8. Then am I to understand you that from 1855 to 
1860 you were in the habit of frequently passing over the 
land shown in the official map from the place marked on 
the map Tiburon, to the neck marked " T. 1, N. R. 6 W,," 
in red ink ? A. Not from '55, bat from '56 to '60 I had 
frequently passed over it; prior to that I had been on the 
point; I was in the habit of hunting over the ground from 
1856 to up to 1860. I had frequently been over the ground. 
Q. 9. Then I understand you to say that you hive no 
recollection of seeing any fence crossing that land during 
those years. A. I ivever did, but referring to the causeway, 
I saw a fence there, but not on the main land. 

Q. 10. At the time you spoke to Richardson and had the 
conversation with Richardson, had it became generally 
known that theLimentour chains were fraudulent and fabri- 
cated ? A. I could not say whether it was generally known 
or not. 

Q. 11. Was it known to you ? A. We supposed it to 
be a fraudulant claims and paid no attention to it whatever, 
as it included "Angel Island," " Alcatraz," "Farallones," 
" Yerba Buena Islands," and we thought that such a claim 
was preposterous. 



63 

Q. 12. What I desired to know was whether the fraud- 
nleiit character of tliesQ claims had at that time been shown 
in Court? A. I think that it was after. 

Q. 13. Have you not placed your house too far back from 
the water ? A. It was about 100 to 150 yards from the water. 
Its position is shown on the plat of the Mathewson's survey 
of this rancho, and I think it is correct. It is marked S. 
Lent's house. 

Re'Dlrect Examination, 

Muller & Hyde here requests the U. S. Survey or- General 
to produce for the purposes of use in' this case, the diagram 
inclosed with and that accompanied the communication of 
Commisioiier of the General tand Office, of February 5th, 
1872, addressed to this office, and upon which diagram were 
marked the dotted blue lines, representing approximately 
the eastern boundary of the Rancho Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio, according to the 2d hypothesis set forth in said com- 
munication, and which dotted blue lines extended from near 
meander course ^o. 105 to near meander course E'o. 24, as 
said courses are marked on the Mathewson's survey of 1858, 
as set forth in said commifnication. 

Objected to by Mr. Brocks, that this is an illegitimate and 
irresponsible method of putting assertions on the record, un- 
supported by any testimony and foreign to the issues now un- 
der examination. 

Sol. A. Sharp joins in said objection. 

Q. In the absence of the map which I have referred to, 
please look at the Mathewson's survey, now before you, and 
state how a line drawn from the end of course ]S"o. 105 to 
the end of course Xo. 24, would correspond as to position or 
location on the ground with the position or tbat location of 
the land mark or pile of rocks mentioned by you in your? 
A. It would not correspond at all. That would be too far 
north and west ; that is, from the pile of rocks of which I have 
made reference to. 

Q. Indicate on said Mathewson plot the position of said 
pile of rocks, as near as you can. A. Between course 98 
and 99 on this map there is an arroyo and a buckeye tree 
standing. I should judge that pile of rocks to be located 
between No. 98 and 99 stations on said map, and from 100 
to 300 yards from the shore. 

Q. How long after 3^our first entry upon the lands of Point 
Tiburon was it before you were disturbed by the Read fam- 
ily ? A. After the Read family came into possession^ and 
after the Mathewson survey. 



64 

Q. Then yon were on these lands tliree (3) years before 
you were disturbed by the Read heirs ? A. Yes, about 
that time. 

Q. Were you there before or after the date of the failure 
of the Limentour claim was rejected ? A. I don't know. 

Q. Please give the date when you left these lands in con- 
sequence of the claim thereto set up by the Read family. 
A. In T^ovember, 1860. 

Q. How long prior to said date did the Read family set 
up claim to possession to the land which you occupied ? A. 
Several months prior to that. 

Q. Was it before or after the Mathewson survey ? A. 
It was after the date of the Mathewson survey. 

Cross-examined, 

Q. Could you from the tugboat a quarter of a mile out 
from Saucelito see the pile of rocks you liave spoken of? 
A. Yes, sir ; I think I could see it, and know I did see it 
at that time. 

Q. What time did you, during 1856, was it you went to 
reside at Tiburon Point ? A. About September. 

Q. How long previous was it you had the talk with Rich- 
ardson ? A. I think it was about April or May. 

Q. Could it have been as early as March ? A. I think 
not, sir. 

Q. How long prior to his death ? A. I could not sav. 

SILAS LENT. 



Tuesday, November 16th, 1875. 

All present. 

Thomas B. Valentine being called as a witness by the 
U. S., being first duly sworn, deposes and says : My name 
is T. B. Valentine ; my age, 45 years ; residence, San 
Francisco ; occupation, speculator. 

Q. 1. Are you interested in the matter now in contro- 
versy ; if so, w^hat is the nature and extent of your in- 
terest ? A. I am. I claim an interest in all the land 
within the juridical possession given to the late Juan Read 
in November, 1835, under the grant to him of October 2d, 
1834, situated outside of the survey made by R. C. Mathew- 
son, October, a. d. 1858. Said Mathewson was a Deputy 
TJ. S. Surveyor. 

Q. 2. Please examine the plat of the survey of the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, as made by R. C. 
Mathewson, Deputy U. S. Surveyor, in October, 1858, and 



65 

state whether all the lands you claim are represented on 
said map or plot ; and if not, state what other lands, if any, 
you claim. 

Objected to by J. W. Shanklin, that by his answer this 
witness cannot bind other claimants from the same source 
<>f title whose claims are outside of the Mathewson survey. 
Also by a statement of what he now claims he cannot off 
other claimants outside of the Mathewson survey who have 
derived title from himself 

Objection concurred in by Mr. Brooks; and he further 
objects that the e .tent of Mr. Valentine's claim appears by 
his claim and intervention filed in the papers in this pro- 
iieodino^, and the extent of his rights in the land is a matter 
of law depending upon the construction cf documents in 
evidence. 

Objected to by Messrs. Mullen & Hyde, as being incom- 
petent, 

A. They are not 

Q. 3. Are any of the lands you claim represented on 
said plat? A. Yes; some of them are. I point out Pe- 
ninsula Island, another small peninsula, called Island, on 
said map between Peninsula Island and the main land. 
Another peninsula called Idand on said map lying opposite 
post C. M. P. No. 145, on said map. Also all the salt 
marsh lying adjacent to the main land on the north, south, 
and west of the rancho, and east of the estero, spoken of 
in the juridical possession, and the land as shown on said 
map lying: northwest of the I^.W. line of said survey. 

Q. 4. Please examine the official plat of said rancho as 
made by L. Ransom and G. F. Allardt and state what land 
on that map you claim within the survey therein repre- 
sented ? A. I claim all the following peninsulas w^ithin 
said survey : The peninsula opposite Peninsula Island, 
lying between it and the main land ; also the peninsula 
upon which is marked *' De Silva's Wharf All. 

Q. 5. Do you claim any other lands within said survey 
as represented on said plat? A. Yes; I claim a piece of 
land known or designated as the " Gardner place," between 
titations J^o. 603 and l^o. 564. 

Q. 6. Please state if you were a party in interest claim- 
ing title under the confirmees pending the former survey 
which was disapproved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
January 6, 1872, upon which order a re-survey of the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio was ordered to be made 
— I mean up to, and prior to, January 6, 1872, at any time ? 



66 

Objected to as immaterial by Messrs. Mullen & Hyde. 

A. I was, as shown by my deeds on file in this catse. 

Q. 7. Please state whether yon were, at any time prior 
to January 6, 1872, represented in person or by counsel in 
the application upon which said >e-survey was ordered at 
that date ? A. I was represented in person. I made ap- 
plication in person for the re-survey, and also by counsel as 
well. 

Q. 8. State who, if any other persons or interest w^as 
represented with you in said application. 

Objected to by Cutter on the ground that the record is 
best evidence. 

A. I think the Read heirs were making said application. 
The record shows all the facts — that is my impression ; I 
am not positive. 

Q. 9. State who it was that paid or defrayed the ex- 
penses of the re-survey represented on the official plat now 
before you. A. The Read heirs, myself, and Mr. J. B, 
Howard, a portion. 

Q. 10. State when and where, and to whom, said pay- 
ments were made, so far as you know. A. The first 
payment of $417 was paid into the office of the U. S. Sur- 
veyor-General some time in October or September, A. D. 
18*73, by the Read heirs and myself. Subsequently, it was 
found that that amount was not sufficient to complete the 
survey; then additional sums were paid by the Read heirs, 
J. B. Howard, and myself 

Q. 11. In whose behalf did J. B. Howard represent the 
payment made by him as being his principal, or in whose 
interest was the payment made by him, as represented ? 

Objected to because it does not appear that Mr. Howard 
made any payment for any person connected with the 
rancho — simply that he made a payment. 

A. In behalf of Thos. Luke Riley, who was represented 
to me to be a pre-emption claimant. 

Q. 12. For what lands ? A. For lands lying west of the 
west line of the official plat. 

Motion now made by J. W. Shanklin to strike out Ques- 
tions 11 and 12 and the answers thereto, because they show 
that the deposit or payment made by Mr. Howard was not 
made in behalf of parties claiming an interest in the Read 
rancho, as required by law, prescribing who shall make pay- 
ments for the survey of Mexican grants. And further, be- 
cause they have developed the fact that the money was not 
deposited, as required by law, in the U. S. District Court; 



67 

the Surveyor-General having no authority to receive money 
for such survey. 

Q. 13. Piease state who made the payment referred to 
iu hehalf of the Read heirs. A. Dr. Benj. Lyford, the hus- 
band of one of the daughters of the late Juan Read, grantee 
or claimant of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 14. State what was the agreement, the terms and 
conditions exacted by Dr. Benj. Lyford and J. B. Howard 
as a condition and consideration for said payment. A. It 
was with a view of expediting the case. It was to be the 
last payment to be made. 

Q. 15. Was it not understood and agreed expressly at 
the time that the survey then made should be final and con- 
clusive on all parties ? A. I don't recollect that. My recol- 
lection was that we would not pay any more money for the 
survey. 

Q. 16. Please state if you were present at the time the 
late Leander Ransom, Deputy U. S. Surveyor, went upon the 
ground near post No. C. M. 181, and began the re-survey of 
raid rancho ? A. I was present when a preliminary exam- 
ination for the survey was made of said rancho by L. Ran- 
som. Dr. Benj. Lyford, Mr. G. F. Allardt, Deputy Sur- 
veyor, S. R. Throckmorton, Peter Gardner were all present. 
I don't recollect the others present. I am not sure that 
Allardt was there. I will examine my memorandum. I 
can give the exact date of this from my memoranda. 

Q. 17. Please state for what purpose you went there. 
A. We went there for the purpose of fixing a starting point 
for the re-surV'Cy. 

Q. 18. Please state what conclusion was arrived at by 
all or any of the parties present as to the initial point of re- 
survey. 

Objected to by Shanklin, as it could only be determined 
by the Deputy tl. S. Surveyor, and by him made a matter 
ot* record. This witness' recollection cannot determine the 
fact. 

A. I don't think that there was any definite conclusion 
arrived at. 

Q. 19. Question repeated. A. That is my impression. 

Q. 20. State, as nearly as you can recollect, what the 
suggestions of the respective parties were ? 

Objected to by Shanklin as being immaterial and irrele- 
vant, as not calling for the best testimony. 

A. I think the impression that I had was, that the line 
was fixed or determined upon in the ejectment suits of 



6S 

Bolton vs. Yan Eeynegom et al, in the U. S. Circuit Court.. 

Objected to as not being responsive to the question. 

Q. 21. Point out the line on the oiiicial map fixed on in 
the ejectment suit ? 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin as irrelev^ant, immaterial^ 
and because the U. S. Deputy-Surveyor could not be bound 
in making his survey of the grant, by any such proceeding 
referred to, and because the witness has not testified that 
any definite line was agreed upon, pointed out, or agreed 
upon at the time referred to ; and further, because it is not 
shown that the records in the case sworn to were in the pos- 
session of the parties on the ground when the preliminary 
examination was made, or that an examination was made by 
them of the papers in the case referred to, as the basis of 
their action. And further, that it was not shown who the 
parties were at the time making the suggestions, or that 
their interests were sufiicient to bind the parties in this 
case. 

A. I could not do it; I was only supposing that that was 
the line. I don't know that there was any line fixed in the 
ejectment suit. I suppose that the starling point was the 
point fixed by Judge Sawj^er; I myself pointed out that. 

Mr. Sharp here objects to all the testimony of this wit- 
ness as to all agreements made by this witness with J. B. 
Howard and Dr. Beuj. Lyford, and as to all the testimony 
relating to any payments for the survey, and by whom made, 
and also to all of the testimony as to what he, the witness, 
claims in the premises in controversy, or any adjacent there- 
to, as being incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and as 
not tending to prove any fact in this issue, and move^to 
strike the same out on said ground. 

Cutter, and P. Garden, for himself, make the same objec- 
tions and motion as made by Sharp. 

Q. 22. " (Question No. 3) Are any of the lands you claim 
represented on said plat?" — the question referring to the 
Mathewson survey of 1858, and the land referred to being 
the 4,460 21-100 acres thereon represented. Please read 
over your answer to your question ITo. 3, and say if it is 
correct ? A. I was under the impression in answering the 
question, I suppose it referred to all that was on the paper, 
and not that which was on the surveyed plat. I now state 
that I claim none of the lands within the survej-ed plat re- 
ferred to ; I never have claimed any of the land represented 
on said Mathewson survey. 

The plat of the Mathewson survey is here offered in evi- 



69 

i^ence bv the IT. S. Distnct Attorney, Walter Van Dyke, 
Esq, Mr. Gardner objects to J. B. Howard appear! no^ for 
the U. S. The phit is also offered in evidence by J. B. 
Howard, attorney for the U. S,, J. J. Cashing, Barlow and 
Riley. Said plat is marked Exhibit ^' Mathewson." 

Q. 23. Wlio was the Bolton referred to in said eject- 
ment suit ? 

Objected to by Gardner, on the ground that said suit is 
now pending in the U. S. Court. 

A. James Clinton Bolton. He sued on a deed for certain 
lands given by the Read heirs. The papers will show the 
date. It was about 1865 or 1866. 

Q, 24, State if you derived title to any portion of the 
land yon claim from said Bolton. A. I do, as appears from 
my deeds on file, being a part of the Raueho Corte Madera 
del Piesidio. 

By Cutter — Move to strike out that portion of the an- 
swer referring to his title and its derivation, as not being 
the best evidence. 

Cv)unsel says the question was only asked for identihcatiou. 

Q. 25. Please state who is the Van Reynegom, defendant 
in said ejectment suit, and what relation to or interest in, if 
iiny, he and his co-detend;mt claimed in the land Corte Ma- 
dera, represented on the official plat before you. 

Objected to by Cutter, as not a proper way to show the 
fact, anH not the best evidence. 

A, They claimed possessory right, being located upon 
the land. 

Witness, with the official map before him, says: Com- 
mencing at post C. M. 180, of the otHcial survey, running 
8ome distance west of the west boundary of the rancho as 
surveyed; and running tlience in a northerly direction to the 
Holon to where the northerly line will strike the Holon, to 
the section line between sections 16 and 17, T. 1, K. R. 6 
W. ; thence easterly, along the shore of the Bay of San 
Francisco, as far as the salt marsh extends— running outside 
of the plat as far as the salt marsh extends, at post No, 639 
of said survey ; thence along the west line of the Mathew- 
fcon 8urv3y to the point of beginning. The records will 
show^ 

Motion by J. "W. Shanklin to strike out the foregoing 
question and answer as immaterial and irrelevant to the 
questions at issue in this case; it appearing from the an- 
swer that the question relates to a possessory claim not in- 
tended to establish the boundaries of the Read rancho, either 



10 

as regards the exterior boundaries thereof or the juridical 
measurement. 

Q. 26. Please state wli ether auy of the parties present 
at the time of the preliminary survey, or view for a survey^ 
viz., Ransom, Deputy Surveyor, Allardt, Deputy Surveyor^ 
8. II. Throckmorton, Benj. Lyford, or Gardner, "were party 
defendants in said ejectment suit ; if so, name him. 

Objected to by Messrs. Mullen & Hyde, as not the best 
evidence. 

A. One of the defendants, Peter Gardner, was present. 

Q. 27. Please state what was the result and decision in 
said ejectment suit. 

' Objected to by Cutter as being immaterial to questions at 
issue in the matter now on hearmg. 

A. I think the record the best evidence. The result wa& 
judgment for the plaintiff. 

Q. 28. Was it to the extent of the whole land claimed ? 
A. The record shows the iact. 

Q. 29. Please state if you were present at the time when 
G. F. Allardt, Deputy Surveyor, made the survey of the 
west line of said plat or rancho in June, 1874; if so^ who 
was present? A. I was not present, and do not -know who 
was present. 

Q. 30. Do you know that said survey wa& made by said 
Allardt in the tield, referring to the survey of the west line 
as represented on the official plat ? A. I do not, of my own 
knowledge. 

KOVEMBER 19th, 1875. 
Cross- Examination of R. C. Hopkins, resumed. 

182. Question by Mullen & Hyde. You have testified 
in this case, relative to various and numerous claims pre- 
sented to the Board of Land Commissioners, by Jose Y. 
Limentour, please state whether it appears from the archives 
that said Limentour made application for confirmation be- 
fore said Board, to or for any lands that have been confirmed 
to other and difi:erent claimants— not intending that this 
question should apply to the rancho of the Corte de Madera 
del Presidio or Rancho de Tiburon ? A. I think that all 
the claims presented by Limentour were finally rejected by 
the Courts, and so far as 1 now remember I do not think 
that the lands covered by the claims of Limentour were sub- 
sequently conferred to other parties. 

Questions by J. B. Howard. 



71 

Q. 183. Please examine the plat or diseno filed herein 
as exhibited — purporting to be a copy certified to by Secre- 
tary of State, plat of the Rancho of Sausalito, Richardson's 
Claim No. 104, Land Commission, being copy the plat pre- 
sented by B. S. Brooks and referred to bj J. W. Shankhn, 
Esq., as in question No. , examine also the certificate of 
Jose Y. Fernandez on the reverse side of said plat, and state 
1st, whether said diseno is there certified to be an exact 
copy of the original in espedi.ente (111) in the archives; and 
2dly, if so, whether said certificate is correct. 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin; 1st, because when said doc- 
ument was ofiered in this case, no objection thereto was 
made by Mr. Howard; 2d, because the matter expressed in 
the ^juestion is not proper examination ; no questions having 
been asked either by Mr. Brooks, in connection with the 
presentation of said exhibit, or by Mr. Shanklin in cross- 
examination, relating to other, matters than the Corte de 
Madera del Presidio. 

Mr. Brooks objects: that what the Secretary certifies will 
appear by the certificate itself, and whether it is correct, and 
if so in what respect, will appear by a comparison with the 
original and a consideration of the use for which it was in- 
tended. 

A. 1st. The copy of map referred to, is certified by Jose 
Z. Fernandez, acting temporarily as Secretary of State, to 
be faithfully drawn from its original, which is found in the 
respective expediente. 2d. The copy referred to is not an 
exact or facsimile copy of the original, as found in the espe- 
diente ; but it is undoubtedly designed to represent the same 
tract of country. 

Q. 184. State whether it appears from said respective 
espedientes that any grant or concession issued for the lands 
represented on said exhibit, west of the straight line drawa 
after the words Corte de Madera ? 

Mr. Shanklin moves to strike out foregoing question ; first 
because it is not proper cross-examination, and 2d, because 
the expediente referred to was not presented in the case. 

Mr. Brooks adds, that it is not primary evidence; that it 
is irrevelant and incompetent. Surveyor-General sustains 
motion to strike out. Mr. Howard excepts to ruling of 
Surveyor-General. 

R. C. HOPKINS. 



72 

Monday, November 22d, 1875. 
Aljl present. 

William H. Davis bein^ called as a witness by B. S. 
J3 rooks, is first duly sworn and says : My name is William 
H. Davis ; I reside in Oakland, Alameda Co., Cal.; occupa- 
tion, real estate and money broker ; I am 53 years old. 

Q. 1. Did jou know Juan Read in his lifetime ; if so, 
when, where and how did you become acquainted with him ? 
A. I did ; I first knew him in the summer of 1838, in Yerba 
Bnena, now called San Francisco ; I was clerk and book- 
keeper with K. Spear, in Yerba Buena, and Mr. John Read 
traded with us; Mr. Spear supplied him. 

Q. 2. Did you at that time understand and speak the 
Spanish and English languatre? A. In July, 1838, I only 
knew a little Spanish ; the English was my mother tongue ; 
I soon learned the Spanish language. 

Q. 3. To what extent did you speak the S|>anisli lan- 
guage in 1838? A. I understood enough to hold a conver- 
sation readily. 

Q. 4. Did you, after that, acquire facility in the use of 
Spanish lano^uage ? A. I did. I acquired it easily. 

Q. 5. Were your ordinary dealings mostly with the 
Spanish people? A. Yes; mostly with native Californians. 

Q. 6. Do you know the Rancho Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio ? When and how did you become acquainted with it? 
A. The Reads' rancho, I suppose ; yes, I know Junn Read's 
rancho ; my first visit to Read's rancho was in December, 
1838 ; Mr. John Read doing business with Spear, I visit 
there in December on business. 

Q. 7 How often were you there afterwards ? A. my 
next visit to Read's rancho was in the spring of 1839. 

Q. 8. When you visited the rancho in 1838 how long 
did you remain there? A. Staid over night; about 24 
hours. 

Q. 9. By whom was it occupied ? A. By John Read 
and his family. 

Q. 10. Where did you stay while on the rancho. A. 
At Read's house, where his family w^as. 

Q. ll. How was the rancho occupied and used? A. 
Stock-raising — cattle and horses. 

Q. 12. Did you go over the rancho in company with 
Read ? A. In the spring of 1838 I did not. 

Q. 13. Did he point out the boundaries of his rancho to 
you ? A. In the spring of 1839 Mr. Spear was with me at 



73 

the rancho of Juan Reed ; Le took us over a part of his 
rancho; Read furnished horses, and we rode over part of 
his rancho. 

Q. 14. Did he at that time point out to you tlie bounda- 
ries of this rancho? A. Our ride was from his house to- 
wards the east and along the Point of Tiburon ; as we rode 
^long he pointed out Point Tiburon as part of his rancho.^, 
i^e rode to the extreme point. 

Q. 15. What was the boundary on the east side ? A. 
I understood from him then that it was Point Tiburon* 
The margin of the Bay of San Francisco that comes to the 
East or about the east side of Point Tiburon. 

Mullen & Hyde move to strike out the motion and 
^inswer as being incompetent to prove the boundaries of 
this rancho as defined in the record of juridical possession. 

The witness, in describing the east boundary in answer 
to question Ko. 15, had the official plat of survey before 
him, and pointed with his hand to the edge of the land 
opposite to post 557, and says, Here Read pointed out to me 
«,il the land within the official survey east of this place to 
Raccoon Straits as his rancho. We started from Read's old 
house and rode to the ab^ve place or point near station 
557, of the survey. 

Q. 16, Which was the point to which you rode ? A. 
To Puint Tiburon. He took us along the middle of land 
as far as we could go down. 

Q. 17. You have stated in a formed answer that you 
rode to the extreme point. Point that extreme point out 
on the map. A. We rode to some prominent place very- 
near the extreme eastern point of land Within the survey, 
when we could overlook the Raccoon Straits and could see 
the Bay around the point. He pointed out to us all this 
land as his claim, and showed us his horses and cattle all 
about us. 

Q. 18. What did he point out to you as his boundary 
t )wards Raccoon Straits? A. Following the margin of 
the Bay around the entire easterji point ot^ land he said was 
his boundary on that side. The witness having the official 
map before him, draws his hand around the extreme east- 
ern part of the official survey and around the "Peninsula 
Island," and says that was the land he claimed. 

Q. 19. What was the boundary of the rancho on the 
$outh side? A. On the south. As we stood here at the 
extreme point, he said, the margin of the Bay all along 
the Saucelito and Richardson's Bay. 



74 

At this point it is announced, by Hon. Walker VanDyke^ 
that a telegram announces the death of Hon. Henry Wit- 
son, Vice-President of the United States, and upon hi^ 
motiou, all parties concurring, further proceedings are post- 
poned till 10 o'clock A. M. to-morrow morning, out of 
respect to his memory. 



Tuesday, Koveraber SBc!, 18T1, 

Q. 20. How far tmvards the west along the margin of 
the Bay did he say the boundary line extended? A. He 
irtated it followed along the margin of the Bay up to the 
western boundary of his ranch o. 

Q. 2L How often did you visit the rancho ? A, From 
the year 1838 to January, 1842. I probably visited him 
five or six or seven times per year. 

Q. 22. Wore you in the habit of seeing the rancha 
often when you did not visit it ? 

Objected to by Gardner as immaterial. 

A. Oftentimes when I went to San Rafael and Sonoma 
on business, landing at Saucelito, I rode through Reed's 
rancho. 

Q. 28. Did you ever at any time hear of any person 
claiming or exercising any acts of ownership in the tract of 
land you have described other than Juan Read ? 

Objected by Gardner as immaterial. 

A. I never did. 

Q. 24. Did you know his brand ? A. I think I did. 

Q. 25. Were you in the habit of buying his hides ? 

Same objections by Gardner. 

A. I often received hides from John Read for E^athan 
Spear. 

Q. 26. Over what part of this tract did his cattle pasture? 

Same objections. 

A. I have seen around his house, some distance from 
his house, and also on the Point of Tiburon, sometimes 
called Read's Point, cattle and horses scattered around over 
the tract. 

Q. 27. Where was Juan Read living at that time? A. 
Living on his rancho. I could point it out on the map 
here. 

Q. 28. Was it the same place and the same house all the 
time ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 29. Did he rebuild it, or add to it, during that time ? 



75 

A. When I first visited Read's ranclio, there was a house 
on it that Head lived in; I presume that he built it. The 
addition to his house I do not remember. 

Q. 30. Was there any other house upon the rancho, or 
any signs of any other, or any ruins of any other ? A. I 
do not remember of seeing any other house on the rancho 
besides the one that Read and his family lived in. 

Q. 31. Were you in the habit of sailing through ''Rac- 
coon Straits?" 

Same objection by Gardner. 

A. Yes, sir, very often. 

Q. 32. What was the course of your dealings with the 
rancheros, and what occasion had you to visit the ranchos ? 

Same objection by Gardner. 

A. Merchants in those days sold goods for hides and 
tallow. We dehvered the goods to the different ranchos 
around the bay, and received their hides and tallow at the 
embarcaderos of each rancho; the}- generally had embarca- 
deros on the bay. Generallj^ we sold goods on twelve 
months' credit ; generally from killing season to killing 
season. I visited the ranchos to deliver goods and to re- 
ceive hides and tallow in payment. 

Q. 33. Was it a part of your business to know the stand- 
ing of your customers, the extent of their land, and the 
number of their cattle ? 

Same objection by Gardner. 

A. Necessarily it was. 

Q. 34. To your knowledge, was the title of Juan Read 
to the land you have described ever questioned by the Mex- 
ican officials or people ? 

Objected to by Mullen as immaterial and incompetent. 

A. No ; I never heard it discussed or questioned. 

Cross- Examination by Mullen ^ Hyde, 

Q. 1. When did you come to California? A. In 1838^ 
to stay permanently ; I had visited the coast prior to that, 
trading up and dow^n the coast. 

Q. 2. In what business were you engaged in during the 
first eighteen months after your arrival in California? A. I 
was a clerk and bookkeeper for Nathan Spear, of Boston, 
in Yerba Buena; I attended to his business, as clerk and 
bookkeeper; also, in going around the bay delivering goods 
and receiving hides and tallow. 

Q. 3. How old were you when you first came to Califor- 



76 

nia and engaged in sucli capacity ? A. Sixteen and a half 
{16J) years old. 

Q. 4. At this age, when you visited the ranchos around 
the Bay of San Francisco, was it under the direction of some 
other person, or was you in charge of such business ? 

A. Always under the direction of Kathan Spear, by 
whom I was emj^loyed. 

Q. 5. Did he usually accompany you on these trips. A. 
Sometimes. 

Q. 6. When he did not, was there any one else older 
than yourself who did accompany 3'ou? • A. I presume the 
sailors attached to the little schooners were older than I was. 

Q. 7. What period of the year was the killing season ? 
A. It generally commenced July Isr and ended October Ist, 
of each year; they were considered the fattest at that 
period. 

Q. 8. Did you have any business other than that you 
have stated in your direct examination ? A. No, sir ; sim- 
ply selling goods, and receiving the hides and tallow. 

Q. 9. If the killing season, as by you stated, was between 
July and October of each year, please explain to us the ob- 
ject of your first visit, in December, 1838, and also the sec- 
ond visit in 1839, in the spring. A. Oftentimes goods were 
carried to the different ranchos different times during the 
year; and, also, hides would frequently be received from 
the rancheros after the first of October and before the first 
of July, from cattle tliey would kill during the above-stated 
time for their beef and support. 

Q. 10. Can you recall at the present time any circum- 
stance that called for the necessity of a ride by John Read 
and yourself over his lancho at the time you state he pointed 
out to you the boundaries thereof A. The rancheros, gen- 
erally in spring of the year, are fond of inviting comer- 
ciantes (merchants) to ride over with them and point out 
the boundaries of their rancho. 

Q. 11. Then it was simply in accordance with a custom 
which prevailed at that time between rancheros and the 
merchants with whom they dealt ? A. Yes, sir; they were 
fond of showing their fine horses, letting the merchants ride 
their fine horses, showing their ranchos and their manados, 
and their possessions generally. 

Q. 12. Did you then, or anj^ time thereafter, ever ex- 
amine the title papers of the Rancho Corte Madera, claimed 
by John Read ? A. Never did. 

Q. 13. Did you know anything of the title of this ranch, 



• 77 

Except wliat you Icariit from himself? A. I simply know 
hy report that he had a title to the ranch. 

Q. 14. Was your knowledi^e of the boundaries of this 
ranch derived fi'om the same character of source ? A. My 
knowledge as to the part I have already described in my 
<lirect examination was from John Read himself 

Q. 15. lu your dealings with the rancheros as a merchant, 
what measured the basis of credit that you accorded them 
inyourde^dings with them? A. Measured that by the num- 
ber of cattle each ranchero had. The merchants frequently 
intended the rodios of cattle which the rancheros had ; the 
merchants could generdlly teJl what the rancheros had, and 
Ivcad was generally regarded as a very high-minded man. The 
ILrn^ers were universalJy esteemed as high-minded men, and 
Kead was eoiisidered as a high-minded man. 

Q. 16, Was the extent of credit iliat you accorded the 
rancheros also measured, or determined by the extent of 
land that they owned or claimed? A. I'es, sir; but more 
|>ariicularly to the number of cattle each ranchero had. The 
anerclmnts placed more value on their cattle than on their 
lands. 

Q. 17, Did t'lie number of c.ittle that each i*anchero owned 
l)ear any relation to the extent of land that he owned or 
<;laimed ? A. ISTot particularly ; generally a ranchero would 
have no more than his rancho w^ould support — about 2,000 
head to the league, 

Q. 18. About how many cattle did John Read usually 
rodeo during the time you dealt with him as merchant? A. 
I think, in I80&, Read had 600 head of cattle, besides horses* 
Subsequent, up to the time of his death, he had more cattle, 
1,200 or 1,500 head. 

Q, 19, Did Read ever tell you the extent of land that 
lie claimed ? A. I do not remember that he did. 

Q. 20. Did lie ever point out to you the boundaries of 
this rancho other than in the direction of Point Tiburon ? 
A. I think he mentioned, during the ride I spoke of in my 
direct examination, that he was bounded on the south by 
the Rancho Saucelito; 1 am not positive to his western line. 

Q. 21. Did he point out the northern boundary, or 
mention it to you ? A. While we were out on the side 
that I have mentioned, he pointed out and said that grove 
of redwood, pointing northward, belongs to me. 

Q. 22. Please look at the official map of the Rancho 
Corte Madera and point out thereon, and the whole extent 
thereof, the place called by you Point Tiburon, or the 



78 

tano:ue of land Tibiiron? A, The witness, pointing with 
Ijis hand open, says, from this point "Sandy Flat" on the 
south side of the main land, and "Station 479," at the 
word "Liuirel" on the north side of the main land, and 
sa^'s : All the land from here down to the extreme eastern 
end of the land embrac^ed in the survey was called Point 
Tiburon, and universally known as Point Tiburon by every 
person, and every sailor that coursed around the Bay in 
those days. 

Q. 23. How many times did you ride with John Read 
to Point Tiburon, in the manner by you stated ? A. Once, 

Q. 24. In pointing out the boundaries as by you de- 
scribed, did he do it while sitting on horsebacky and by 
waving his hand ; or did he ride along and &ay this is my 
boundary here, or boundary tliere ? 

Objected to by Sharp as immaterial. 

A. As we rode along, he pointed with his hand to the 
different places. 

Q. 25. Do you kni)w whether the knowledge of the 
land called by you and pointed out, Tiburon, constituted a 
portion of the Read Rancho, was divided from any other 
person except John Read himself, and in the ride as by you 
stated ? A. It is always known by all the old settlers a» 
part of Read's Ranch, and I have heard the whole point 
called Read's Point, as often as I have heard it called Point 
Tiburon. 

Q. 26. Did you ever know any claim set up to]a part of 
Tiburon by Limentour ? A. Kever did. 

Q. 27. Did John Read ever point out to you any 
mounds or structures of masonry as being the majomers of 
his rancho? A. He never did. 

Q. 28. Did he ever tell you that he had ever established 
any on his rancho ? A. lie never did. 

Q. 29. Between 1838 and 1843, did Mrs. Read have 
any cattle separate and apart from her husband ? A. I 
could not tell you. 

Q. 30. Did you ever attend any rodeo in Marin County 
when any cattle were rodeod as Mrs. Read's ? A. 'No, sir, 
I have attended many rodeos in Marin County. I have 
been at Tim Murphy's and Ig. Pacheco's rodeos. I recol- 
lect the separating of cattle as Juan Read's, but I never 
knew of any being separated belonging to Mrs. Read. 

Q. 31. Do you know whether the cattle called Read's 
cattle are accustomed to graze at any place other than on 
the Rancho Corte Madera I A. I do not. 



79 

Q. 32. How maii}^ times between 1838 and 1843 were 
you on Ti boron or on the tongue of land you describe as 
l*oint Tiburon ? A. On horseback, in company with John 
Head and K'athan Spear, in 1839, once ; and only once from 
1838 to 1843 ; but I have hinded at the point different times 
from schooner anchored near the shore, waiting for the turn 
of tide ; and have ridden through on horseback in going 
from SauceUto to San Rafael, cutting across the most north- 
ern part. 

Q. 33. Please describe the Read brand, he used in 
branding his cattle. A. It was the letters J. R. 

Cross-examination by 31r, Throckmorton. 

Q. 1. Are you acquainted with the Punta de San Quen- 
tin Rancho? A. I knew of it; Capt. Cooper lived at Mon- 
terey. 

Q. 2. Do you know whether he was the colindante of 
the Read rancho on the north. A. I think he was; I think 
his rancho joined it on the north. 

Q. 3. Do you know that of your own knowledge? A. 
I never saw Cooper's title; I understood it from general 
report. 

Mr. Sharp objects to the answer to this question, as imma- 
terial and irrelevant. 

Cross-Examination by Gardner, 

Q. 1. At what time was Cooper colandante with the 
Read rancho ? A. I knew Cooper in 1838 ; he was colin- 
dante of Reed in 1840 ; Cooper was the owner of the ran- 
cho, but (lid not live on his rancho. 

CJ. 2. Where were the men cutting timber, and when 
was it ? A. They were cutting timber at Corte Madera as 
early as 1840 ; I cannot put my liand on the spot on the 
map ; they cut lumber for Capt. Cooper and Juan Reed. 

Q. 3. Did you see them cutting timber ? A. I have 
been at the Corte Madera when they were cutting lumber 
on account of Cooper and Juan Read; I have been there 
with a schooner; the lumber was put on a schooner and 
brought here to Yerba Buena. 

Q. 4. Were these parties cutting wood together ? A. 
^o, sir ; separate parties. 

Q. 5. Point out on the map the point where they were 
cutting timber. A. I cannot do it ; it is so many years ago 
I cannot remember the exact point. 
. Q. 6. How far ^apart was the Read Corte Madera froiu 



80 

tlie Cooper Corte Madera ? A. May have been half a mile 
apart ; I cannot remember. The Corte Madera was all one 
belt; thev were cutting at different parts or places on the 
belt. 

Q. 7. How large and how long was that Corte Madera tim- 
ber ? A. I cannot tell. There was a forest in them. I 
do not know where Tamalpais is. It was called in early 
days Read's Mountain, Sierra Don Juan Reed ; I know where 
the mountain is, but I did not know it as Tamalpais at that 
time. 

Q. 8. How do you know who was cutting timber for 
Capt. Cooper or for Read ? A. I had occasion to go there 
and o^et a load of lumber, many loads of lumber, in 1841 
and 1840. 

Q. 9. How do you know what timber was cut on Read's 
rancho or Cooper's rancho, of your own knowledge ? A. 
The men that cut for Cooper brought the lumber, and said 
it was cut on Cooper's rancho; it was placed to the credit 
of Cooper. The lumber cut on Read's rancho was brought 
to me, and placed to the credit of Read. 

Q. 10. Do you know the boundary between the two 
ranchos? A. No, I do not; the lumber from these two 
places was hauled to one landing, known as the Corte Ma- 
dera Landing. 

Q. 11. On whose land was the embarcadero situated, of 
which you have spoken as the place at which you received 
lumber? A. I do not remember now; I am under the im- 
pression it was claimed by J. B. R. Cooper. 

Q. 12. How far from the embarcadero was the lumber 
cut ? A. I do not know exactly ; it may be from one-quarter 
to one-half a mile. 

Q. 13. In what direction from, the embarcadero were 
they cutting this lumber? A. As near as I can remember, 
from the San Quentin or Corte Madero Embarcadero, 
Cooper's Corte Madera would be about NW. from the land- 
ing, andJRead's Corte Madera about South -West or West 
of" South -West. 

Q. 14. How many times have you been at that embar- 
cadero for lumber? A. From twenty-five to thirty times ; 
may be more. 

Q. 15. Were you ever there in company with Juan Read? 
A. 1^0, sir. 

Q. 16. Can you point out the position of that embarca- 
dero on that survey ? A. I cannot point it out ; I have not 
been in there since 1843. My impression is, with the map 



81 

before me, the embarcadero was on Corte Madera Creek, 
near the letter *' 0," at the end of the word ranch o, in the 
'N.W. corner of the map. 

Cross-examined by Howard, 

Q. 1. Please state it' you know anything further of the 
boundaries of the Read rancho than that which you have 
stated in your direct examination. 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin for the reason that the wit- 
ness has mentioned boundaries in his cross-examination not 
mentioned in his direct. 

A. Ko, sir, I do not. 

Q. 2. Was not the Corte Madera of which you have 
spoken identically the same as the creek at the head of San 
Que n tin Bay ? A. It was the same. The creek at the 
head of San Quentin Bay was the Corte Madera. At the 
upper end was the Corte Madera landing. 

Q. 3. Is the Corte Madera of which you speak at the 
head of the creek on the north side of the official survey now 
between Point San Quentin aiid the Read rancho ? A. It is 
the cren^k. At the end ot* the salt marsh in the letter O is 
the Corte Madera landing. 

By Mr. Shanklin: 

Q. 1. Do you know of any other Corte Madera in the 
Read rancho than the one you have just described ? If so, 
whereabouts was it ? 

Objected to by Sharp as irrelevant and immaterial. 

A. I think it laid to the west of Read's house. That's 
ray impression now. 

Q. 2. Please state what you said in reply to a question 
of Mr. Howard concerning this Corte Madera and Richard- 
son cutting timber thereon. 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp as incompetent and irrelevant, 
as no such question appears upon the record. 

A. My answer to Mr. Hovvard's question was that I knew 
of another Corte Ma'lera, which laid about west of Read's 
house, and the timber on it was cut both by Read and 
Richardson. 

Examination by J. B. Howard, 

Q. 1. Did you know to whom the land belonged ? A. 
My impression is that it was claimed by Richardson and 
Rjad both. Personally I did not know to whom it belonged. 

Q. 2. At what time was it that you first became ac- 
quainted with Capt. Richardson on the Saucelito Rancho ? 



Q. 


4. 


lito ? 


A 


Q. 


5. 


Q. 


6. 



82 

A. I first became acquainted with him at Yerba Buena, 
1838, and I also met Capt. Richardson at Saucelito in 1888. 

Q. 3. Was Capt. Eichardson residing at Saucelito in the 
year 1838, and, if so, where ? A. From" July, 1838, to the 
last of that year, about half of the time he lived at Sauce- 
lito, and the balance of the time of that year, he lived in 
Yerba Buena. He lived at Saucelito at (I don't know the 
name of the place) Richardson's Old Homestead or Ranch 
House. 

Did Richardson's family reside with him at Sauce- 
. Yes, sir. 

During that time ? A. Yes, sir. 
And for how long afterwards did they continue to 
reside there, to your knowledge ? A. Capt. Richardson 
lived most of the time on the Rancho Saucelito with his 
family up to the time of his death. 

Q. 7. From what date ? 

Motion made by Mr. Shanklin to strike out question as 
irrelevant and immaterial, and ruling called for. Further 
objection made on account of the absence ot* the Surveyor- 
General. 

Question 'No. 7 withdrawn. 

Q. 8. At what time did you first become acquainted 
with Juan Read ? 

On account of the absence, all questions in relation to 
Capt. Richardson withdrawn. 

Q. 8. At what time did you first become acquainted 
with Juan Read ? A. In the year 1838. 

Q. 9. Did Jnan Read ever point out to you the western 
boundary^ of his rancho ? A. My impression is now that he 
did not. 

Q. 10. Do you know positively whether he did or did 
not? A. Ko: I do not know positively. 

Q. 11. Did Juan Read ever state to you that he had 
another ranch besides the Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. 
No, sir; I do not remember Read ever using the word 
Presidio. He simply said Corte Madera. 

Adjourned till 10 o'clock a. m. to-morrow. 



83 

Wednesday, Nov; 24th, 18T5. 
Examination resumed. 
All present. 

Gross- Examination of Mr, Davis hy J. B, Howard. 

•Q. 1. Whether you know anything further of the bound- 
aries of Read's Rancho than that you have testified to in 
your direct examination ? A. I do not ; with exception 
that in my cross-examination I have stated something about 
the boundaries that perhaps I did not in my direct examin- 
ation — or in other words, with regard to the Corte Madera. 

Q. 2. By Corte Madera, do you mean the place at the 
head of the creek flowing into San Quentin Bay, on the 
northeast side of the rancho ? 

Objected to by Mr. Gardner that the question assumes a 
fact not testified to by witness. 

A. I mean the Corte Madera claimed by Juan Read and 
Capt. Cooper, and the landing generally called Corte 
Madera Landing. 

Q. 3. Point out the Corte Madera on the ofiicial map. 
A. The Corte Madera Landing was in the vicinity of the 
Corte Madera. Witness points to the creek on the north 
of the map, and says the Corte Madera Embarcadero was 
about the letter " o " in the word rancho — somewhere there, 
I don't undertake to locate it exactly. The Corte Madera 
lay from the landing about a quarter to half a mile distant, 
westerly. 

Q. 4.*^ State if you know of your own knowledge to whom 
the land belonged in which the embarcadero of Corte Ma- 
dera was located. A. It was used as the landing for the 
Corte Madera when timber was cut by Reed and Cooper, or 
their men. 

Mr. Cutter called attention to the fact that Mr. Davis tes- 
tified as to cutting timber yesterday, before he was cross- 
examined by Mr. Gardner, and that his answer was uot taken 
down, and asked that his direct testimony be now corrected 
so that the testimony need not stand as original testimony, 
elicited by Mr. Gardner, referring to question 2d, page 223, 
and following being the cross-examination of the Corte Ma- 
dera and cutting timber. 

The witness says : " My recollection is, that I answered 
the questions of another party than Mr. Gardner, and I 
think it was Mr. Throckmorton, and stated that I knew of 
the men cutting timber on Corte Madera for Reed and 
Cooper ; and Mr. Peter Gardner's questions two (2) and fol- 



84 

lowing were in cross-examination of matters stated before 
Mr. Gardner began.'' 

Gross-Examination by Gardner, 

Q. Do you know anything, of your own knowledge? 
of the northern and west boundary of the rancho ? A. I do 
not. 

Q. Do you know where the Arroyo de los Esteros is ? 
A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know where the Arroyo Animas is ? A. I 
do not. 

Q. Do yoQ know where the Arroyo Corte Madera del 
Presidio is? A. ]^o, sir, 

Q. Do you know where the Arroyo Corte Madera del 
Pablo is ? A. jS"o, sir. 

By Mr. Brooks : — 

Q. Do you know any of these arroyos in any way, or did 
you ever hear of them before ? A. I have probably heard 
of them, but it is some 30 years ago; I cannot remember 
them ; it is 80 years since I was on the Bead rancho; I was 
there in 1846 the last time. 

By Mr. Howard — Objected, as immaterial, irrelevant, and 
not mentioned in the record of juridical possession. 

Q. Was there any fence or obstruction in riding from 
Read's house to the extreme point of Tiburon ? 

By Mullen & Hyde — Ohjeeted to, as incompetent and im- 
material. 

A. There was a corral a few hundred yards from his 
house. It was the only thing I saw in the way of a fence in 
going from Read's house to Tiburon. 

Q. Did you ever travel from the Read house to the em- 
barcadero, or to Ban Rafael ? A good manv times. 

WILLIAM II. DAVIS. 

G. F. Allardt being called as a witness by Mr. Brooks, i» 
first duly sworn, and deposes as follows : 

Q. 1. What is your name, age, occupation and resi- 
dence ? A. My name is G. F. "Allardt ; age, 42 ; resi- 
dence, San Francisco; occupation, civil engineer and 
surveyor. 

Q. 2. Did you hold any official position connected with 
the Tide and Marsh Land Commission of this State — if so, 
at what time ? A. I was Surveyor and Chief Engineer for 
the Board of Tide Land Commissioners, for the State of 
California. 



85 

Q. 3. During what penod ? A. From 1868 to 1873. 

Q. 4. What Hnos of the harbor of San Francisco did you 
survey in that capacity ? 

Objected to by Capt. Mullen as totally irrelevant, and if 
answered fully will take all day. 

A. I surveyed the boundaries of the salt marsh and tide 
lands belouiijing to the State of California. 

Q. 5. Did that include the ordinary high water and 
low water lines, and the line of extreme high tide ? A. It 
did. 

Q. 6. How does the exterior line of the salt marsh cor- 
respond with ordinary high water mark? A. It coincides 
or is identical with it, according to my survey. 

Q. 7. Can you tell, from 3M)ur experience as a surveyor 
in the waters of California, whether the prosecution of 
hydraulic mining has any effect ; if so, what in respect to 
salt marshes in the bay ? 

Objected to by Capt. Mullen, unless the locus of the salt 
marsh is defined, and that it be made to apply to the salt 
marsh contiguous to the land in controversy. 

A. I have not surveyed any salt marshes situated at the 
mouth of streams on whicli hydraulic mining is practiced, 
and have, therefore, not observed any effects upon the 
marshes of San Fi'ancisco Bay from hydraulic mining. 

Q. 8. Have you, during the time you have been survey- 
ing, noticed any increase or decrease of the salt marshes ? 

Objected to by Capt. Mullen, unless it is confined to the 
land in question. 

A. I have observed that the washings from the hills par- 
tially reclaimed the salt marsh — that is, makes more dry 
land; but that the action of t!ie waves on the outer edge of 
the salt marsh had decreased its area. 

Q. 9. Did you accompany Leander Ransom to the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio ? 

Objected to, unless some time is stated, as irrelevant. 

A. I did. 

Q. 10. When, and for what purpose ? A. In 1873, at his 
request I did ; for the purpose of complying with his request. 
He requested me to go over there, and I went over. 

Q. 11. What did you do then? A. I pointed out to 
Mr. Ransom the line run by me under Deputy Surveyor R. • 
C. Mathewson in 1858 in the vicinity of Juan Read's old 
adobe house. 

Q. 12. Is that the purpose for which you went over 
ther-e ? A. It was. 



86 

Q. 13. Did you survey the exterior lines of this rancho 
or Hoy of tliem while acting as surveyor of the Board of 
Tide Land Commissioners 't 

Objected to by Mullen as being immaterial and incom- 
]>etent, unless it can be shown by the records of this office 
that he, as a Deputy Surveyor, was authorized to make a 
survey of this rancho so as an officer of the State of Califor- 
nia, he was neither authorized or instructed to make any 
survey of this or any other rancho. 

A. I surveyed the salt marsh and tide lands belonging 
to the State ot* California aroutid and adjacent to the land 
that I supposed to be the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio 
at that time. 

Q. 14. Look at the official plat and state whether you 
surveyed in that capacity tlie shore line from the mouth of 
the Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio to the Arroyo Holon 
or any part thereof. If so what ? A. I did, I surveyed 
the entire shore line between those two points. 

Q. 15. J)id you also traverse the principal streams and 
estuaries between those tw^o points within the salt marsh? 
A. I did. 

Q. 18. What part did you take in the survey by Wa- 
the\vso!i ? A. I had charge of his party, during the Wiiole 
survey. 

Q. 17. How far to the west at that time did you carry 
your survey or reconnoisance ? 

Objecte I to as the Mathewscjn survey shows for itself 

A. We surveye I nearly all the ranchos in Marin County 
exct^pt the S lucehro K mcho. 

Q. 18. Q lestion 17 repeated. A. To the Pacific Ocean. 

Q. 19. Ill miking thit survey, did you not in the first 
place make a reconnoisance of the exterior boundaries of 
the rancho. 

Ooj(»cte(l to by Mullen as he does not designate what 
survey. 

A. Yes, as far as we could ascertain them at the time. 

Q. 20. What one of the calls or exterior boundaries did 
you have any difficulty in ascertaining or finding in the Ma- 
thewson survey of this rancho ? 

Objected by Mullen as it does not appear in the instruc- 
tions issued to Mathewson that he was directed to make 
the survey according to the juridical possession. 

A. I left that to R. Mathewson, he being the Deputy 
Surveyor. He decided upon the calls and ordered me to 
make the survey accordingly. 



87 

Q. 21. (Question 20 repeated.) A. We discussed the 
location of the solar, the willows, the estuary east of the 
ho ise, and the location of the Corte Madera Creek and the 
Holon Creek, and compared them with the instructions and 
the disoiio. 

Q. 22. Did you run a line from the "solar" to the "Ar- 
royo Holon ?" A. I ran a line from the point decided upon 
by Mcithevvson as the solar, due north to the Arroyo Holon. 

Q. 23. What difficulty was there in ascertaining the es- 
tero lying east of the house ? A. There are two esteros 
lying easterly of the house ; I presume it was a question 
which was the right one. 

Q. 24. Will you point out on the official plat which one 
you settled upon as the estero called for ? A. I think it 
was the northerly one ; the one marked Embarcadero on 
the map, as the one Iving east of the house. 

Q. 25. Where did you find the canada and arroyo ? A. 
Near the Read house. 

*Q. 26. The description calls for the solar standing at the 
slope and foi)t of the hills. Did you find the edge of the 
forest of redwoods and the slope and foot of the hill ? 

Objected to by Mullen that it nowhere appears among the 
files of this case that Mathewson was instructed to make a 
survey of this ranch o with any such calls as his guide. The 
same are not contained either in the decree of the District 
Court nor in the instructions to Mathewson ; and that these 
questions propounded to witness relate exclusively to the 
decree of the JBoard of Land Commissioners, which was not 
furnished M:ithewson by the U. S. Surveyor-General. 

A. I think we did find them. 

Q. 27. You located the solar somewhere ? A. Yes. 

Q. 28. Prom that point did you survey a line from thence 
in a northerly direction to the arroyo called Holon ? A. I 
did. 

Q. 29. Did you survey thence by the waters of said ar- 
royo and the Bay of San Francisco, said point serving as a 
point and a limit. A. We surveyed down the Arroyo Ho- 
lon to where the line connected with the meanders of the 
salt marsh (inner line of the salt marsh), which was previ- 
ously run ; the meanders are run first all the way around 
the peninsula. 

Q. 30. From the termination of said westerly line at 
the Arroyo Holon, did you survey by the waters of said ar- 
royo and the Bay of San Francisco to the Point Tiburon, 



8S 

said point serving as a mark and limit? A. Ko ; not at that 
time. 

Question objected to by Mullen, as the question omits to 
state so much of the call as includes the words 10,000 varas. 

Q. 31. When did you do it ? 

Same objection by Mullen. 

A. We ran down the Holon to the salt marsh at that 
time, and connected with our line of meanders, which we 
hud previously run to and around what we supposed was 
Point Tiburon. 

Q. 32. When did you run that line of meanders ? A. 
A few weeks previously, under this same survey. 

Q. 33. What point did you locate as Point Tiburon at 
that time? A. The most easterly point of the peninsuln, at 
station No. 385, as shown on the official (Ransom survey) 
plot^ now before me. 

Q. 84. Did 3^ou survey a line thence running along the 
borders of said bay and continuing along the shore of the 
bay formed by Point Caballos and Point Tibui-on to the 
mouth of the cafiada and the point of the sausal, which 'is 
near the estero lying east of the house ? 

Objected to, as said question is incomplete, by purporting 
to describe a call in the Board of Land Commissioners, and 
oiiiittino- the words 4,700 varas. 

A. We meandered along: hio-h wjiter mark from Point 
Tiburon to the point of tlie sausal lying near an estero east 
of the house. 

Q. "35. J)id tViat meander line include that which is 
marked on this map "Peninsula Island ?" A. It cid. 

Q. 36. Did the meander line following ordinary high 
water mark lake in the salt marsh ? A. It did. 

^. 37. In Hxing the position of the various calls, with 
'the exception of the exact location of the "solar," did you 
require any aid outside of the documents furnisijed you (in- 
cluding the decree and diseiio) and your knowledge of 
the country ? A.I depended upon Mathewson for the 
determination of those points, and did not at the time pay 
much personal attention to those points, being occupied 
with the direction of the surveying party. 

Cross- Examination by Mullen ^ Hyde, 

Q. 1. When did you arrive in California ? A. In April, 
1858. 

Q. 2. How many ranchos did you assist in surveying in 
Cahfornia prior to this survey ? A. I assisted Deputy 



89 

M.itliewson 111 surveying several ranches in San M^iteo Co., 
and in makincr preliminary siirv-eys or locating rancbos in 
Marin County, including the "Read Rancho." 

Q. 3. Please state what particular part you took in the 
surv^ey of the Corte Madera known as the Mathewson sur- 
vey in 1858. A. I had charge of the party, and ran the 
lines as directed by Mr. Mathewson. 

Q. 4. In such charge, and occupying such position, did 
the duty devolve upon you to examine the callsof the jurid- 
ical measurement of this rancho? A. I think not. 

Q. 5. Did the duty devolve on you to examine the 
decree of the District Court, the decree of the Board of 
Land Commissioners, or as contained in the instructions of 
the U. S. Surveyor-General ? A.I think not. 

Q. 6. Please look at the return of Mathewson survey, of 
this survey, and state if the name of G. F. Allardt, signed 
thereto, is that of your own signature ? A. It is. 

Q. 7. Were you in anywise responsible for the return of 
any special boundaries to the Rancho Corte Madera, except 
such as set fortli in said return by said Mathewson? 

Objected to by Mr. Brooks, that the Hon. Conmiissioner 
may be presumed to know the duties of tlie officers and 
emyloyees in his department. 

A. I considered myself responsible in returning to 
Mathewson the correct courses and distances of the survey. 

Q. 8. When did Leander Ransom die ? A. I think 
about a year ago. 

Q. 9. Please state how many sides there would be to a 
body of land described as follows: Beginning at a point 
ijalled solar, and running north 4,500 varas to a point; 
thence s )utherly 10,000 to another point; thence westerly 
4,700 varas to another point ; thence 800 varas to the solar, 
to the point of beginning ? A. There would be no sides to 
it. It would be merely a straight line 10,000 varas long; 
as the sum of the other three sides, viz : 4,500, 4,700, and 
800 varas is equal to the fourth side, viz : 10,000 varas, and 
includes nothing. 

Cross- Examination by J. B, Howard. 

*Q. 1, Mr. Allardt, please examine the plat of Mathew- 
son survey of the Corte Madera Rancho, in evidence, and 
slate whether it is identical with the survey of which you 
have spoken, and made by you in company with R. C. 
Mathewson, Deputy Surveyor, in October, 1858 ? A. It 
appears to be a correct representation of that survey as 
finally returned by Mathewson. 



90 

Q. 2. Examine the official plat, anl s^y whether the 
point marked ''Post C. M. P., 181," as the initial point cor- 
rectly represents the location of the solar mentioned in the 
records of juridical possession, as ascertained in the field by 
l>epnty Mathewson, in 1858, and Deputy Ransom, of 1878 ? 
A. The locality of the solar, as located by Mathewson, was 
at the end of, or near the end of the 3d course. I do not 
know where Eansom considered the solar to be ; but I 
pointed the same locality out to Deputy Ransom in 1873, 
when I went over with Ransom to point out the Mathewson 
lines in that vicinity. 

Here adjourns to Monday, at 10 1 A. M. 

Monday, Nov. 29, 1875. 

Examination of Mr. Allardt resumed, by Mr. J. B. How- 
ard. 

Attorneys present, J. A. Robinson, U. S. Commissioner. 

Q. 3. State definitely the location of the solar on the 
official plat before you, as located by Mathewson. A. Near 
the end of the 3d course on the Arroyo Corte Madera del 
Presidio, on said map. 

Q. 4. At whose request were you present, in 1873, when 
you pointed out the solar to Deputy Ransom ? A. At the 
request of Deputy Ransom. 

Q. 5. Any other person ? A. I think not. 

Q. 6. Who were present at the time? A. Ransom, Pe- 
ter Gardner, and Mr. Worraouth and myself, is all I can re- 
member being ^jresent. 

Q. 7. Was uotThos. B. Valentine present ? A. I thiid<: 
not. 

Q. 8. Was not S. R.Throckmorton present ? A. I think 
not, on the ,i2:r()und. 

Q. 9. Did you see Throckmorton that day; if so, where ? 
A. I think Deputy Ransom and I took lunch at Throckmor- 
ton's house that day. 

Q. 10. How far is Throckmorton's house located from 
the solar ? A. About half a mile. 

Q. 11. How did you come to go to lunch at Throck- 
morton's house that day — by whose invitation ? A. On our 
way home I think Mr. Throckmorton invited us in. 

Q. 12. Did you or Ransom, on that day, discuss the ob- 
ject of your visit to the Rancho of Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio ; and, if so, with whom ? A. With those present ; 
we did very probably with Mr. Throckmorton. 

Q. 13. Did Throckmorton indicate his satisfaction or 



91 

acquiescence of the location of the initial point or solar, 
and of the west line of the Corte Madera rancho ? 

Objected to by Mr. Throckmorton, for the reason that 
there was no west line pointed out or suggested bj^ anybody 
at that time. 

A. I do not know; I don't remember what he said on 
that occasion. 

Q. 14. Was there not upon the ground at that day a dis- 
cussion, in your presence, between Peter Gardner and S. R, 
Throckmorton, concerning the location of the solar, in which 
discussion you took a part, the matter having been referred 
to you by them ? A. There was a great deal said by all 
parties present, while on the ground at the supposed solar, 
but I think Mr. Throckmorton was not present. 

Q. 15. Do you not remember that Mr. Throckmorton, 
on that day, stood behind a pile of cordwood, and, with a 
stick or rod, pointed out to you and to the other persons the 
direction of the west line of said rancho, from the solar 
north to the Holon ? A. Ko, I do not; someone pointed 
out the line, but I do not remember who it was ; the hue 
has been pointed out to me so often, by different persons 
who pretended to know the line, but I cannot designate any 
particular person. 

Q. 16. Have you had at any time before, prior or subse- 
quent to October, 1873, or at that time, any conversations 
with Mr. Throckmorton with reference to said solar or the 
west line of said rancho ? A. Yes, at several times. 

Q. 18. What w^as the nature of the conversations, and 
the opinion expressed by Mr. Throckmorton? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as being incompetent to 
establish any boundary of this rancho. 

Same objection by Mr. Throckmorton. 

A. Mr. Throckmorton theorized upon the subject, and I 
remember that he contended that the solar was not at the 
"Old Mill ;" that Tracy's survey was not correct; also that 
he was of the opinion that the west boundary of the Read 
Rancho should be the Arroyo of Corte de Madera del Pre- 
sidio, from the solar to its head. 

Q. 19. Examine the document in this case marked 
**No. 1 " (383) Petition of Samuel R. Throckmorton in the 
case of Rancho Corte de Madera del Presidio, herewith of- 
fered in evidence, and state what was the nature and char- 
acter of the affidavit of Geo. F. Allardt therein referred to, 
the said affidavit being missing from the records of this 
office. Said Petition is marked filed U. S. Sur.-Genl's 
Office, Califorpia, March 9th, 1869. 



92 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin, as irrelevant and immate- 
rial — inasmuch as the affidavit or document referred to could 
have cut no fissure in determininor the correctness of the final 
survey of the Corte Madera Rancho, said affidavits or doc- 
uments having been made several years prior to the sur- 
vey and not offered as data in determining any of the lines 
of the survey, and from the further reason that the affidavit 
referred to does not appear in the files as stated in the ques- 
tion? A. I do not remember its nature or contents. 

Q. 20. Question repeated. This petition, marked " Ex. 
Throckmorton," J. A. R. A. I do not remember its nature 
or contents. 

Q. 21. Examine said petition, beginning on the third 
page. " The measurement of the juridical possession com- 
menced at the solar, the sowing ground or lot, a piece of 
land usually cultivated near all the old California ranch 
houses, and within convenient distance. In this particular 
case it was located in the best place that could have been 
selected, viz., near the house. They commenced said 
measurement from the solar, which faces west, and on the 
edge of the forest of redwoods called "Corte de Madera del 
Presidio." They commenced the measurement, and going 
from south to north, they measured to an arroyo called lio- 
lon. An examination of the map will settle this question 
and locate the solar past doubt. It should not escape notice 
that this very commencement immediately leaves the boun- 
dary of the ^aucelito Rancho, and travels away from it, nor 
does the survey and measurement of the juridical possession 
ever again approach it any nearer until the return to the 
place of beginning." Please state from your recollection if 
the substance of your affidavit was not in conformity with 
that portion of Mr. Throckmorton's petition just read to 
you ; and further, if said affidavit did not substantially indi- 
cate the west line of the rancho as on the official [lat, and 
as run by you under instructions from Surveyor-General in 
June, 1874. 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin, as before. 

A. I do not remember the nature or contents of that affi- 
davit. I do not know what it referred to. 

Q. 22. Bo you recollect that about October 8th, 1869, 
you made, at the request of Samuel R. Throckmorton, a 
survey and plat of a part of the exterior boundaries of the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. I do ; I made it 
October 11th, 1869. 

Q. 23. Was said survey made at the request of said 



93 

Throckmorton, and paid for by him ? A. The survey was 
made under instructions from the U. S. SurV^eyor-General, 
dated October 8th, 1869. I have forgotten whether I was 
paid by said Throckmorton or the United States. 

Q. 24. Who requested the survey ? A. I don't re- 
member. 

Q. 25, Did not Mr. Throckmorton ask you to make the 
surve}^, and was he not present on the ground with you 
during the making thereof; and present when the plat was 
made ? 

Objectpd to by Mr. Shanklin as immaterial, the survey in 
question having nothing to do with the lines of the official 
survey so far as this contest is concerned. 

A. He was present on the ground ; also, Mr. DefFebach, 
the husband of one of the Read heirs. He was not present 
when I made the plat. I can't say whether Mr. Throck- 
morton requested me to make the survey. It was a survey 
made to determine a line between Throckmorton and 
DefFebach. 

Q. 26. By Deffebach, you mean Inez Read Deifebach, 
one of the heirs of the late Juan Read? A. I don't know 
whether he or she owns the land. 

Q. 27. At what point did you commence said survey ? 
A. J^o post having been established at Station 175 of the 
Mathewson survey, I commenced at Station 172 of the 
Matliewson survey, being about at the end of the 34th 
course on the official plat. 

Q. 28. Did you proceed as far as Station 180 of the 
Mathewson, and course 1 on the official plat ? A. I did. 

Q. 29. Did you proceed to make said survey from Post 
'' C. M. P. 180," oii the Mathewson survey, to Post C. M. 
P. 181? A. I did. QY. ALLARDT. 

Peter Gardner called on the part of the United States for 
the pre-emption claimants, John L Gushing, Francis D. 
Barlow, and Thomas Luke Riley, 

Peter Gardner, being first duly sworn says: My name is 
Peter Gardner; my age, 42; residence, Marin County; 
occupation, farmer, brickmaker and butcher. 

Q. 1. Are you acquainted with the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio, and with the surveys of said rancho, 
represented respectively by the plat of R. C. Mathewson, 
Deputy Surveyor, in evidence, and the official plat of 1873 
iind 1874, by Ransom and Allardt, Deputy Surveyors ? A. 
Yes, sir ; I am well acquainted with them. 



94 

Q. 2. State if you were present in the month of October, 
1873, at the solar represented on said official plat, as in the 
testimony of Allardt, as Post C. M. P. 180 ? A. I was present 
at the discussion to establish the solar in that place. 

Q. 3. Who was present there with you at the time ? A. 
Gr. F. Allardt — who was not Deputy Surveyor at that time, 
Leander Ransom, Deputy Surveyor at that time, James 
Cammings, Doctor Benj. F. Lyford, T. B. Valentine, S. R. 
Throckmorton, Ebenezer Wormouth, I think Leonard Sto- 
rey, but I am not sure; there may have been some other 
persons, but those persons, with the exception of Storey, I 
know were there. 

Q. 4. How did Allardt and Ransom reach that point, 
and with whom did they come ? A. I don't clearl3' recol- 
lect with whom they came; they did not all come at the 
same time. 

Q. 5. Can you state the conversation which occurred 
there between Mr. Throckmorton, yourself, Mr. Allardt, 
and the others, if any took place ? 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin, as immaterial, and further, 
because it is not shown by the preceding questions and an- 
swers that the parties directly in interest, viz : the heirs 
of Read, were present in establishing the solar or any of the 
other boundaries of the ranch, or that they engaged in the 
discussion referred to in the question. 

A. I can state the substance of it ; it was a long, sharp 
controversy; Mr. Allardt, he represented that he was there 
to show Ransom where he had fixed the solar in the Ma- 
thewson survey bef )ie; the others united with Allardt upon 
that proposition, because it was the compromise solar by all 
the pai'ties represented in the Read rancho ; that is what 
they claim to Ransom ; it was a compromise previously 
made and then adhered to ; I then objected to their pro- 
ceedings, because they could produce no proof, neither by 
the records nor no yjavo] testimony, and that it was entirely 
contradictory to either the records or the parol testimony ; 
that is where the warm discussion took place. 

Q. 6. Who purported to represent the heirs of John 
Read on that occasion — if you know ? A. I hardly know ; 
they were all against me on the proposition ; I hardly know 
who they were representing. 

Q. 7. Point out on the official plat the solar as then 
claimed by S. R. Throckmorton and Thos. B. Valentine and 
the others — the solar which they call the compromise solar. 

Mr. Shanklin objects to question, as immaterial and irrel- 
evant. 



95 

A. It was a post marked Post " C. M. P. 181 ;" point of 
beginning as on the official plat. 

Q. 8. Did they or any of them point out the line from 
said solar north; and if so, is said line represented in the 
official plat. 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin as immaterial, and as not 
binding either upon the United States or Read heirs. 

A. Mr. Allardt did; he pointed the line as marked as 
the western line of the survey of the rancho, on the official 
plat, and represented to Mr. Ransom that it was a due 
north line. 

Q. 9. Did S. R. Throckmorton or any person present, 
except yourself, object to said line at that time ? 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin, as immaterial. 

A. Nobody but myself and Mr. Wormouth. 

Q. 10. Did Mr. Throckmorton agree to that line at that 
time ? 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin, unless the language of Mr. 
Throckmorton in connection with any of these transactions 
is given specifically. 

A. They all seemed to be united against me in favor of 
that hne. 

Motion made by Mr. Shanklin to strike out the last an- 
swer as not responsive to the question. 

Q. 11. Had you any interest at that, time, or claim of 
interest, in the Rancho Corte Madera as represented by the 
official plat ? A. I claimed lands represented on the plat, 
but claim they were not properly in the ranch. 

Cross- Examination by Mr. Sharp, 

Q. 1. If at the time of this alleged compromise solar and 
line referred to in your examination in-chief If the daugh- 
ters of Juan Read were married then — one the wife of Dr. 
Lyford and the other the wife of Mr. Deffebach? A. I 
think they were. Dr. Lyford w^as there himself I am not 
sure whether Deffebach was there or not. I think he was, 
though I am not sure. 

Q. 2. Were either of the ladies referred to present on 
that occasion? A. One of the ladies came out but not at 
that place — at the lower end of the line. She came out near 
the house. 

Q. 3. Who, if anybody, represented the United States 
on that occasion ? A. I do not recollect of anybody. 



96 

Cross- Examination hy Mr. Shanklia, 

Q. 1. The occasion you refer to, was there any lines run ? 
A. No lines measured. Mr. Allardt had the instruments; 
1 packed them around myself, and I know they were there. 

Q. 2. Please give us the day of the week and the date 
of the transaction you referred to in your last answer. A. 
I do not exactly remember the day of the week or the day 
of the month. I will have to refer to my memorandum, and 
I have not got it here. 

Q. 3. Please to state the conversation of Mr. Throck- 
morton on the occasion that you refer to, if you can, either 
as to the establishment of the solar referred to by you as the 
compromise solar, or the establishment of the line represent- 
ed on the official map, as connecting stations " C. M. P. 181 " 
and post marked "P. Q. 99 and W. R. 203." A. I can't ex- 
actly pick out the individual. I took the whole party as 
one ; when one did not say enough the other helped him 
out. 

Q. 4. Can you then swear Mr. Throckmorton personally 
said anything on that occasion as to whether the solar re- 
ferred to by you as a compromise solar was correctly located, 
or that the line referred to in the last questioji was a correct 
line for the western boundary of the ranch Corte de Ma- 
dera del Presidio? A. I don't recollect of Mr. Throck- 
morton stating about this line being correct (referring to the 
west line of the rancho mentioned) ; the principal discussion 
was on the starting point, and in that he was against me. 

Q. 5. What did you claim as being the solar ? A. The 
place where Read lived in 1835. 

Objected to by Mr. Howard as not being cross-examina- 
tion. 

Q. 6. Then from your preceding answer (the one before 
the last), are we to understand that Mr. Throckmorton 
merely opposed the idea of locating the solar where you 
thought it should be, without expressing any ojunion ow his 
part as to the correctness of the location ot* what you have 
named the " compromise solar ?" A. I think not, without 
expressing an opinion. I don't ?recollect that he said any- 
thing as to the establishment of that particular spot. He 
took it as a proposition against me. I don't recollect which 
individual used it then, but they all seemed to concur in 
one theory against me. 

Adjourned till half-past 10 o'clock a. m., Tuesday, 'Bow 
30th, 1875. PETER GARNER, 



97 

Thomas B. Valentine recalled, by J. B. Howard, attorney 
for the United States and pre-emption claimants. 

Q. 1. Were you present, in October 3d, 1873, with Le- 
ander Ransom, Deputy Surveyor, and Geo. F. Allardt, at or 
near the solar or Post C. M. P. 181 (point of beginning) as on 
the official plat? and, if so, state what other persons were 
there present with you on that day, and what was the pur- 
pose and object of said assemblage. 

Question objected to by Mr. Shanklin, as calling for an 
opinion of the witness as to the motives and objects of other 
parties than himself, as being present on that occasion. 

Question repeated, and witness requested to state only the 
facts known to himself. 

A. Geo. F. Allardt, Leander Ransom, and S. R. Throck- 
morton, Benj. F. Lyford, Peter Gardner, was also present. 

Q. 2. Did Ransom or Allardt have any surveying instru- 
ments on the ground at that time ? A. I think Mr. Allardt 
did; I am not sure whether the instrument belonged to Mr. 
Allardt or Mr. Ransom — but there was an instrument there; 
I mean surveying instruments; I don't kuow^that there was 
anything but a surveyor's compass. 

Q. 3. How did Mr. Allardt reach the grounds, and in 
who-e company ? 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin, as immaterial, 

A. I think he w^as driven up from Saucelito by Mr, 
Throckmorton, to his place. 

Motion made by Mr. Shanklin to sti^ike out the preced- 
ing answer as indefinite. 

Q. 4. State the facts so far as you know them. A. I got 
^ pair of horses at Saucelito, and drove up to the Read ran- 
cho, taking in Mr. Ransom and Dr, Lyford; that I am sure 
of; my recollection is, that Mr. Throckmorton took his 
team in town here, took Mr. Allardt to the boat, crossed 
over, and then drove him up to his place with his own team. 

Q. 4. What was the object of the assemblage ? A. The 
object was to have pointed out to Mr. Ransom the starting 
point in the new survey, and finding the starting point of 
the Mathew^son survey, 

Q. 5. Were all parties present in agreement upon the 
point and line suggested then and there by Geo. F. Allardt, 
«,nd now representing "Post C. M. P. 181," on the official 
plat; and, if not, w^ho were the persons expressing a disa- 
greement thereto ? 

Objected to by Mr, Shanklin on the ground that the 
qu3stioii assumes what the witness has not testified to, viz,: 



98 

that the parties were not there to estahlish a line or a start- 
ing point as set forth in the last answer of the witness. jS"or 
does it appear from the testimony of the witness, nor from 
the testimony of Allardt, that any west or other line was 
established on the occasion referred to. 

A. I don't think it was a question of line there with us ; 
it was a question of starting point and fixing the solar. Mr. 
Peter Gardner claimed that we should start at a place lower 
down. I think he hunted up a few scattering redwood 
stumps by that point and the Read house, which he con- 
tended was the redwood forest spoken of in the juridical 
possession. 

Q. 6. At what time did the party break up, and where 
did they go? A. We came down as far as the Indian 
mound, or rancheria, discussed the question then at some 
length ; discussed also the location of the Point Sausal ; 
then, upon the invitation of Mr. Throckmorton, several of 
us went to bis house and got lunch. 

Q. 7. State who the parties were. A. Dr. Lyford, 
Mr. Allardt, Col. Ransom and myself That is all that oc- 
curred on that occasion. We returned to San Francisco on 
3 p. M. boat, October 3(J, 1873. 

Q. 8. Did you, subsequently to October 3d, 1873, and 
prior to the 5th of December, 1874, have any further con- 
versations with Mr. Throckmorton, either in relation to said 
starting point or to the re-survey of said Rancho Gorte Ma- 
dera by Ransom and Allardt, as represented on the official 
plat ; and if so, what date, and the nature of the conversa- 
tion ? A. I have no personal recollection now lA any con- 
versation with Mr. Throckmorton. When I came back I 
f )und that they had not run the lines of the survey on the 
north and east, and on the south as well, leaving the marsh 
lands out, as I supposed they were to be run, and not as I 
construed in conformity with the decision of the Secretary 
of the Interior. Then we had a meeting. 

Q. 5. Where was the meeting held ? A. At the office 
of the U. S. Surveyor-General. 

Q. 6. What subject did you there discuss ? 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin as immaterial. 

A. We discussed the decision of the Secretary of the In- 
terior as to ho\v the ranch should be surveyed, and what 
should be included. 

Q. 7. What were the special objections then made by 
each of the several parties present ? 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin as immaterial and indefinite, 



99 

as not having stated who the parties were that were present 
and engaged in the discussion, nor when it occurred. 

A. I called on the Surveyor-General 5th of December, 
but that was not the time we had the discussion. It was on 
the 24th of November, 1873. There were present, Sol. A. 
Sharp, Leander Ransom, R. C. Hopkins, and the Surveyor- 
General ; B. S. Brooks was also present, and the decision of 
the Surveyor-General was, that the marsh land must be 
taken in. 

Q. 8. Did you, at any time during the period mentioned, 
viz : from Oct. 3, 1873, to Dec. 5th, 1874, meet Mr. S. R. 
Throckmorton in the TJ. S. Surveyor-General's office [ob- 
jected to by Mr. Shanklin as immaterial and irrelevant], 
and if so, did your conversation have reference to the Ran- 
som or Allardt survey ? A. I have no special recollection 
of it now. I am under the impression that I did. I must 
refer to my memorandum in order to be positive. 

Motion made by Mr. Shanklin to strike out the preceding 
answer, 1st, as immaterial; 2d, because the objections of 
Mr. Throckmorton to the survey in question is a matter of 
record in this office, and cannot be varied by parol testi- 
mony. 

Cross- Uxaminalion by S. L, Gutter, Esq, 

Q. 1. In answering question 1, what book did you refer 
to, to refresh your memory ? A. A diary or memorandum 
book that I keep. 

Q. 2. Will you please read from it verbatim the mem- 
orandum made there by you, on October 3d, 1873, concern- 
ing Mr. Gardner's presence ? A. Gardner followed us 
wherever we went. 

Q. 3. Did you have the espediente or any part of it with 
you — I mean your party — during the discussion of the point 
of commencement mentioned in your answer to question 5 ? 
A. I think we only had a traced copy of the diseno from 
the espediente. 

Q. 4. Did you have the record of juridical measurement 
or any papers concerning the rancho ? It so, state what 
they were. A. I think we had a copy of the juridical 
measurement, also a copy of the decision of the Land Com- 
mission, with the traced copy of the diseno before spoken 
of [ think I had pamphlet copy of the "Decision of the 
Secretary of the Interior, and opinion of the Assistant 
Attorney-General in the case of the Survey of the Rancho 
' Corte Madera del Presidio.' Heirs of Juan Read, con- 



100 

firmees. Washington : Government Printer^s Office ; 
1872." 

Q. 5. Did you have or were any of the original title 
papers of this rancho, or copies of them in Spanish upon the 
ground during that discussion? A. I don't recollect that 
they were. 

Q. 6. Your discussions then were all founded upon trans- 
lations ? A. I think they were. 

Q. 7. Do you understand the Spanish language? A* 

I do not. I rehed upon my attorney (B. S. Brooks) for 
that; 

Q. 8. How far from the house (the Read house) was the 
point of commencement pointed out by your party on that 
day, and in what direction from the house? A. About 
40 chs northwest, as marked on the map. 

CrosS'JExamination by J. W. ShankUn. 

Q. 1. What time on the 3d of October, 1878, did you 
and the party leave San Francisco, to gO to the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio ? A. On the morning of that day. 

Q. 2. About what hour ? A. I think the first morning 
boat over from San Francisco to Saucelito. It is not down 
in my memorandum book, but I think it was \ of nine in 
the morning. 

Q. 3. What time did you arrive at the ranch ? A. About 

II o'clock that day. 

Q. 4. What time did you go witb Allardt and Ransom 
to ascertain the location of the solar as established by Math- 
ewson? A. Almost inmediately after our arrival at the 
rancho. 

Q. 5. How long did you and the company with you, re- 
main at that point? A. I should think from half an hour 
to an hour. 

Q. 6. Was Mr. Throckmorton on the ground when you 
arrived there, at the solar? If not, how long after you arrived 
there was it before he arrived ? A. I think we all went 
to the place together. 

Q. 7. Did not Mr. Throckmorton go to his house, before 
he went to the solar? A. I am not sure whether he did 
or not. My impression is he did. 

Q. 8. Did you and your company not proceed directly 
to the solar, while Mr. Throckmorton went to his house ? 
A. My impression is that we left our horses at Mr. Throck- 
morton's house, and then walked over to this point of com- 
mencement, but am not positively certain of it. 



101 

Q. 9. Did Mr. Throckmorton remain on the ground, as 
i)ne of the party, during the time that you remained at the 
solar? A. I think he did ; and walked with us down to 
the rancheria, and from there we went to his house to lunch. 

Q. 10. What time did you go back, you and your com- 
pany ? A. We went back on the 3 p. m. boat to the city. 

Q. 11. In your former testimony in this case, you speak 
of having employed Mr. Ransom to make a survey of the 
Corte Madera del Presidio raiicho. Did you pay him, for 
making the said survey, any funds besides the amount 3^0 u 
tfay was deposited in the U. S. Surveyor-General's office f.>r 
making said survey ? A. If I stated in my former testi- 
mony that I emph)yed him, I wish now to state that he was 
appointed by the Surveyor-General to make the survey, and 
the money for that purpose was deposited with the Surveyor- 
General, as is usual in those cases. 

Q. 12. ^ovv [)lease to answer my question, as to whether 
you paid Mr. Ransom anything besides what was deposited 
in this otHce, on account of the making of the survey of 
said ranch o ; and if so, how much ? 

J. B. Howard objects to the question, as irrelevant and 
not being cross-examination ; and Mr. V^alentine objects 
a,nd declines to answer the question until his counsel, B. S, 
Broi)k.-, is present. 

Q. 13. Then you decline to answer the question? A. I 
do, for the reason before stated. 

Q. 14. With what parties was the agreement made by 
you, of furnishing the funds to surve/ this ranch? A. 
I don't know of any agi^eement made by me with anybody. 

Q. 15. How then came the parties whom you name in 
your former examination to unite witli you in furnishing the 
money deposited in this office for the survey of the ranch ? 
A. I think I stated th; t Mr. Howard, in order to expedite 
the survey, proposed to pay a portion of the expense of 
making it, Mr. R msom claiming the amount paid into the 
office was not sutlicient to complete the survey. 

Q. 16. What interest did Mr. Howard have or repre- 
sent in the R.mcho Corte Madera del Presidio, for which he 
was willing to pay a portion to expedite the survey ? A. 
Mr. Howard had a client by the name of Riley, who w^as 
located upon some land which he claimed would be west of 
the line of the Rjad rancho, and public land, who was de- 
sirous of getting a title to his land from the United States, 
^nd no interest in the Read ranch. 

Q. 17. Was Mr. Howard the only man you accepted 



102 

a^^sistance from in obtaining^ money to make tho survey ?' A. 
He was the only man outside of the persons claiming under 
the Read title. 

Q. 18. Was Riley the only man that Mr. Howard 
represented himself as willing to contribute in making the 
survey ? A. He was the only man at that or any other 
time. 

Q. 19. How much did Mr. Howard contribute towards 
miking the survey ? A. I don't recollect the amount. 

Q. 20. When was it that he agreed to contribute with you 
towards the survey ? A. He did not agree to do it ; he 
proposed to do it and I accepted his proposition. 

Q.. 21. Please to refer to your diary and refresh your 
memory from it. A. I have not my diary with me contain- 
ing that. 

Q. 22. What was the proposition made by Mr. Howard 
as the basis or consideration for his aiding towards making 
the survey, which proposition you say you accepted ? 

Objected to by Mr. Howard, on the ground of superfluity, 
the witness having already answered. 

A. I have already answered that it was to expedite the 
oV)taining of Riley's title. 

Q. 23. Then in accepting Mr. Howard's proposition, did 
you agree or not to leave Riley's preemption claim out of 
the Rancho '' Corte Madera del Presidio?" A. I did not; 
I did not m ike any agreement about it. 

Q. 21. Was the lime that this proposition made by How- 
ard the first inteiwicvv you had with him concerning the Ri- 
ley c'aini in connec'ion with the survey of the Corte 
Madera del Presidio Rmcho? A. I think so. 

Q. 25. Please to look at the document filed in this case 
entitled, "The heirs of Jum Read vs. the United States. 
Objections to survey of the R-incho Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio, by B. S. Brooks," filed May 1st, 1875, and state 
whether said document was filed in your behalf by B. S. 
Brooks, your attorney. A. It so appears. 

Q. 23. The first objection in said document reads as fol- 
lows : " It leaves out, and does not include, a tract of land 
lying between the w^estern boundary of said survey and the 
ranchos Saucelito and Punta de Quentin, or the Arroyo 
Corte Madera del Presidio and the Arroyo Holon." Please 
to state why said objection was included in your list of ob- 
jections, when you had accepted from Mr. Howard, on be- 
half of Riley, money for the survey of the rancho, so as to 
allow Riley his pre-emption claim ? 



103 

J, B. Howard objects — 

1st.' Because the said document was not offered or re- 
ferred to in the direct examitiation of this witness. 

2d. Because the reasons for a pleading cannot be inquired 
into in this manner. 

A. The document itself shows all the reasons for objec- 
tions, and is not offered in evidence. 

J. W. Shanklin now offers in evidence, and marks said 
document '• Ex. S. R. T., I^o. 1." 

Adjourned till 10 J o'clock Thursday morning, Dec. 2d, 
1875. 



Thursday, Dec. 2d, 1875. 

All present. 

Continuation of the examination of Mr. Valentine by Mr. 
Shanklin. 

Q. 1. On the margin of the first objection referred to in 
last question appears this memorandum : " 1st objection 
withdrawn. B. S. Brooks. Aug. 3, 1875." Please state 
the cause of the withdrawal of this objection by your coun- 
sel, B. S. Brooks. 

Objected to by J. B. Howard, because it appears that said 
document was filed May 1st, 1875, in behalf of " tbe claim- 
ants," and J. W. Shanklin, Esq., appears for S. B. Throck- 
morton, who claims, as does the witness, an interest in said 
rancho — and the question is therefore incompetent. 

To which counsel S. R. Throckmorton replies : That S. 
R. Throckmorton was not a party to the withdrawal of the 
first objection referred to in the question ; B. S. Brooks, 
who made the w^ithdrawal, having expressly stated before 
the U. S. Surveyor-General, at the commencement of the 
hearing of this case, that he was not counsel for S. R. 
Throckmorton, and his name was erased from the objection 
as counsel for Mr. Throckmorton ; such being the case, he 
could not make the withdrawal referred to and bind S. R. 
Throckmorton tbereby ; because of this state of facts the 
question is asked to learn the motives which prompted the 
withdrawal. Further answer to said objection, that J. B. 
Howard does not appear as counsel for any party or parties 
claiming under the grant, nor for any parties inside of the 
present survey, or for any parties who have filed objections 
to the survey in question ; and the ruling upon the objec- 
tion is asked by the Surveyor-General. 

Mr. Howard calls attention to the record and to his ap- 
pearance therein. 



104 

1st. That Mr. Valentine must answer the qu3stion. 

2d. That the right of Mr. Howard to appear here lias al- 
ready been decided by the U. S. Sur.-Gen'l, as the record 
in this case will show. 

A. I refer to Mr. Brooks for the cause. 

Q. 2. A document is here shown witness, signed by B. 
S. Brooks and J. B. Howard, bearing stamp of the U. S. 
Sur.-Genl's Office, dated November 30th, 1875, and ques- 
tion asked, whether the matters therein referred to were 
known to you at the time of making said document ? 

J. B. Howard objects, unless tne document is Urst offered 
as an exhibit. 

A. I refuse to answer because it is a private document 
and not properly in this case. 

Document is here offered in evidence, marked Ex. S. H. 

T. :^ro. 2. 

Q. 3. Question repeated. A. I object to it because it 
is a private paper, and not filed by any person of whom I 
have knowledge. 

Q. 4. Is the signature of B. S, Brooks to said document 
genuine ? A. It seems so to be. 

Q 5, Was B. S. Brooks at the date of this document 
attorney for you as one of ihe claimants of the Raneho Corte 
Madera del Presidio? A. Tlie documents in the ca^e 
show for themselves whether he was or not. 

Q. 6. Question re[»eated. A. Yes. 

Q. 7. Is the signature of J. B. Howard to said document 
genuine? A. Yes, I think it is the genuine signature of 
Mr. Howard. 

J. B. Howard admits that he signed said document as for 
the parties therein represented and with reference to the 
plat Corte Madera attached to field notes to the final survey 
of the raneho "El Corte Madera del Presidio" finally con- 
firmed to Heirs of John Bead^ made by Leanaer Ransom, 
deputy surveyor in the year 18^3, and offers said pl.it as un 
exhibit, to explain said agreement, said plat marked L. R. 
Bep. Sur., said exhibit beini? simply for the purpose of ex- 
plaining said agreement and said plat being similar to the 
official plat. 

Q. 8. When did you first see said Exhibit " IS. R. T. 
^o. 2 " in this office among the papers of this case ? A. 
To-day. 

Document is now shown witness, endorsed Raneho Corte 
Madera del Presidio, Marin County. Notice that claimants 
insist on their objections to survey, marked with stamp o-f 



105 

U. S. Surveyor-General's office, August 2Ttb, 1875; and 
question asked : 

Q. 9. Are you acquainted with said document and the 
matters referred to tisercin ? A. I decline to answer, un- 
less the paper is offered in evidence. 

S.iid exhibit is now ottered in evidence, and marked " S. 
E. T., No. 3." 

A. Yes, sir. 

J. B. Howard moves to strike out the paper, on the 
ground that it is not competent evidence to establish any 
fact at issue in this case, and is uncertain and indefinite, 
and that it does not appear to relate to any paper on the file, 
and is without date of signature. 

Q. 10. Is the signature of B. S. Brooks genuine ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. 11. Was Mr. Brooks, at the time of signing and 
filing said exhibit in the Surveyor-General's office, acting 
as attorney for you, as one of the claimants of the Rancho 
Corte Madura del Presidio ? A. Yes^ 

Q. 12. Please to state the nature of the settlement re- 
ferred to in Exhibit ]^o. 3, in the following words : " which 
stipulated a settlement of a controversy in manner entirely 
satisfactory to us." A. I think the paper in the case will 
give all the facts about it. 

Q. 13. Said Exhibit 3 further states in the last paragraph 
thereof, as follows : " As the settlement agreed upon by 
the United States and the claimants is not carried into 
effect on behalf of my clients until said stipulation is wholly 
carried into eft'ect, I insist upon my objections as originally 
filed, and I now withdraw and annul the before-mentioned 
withdrawal, hereby leaving ray said objections standing and 
in full power, as originally made." Was the revocation of 
the withdrawal, as referred to in said quotation, made by 
Mr. Brooks with your knowledge and consent, as one of the 
claimants in the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio ? 

Question objected to by J. B. Howard as leading, the ex- 
amination being direct, and furthermore as being incompe- 
tent in determining any issue in the case. 

A. Yes, it was. 

Mullen & Hyde now call upon the Surveyor-General and 
demands that there be exhibited to them any stipulation 
that was entered into and signed by B. S. Brooks and 
counsel of the United States, in the matter of the final sur- 
vey of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, and which 
is referred to in^ the document in evidence in this case, 



106 

marked Ex. S. R,. T. iSTo. 3, and which is in words and 
figures as follows, to wit : 

To James T. Slratton, Esq., U. S, Surveyor- General for the 
State of California : 

On the 3d day of August, 1875, a stipulation was signed 
by myself and counsel of the United States, the preemptiou- 
ers and claimants in the matter of the final survey of the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, which stipulated a set- 
tlement of the controversy in a mafi^ier entirely satisfactory 
to us ; and supposing that settlement would be carried into 
effect in accordance with its terms, I, as a part of that settle- 
ment and to carry it into effect, withdrew my objections to 
the west line as surveyed. 

As the settlement agreed upon by the United States and 
the claimants is not carried into effect, on behalf of my cli- 
ents, until said stipulation is wholly carried into eff'ect, I 
insist upon my objections as originally filed, and I now 
withdraw and annul the before-mentioned withdrawal, 
hereby leaving my said objections standins^ and in full force 
as originally made. B. S. BROOKS, 

Attorney for Claimants. 

Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, Marin County. Notice 
that claimants insist on their objections to survey. 

Ex. " S. R. T. No. 3." U. S'. Surveyor-General's office, 
Aug. 27, 1875, S. F., Cal. 

Q. 14. Document signed by B. S. Brooks, bearing date 
San Francisco, Aug. 3d, 1875, and marked with a stamp of 
U. S. Surveyor-General's office, Aug. 3d, 1875 — here shown 
witness. Question asked : Is the signature of B. S. Brooks, 
on said document, genuine, and did he have authority to ap- 
pear for you as set forth in said document ? 

Witness declines to answer the question until said docu- 
ment is offered as an Exhibit. 

Said document is now offered and marked ''- Ex. S. R. T. 
No. 4," by Mr. Shanklin, and question repeated. 

A. His signature is genuine, and he had authority to 
appear for me. 

Q. 15. It appears by Exhibits S.R. T., Nos. 2 and 4, that 
they are both dated Aug. 3d, 1875. Do these two Exhibits 
refer to the same subject matter, and were they both exe- 
cu ed with your knowledge and consent ? A. The docu- 
mei ts themselves show their purport, and they were both 
mace with my knowledge and consent. 



lOT 

Q. 16. Is the settlement referred to in the last paragraph 
of Ex. 3 the same in all respects as that set forth in Ex. No. 
2, which Exhibit No. 3 states was not complied with and for 
wliich cause No. 3 was filed [objected to by Mr. Howard, as 
incompetent and immatei'ial] ; if not, state wherein the stip- 
ulations differ ? A. The papers show for themselves. 
- Q. 17. Is that your full answer to the question ? A. It 
is. 

Q. 18. Wherein were the stipulations referred to in Ex. 
No. 2 not carried out, and the act of their not being carried 
out caused the revocation by your attorney, as set forth in 
Exhibit 3? A. The papers show fortliemselves. 

Q. 19. Was, or was not. One of the terms of a stipula- 
tion referred to in Ex. No. 2, that a final survey of the grant 
should include, for your benefit, the marsh lying on the NE, 
part of the ranch and the peninsular island on SE. corner, 
and on the part of Mr. Howard, in behalf of his clients, 
that you would leave out for their benefit all the land lying 
between the west line of the ranch, as laid down on the 
ofiicial map, and the creek known as the Covte Madera del 
Presidio on the west and the Arroyo Holon on the north ? 

Question objected to by Mr. Howard as leading, and as 
suggesting the answer ; and furthermore, because the ex- 
hibits offered speak for themselves, and the plat referred to 
also represents the lands to be included and are identical 
with the official plat. 

A. I refer to the papers themselves as the best evidence. 

Q. 20. What particular features are set forth in Exhibit 
No. 2 which were not carried into efi'ect, and 'the cause of 
which you, through your attorney, filed Exhibit No. 3 ? A. 
I think the papers show all that I can show in the matter. 

Q. 21. Was there any other agreement, either verbal or 
in writing, than what is set forth in Exhibit No. 2, and the 
refusal to carry out which, caused you, through your attor- 
ney, to file Exhibit No. 3, re-ruling the withdrawal of the 
first objection in Exhibit No. 1 ? A. No other that I know 
of, as I understand it. 

Q. 22. What party or parties failed to carry out the 
stipulations set forth in Exhibit 2, which caused you to file 
Exhibit No. 3 ? A. The Exhibit No. 3 shows the reasons 
for filing it. 

Question repeated. A. I make the same answer. 

Q. 23. Your first objection in Exhibit No. 1, which was 
re-instated by Exhibit No. 3, reads ae follows : 

" It leaves out and does not include the tract of land 



108 

lying between the western boundary of said survey and the 
ranchos Saucelito and Ponta de San Quentin or the Arroyo 
Corte Madera del Presidio, and the Arroyo Holon." Please 
state your reasons as a claimant in behalf of the heirs of Joan 
Read, for objecting as just set forth in the same. A. The 
papers themselves state the reasons, and I don't think I am 
called upon to give my own reasons, other than stated in 
the papers. I am a party in interest, and don't propose to 
develop my course of managing the case for the benefit of 
anybody else. 

Q. 24. If your first objection, in Exhibit '' S. R. T., 'No. 
1," was made in good faith, and you believed at that time 
that the survey in question was incorrect in leaving out the 
land lying be , ween the Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio 
and the Arroyo Holon, how came you to withdraw said ob- 
jections as set forth in Exhibit S. R. T., No. 2 ? 

Question objected to by J. B. Howard, for the United 
States and pre-emptors, as eliciting the opinion of his wit- 
ness, and as incompetent to determine any issue. 

A. The papers show my reasons. 

Q. 25. If the withdrawal of said objection, a? set forth 
in Exhibit S. R. T., No. 2, was made in good faith, how 
came you to revoke said withdrawal as set forth in Exliibit 
No. 2, and again claim, as a part of the Ranch Corte 
Madera del Presidio, the land lying between the Arroyo 
Corte Madera del Presidio and the Arroyo Holon, as a jDart 
of said rancho, on behalf of the heirs of Juan Read ? 

Question objected to by Mr. Howard for the United States 
and Preemption Claimants, as incompetent, and furthermore 
because the counsel cannot question the good faith of his 
own witness, or inquire into the opinion upon which the 
pleadings in this case are founded and prepared. 

Counsel for S. R. Throckmorton repUes to the objection. 
That the statement of the witness in testifying in behalf of 
Throckmorton is incorrect, but is legitimate cross-examina- 
tion of the subject matter brought out by Mr. Howard on 
direct examination wherein is elicited the fact that the wit- 
ness stipulated for and received from Mr. Howard, in be- 
half of his clients, money ta apply in the survey of the Ran- 
cho Corte Madera del Presidio, and we have a right to 
enquire into the nature and character of all stipulations^ 
made by witness with parties foreign to the grant whereby 
the interest of the grantees will be diminished in any re- 
spect ? A. My reasons are stated in the papers themselves-. 

J. B. Howard, on behalf of the United States District At- 



109 

torney, offers as Exhibits, with the official plat of the survey 
of the Rancho Corte Madera made by R. C. Mathewson 
Dep. Sur. in 1858, the field notes of said survey marked 
Ex. Mathewson No. 2, and the certificate of approval thereof 
•of the date of August loth, 1860, and request the Surveyor- 
Oeneral to have said exhibits copied and filed in this case, 
to be forwarded to the Commissioner of the General Land 
Office. 

Mulien & Hyde, in behalf of their own clients and in the 
absence of the U. S. Dist. Att'y Van Dyke, demand to 
know for w^hat purpose the said Mathewson survey and field 
notes thereof, are ofiered at this time, and by J. B. Howard 
on behalf of the U. S. Dist. Att'y, and demands said reasons 
be spread upon this record. 

Mr. Howard states that the plat itself was heretofore 
ofiered by Walter Van Dyke, Esq., U. S. Dist. Att'y, as 
appears upon the record, pages 192 and 193, and that J. B. 
Howard now ofiers the field notes and certificate of approval 
of said survey of August 15th, 1860. Mr, Howard further 
states that he is authorized generally to appear for the United 
States and the Dist. Att'y in behalf of the preemption claim- 
ants Gushing, Barlow and Riley, and is further specially 
authorized by the Dist. Att'y to appear for him and the 
United States for the purpose of restricting the survey of the 
Rancho Gorte Madera, and is authorized to file the field 
•notes, and certificate of approval of the Mathewson survey, 
as above stated. 

Adjourned till J past 10 o'clock Monday morning, Decem- 
ber 6th, 1875. 



Monday, December 6th, 1875, 

All present. 

Examinaiwn by Mr. Howard. 

Q. 1. Mr. Valentine, state if it appears from your diary 
of October 3d, 1873, that S. R. Throckmorton was present 
with you at the hjcation of the solar (as ascertained by R. 
G. Mathewson in 1858) by Geo. F. Allardt and Leander 
Ransom, Deputy Surveyor. A. His name appears as being 
with me at that time. 

Q. 2. Was the entry made at that time ? A. The entry 
in the diary was made on the same evening or the next 
morning. That was my custom. 

Adjourned till Wednesday mormng,^December 8th, 1875, 
at 10 'o'clock. 



110 

Wednesday morning, Dec. 8, 1875. 
All parties present. 

Cross-Exainination by J. B. Howard. 

Mr. Allardt recalled. 

Q. 1. It is stated in the evidence of Thos. B. Valentine 
and Peter Gardner, that Mr. Throckmorton was present 
with you, Deputy Ransom, and other persons, on theRaneho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, at or near post C. M. P. 181 
in the forenoon of October 3d, A. d. 1878. It is f a-ther tes- 
tified to by Mr. Valentine that you came to that place in 
company with Mr. Throckmorton, Und that you came from 
the Saucelito boat in Mr. Throckmorton's carriage, as far 
as Mr. Throckmorton's house, and, together with the other 
persons, walked over from thence to the solar, and that you 
had with you on the ground surveying instruments. Please 
state if you now recollect these circumstances, and if so you 
may correct your testimony 0!i these points heretotore given 
in your cross-examination by me. A. I do not recollect pos- 
itively who was present. The persons named may have 
been there, but I have forgotten. I think we rode up in 
Mr. Throckmorton's carriage to his house, but I am not 
positive. 

Q. 2. J. 13. Howard here offers in evidence *'PIat and 
field notes of part of boundary of the Rancho Corte Madera 
del Presidio, re-surveyed under instructions dated October 
8, 1869, by G. F. Allardt, Deputy Surveyor," marked "Ex. 
Solar ISTo. 2;" also certitied copy of the instructions to G. 
F. Allardt for re-surveying a part of the line as above, 
marked " Ex. Solar No. 3," for the purpose of showing the 
extent of the boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio, which Mr. Throckmorton claimed to be " common 
to the two ranchos, Saucelito and Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio." Please state at what point you began said survey, 
and what point you closed by actual measurement on the 
ground, and also what portion of said line you calculated 
from the survey of R. C. Mathewson. 

Mr. Throckmorton objects to his name being used in 
marking Exhibits offered by Mr. Howard. It is ordered by 
the commissioner that some other name than Mr. Throck- 
morton's be substituted. 

J. B. Howard marks the Exhibit representing the petition 
of Mr. Throckmorton to the Survevor-General, dated March 
3d, 1839, locating the "solar" as "Exhibit ^o. 1 "solar ;" 



Ill 

and the plat and field notes of part of the houndaries of 
said rancho under instructions of Oct. 8th, 1869, as Exhibit 
No. 2 "solar;" and the copy of said instructions, dated Oct. 
8th, 1869, marked Exhibit No. 3, "solar;" said Exhibit 1 
having been offered heretofore, and two and three of this 
date, and question 2 repeated. 

Counsel for Throckmorton objects to the foregoing ques- 
tion — 

Ist. Because it is irrelevant. 

2d. ^ecause it is not true, as stated in the question, that 
said survey was made for the purpose of establishing the 
boundaries of the grants in question, but to ascertain the 
location of a Hue that had been run in a previous survey of 
the grant for the purpose of determining the line of parti- 
tion or possession between adjacent claimants. 

3d. That it does not appear from the document marked 
" Solar No. 2," that said survey was ordered as a part of the 
survey of the grant in question, or for the purpose of deter- 
mining finally any line of said grant Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio. 

By J. B. Howard — The objection of Mr. Shanklin, taken 
in connection with the documents themselves, are submitted 
and the question not pressed. 

Mr. Shanklin moves to strike out the question and the ex- 
hibits presented as a part of the question, on the ground 
that the waiver of the question, the objection is sustained, 
and cannot be considered in the case. 

Question repeated, and the witness requested to answer. 

Mr. Allardt directed by the commissioner to answer the 
question, and the motion to strike out is refused. 

A. I commenced the survey at Mathewson station, No. 
175, and retraced his survey of said rancho to Post C. M. P. 
182 ; no part of my survey was made by calculation or tri- 
angulation. 

Q. 3. Did you, as deputy surveyor, make a survey in 
May and June, 1874, of the lands represented on the official 
plat as " public land V A. I did. 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin as immaterial, and also, be- 
cause no subdivided public land is represented on the map 
referred to. 

Q. 4. Did you at said date make a survey of the " pub- 
lic lands," represented as lying west of the westerly boun- 
dary line of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, as said 
line is represented on the official plat ? A. I sectionized a 



112 

• 

tract of land lying west of said western boundary of the 
rancbo, as delineated on the official plat. 

Q. 5. Did you, as Deputy Surveyor, run the said line 
from Post C. M. P. 180 to Redwood Post "P. Q. 99 " and " W 
K. 203," being the line represented as the westerly line of 
said rancho between the points named, and as an easterly 
line between said points of the ''Public Land" adjacent to 
said rancho? 

Question objected to by. Mr. Shanklin as indefinite as to 
the survey, whether in subdividing the land west of said 
line, or whether he run said line as a boundary of the grant 
Corte Madera del Presidio. 

A. i did not on that survey. 

Q. 6. Did you at any time ? A. In June, 1874, I re- 
traced that line, as Deputy-Surveyor. 

Q. 7. In what case, and under what instructions ? A. 
Under instructions from the U. S. Surveyor-General. I re- 
ceived special instructions from the Surveyor-General to re- 
trace the line. 

Q. 8. For what purpose ? A. I do not know. 

Q. 9. Were the instructions in writing Y A. They were. 

Q. 10. Have they been returned by you to this office^ 
with the survey so made ? A. J^o. 

The witness is 'requested to produce said instructions at 
2 o'clock this afternoon. 

Mr. Allardt produces the original letter of instructions, 
issued May 28th, 1874, by James T. Stratton, U. S. Sui-veyor- 
General for California, for the " Re-survey of the western 
boundary of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio," en- 
dorsed '^Survej^ed June 2 and 3, 1874, and field notes re- 
turned July 1, 1874. Allardt." J. B. Howard ofters said 
letter of instructions as Exhibit, and files same in evidence 
as Exhibit " Solar No. 4," a copy thereof to be filed in the 
record, and the original returned to Mr. Allardt. 

J. B. Howard otters in evidence the plat and field notes 
of the survey of *' Pubhc Lands,'' township 1 N., R. 6 W., 
M. D. Mer., approved by the U. S. Survevor-General Nov. 
27, 1874, filed with the Register of the Land Office Dec. 5, 
1874, and withdrawn therefrom Aug. 13, 1875, upon a tele- 
gram from the Commissioner of the General Land Office to 
the Surveyor-General of California, dated Washington, Aug, 
12, 1875. Said exhibit marked ''Public Lands Survey,'" 
T. 1 N., R. 6 W. Copies of which will be filed on the 
record. 



113 

Q. 11. Does the plat exhibit '' Public Lands, T. 1. K S. 
6 W." correctly represent a survey as made by you, in 
May and June, 1874 ? 

Counsel for Throckmorton object^!. 1st, on account of ir- 
relevancy ; 2d, because a subdivisional survey made with- 
out legitimate authority within the exterior boundaries of* a 
private land claim, before a final survey and approval of the 
ranch which includes within its exterior boundaries such so- 
called public land, is expressly prohibited by the instruc- 
tions of the Department to the Surveyor-General — and can- 
not be resorted to, to prove the final location of any of the 
boundaries of the grant. 

Commissioner directs Mr. Allardt to answer the question, 
and overrules Mr. Shanklin's objection. 

A. The map shows lines run by me, but I do not know 
whether they are correctly delineated or not. 

Q. 12. Examine said exhibit, and the field notes, and 
state whether or not the line commencino^ at ''Post C. M. 
P. 180 " and ending at Eedwood Post P^Q. 99 and W. II. 
203, was run bv you as Deputy Surveyor, under instructions 
from Surveyor-General in the year 1874 ? 

Mullen & Hyde objects, as not calling for the best evidence. 

Counsel for Throckmorton objects to any testimony repre- 
senting the survey of any public land within the exterior 
boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio as in- 
dicated on the suspended map of Tp. 1 l!T., R. 6 W., said 
map having been ordered withdrawn from the Local Land 
Office by order of the Commissioner of the General Land 
Office, because the western or other boundaries ot* the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio have not been ofiicially 
determined. 

Mullen & Hyde make same objection. 

The objections sustained. The field notes and maps are 
the best evidence. 

Cross- ExamiYiatlon by Mr. Cutter. 

Q. 1. On page 241 of this testimony, in answering ques- 
tion 8, you say you have observed that the washings 
from the hills make more dry land on the marshes, but that 
the action of the waves decrease the marshes. Will you 
state whether the latter part of that proposition applies to 
the east or west side of the bay, or both ? A. It applies 
more especially to the eastern or lee shore of the bay, ex- 
posed to the prevailing winds. 



114 

Q. 2. Has the erosive action of the waters of the bay 
affected the outer edge of the marshes shown on the plats 
of this Rancho Corte Madera which have been filed in this 
hearing, especially those marshes represented on the official 
plat as lying east of the meanderings between Post 669 and 
Post W. R. 1, on said official plat ? A. I have had occa- 
sion to compare my surveys I made in 1870 with that of the 
U. S, Coast Survey, made about 15 years prior thereto, and 
found that the erosive action in that locality had been incon- 
siderable, my lines of survey coinciding very nearly with 
that of the Coast Survey. 

Q. 3. Have you any means of judging, or do you know 
how much the western boundary of the marsh land, men- 
tioned in the last question, has been changed by the wash- 
ings of the hills since July 8th, 1846 ? A. I know nothing 
of the extent of the salt marshes in that locality, from my 
own observation, prior to 1858. 

Q. 4. Have the washings from the hills, alon^ the last 
named boundary, changed that boundary since 1858 ; and 
if yes, how much ? A. They nave reduced the area of the 
salt marsh, to what extent I am not able to say. 

Q. 5. Can you say to what extent they have changed 
that boundary m any one or more places thereof? A. I 
can't from memory define any particular locality ; but I 
know generally, from comparison of surveys made by me 
in 1858 and in 1870, that the area of the salt mar^h^has de- 
creased, 

Q. 6. Can you state the decrease at any point, without 
fixing the spot? A. I cannot. 

Q. 7. At what date did you run the meanders along the 
edge of the dry land, between Post 669 to Post W. R. 1^ 
as shown on the official plat in this case — I mean the mean- 
ders from the field notes of which this plat was compiled 'f 

Mr. Valentine objects to all the questions put to this- wit- 
ness, as not being cross-examination and irrelevant. 

A. I ran the meanders from post 669 to post W. R. 1 in 
1870, as chief engineer of the Board of Tide Land Commis- 
sioners, created by act of Legislature. 

Q. 8. Did you ever run those meanders more th.in once , 
if so, when ? 

Objected to by Mr. Valentine, as not being cross-examin- 
ation and irrelevant. 

A. I ran the meanders between the same points in 1858,. 
as assistant to U. S. deputy R. C. Mathewson, but not with 
the same minuteness and accuracy as in 1870.- 



115 

Q. 9. In connection with what survey did you make 
^his last-named ninnino^ of said meanders ? A. In connec- 
tion with the State Tide Land Survey. 

Q. 10. In connection with what survey did you run these 
meanders as stated, in 1858 ? A. As assistant to Deputy 
Mathewson, in the survey of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio. 

Q. 11. What was the purpose of the survey when you 
run the meanders aforesaid in 1870? A To ascertain the 
«alt marsh and^tide lands belonging to the State of Califor- 
nia. 

Objected to by Mr. Valentine as not cross-examination 
•and irrelevant. 

Q. 12. Have you examined the official plat in connection 
^vith your field notes of either of the surveys you have men- 
tioned ; and if so, can you state whether the meanders be- 
tween post 669 and "W. R. 1, are accurately represented on 
«aid plat and according to your field notes of either survey ? 
A. I have not examined the meanders critically, but I am 
satisfied that they are correctly platted on the official plat, 
from the survey of 1870. 

Q. 13. Do I understand by this you mean a survey made 
t'ov the State of California and the Tide Land Commission ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. 14. Have you the original field notes of that survey, 
and will you produce them ? A. No, I have not, in my 
possession. 

Q. 15. Witness is here shown a book marked " Tide 
Land Survey. Topographical Party. Meanders Iso, 4, in 
the County of Marin, and asked : Does that book contain 
the original field notes of those meanders ? A. It does. 

Mr. Cutter here ofters in evidence, by certified copy, a 
portion of said book, commencing on page 34 thereof, and 
including said page and page 35, and the corresponding 
•sketches applying to that part of the field notes. 

Q. 16. You have testified that you had charge of the 
•^surveying party which made the Mathewson survey of the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, also the Tide Land sur- 
veys, made under authority of the State of California, and 
that you have compared your surveys with the coast survey 
tmade somewhere between 1852 and 1856. 'Now state 
whether you found any special disagreements between the 
two surveys ; and if so, where and what extent, so far as the 
Rancho Corte Madera is concerned. A. The comparison 
was made several years ago. I cannot m^ke any defimtj 



11^ 

statement in the matter without a careful examination and 
comparison of the maps of the three surveys. 

Q. 17. In several questions, and m several of your an- 
swers heretofore given, the solar is assumed as a fixed and 
determined spot. State whether in any part of this tes- 
timony given by you you mean, or mean to imply, that yoo 
have decided the location of said solar yourself, or that yoii 
consider that point as definitely fixed by any evidence that 
you have received in connection with any surveys, recon- 
noissance made by you, or at any other time. 

Objected to by Mr. Howard as eliciting the opinion ot 
the witness, and as not being the best evidence, the tes- 
timony of said witness, and the records in this case de- 
termining that point. 

Mr. Cutter proposes to strike out the objection, on the 
ground that the witness has been introduced as an expert. 

A. I have never received any instructions from the Sur- 
veyor-General to establish or determine any of the boun- 
daries of said rancho '* Corte Madera del Presidio," but have 
received instructions from the Surveyor-General at various 
times to re-survey certain boundaries that had been pre- 
viously established or reported on by either Deputies 
Mathewson or Ransom, and I followed their lines as they 
had surveyed them. I have never been ofiicially called upon 
to establish the locality of the solar. In speaking of it, I 
have spoken of it as established by Mathewson. 

Mullen & Hyde now ofier in evidence a certified copy of 
the order and decree dismissing proceedings in the District 
Court of the United States for the District of California, in 
the case of the Uidted States vs. The Heirs of John Read, 
marked Ex. "A. Mullen and Hyde." 

Objected to by J. B. Howard, for the United States At- 
torney, reserving to Mr. Van Dyke to state his grounds of 
objection. 

Adjourned till half past ten o'clock Thursday morning, 
Dec. 9th, 1875. 



Thursday Morning, December 9th. 
All parties present. 

Be-direct Examination by B. S, Brooks, Esq. 

Q. 1. Look at the diseno in the expediente IN'o. 27 ; 
state whether you recognize the objects delineated thereon. 
A. Yes, I do. 



117 

Q. 2. How is that map in regard to general cofreetness ? 
A. It is very roughly drawn, but it gives a good idea of the 
geographical features of the country and relative position 
of objects. It seems to be a mere eye sketch. 

Q. 3. Look at the map filed herein, being a traced copy 
of the map attached to and forming a part of the expediente, 
for the assigning oP the common lands of the pueblo of San 
Kafael, and say whether you recognize the objects deUneat- 
■ed thereon. A. I do. 

Q. 4. Look at the map filed herein, being a traced copy 
■of the map attached to the deposition of Wra. E. Hartnell, 
in case 'No. 104, etc.; state if you recognize the objects de- 
lineated thereon. 

Objected to by J. B. Howard as not being the original, 
nor a copy thereof, as appears from inspection of the original ; 
that said copy was certified by mistake ; and furthermore 
because no such grant as that represented by said map ex- 
ists ; that the said raneho of Saucelito, purporting to be 
represented by said diseno, is shown by the records of this 
ofiice to be invalid; and that no grant therefor ever issued 
during the existence of the former government of Mexico, 
^nd no juridical possession thereof was ever given by an 
authorized ofiicer of said government; and furthermore, 
because the certificate endorsed on the original map at- 
tached to the said deposition is not attached to the copy ; 
and by said certificate it is shown that said map is evidently 
incorrect ; and because the whole record pertaining to said 
"Saucelito Eancho," so called, is not offered, from which 
it w\\\ appear that sa'd map and record are wholly antedat- 
ed, fraudulent, forged, or counterfeit, and have no validity 
whatever ; and that said lands, so far as this claim is con- 
cerned, are the property of the United States. The object 
of this objection is to prevent the introduction in evidence 
of an invalid plat representing two ranches as joining so as 
•to exclude public lands claimed by Gushing, Barlow and 
Riley as preemptors, viz : by representing a Mexican grant 
as lying immediately west of and adjoming the Raneho 
Corte Madera del Presidio ; whereas, in the absence of 
said invalid documents the claims of preemptors may be 
preserved, and the rights of the United States thereto pro- 
tected. 

Counsel for Throckmorton moves to expunge from the 
•record the objection raised by Mr. Howard to the presenta- 
tion of the map found in connection with the expediente of 
'th-e Saucelito Raneho as offered by Mr. Brooks, and th^ 



• 118 

statement made by Mr. Howard concerning said Ranelio, 
for the reason — 

1st. That it is an attack upon the record of this office, 
and upon the Surveyor-General in making copies of said 
record. 

2d. That the matter is foreign to the investigation of the 
Eancho Corte Madera del Presidio, and libelous as to the 
Rancho Saucelito — -a grant which has been confirmed by 
the Board of Land Commissioners, the District Court, and 
the Supreme Court of the United States, all of which pro- 
ceedings are a matter of record in this office; and in sup- 
port of the offering of the map by Mr. Brooks, counsel 
further adds, fh at it is pertinent and necessary for the de- 
termination of the boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera 
del Presidio, for the reason : Juan Read, the grantee of the 
Corte Madera del Presidio, as appears from his expediente, 
first petitioned for the Saucehto Rancho, and filed in connec- 
tion therewith a map, which shows the relative position of 
the ranchos Saucelito and Corte Madera del Presidio to each 
other; it therefore becomes necessary toj examine the expe- 
diente and diseno of the Saucelito to see whether the diseno 
of said rancho corresponds with tlie diseno of J.ian Read 
for the Coite Madera del Presidio Rancho. 

Mr. Howard objects to the motion to strike out on the 
ground that it appears from the Spanish archives, and from 
the Expediente J^o. Ill for the rancho of Saucelito to Wni. 
A. Richardson, that no grant, or concession, or order for a 
grant or concession, ever issued, and therefore the papers 
offered are necessarily invalid and false. 

Mr. Howard's objections are overruled by the commis- 
sioner, and Mr. Allardt directed to answer the question. 
Upon the motion to expunge, the same question was submit- 
ted to the Surveyor-General, and by him refused, at an ear- 
lier date of this hearing. I refuse to allow the motion to 
strike out. 

Counsel for Throckmorton here desires to put in the 
record the following statement, viz : That during the Sur- 
veyor-General's presence, counsel for Throckmorton moves 
to expunge from the record a similar statement made by 
him at the time this same diseiio w^as previously presented. 
The Surveyor-General, in the presence of the parties and 
witnesses in this case, sustained the motion to expunge Mr. 
Howard's remarks from the record, so far as the}- referred 
to Saucelito Rancho; and it is, therefore, immaterial 
whether the record now shows that the remarks were 
expunged according to his ruling. 



119 

Mr. Cutter verifies the statement of Mr. Shanklin, counsel 
for Throckmorton, that the Survej'or-General, in presence of 
the parties and witnesses in this case, sustained the motion 
to expunge, as stated by Mr. Shanklin, and further says, 
that he, Cutter, at that time, understood the ruling to be 
that said statement was expunged. That said Cutter has 
been present at every hearing since then, and has never 
heard any ruling of the Surveyor-General to the contrary. 

Mr. Howard says that upon a motion to strike out certain 
maps, such as the above, the motion was sustained by Sur- 
veyor General, to which Mr. Howard excepted, and appealed 
to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, as he now 
does in this instance, and in all others wherein any plats 
filed or reference made to the so-called Saucelito Rancho of 
William A. Richardson. See pages 200 and 201. 

Mr. B. S. Brooks states that his recollection is in accord 
with that of Mr. Cutter; and further, that in his opinion 
the Surveyor-General has the power, and ought to exclude 
entirely from his records matters that are impertinent, more 
especially if they are scandalous. That the office of an objec- 
tion is simply to note the fact of the objection and the legal 
grounds on which it is made, and not to make assertions, 
whether true or false, and such assertion ought not to 
appear in the record. 

Mullen & Hyde concur in the remarks made by Mr. 
Brooks, as also Mr. Cutter, Mr. Shanklin, and Mr. Gardner 
in person, are all that are present. 

Question 4 repeated. A. I do. 

G. F. ALLARDT. 

Mullen & Hyde now move that further investigation in 
this case be adjourned until one week after the return of U. 
S. Survej^or-General to CaUfornia, for the reason that there 
is no officer known to the law, now present in the office of 
the U. S. Surveyor-General, before whom these proceed- 
ings can be legally heard ; and because there is no person 
known to the law to act for the U. S. Surveyor-General dur- 
ing his absence from this State. That said Surveyor-Gen- 
eral is now absent from this State, and the necessity for his 
presence, to rule upon important matters that have arisen 
this morning, is of such a character than an adjournment is 
a matter of legal necessity ; and we do therefore move the 
commissioner to adjourn the case as requested. 

Mr. Cutter seconds the motion. 

Adjourned till 2 o'clock. 



120 

Motian of Messrs. Mullen & Hyde granted. 
Case continued until one week after the arrival of the Sur- 
veyor-General at San Francisco. 

Mr. Howard and Mr. Sharp objects to the motion. 



Thursday, Dec. 30, 1875. 

Pursuant to notice duly given by the U. S. Surveyor-Gen- 
eral, J. T. Stratton, the case is called at 10 o'clock a. m. 

The attorneys present are B. S. Brooks, J. B. Howard, 
S. L. Cutter, Peter Gardner, S. R. Throckmorton, J. B. 
Shanklin. 

By mutual consent the further examination is continued 
until Tuesday, January 4th, at 10 o'clock a. m. 



Tuesday, January 4th, 1876, at 10 a. m. 
Case called ; all present. 

The examination of G. F. Allardt is resumed. 
By consent of counsel the case is continued till 10| a. m. 
to-morrow. 



Wednesday, January 5th, 1876, at 11 a. m^ 

Case called. All present. 

G. F. Allardt is called as a witness for S. R. Throckmorton. 

Q. 1. State your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
A. Kame G. F. Allardt; age 42 ; residence San Francisco y 
occupation, civil engineer and surveyor. 

Q. 2. Have you had any relations with the U. S. Sur- 
veys ? if so, state where you have made surveys under 
the United States, and when you first commenced making 
said surveys ? A. I commenced in 1858 ; I was assistant to 
U. S. Deputy Mathewson in surveying ranehos in San Mateo 
Co., Marin Co., and elsewhere. By ranehos I mean Spanish 
grants ; and since then as U. S. Deputy Surveyor in survey- 
ing grants and public lands. 

Q. 3. Have you had any experience in locatin 3^ Spanish 
grants from their title papers and descriptions therein ? If 
so, state in what grants ? A. In surveying the grants in 
Marin Co., I was consulted by Deputy Mathewson and 
studied the original papers referring to such grants — about 
thirty grants in Marin and Sonoma County, and three or 
four in San Mateo Co.; one in Monterey Co. 

Ql. 4. Map is here shown witness marked S. B. T. No. 6^, 



121 

accompanying the objections of S. R. Throckmorton, and 
tiled May 26tli, 1875, and witness is asked to make the com- 
parison between said map and the map of the official survey 
of the Hancho Corte Madera del Presidio, made by Leander 
Ransom and G. F. Allardt, and the official township plat of 
Tp. 1 K, R. 6 W., approved by Sur.-Genl. Stratton, Nov. 
27th, 1874. And state whether the plat here shown you 
represents the lands of the Corte Madera del Presidio and 
the surveyed lands west thereof, as exhibited on the two 
official maps referred to. 

Mr. Howard objects to the question and Exhibits, as irrel- 
evant and immaterial, and incompetent. 

A. It includes all the land of said official map, also 
the lands lying west thereof shown as public lands on map 
ofTp. 1 K, R. 6 W.,M. D. M. 

Mr. Throckmorton offers certified copy of the translation 
of a portion of the expediente of the Rancho Corte Madera 
del Presidio, marked Ex. S. R. T. No. 7, and witness is asked 
to read a description of the boundaries of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio as given on page 11 thereof. 

Mr. Howard objects to the Exhibit as being indefinite 
and uncertain, and incompetent. It is uncertain because 
it does not set forth the juridical possession of the rancho as 
given by the Mexican authorities, and is not certified as a 
true co[)y of the original. 

Q. 5. What is stated in description as one of the bound- 
aries of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio? 

Mr. Howard objects to the Exhibit as incompetent. The 
original on tile in the proceedings before the Land Commis- 
sion, if any were had, const'tute the best evidence. 
A. The Mission of San Rafael. 

Q. 6. Diseno of the Mission of San Rafael is here shown 
witness as taken from the archives, and marked S. R. T., 
No. 8, and question asked whether said Exhibit shows the 
relation existing between said mission lands of San Rafael 
and the land now known as the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio, and if so, state what that relation is ? A. The 
tract enclosed by a brown line on this Exhibit bounds 
the lands of Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio on the 
north. 

J. B. Howard objects to the Exhibit, as being incompe- 
tent. 

Q. 7. Give the name of the ranch on the official Map 
of T. 1 N., R. 6 W., and of the official survey of the Corte 
Madera del Presidio, that occupies the same relation to 



122 

the Eanclio Corte Madera del Presidio that the map of the 
Mission of San Rafael, Exhibit ISTo. 8, shows is sustained to 
the same rancho. A, RanchoPuntade San Quentin bounds 
the Corte Madera on the north in a similar manner. 

Q. 8. ]>)es Exhibit ISTo. 8 indicate that there was any 
public land Ivin^ between the south boundary of the Mis- 
sion of San Rafael and the land now known as the Corte 
Madera del Presidio ? 

Objected to by Mr. Howard as incompetent, irrelevant 
and immateriah 

A, Ex:hibit Ko. 8 does not show any vacant land south of 
the mission land of San Rafael, or between that and the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, or rather the peninsula 
representinir that rancho marked on the diserno as Tiburon^ 

Adjourned until 2 o'clock. 



Examination resumed. 

Q. 9. Mr. Throckmorton ofiers certified copy of the 
translation of a portion of the f^xpediente of the Rancha 
Corte Madera del Presidio, marked Exhibit R. S. T., IN'o. 9^ 
and witness i& asked to read a description af the boundaries 
of the possession of Juan Read, as given in the testimony of 
Jose de la Cruz Sanchez, on page 7 ; Tomas Gereniias, on 
page 9 ; Manuel Sanchez, on page II ; and state whether 
the description given by said witnesses, as to the boundary 
by the Mission of San Rafael, coiTesponds wuth the lx>U!idary 
in that direc^tion, as given in Exhibit No. 7, which you have* 
read, and concerning which yo-u have testified. 

Mr. Howard objects to the deposition of Jose la Cruz 
Sanchez, as being incompetent, for the reason that it wa;* 
made and given before the date of juridical possession, and 
before said Sanchez had gone upon the land, as appears in- 
said affidavit, and because it is not the best evidence; and 
the said Sanchez is still living in the vicinity of San Fran- 
cisco, and should be called in person to testify. The affi- 
davits of the other witnesses also objected to as inconi[>e' 
tent. 

Mr. Cutter objects to question, as- in competent ^ and for 
this reason: The record of juridical measurement and pos- 
session fix the boundaries according to the decree of the 
Court and the instructions of the Secretary of the Interior,, 
under which the present survey is to be made. 

A. In the testimony of Jose de la Cruz Sanchez it is- 
stated that the rancho is bounded on the north, on the part- 



128 

of the town of San Rafael, by the arrojo called Holon and 
the forest of redwood trees — called also Corte de Madera de 
San Pablo ; Tomas Geremias states very definitely that the 
Rancho Corte de Madera del Presidio is bounded on the 
north and towards the pueblo of Sail Rafael by an arroyo 
called Holon and a forest of redwood trees, called also Corte 
Madera de San Pablo. 

Manuel Sanchez states that the boundary on the north of 
the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, towards the pueblo 
of San Rafael, is an arroyo called Holon and a forest of red- 
Wood trees— which is also called Corte Madera de San 
Pablo. 

The boundaries given by the three above witnesses cor- 
respond, in my j udgraent, with the boundaries given in Ex- 
hibit S. R. T. No. 7, on page 11, but they are more specific 
<and more in detail in giving the name of the Arroyo Holon 
and the forest of redwoods, called Corte Madera de San Pa- 
blo, which are designated by them as being the boundary 
between the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio and the 
mission of San Rafael. 

Q. 10. Kow please examine the official map of the Ran- 
<jho Corte Madera del Presidio, as surveyed by Ransom, and 
•state whether said map represents the Arroyo Holon as a 
northern boundary of the ranch; and if not, state what re- 
lation said arroyo as a boundary is made to sustain to the 
ranch by that survey. A. The Arroyo Holon, in said ofii- 
cial map and survey, does not bound the Rancho Corte del 
Presidio on the north, but bounds it for a short distance only 
on the west, say for a distance of half a mile. 

Q. 11. Kow please to look at the official map of T, 1 N.^ 
R. 6 * W., and state whether the Arroyo Holon is repre- 
sented thereon ; and if so, what relation it sustains as a boun- 
dary to the Pueblo of San Rafael, as shown on Exhibit 8, 
-and as a boundary to the Rancho Punta de San Quentin, as 
shown on the official map of 1 ^.^ 6 W.? A. The Arroyo 
Holon is represented on the map of T. 1 ^N"., R. 6 W., and 
Ib.ms part of the southern and eastern boundary of the 
Rancho Punta de San Quentin. And on Exhibit 8 an arroyo, 
which seems to- correspond with the Arroyo Holon, forms a 
portion of the southern boundary of the Pueblo of San Rafael. 

Q. 12. With reference to the same two maps, said arroyo 
Would be a northern boundary of what tracts ? A. On the 
map of T. 1 K., R. 6 W., said arroyo forms a portion of 

- Ex. Official T. Plat, T. 1. N., K. 6 W. Ex. S. K. T. 9|. 



124 

the northern boundary of the land surveyed as public land^ 
And in the Exhibit ^-o. 8 it would be a portion of the 
northern boundary of the tract marked Tiburon, and cor- 
responding with the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 13. Putting, together the official map of the Ransom 
survey and the T'p map of IK"., R. 6 W., so far as the same 
indicate the location of the Arroyo Holon, does Ex. N'o. 6 
correctly rejDresent the same arroyo ? A. Ex. l^o. 6 rep- 
resents the Arroyo Holon in the same location as on the 
official map and the T'p plat, as near a& I can judge by in- 
spection. 

Q. 14. Are you the same G. F. Allardt named on the 
official T'p plat of 1 IN"., R. 6 W., as having surveyed the 
subdivision lines, colored red, including the land lying im- 
mediately south of the Arroyo Holon, as represented on said 
map? A. I am. 

Q. 15. Witness is now shown Exhibit S. R. T. No. 9, 
and is asked to read the description of the boundaries of the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, as set forth in said Ex- 
hibit, commencing^ on page 12, fifth line from the bottom 
and extending and including sixth line of page 44. Please 
to show, if you can, on Ex. I^o. 6, or on the official map of 
the Ransom survey of the Rancho Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio, or on the T'p map 1 N"., 6 W., the place described 
therein as the remains of the rancheria called Animas? A. 
The rancheria called Animas is not shown on said T'p map, 
nor on said official map, but it is now shown on Ex. 6 by 
letter A, in a circle, near the house of Read. 

Q. 16. The description referred to on page 13 in con- 
nection with the rancheria, which you have just described, 
speaks of a Httle brook, with a willow thicket. Do you know 
of any such brook running near the rancheria ? If so, how 
far and in what direction does that little brook extend ? A. 
I know of such a brook with a willow thicket, and it passes 
Slid rancheria close to its south side, and takes its rise near 
the peak of Tamalpais, and runs south-easterly, passing said 
rancheria on the southerly side, and empties into a slough, 
connecting with Richardson's Bay. 

Q. 17. Please to state whether said brook is laid down 
on Ex. 6, and if so, state how it is described thereon, and 
please to mark its source as you have described it ? A. The 
brook is laid down on Ex. 6, and designated as the "Arroyo 
Corte Madera del Presidio," and its source is on the eastern 
slope of the Tamalpais Mountain. 

Q. 18. How far is that source from the source of the Ar- 



125 

rojo Hoi on ? A. From my knowledge of the ground, I 
should say that the sources of said arroyos were not over a 
quarter of a mile apart, having surveyed both of them. 

Q. 19. Do they not both rise on the eastern slope of the 
Tamalpais Mountain ? A. Yes, on the eastern and north- 
eastern slope. 

Q. 20. Please to examine the official map of T. 1 IS"., R. 
6 W., and state if the same little brook is not represented 
thereon in the same relation to the Arroyo Holon that you 
have just described ? A. It is ; but it is not shown all the 
w^ay to its source, and designated as the "Arroyo Oorte Ma- 
dera del Presidio." 

Q. 21. Please to designate on Ex. 6 the nearest point 
where those streams are together at their sources ? A. I 
xiesignate it by a letter B, in a circle. 

Adjourned until 10.30 o'clock a. m, Thursday. 



Thursday, Jan. 6th, '76, at 10.30 A. m., case called. All 
present. 

Q. 1. Please to examine Ex. S. E, T. No. 8, and state 
whether you find represented thereon an arroyo correspond- 
ing in location with a stream which you have described on 
the official T'p plat 1 N., R. 6 W., and Ex. S. R. T. I^o. 6, 
as the Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio ; and if so, state 
how it lies on said map with reference to the peninsula 
marked " Tiburon." 

Mr. Howard objects to the question as irrelevant, and 
because no such arroyo or boundary is mentioned in the 
record of juridical possession of said rancho. 

A. I find such an arroyo, but it is not named on Exhibit 
S. It is located at the head of the bay, lying westerly of 
the peninsula marked Tiburon — I mean the bay between 
the peninsula marked Tiburon and the peninsula marked 
Saucelito. 

Q. 2. Is said arroyo represented on Exhibit 8. R. T.., 
No. 8, as heading near the Tamalpais mountain, or near the 
mountain, as represented on the other maps last referred 
to? 

Objected to by Mr, Howard as irrelevant and uncertain. 

A. It is represented as heading in a range of mountains 
which I judge to be the Tamalpais range, although the 
sketch is rather imperfect, and no name shown on said 
range in the sketch of Exhibit 8. 

Q. 3. Do you know of any corte madera lying to the 
west of the Ran^ho Corte Madera, and if so, where is it 



126 

situated with reference to the aiTQjo which yon have been 
describing ? 

Objected to by Mr. Howard as incompetent, irrelevant 
and immaterial. 

A. There is a corte madera or forest of redwoods on that 
arroyo. 

Q. 4. N"ow, please to look at the official map of the 
Corte Madera Rancho, and state whether the corte madera 
that you have just described as lying on the arroyo, is found 
within the boundaries of this official survey ? A. It is not; 
but lies to the west of the boundary. 

Q. 5. Kow, look at the official map of T. 1 N., R. 6 
W., and state whereabouts said Corte Madera del Presidio 
would be on this map. A. It would commence on the Ar- 
royo Corte Madera del Presidio, near its intersection with 
the hue between sections 28 and 29, and would extend up 
said arroyo for its entire length, there being redwoods all 
the way up said arroyo. 

Q. 6. JJo you kiutw of any forest of redwoods known by 
the name of Corte Madera del Presidio, lying within the 
official survey of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio ? 
A. I do not. 

Q. 7. Do you know of a corte madera called " Corte 
Madera de San Pablo," and if so, where is that situated 
with reference to the official survey of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio ? A. It is situated on the Arroyo 
Holon, and by far the greater part of the Corte Madera is 
not included in the official survey. There are some scatter- 
ing redwood trees on the Arroyo Holon, where said arroyo 
bounds the rancho; but the dense part of the redwood 
forest is outside and west of the boundary of the rancho. 

Q. 8. Please to mark, with lead pencil lines, on Ex. S. 
R. T. i^o. 6 the location of the Corte Madera de San Pablo. 
A. I have marked it with pencil, to the best of recollection, 
with scallop lines north and south of the Holon. 

Q. 9. Where would the Corte Madera de San Pablo be 
with reference to the lands surveyed as public land T. 1 N., 
R. 6 W,r A. It would form the northern boundary of these 
public lands. 

Q. 10. The decree of the District Court, IN'o. 83, dated 
Feb. 11th, 1856, is here shown witness, and offered by cer- 
tified copy as Ex. S. R. T. No. 10, and he is asked to read 
the description therein contained, so far as the same relates 
to any of the boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio. A. The language relating to the Corte Madera 



137 

del Presidio is as follows : " On the north-east by the whole 
coarse of the principal Arroyo de Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio, which empties into said bay, and bordering on Don 
Juan Read." 

Q. 11. From the Exhibits marked S. R. T., to which 
yoar attention has been called, and the descriptions con- 
tained therein, relating to the boundaries of the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, and your knowledge of those 
locations on the ground, where would you, as a surveyor, 
accustomed as you have been to locate Spanish grants by 
the description and papers thereof, locate the western and 
northern boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio ? I ask this question without reference to the juridical 
measurements. A. I would locate the western boundary of 
said rancho as the Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, from 
the point where said arroyo is nearest to the Arroyo Holon, 
and, extending dovvn said Arroyo C )rte Madera, down to 
the point where it enters Richardson's Bay. And I would 
locate the northern boundary as the Arroyo Corte Madera 
de San Pablo or Holon, beginning at the point on said ar- 
royo, where it approaches nearest to the Arroyo Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio, and following down said Arroyo Holon, 
either to where it enters the salt marsh, or perhaps still 
further down, to where the same enters the Bay of San 
Francisco. 

Q. 12. Is any portion of the land which you hive stated 
you would include within the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio omitted from the official survey thereof? And if 
so, state on what Exhibit or maps the omitted part can be 
found. A. Yes, there is. The land omitted is shown in 
the official map as lying west of the western boundary of the 
rancho on said map, and is marked Public Land. It is also 
shown on Tp. Map 1 N. 12, 6 W., as v.rt of Sees. 16, 17, 
20, 21, 28 and 29 and lies west of the land marked '' Lot 
No. 40." Part of Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio and 
easterly of land marked " lot No. 41 " part of Rancho Sau- 
celito, and northerly of land marked "Lot No. 38 " part of 
Rancho Punta de San Quentin, being all the land bounded by 
said lots Nos. 38, 40 and 41 and shown as public land on said 
map. 

Counsel for Throckmorton now offers, by certified copy, 
deed from John J. Read to Hugh A. Boyle, dated May 11th, 
1869, marked S. R. T. No.^lL Also deed from Ylaria 
Read to Hugh A. Boyle, dated Mav 24th, 1869, marked Ex. 
S. R. T. No. 12. 



128 

Also deed from Thomas B. Deffebach and Inez Read 
Deffebach, Hugh A. Boyle and Maria Garcia de Boyle his 
wife, Thomas B. Valentine, and H. C. Newhall to Julius C, 
McCeney, dated February 1st, 1871, and marked S. R. T. 
No. 13. 

Also deed from Julius C. McCeney to S. R. Throckmor- 
ton, dated January 19tb, 1875, marked i^.x. S. R. T. Ko. 14- 

Also plat and field notes by copy, of the survey made by 
G. F. Allardt for tract of land deeded from T. B. Deffebach 
et al, to Julius C. McCeney, marked S. R. T. 15. 

Q. 13. Witness is now asked to examine these different 
conveyances, and state whether the land described in the 
field notes and delineated on the plat, in Exhibit S. R. T., 
No. 15, would be contained within the tract which you 
described as being bounded on the otticial map of 1 N., t> 
W., by lots 38, 40 and 41, and which you say you would 
include within the boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera 
del Piesidio, as mentioned in your answer to last preceding 
question. A. I have examined the conveyances marked 
Exhibits S. R. T., Nos. 13, 14 and 15, and find that the 
Imd conveyed by deeds marked Exhibits S. R- T., 13 and 
14, and containing 80 24-lOOths acres, is the same land as 
described in the field notes and plat in Exhibits S. R. T., 
No. 15. Said tract of land is included within the bound- 
aries of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, as defined 
by me in the preceding answer. About seven-eighths of 
said tract is contained in the lands shown as public lands on 
the Tp. map 1 N., 6 W. ; and the balance, or one-eighth of 
said tract is contained within the ofiBcialplat of the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, as surveyed by Deputy Ransom, 
and the land described in Exhibits 11 and 12 is a tract not 
included in Mathewson's survey of said rancho, but does 
include the tract described as bounded by lots Nos. 38, 40 
and 41. 

Adjourned until lOJ o'clock a. m. Tuesday, Januarv llth^ 
1876. 



TuE3i>AY, January 11, 1876. 
Examination resumed. 
All present. 

G. F. Allardt' s Examination Resumed.- 

J. B. Howard objects to the Exhibit S. R. T., No. 10,. 
offered in behalf of Mr. Throckmorton, on page 364 and 



129 

365 of the record, because it is immaterial, irrelevant and 
incompetent. 2d. Because it does not relate to the jurid- 
ical possession of the Corte Madera Rancho. 3d. Because 
it is a copy of an interlocutory decree, not final in any sense. 
4th. Because it has lately been ascertained that said de- 
cree — 

Here objection is made by Mr. Shanklin to Mr. Howard's 
objection being reduced to writing, and the Surveyor- 
'General is asked to exclude the objection from the record. 

The Surveyor-General rules that the objection of Mr. 
Shanklin to the attack upon the title of the Saucelito 
Kancho, by Mr. Howard, is well taken ; that this is not the 
proper place to raise said objection. 

The Surveyor-General says that all papers relating to the 
Saucelito Rincho should have been excluded from this ran- 
cho controversy as irrelevant, but that a portion of them 
having already been introduced without objections, any other 
archive evidence relating to the Saucelito Rancho may be 
introduced. 

J. B. How^ard moves that all the exhibits and papers per- 
taining to the Saucelito Rancho, and those accompanying 
the objection to the survey, and being now^ of record in this 
case, be expunged therefrom as being wholly irrelevant. 
By the Rancho of Saucelito I refer to the claim of the late 
Guillermo A. Richardson, Expediente N'o. Ill, Land Case 
'No. 104, District Court Case No. 83 K D., and the survey 
thereof now pending in said District Court, together with 
maps, diseiios, decrees, orders, and whatever pertains thereto, 
and for all the names on file and objections heretofore made, 
and that the testimony in this case be confined to the jurid- 
ical possession of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, 
the decree of confirmation thereof, and the instructions of 
the Secretary of the Interior of 5th January, 1872, and sub- 
sequent orders of the Commissioner of the General Land 
Office issued in this case. 

The Surveyor-General refuses to grant the motion of Mr. 
Howard, and overrules the same. 

J. B. Howard excepts to the ruling, and gives notice that 
he will renew his motion before the Commissioner General 
Lvmd Office, and show the fraudulent character of said Ex- 
hibits. 

G. F. Allardt is directed to Ex. S. R. T., No. 9, commenc- 
ing on page 20 thereof, and he is asked to read the descrip- 
tion of the initial point of measurement on page 20 and 21 
thereof. 



no 

A. I have read it; it reads: " They comnle need saici 
Jneasurement from the solar which faces west ; and standing 
at the slope and foot of the hills which lie in that direction, 
and on the edge of the forest of redwoods called " Corte 
Madera del Presidio," they commenced said measurements, 
and goini? from S. to N. they measured to an arroyo called 
Hoi on, where is an ether forest of redwoods called Corte 
Madera de San Fahlo, 90 cordeles or 50 varas, and the per- 
son interestcjd, fixing there a known point as a mark, said 
that he would place a bound." 

J. B, Howard objects to the recital as not being an exact 
translation of the original record of juridical possession on 
file in the ofiice of the U. S. Surveyor-General in this, that 
it does not clearly describe the course of measurement from 
the point of b€\ginning due north to the intersection of the? 
northerly and easterly point of said rancho. 

Counsel for Throckmorton here asks Mr, Howard to state 
explicitly the words olijected to, which he claims are not a 
correct translation of the juridical measurement, &i nee the 
document from which the recital is taken is duly certified 
by the Surveyor-General as a correct translation, and since 
the same recital is a copy of the juridical measurement as* 
found on page No. 11, near the bottom, in the piinted 
pamphlet issued by the department, entitled ''Decision of 
the Secretary of the Interior, and Opinion of the Assistiint 
Attorney-General in the Case of the Survey of the Kancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio. Printed hy the Government 
Printing Office, at Washington, in 1872." 

J. B, Howard states in reply, that the proper mode of 
ascertaining the juridical possession, the record thereof being: 
in the Spanish language, with which the witness is not 
shown to be familiar, is to introduce the original in evidence, 
on the testimony of the keeper of the archives or some 
other witness skilled in a knowledge of the Spanish and 
Enoflish languages. That the offer is otherwise uncertain 
and incompetent. 

J. B. Howard, now, upon the statement made by R. C, 
Hopkins, Esq., skilled in the Spanish and English hmguages,. 
that said translation is correct, that the letter K signities 
^orth, and the letter S South, withdraws his objection to 
the correctness of the translation of the juridical possession' 
in that respect, and accepts it as correct. 

Here adjourned till lOJ a. m. next Mondciy, 



131 

Tuesday, January ISth, 1876. 
Ei^ami nation resumed. 
All present. 

6r» F. AllardCs Examinalion Resumed^ 

Q. 1. It appears from the description which you have 
just read (page 374 of this testimony), that the juridical 
measurement commenced at the solar which faces the west, 
-and that they stood at the slope and foot of the hills which 
lie in that direction, and on the edge of the forest of red- 
woods called the *' Gorte Madera del Presidio." Please to 
lociite said initial point on " Exhibit Ko. 6,'* if you know 
what is referred to by the solar ; and state what yo.i know 
with reference to the establishment of that point at any 
time. A. I understand that solar signifies a small piece of 
•cleared land, which might be used as a garden, and I should 
locate it, in this case, at a point between the house of Juan 
Read and the edge of the redwoods called Corte Madera del 
Presidio, which redwoods are shown at the present time by 
a number of large stumps — I could not indicate the exact 
«pot — but agree with l)eputy Mathewson in locating the 
solar at, or near a jjlace on Exhibit S. R. T., No. 6, which I 
mark in red ink, with letter C in a circle. 

Q. 2. Witness is now shown a scale of measurement, and 
is asked to state what it shows, and who made it ? A. I 
made the scale myself. It is a scale of cordeles correspond- 
ing to a scale of 20 chains to the inch — and which is the 
-scale of Ex. S. R. T. No. 6, and the official map of the Ran- 
cho Corte Madera del Presidio. Said scale is now offered 
in evidence and marked S. R. T. No. 16. 

Q. 3. Please to apply said scale of measurement to the 
«olar as the initial point and indicate on Ex. 8. R. T, No. 6, 
where the first measurement of 90 cordeles would strike the 
llolon. 

Objected to by Sol. A, Sharp as immaterial, as natural 
•objects govern courses and distances. 

A* The measurement of 90 cordeles beginning at the solar 
would strike the Arroyo Holon near its head, and also at 
another point at the mouth of the Arroyo Holon were it en- 
ters the salt marsh. 

Q. 4. That measurement is stated to have reached the 
Holon where is another corte madera, called Corte Madera 
de San Pablo. Would either of the points which you have 
indicated on the Holon as being reached by the measure- 
*ment of 90 cordeles also strike the Corte Madera de San 



Pablo? And if so, which one of the points of the Holon ? 
A. The first measurement which I stated as reaching the 
head of the Arroyo Holon. would also strike or reach the- 
Corte Madera de San Pablo. The second measurement, 
that is to say, to a point near the mauth of the Arroyo 
Holon, would not strike the Corte Madera de San Pablo. 

Q. 5. In your previous testimony you stated that from 
the Exhibits shown you, you would fix the western boundary 
of the rancho " Corte Madera del Presidio " along the 
Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio. How would the 
measurement that you have just described correspond with 
said boundary, taking into consideration the usual Spanish 
custom or mode of making juridical measurements ? A. 
It would correspond so closely as to leave no doubt in my 
mind as to the identity of said arroyo with the line of jurid- 
ical measurement. 

Q. 6. What is your opinion with reference to the mak- 
ing: of this measurement ? Was it desio^ned to follow the 
boundary, or to give merely the measurements between 
certain points for the purpose of determining quantity? A. 
Judging from my experience in examining juridical measure- 
ments in this and other cases of surveys of Spanish grants, I 
think that the juridical measurement in this case was made 
for the object: 1st, of determining quantity; 2nd, for the 
purpose of identifying natural objects referred to at the end 
of each course in the juridical measurement. 

Q. 7. You have stated that you were present as an as- 
sistant when the survey of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio, known as the Mathewson survey, was made. I 
refer to the survey of 4,460 24-100 acres. Did Mathewson. 
in making said survey, attempt to follow the juridical 
measurement, to which you have just referred, and if not, 
what was said survey made for ? A. I cannot state, from 
my own knowledge, whether Mathewson was guided by the 
calls of juridical measurements ; but his survey, as a matter 
of fact, was a survey for quantity, to include within the ranch 
one square league of land. 

Q. 8. Do you know whether Mathewson had with him 
the expediente of the case, describing the boundaries of the 
rancho, as set forth in the testimony of the witnesses, who 
were called when juridical measurement was made, or 
whether he had with him the decree of the Board of Land 
Commissioners, or the decree of the District Court, when 
he made said measurement ? A. I have the papers in my 
office which Mathewson used on the survey ; but I do not 
now remember what they are. 



188 

Q. 9. po you know under whose instructions Mr. Mathew;- 
^on located the one league of said Ranchd " Corte Madetk 
del Presidio," where he did ? A. I understood at the tim^ 
tliat he located the one league where lie diii, frotn instruc- 
iions issued frond the otiice of the Surveyor-Greneral, under 
J. W. Mandeville. 

Q. 10. Please to look at Ex. S. R. T. ]^o. ?, and state 
whether the tract marked theredri "' Tract of Idnd owned 
by and referred to iii the objections of S. R. Throckmorton, 
and colored green, would be within the Rancho " Cqrte 
Madera del Presidio," according to the boundaries and the 
juridical measurement testified to by yowl A. Yes, all 
of it. G. F, ALLARDT, 

Gross- Examination by J, B, Hoioard, 

/(^, I-, "f lie witness is .requested to examine the plat bt 
Mathewsoti survey on fele in connection with the westerh 
line of the rancho as represented on the official plat, and to 
.state whether or how nearly the said western line corres- 
ponds to the western line originally made upqn the ground 
by Mathewson in the year 1858, and from which said Ma- 
thewson's map was constructed. 

Question objected to hy Mullen & Hyde, as indefinite and 
K-onfused, and unintelligible. 

A. The western boundary of the rancho on the plat of 
Mathewson's survey is correctly shown thereon, as surveyed 
by me under Mathewson, in the field ii^ the year 1858. 

Q. 2, Is m)t the western line of said rancho, as repre- 
sented on official plat, from post O. M. P. 181 to redwood post 
P. Q. 99 and W. R. 203, identical with the western line of 
Sijiid rancho as run by Deputy Surveyor Mathewson in Oct., 
1858, or by you under said Mathewson ? 

Mullen & Hyde object to question, as being incompetent 
and immaterial. 

A. Said line from C. M. P, 181 to redwood post P. Q. 99 
and W. R. 203 was run by me under deputy Mathewson ia 
1858, but I do not know whether said Mathewson considered 
it to be at that time the western boundary of said rancho. 

Q. 3. Do 3'ou know upon what authority said survey (^ 
1858 was m«)dified as to the western boundary so as to cor- 
respond to legal sutjdivisions as represented on said Ma- 
ihewsoti survey plat ? 

Question objected to by Mr. Shanklin, as assuming whd* 
is not a fiict, that the survey was modified to conform to le- 
gal subdivision lines, it being already in testimony that said 



survey was modified for the purpose of locating quantity^ 
viz : one league. 

A. All I remember in this matter is, that deputy Ma- 
thewson ordered me to make the necessary computations 
to cut off one league of land, and to go into the field and 
survey the same. 

Q. 4. That was a subsequent survey, was it not ? That 
is, to the first survey mentioned, and constituted the modi- 
fication of which I have spoken ? A. The line from C. M. P . 
181 to redwood post P. Q. 99 and W. li. 203 was run in 
order to close the survey of the peninsula, in order that the 
area could be computed ; subsequently I went into the field 
again, after having made the computation of area based on 
said closing line, and computing a line cutting off one league 
of land from said peninsula, and run said line as computed 
and as represented on Mathewson's survey plat ; and that ac- 
counts for the western boundary as shown on said Mathew- 
son's plat; that is all I have got to say on that question. 

Q. 5. What do the capital letters " W. K.," on the 
official plat, viz : at redwood post P. Q. 99, stand for or 
represent? A. Widow Read. 

Q. 6. Who was Widow Read, and what relation did she 
have to the rancho ? A. Widow Read, as I understood it 
at that time, was the widow of Juan Read, the claimant of 
the ranch. 

Q. T. Are you well acquainted with the stream repre- 
sented on the western and southern boundarj^ of the official 
plat, from Station 1 to Post 20, called Arroyo Corte Madera 
del Presidio ? 

Question objected to by Mullen & Hyde, and question 
asked : Official plat of what survey do you refer? I refer 
to the official plat of the survey as made by Leander Ran- 
som, in September and October, 1873, and G. F. Allardt, 
in June, 1874. In speaking of the Mathewson survey, I 
refer to the plat by his name, viz : Mathewson survey. 

A. I am. 

Q. 8. Are you acquainted and familiar with the charac- 
ter of said stream, from said Station 1 to its source or 
sources, and if so, state its direction towards the source or 
sources ; and if it branches, state the relative size, width 
and depth of the water, and other matters? A. I am 
familiar with said arroyo from its mouth to its source. Its 
general course up stream is northwesterly, its source being 
in Tamalpais Mountain, on the east side. There is a branch 
or fork leaving said arroyo, about 10 chains above the fine 



135 

between sections 28 and 29, with which I am not personally 
familiar. 1 cannot speak definitely of the depth, width or 
size of said arroyo, as it was dry when I saw it. 

Q. 9. At what time did you see it ? A. In the summer 
time. 

Q. 10. Do you refer to the southern or northern branch 
of said arroyo as being dry in the summer time ? A. I only 
spoke of one branch"^; that was dry where it joined the 
Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, at the time I saw it. 

Q. 11. Was the other branch dry ? A. I have only 
mentioned one branch. 

Q. 12. Is that the one with which you state you are 
familiar, or the one which you state you are not familiar ? 
A. I stated that I was familiar only with the main arroyo, 
and not with the branch. 

Q. 13. Which do you call the main arroyo — the 
northern or the southern stream ? A. The northern stream, 
or the one running up northwesterly. 

^ Q. 14. Does the northerly stream contain or run more 
water than the southerly ; or do you know ? A. I do not 
know. 

Q. 15. Why, then, do you call it the main arroyo ? A. 
By main arroyo, I mean Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, 
and it is the same arroyo that I have always heard so 
called. 

Q. 16. Do you know whether any mill, to be run by 
water-power, was constructed, in whole or in part, upon 
either of said streams ? A. I do not, of my own knowl- 
edge. 

Q. 17. Have you never known or heard of, officially or 
otherwise, a place called the Old Mill, situate on the south- 
ern stream, of which you have spoken, and about half a 
mile westerly from the intersection of the two blanches or 
streams ? 

Question objected to by Mr. Shanklin as calling for hear- 
say evidence, and second, because it is not responsive to 
anything elicited on direct examination. 

A. I have heard spoken of such a place, but I never saw 
the mill. 

Q. 18. Do you not know, of your own knowledge, that 
the framework, wheels, and part machinery of an old mill is 
situate on said southern stream ; and furthermore, that said 
stream is the principal arroyo, and contains more than three 
times as much water as the northern stream? 
• Objected to by Mr. Shanklin as immaterial, not responsive 



186 

04 dii'ect examination, and not confined to any descrfptioii 
of boundaries or measurement in connection with the Corte 
Madera del Presidio rancho. 

J. B* Howard admits that said question would be irrele- 
vant on direct examination; that said arroyos above Station 
1 do not pertain to the record of juridical possession. But 
this question is asked for the purpose of explaining irrele- 
vant testimony in the record brought out on direct examin- 
ation, and to show the incorrectness thereof. 

jVIullen & Hyde object to the question being answered. 

The objection sustained. 

Q. 19. Are you familiar with the arroyo mentioned in 
record of juridical possessipn, viz : Olon or Ho! on, froni its 
fK)urce to its mouth ? A. I am. 

Q. 20. What is the character of said arroyo as to its sup- 
ply of water, and to what point or distance does it run as a 
stream during the sumnier or dry season ? 

Question objected to by Mr. Shanklin as immaterial; nofe 
pertaining to any description given in the calls of the boun- 
daries or measurements. • 

A. It is a mountain stream or brook that is dry in th^ 
summer time, with the ex.ception of a few pools here and 
there ; therefore, it cannot be said that it runs for any dis- 
tance in the summer time. 

Q. 21. Does not the water in said stream in summer 
time extend from its mouth, as far as redwood Post P. Q.^ 
99, and W. B>. 203, and is not the cmstant supply kept up 
from that point to the bay by a spring on a hill, in the im- 
mediate vicinity which you discovered in making the sur- 
vey of the western line of said rancho, about June, 1874 ? 

Question objected to by Mullen & Hyde, because it as- 
sumes that this. witness did make a surv^ey of the western 
line of this rancho, which is not a fair statement of a fact. 
This witness was specially instructed on the 28th of May^ 
1874^ as appears by Ex. Solar No. 4, to retrace a specific 
line that had previously been reported upon by Deputy 
Surveyor Bansom, and which fine extended from the solar 
to Arroyo Holon, and was never authorized to establish^ 
locate, or otherwise ascertain and define on the ground an 
original line, to be one of the boundaries of this rancho, and 
reference is made to said Exhibit as to the extent of duty 
imposed upon said witness under said instructions. 

A. In the summer time there is water in detached pools* 
on the whole length of said arroyo. I cannot say whether 
the constant supply below the redwood post is deriv^ed fromi 



1S7 

^said spring, "but I should say net. I know of no contlntiotis 
;stream in any part of the arroyo in the summer time. 

Q. 22, When apon the ground-, near said post P. Q. 99 
;and W. R. 203, in making said survey or retracing — how 
^did you ascertain 4;he monument representing said post or 
station ? A. The orlgina-l post or tree had been destroyed. 
K therefore retraced a course of the official rancho of the 
Hancho Punta de San Quentin, via.: from the Jaurel tree 
^marked P. Q. 98, W. R. 204. 

Q. 23. How did this prox3ess enable you to fix or ascer- 
tain said post or station ? A, I resurveyed from said laurel 
the course and distance given in the official field notes of 
the Rancho Punta de San Quentin, described as running 
from said laurel to the redwood post P. Q. 99, W. R. 203, 
in said official notes of tbe Rancho Punta de San Quentin, 

Q, 2L How was post P, Q. 98 conne<jted with the Ran- 
-cho Corte Madera del Presidio, so as to enable you from 
that point to ascertain tlie location of post P, Q. 99 and W-. 
R. 203 ? A, The 'Course and distance is given in the Ransom 
^survey of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, as being 
along the eastern boundary of the Rancbo Punta de San 
•Quefitin, 

Q. 25. By whom, if you know, was the post or tree, 
originally standing as indicated on the official plat Redwood 
post P. Q. 99 and W. R. 203, first located and marked ; I 
refer to the tree whi<*.h you state was destroyed on or prior 
to June, 1874 ? A. By myself, under Deputy Mathewson, 
in 1858. 

Q. 26, In conn-ection with the survey of what rancho 
was said tree marked by you in 1858 ? 

Question objiected to by Mullen & Hyde, because the tes- 
timony thus far shows that it was not done in connection 
with the survey of any rancho, but said line w^as surveyed 
for the purpose of establishing a closing line with other 
lines meandering the peninsula, for the purpose of ascertain- 
ing the area therein contained. 

A. It was marked by me P. Q. 99 for Rancho Punta de 
San Quentin, and marked W, R. 203 for the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio; as I supposed at the time that said 
tree might prove to be in the boundary Hne of the Corte 
Madera del Presidio, and by marking at the time (1858) 
that I might obviate the necesvsity of going to the tree again, 
in case it should be subsequently decided that said tree 
would be a station of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 27. For what purpose did you re-mark said post 99 



and' 203 and 98 and 204, in the survey of said western ITne^ 
in June, 1874^ as stated in ycKir field notes? A. In order to* 
perpetuate the marks that I nmde in 1858, as found in Ma- 
thewson'^s dd field books. 

Q. 28^. What is the forn> and extent of the mjountain^ 
fyin^ north and ea&t of the source of the Arroyo- Corte 
Madera del Presidio, called Tanaalpais, Table Mountain,. 
Malpais, Sierra^ San Rafael and other nanies ? A. There is 
no such mountain north or east c^* said Arroya Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio^ 

Q. 29. If you start at post P. Q. 99' and W. R. 203 and 
travel w^esterfy through Riley's Valley, or along: the Arroyo- 
Holon,- as represented we&terly' of said post, is tliere any ob- 
struction which prevents you from reaching the source or 
bed o^' the Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio ; if so, what 
IS- it? A. There is no insurmountable ol)structiou ; tlie 
sources of tlie two streams are separated by a narrow^ 
brushy spur of the Tamalpais mountain. 

Q. 30. What is the elevation of that spur from post P, 
Q. 99 and W. R. 203? A. I cannot say jwsitively, but I 
should say about 2,000 feet. 

Q. 3L What is the distance from redwood post P. Q. 
99, atid W. I^, 20'3, to the source of the An^yo Corte 
Madera del Presidio? A. Almost a mile and a half^ in a 
straight line. 

Q. 32. Have you ever been employed by S. R, Throck- 
mortoiiy W. T, Coleman or G. P. Hart, appeanng here a& 
objecting to survey, in connection with private surveys 
in the vicinity, or upon the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde as immaterial and incom- 
petent. 

Same objection made by counsel for Throckmorton. 

Question withdrawn. 

Mullen & Hyde request question to be answered. 

Witness says the question is not clear. 

Q. 33. Have you been employed and paid by either of 
these parties ? A. I have made private surveys for W. T. 
Coleman and S. R. Throckmorton, at various times. 

J. B. Howard now closes cross-examination of Geo. F. 
Allardt. 

Adjourned until lOJ o'clock, Wednesday, January 19th, 
1876. 



139 

San Francisco, Jan. 19th, 1876, 

Case called, pursuant to adjournment. 

Witness, Geo. F. Allardt, on the stand, who desires to 
explain the testimony given by him yesterday. 

Q. 34— (By Mullen & Hyde). In the letter of Hon, 
Willis Drummond, Commissioner General Land Office, 
addressed to J. R. Hardenburgh, as U. S. Surveyor-General 
for California, directing said officer to cause a new survey 
of Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio to be made, uses 
language as follows : " That the name Point Tiburon, as 
*' used in the record of juridical possession, describes gene- 
<* rally the entire body of land bounded by San Francisco 
*' and Saucelito bays, and by a line running northeasterly 
^' from near meander course 105, to near meander course 
^* 24, as said courses are marked on the plat of Mathevvson's 
** survey, executed in 1858 ; and further states, from the 
"data before me, I incline to the opinion that the second 
*Miypothesis (to- wit: that which is heretofore and above 
*^ written) is the correct one in this case, and that the jurid- 
" ical survey terminated at some point on a line drawn 
" directly across, from course to course, as above stated. 
" This construction of the words used in the record of 
"juridical proceedings will harmonize the measurements 
" stated to have been made from Holon to Tiburon, and 
" from Tiburon to the place of beginning, with the actual 
" distances between those places." Xow please look at the 
plat of said Mathewson survey, and point out thereon the 
courses marked 24 and 105, and in pencil mark them "A" 
and "B," respectively. 

The witness, having examined said map, and having 
found said courses, marked them /' A" and " B," as re- 
quested. 

Mullen & Hyde ask this question, in this particular man- 
ner, and at this particular time, for the reason that the 
diagram enclosed with the communication, from which the 
foregoing extract has been taken, and upon which diagram 
was represented by a dotted blue line, the eastern boundary 
of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, as defined by 
said communication as extending from course 24 to course 
105 of the Mathewson survey, is missing from the papers of 
this case, and, after long and diligent search, cannot be 
found. 



140 

Mr, Allardt called as a witness by Mullen & Hyde, 

Q. 35. From your knowledge of the ground, between 
«aid points, marked "A" and "-B " in lead pencil on the 
plat of said Mathewson's survey of 1860, is there any diffi- 
culty of a physical nature to prevent a surveyor from estab- 
lishing said line on the ground by direct measurement ? 

Question objected to by the claimant (Mr. Sharp) as in- 
competent^ immaterial, and not cross-examination or ex- 
planation. 

A. A direct line from "A" to '• B " would ascend to the 
top of the main ridge^ and descend to the bay at " B ;" the 
ground is rough and hilly, but not impracticable for sur- 
veying. 

Q. 36, Please now look at the plat of the survey of this 
ranchoy as returned by Leander Ransom, pur[)orting to be 
made in September and October, 1873, and identify thereon 
two points that would correspond with the points marked 
*'A" and "B" on the plat of Mathewson's survey; and 
having identiiicd them, please mark them in lead pencil 
"A" and '' B," for the purpose of future reference. 

Mr. Sharp makes some objection as to previous question, 
in behalf of claimants, and also objects to question 34, on 
page 399, to this witness, on the ground that same is incom- 
petent, immaterial, and not cross-examination or explanation, 
and moves to strike out that portion ol said interrogatory, in 
which Mullen & Hyde give a reason for asking the ques- 
tion; and on the same ground moves to strike out the an- 
swer to said question, and ruling asked for by Mr. Sharp. 

Motion granted, and so much of the statement, as made 
by Mullen & Hyde on page 400, is stricken out, with consent 
of Mullen & Hyde, through Capt. Mullen. 

Witness here states, upon his own motion, that he with- 
draws his desire to explain the testimony given yesterday. 

A, Witness having examined the said map, says: I huve 
80 marked them "A" and "B," as requested. 

Q. 37. Please now describe, in specific language, tlje 
positions of said letters "A" and "B," marked in lead pen- 
cil, as by you made on the plat of the survey, as returned 
by said Ransom. 

Mr. Sharp, in behalf of claimants, objects to this question 
as being incompetent, irrelevant, and not tending to prove 
any issues in this controversy-. 

A. The point marked "A" is near the end of the 506th 
course, near California City Point ; and the point marked 
"B" is near the end of the 271st course, marked "post 
290," on Richardson's Bay. 



141 

Q. 38, Would a line drawn from A to B on the plat of 
the survey, as returned by Ransom, correspond with a line 
drawn from A to B on the plat of the survey as returned 
by Mathewson ? 

Same objection by Mr. Sharp, on behalf of claimants, iis 
to previous question. 

A, It would, 

Q. 39. Suppose that a line drawn from <*A" to " B" on 
the plat of the survey, as returned by Ransom, had been 
adopted by you as a closing line in connection with the re- 
maining lines of said pkt of said survey lying to the west 
thereof, that is, west of the line drawn from A to B, and in 
connection with the east boundary of the Rancho Saucelito 
and the Arroyo Holon, through its entire length, for the 
purposes of computation ; how would the area of the tract 
lying tn the east of line A B, and extending to Point Ti- 
buron, on the plat of the survey returned by Ransom, cor- 
respond with the area of public land represented on the 
township plat ot T. 1 ¥., R, 6 W., said last area beins: 
949 68-100 acres? 

Mr, Sharp, on behalf of claimants, objects to question as 
incompetent and irrelevant, and calling for facts foreign to 
the issues in this controversy, also that it is hypothetical and 
needlessly incumbers the record ; also that it assumes 
facts not in proof, 

A. T cannot tell without computation, but I can approx- 
imate to it by appl^dng a scale on the map. 

Q. 40. Will you please apply a scale on the plat of 
Ransom's survey and state the correspondence approxim- 
ately. 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes same objections to this as 
to last question. 

A. The area on said Ransom's map, lying easterly of said 
line A B, is approximately 1780 acres. 

Q. 41. Please state how the area of so much of the 
survey as lies to the east of the line A B, on the plat of the 
survey as returned by Mathewson, corresponds with the 
area of public land lying to the north and west of the west 
boundary of the survey of the said rancho, as returned by 
Mathewson ? 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes the same objections to 
this as to question 39. 

A. The approximate area easterly of the line A B, on 
the Mathewson's survey is 1780 acres; the approximate area 
of the public land lying north and west of the Mathewson 
survey is 2520 acres. 



142 

Q. 42. Then in order to give to said rancho tlie areat 
of one square league, and supposing that any excess thereof 
was to be cut off on the Eastern end of said rancho as claim-^ 
ed, would a line cutting- off such excess Ue to the east or to 
the west of a line drawn frona A to B, on the plat oi the 
Mathewson survey ? 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes the same objections to 
this as to question 39. 

A. In order to answer that question, I must know what 
you assume to be the western and northern boundaries of 
said rancho. 

Mullen & Hyde answer — ^that they assume that all the 
public land represented and left as such to the north and 
west of the west boundary of the Mathewson survey, and 
extending to the east bouudary of the Rancho Saucelito, ac- 
cording to the final survey hereof on file in this office, and 
to the Arroyo liolon, is to be included as a part of the Ran- 
cho Corte Madera del Presidio in the final survey thereof 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, objects to this answer, instructing 
this witness, as the documentary evidence is the best proof 
determining the juridical boundaries of the rancho in ques- 
tion. 

Additional answer to question 42 — Such a line would lie 
to west of line A B. 

Q. 43. Please indicate on the plat of the Mathewson 
survey a line constructed thereon parallel to a line drawn 
from A to B, that would give the quantity of one square 
league, based upon the assumption as before stated and as 
approximately as you can, and mark the same. 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes the same objections to 
this as to question 39. 

A. I have indicated such a line, and it runs from the end 
of the 115th course to the end of the 16th course of the Ma- 
thewson survey, and I have marked it " E F," in pencil, on 
the map of the Mithewson survey. 

Q. 44. Please look at Exhibit marked "Plat filed hy 
Mullen & Hyde, with their motion of Oct. 7th, 1875," and 
mark thereon in red ink letters "E " and " F," correspond- 
ing with the letters " E " and " F," marked !>y vou in lead 
pencil on the plat of Mathewson's survey of said ranciio. 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes the same objections to 
this as to question 39. 

A. I have done so. 

Q. 45. Assuming that the boundary of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio, according to the juridical possession 



143 

thereof, was the Arro^^o Corte Madera del Presidio on the 
west as far as its junction with Richardson's Bay, as indi- 
cated on said Exhibit upon which you have marked in red 
ink the letters '' E " and " F," and on the north the Arroyo 
Holon to its junction with the waters of the bay as indicated 
on said Exhibit, and on the south by the waters of the bay 
as represented on said Exhibit ; and supposing that said ran- 
<iho was limited to one square league of land, would a line 
drawn from ''E " to "F " approximately represent the east- 
ern boundary of said rancho in that direction ? 

Mr. Cutter objects to the question, on the ground that iti 
assumes as a north boundary the arroyo called Holon on the 
plat, from its source to its mouth ; whereas there is nothing 
in the juridical possession or juridical measurement to indi- 
cate that the Arroyo Holon was a boundary or that the ar- 
royo called Holon on said plai was the arroyo of that name 
referred to in said juridical measurement and possession ; 
and moreover that by the said measurement and possession 
the Holon, when proven, shows only a point to which one 
line of measurement extended. 

Mr. Sharp objects, in behalf of the claimants, to the ques- 
tion, on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant, hypo- 
thetical, and foreign to the facts at issue. 

A. A line drawn from ''E " to " F " on said Exhibit, 
would include fully a league, but I cannot say whether said 
line E F would be the proper or correct eastern boundary 
in that direction. 

Q. 46. By what name has the land lying to the east of a 
line drawn from E to F been called, and by what name is 
it recognized in Marin Countj^ California ? 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes same objection to this as 
to question 89, and also that it calls for hearsay and is in- 
definite. 

A. I cannot answer definitely, but I have heard it called 
frequently '^ the peninsula," or "part of the Read rancho," 
or "Point Tiburon." 

Q. 47. Would a line drawn from E to F, as indicated 
on said Exhibit, be approximately the position of a Hue on 
the ground that would cut off said peninsula, or Point Tib- 
uron, from the body of mam land vviui which it is connected '( 

Mr. Sharp, in behalf of claimants, makes the same ob- 
jection to this as to question 39. 

A. A line from E to F would cut off tlje greater part of 
said peninsula, or Point Tiburon, from the main land. 

Q. 48. Could a body of land, containing twenty thous- 



144 

and (20,000) Castilian varas, be cut out from the ground 
represented on said Exhibit, and Ijing west of a line drawn 
from E to F, as marked on said Exhibit, and which line is 
represented in red ink on said Exhibit, and which area is 
referred to in the juridical possession, in words following, 
to-wit : " so that the square league of land which the Rancho 
" Corte Madera del Presidio contains, forms a square of 
" 20,000 Castilian varas, which, being regulated by said 
" measures, they declared citizen Juan Read to be informed 
" of the lands which belong to his rancho ?" 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, objects to question as incom- 
petent and irrelevant. 

A. I do not understand the question. 

Q. 49. What would be the area of a square body of 
land, the sides of which are five thou-and (;),0J0) varas in 
length ? A. It would contain one Spanish square leas^ue, 
or 4,438.68 acres. 

Q. 50. Assuming that a square mile of twenty thous- 
and Castilian varas means a square the sum of whose sides 
is 20,000 Castilian varas in length, please, then, answer 
question 48. 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes the same objection to 
this as to question 39. 

A. ITo. 

Q. 51. Would the ground represented on said Exhibit, 
and lying to the west of a line drawn from E to F thereon, 
contain more or less than 4,438.68 acres? 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes same objection to this as 
to question 39. 

A. It would contain more than 4,438.68 acres. 

Q. 52. Could you state, approximately, how much 
more ? 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes same objection to this as 
tb question 39. 

A. Yes. 

Q. 53. Please so state. 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes same objection to this as 
to question 39. 

A. About two thousand (2,000) acres more. 

Q. 54. Assuming that the dotted black line on this 
Exhibit defines the line of segregation between the salt 
marsh and dry land, how would the area contained between 
said dotted black line and the line to the north thereof, 
shaded red, compare with said excess of 2,000 acres, more 
or less ? 



145 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes same objection to this as 
to question 39. 

A. The area contained between the dotted line and the 
irregular line, shaded red, lying northerly thereof, is about 
equal to such excess, viz : two thousand acres. 

Court adjourned until to-morrow (Thursday) morning, at 
10:30 o'clock a. m. 



Thursday, January 20th, 1876. 
Court met pursuant to adjournment, and adjourned until 
Monday, January 24th, 1876, at 10;80 o'clock a. m. 



Monday, January 24th, 1876. 
Court met pursuant to adjournment, and, all parties 
acrreeing, adjourned until to-morrow (Tuesday) morning at 
10:30 o'clock a, m. - " 



Tuesday, January 25th, 1876. 
Court met pursuant to adjournment, and adjourned until 
to-morrow, Wednesday, January 26th, 1876, at 10:30 o'clock 

A, M. 



Wednesday, January 26th, 1876. 

Court met pursuant to adjournment at 10:30 a. m. 

Witness Gr, F. Allardt re-called by Mullen & Hyde. 

Q. 55. It appears on page 289 in. evidence in this case 
that you were the surve3^or and engineer of the State Board 
of Tide Land Commissioners for Cahfornia, and filed in the 
office of said Board the lield notes of such survey. Please 
state whether you furnished Leander Ransom with a copy 
of any held notes of such survey ot any lands in question in 
this case, and if so, what notes, under what contract with 
said Ransom, and the nature thereof, and for what purpose 
were said notes to be used, so far as you know? A. De- 
puty Ransom called on me in 1873 for certain field notes on 
record in the Tide Land Commissioner Office. I procured 
them for him, and they consisted of the meanders of the 
salt marsh and tide lands extending from the north of the 
Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio eastwardly to Peninsula 
Island and Raccoon Straits ; thence westwardly to the mouth 
of the Arroyo Holon, being the entire meanders of the inner 
line of the salt marsh and the outer line thereof, or the hne 



146 

of ordinary high -tide from said Arroyo Corte Madera del 
Presidio to said Arroyo Holon. Deputy Ransom agreed to 
pay me for my labor in furnishing copy of such notes a 
reasonable compensation, I think it was $200 — but he died 
and I got no pay. As far as I know, and as I believed at 
the time, said field notes were used by Deputy Ransom as a 
part of the field notes for his survey of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio, and as such were returned by him to 
the Surveyor-General's Office. 

Q. 56. When did said Leander Ransom die ? A. I do 
not know the exact date, but it was several months subse- 
quent to October, 1873. 

Q. 57. Please examine field notes of the final survey of 
the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, surveyed, com- 
piled and arranged by said Leander Ransom in September 
and October, 1873, an<l state whether said notes as there 
presented, including erasures and annotations, are the 
same that you furnished said Ransom, and in the form there 
represented? A. Said field notes are evidently copied 
from field notes on file in the Tide Land C«)mniis8ioners' 
Office. I called them off to Leander Ransom and he wrote 
them down. I never furnished him a written copy; but I 
have reason to believe that he wrote them down correctly, 
for we compared them afterwards with the originals. The 
annotations and erasures were made subsequently, but I do 
not know by whom. 

Q. 58. Do you recognize the general body of those notes 
to be in the handwriting of Leander Ransom ? A. They 
are all in the handwriting of Leander Ransom. 

Q. 59. Look at some of the erasures where said field 
notes and remarks, under the head of topography, have been 
crossed out in black ink or lead pencil; for instance — at 
course 80 ; at course 198 ; at course 206, i,n lead pencil ; 
course 240; course 287, 288, 298; and state if you recog- 
nize in whose handwriting they have been made ? A. I do 
not recognize the handwriting. 

Q. 60. Is it the handwriting of Leander Ransom ? A. 
No, it is not. 

Q. 61. The certificate of said notes, as made by yourself 
in the form of an affidavit, bears date (Jan'y 27th, 1874) 
January twenty-seventh, 1874, and Ransom's certificate in 
the same form bears same date, to wit: January twenty- 
seventh, 1874 ; and it also appears that Ransom died a few 
months after the return of said field notes to the Surveyor- 
General's office, and the certificate of the Secretary 



147 

of the Board of State Tide Land Comniiasioners bearg 
date December twelfth, 1874. Please state how it comes 
that said certiticate of said beeretary bears date sub- 
sequent to all of said dates as stated, and subsequent to the 
date of the death of said Leander Ransom ? A. My 
own certificate and said Ransom's certificate were made 
during his lifetime; the certificate of J. M. Currier, Sec- 
retary of the Board of State Tide Land Commissioners, 
was made several months subsequent to said Ransom's death. 
I do not know the reason why such is the case. 

Q. 62. Is not the body of the certificate of said secretary, 
as signed December twelfth, 1874, in your handwriting ? A. 
It is. 

Q. 63. Do you recall at the present time any circum- 
stances under which said certificate was prepared and signed, 
and at whose instigation same was done? A. Yes, I do. 
It was done at the request of Surveyor-General Stratton. 

Q. 64. Do you know for what purpose, or what reasons, 
if any, he assigned for having same done ? A. I think tiie 
reason was this : I was not at that time (December twelfth, 
1874) an ofiicer of the Board of State Tide Land Commis- 
sioners, but the Secretary of said Board was the proper 
person to make such a certificate. I do not remember any 
reason that he assigned, but he seemed to consider a cer- 
tificate from said secretary as very necessary and important, 
as he asked me several times to procure it. 

Q. 65. The township plat of T. 1 K, R. 6 W., Mount 
Diablo mer., and the surveys thereof, was approved by the 
Surveyor-General on the tw^enty-seventh of I^ovember, 1874. 
Please state what additional validity could be given said 
notes by a certificate of said secretary bearing a subsequent 
date ? A. I cannot say. 

Q. 6Q, Was there any crossing out, as represented in 
the said notes at the present time, shown at the date of 
December 12th, 1874, at the time said certificate was made? 
A. I think not. 

Q. 67. The certificate of said Secretary, as shown in 
said notes, made December 12th, 1874, precedes, in order 
of arrangement therein, the certificate as made by Leander 
Ransom, January 27th, 1874. Do you know of any reason 
why said certificate was interpolated and made to appear as 
preceding the certificate of said Ransom, one being prior in 
date, but subsequent in arrangement, and vice versa 9 A. 
I do not. 

Q. 68. Have you ever been paid by the United States, 



148 

or by any other person, for the field notes as furnished by 
you to said Ransom, as a survey of this Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio, and labor connected therewith ? A. 
I have not. 
Recess taken until 2 o'clock p. m. 



Re-assembled at 2 o'clock p. m. 

Questions by Peter Gardner in Cross- Examination, 

Q. 69. Point out on the official map where the end of 
the east and west line terminates at the end of ninety-four 
(94) cordeles from Point Tiburon. A. That line, of 94 
cordeles, is not shown on said official map. 

Q. 70. Point out on the official map the termination of 
the line which is referred to in the act of juridical posses- 
sion, as follows, to-wit: "thence continuing the measure- 
'' ment from east to west to the mouth of the Canada and 
"the point of the 'sausal,' which is near the estero lyiui^ 
" east of the house of the person interested, which is at pre- 
" sent on the rancho, there were measured ninety-four 
"cordeles." A. I do not see on the official map a line 
corresponding to the above description. 

Q. 71. Point out on the official map the point which 
corresponds to the termination of the before-described line 
of juridical possession. A. I cannot designate the point 
with exactness, but in my judgment said point is near the 
station marked " C. M P. 177,'" and " S. Q. 1858," bearing 
southwesterly from Juan Read's old adobe house on said 
official map. 

Q. 72. Take the scale " S. R. T. No. 16," and continu- 
ing the measurement from east to west along the line 
mentioned in the preceding question, sixteen cordeles, and 
designate the termination of such sixteen cordeles by 
reference to the official plat of Ransom's survey. A. If I 
continue the line from said Station " C. M. P. 177," and 
'' S. Q. 1858," and run due west sixteen cordeles, the 
termination of said sixteen cordeles will reach the [)oint on 
the official map which I now mark in lead pencil with the 
letter " C," which point on said map is on lands marked 
" Rancho Saucelito." 

Ques. 73. The first course of the act of juridical posses- 
sion is stated as follows, viz : " and going from soutn to 
"north, they measured to an arroyo called 'Holon,' where 
" is another forest of redwoods called ' Corte Madera de San 



149 

^ Pablo/ ninety ^90) CDi'deles of fifty (50) varus." With the 
same scale, Exhibit " S. R. T. No.' 15," measure from the 
point just marked " G" by you, north, in accordance with 
the quotation from the act of juridical possession just given, 
^nd show on the plat of the official Ransom survey where 
the termination of that course will be, and designate it on 
<said plat. A. A line starting at said point "C" and running 
due north ninety (90) cordeles, will reach a point which I 
now designate in lead pencil by the letter " D," which point 
is about six (6) chains north of the arroyo " Holon," and is 
situated on lands marked " Punta de Quentin '' on said 
official plat. 

Q. 74. Starting from the point on the official survev 
marked ^' C. M. P. 177" and ^^S. Q. 1858" with the same 
scale measure easterly towards Post 290, the distance of 94 
cordeles, and designate on the official map the end ot the 
94 cordeles. A. I have done so, and designated the point 
in pencil by the letter " E," which is near course 266 in said 
official map. 

Q. 75, Take the plat of the Mathewson survey, compare 
it with the official plat of the Ransom survey, and designate 
on the latter the position of Station 34 of the Mathewson 
survey. A. Station 34 of the Mathewson survey cones- 
ponds very closely to the station marked Post 613 on the 
Ransom survey. 

Q. 76. What is the distance in cordeles from the point 
marked " E " by you, to Post 613, on the official plat? A. 
I tind the distance between said points to be 46 cordeles, 
using said scale marked Ex. S. R. T. 16. 

Q. 78. What is the distance bj^ the same scale in corde- 
les, from Post 613 to the point marked by you '- 1) " on the 
Holon r A. About 157 cordeles. 

Q. 79. What is the entire distance rurmiiig straight 
lines around by the points designated by you in the answers 
from questions 72 to 79 inclusive ? A.* 403 cordeles. 

Q. 80. How^ does that correspond w^ith the sum of the 
distances stated in the act of juridical possession ? A. It 
is three cordeles more than said sum. 

Q. 81. Please give the area comprised within the lines 
designated by you in answer to questions 272 to 279 inclu- 
sive. A. The area comprised within straight lines dra^vn 
to the points designated in said questions is approximately 
3472 acres. 

Q. 82. Add thereto the area of the peninsulas lying south 
ot the line E C, as designated by you. A. That will add 
about 400 acres ; making a total of 3872 acres. 



150 

Q. 83. Add thereto the area lying west of the line C, 
D., as designated by yon, and between that and the Corte 
Madera del Presidio, taking for the purpose of this last 
measurement the township map 'No. 1, K R. 6 W. A. The 
area of the land designated as public land of said Tp. rnap^ 
and lying west of the line designated by me as running from 
C to D is about 630 acres, which, added to the last quan- 
tity, makes 4,502 acres, or a little over one square league. 

Q. 84. The witness is shown a document addressed by Wil- 
lis Drummond, Commissioner, from the General Land Office 
of Washington, D. C, dated Feb'y 5th, 1872, and addressed to 
J. R. Hardenbergh, Esq., U. S. Surveyor-General, San Fran- 
cisco, Cal., and is asked : Do you recognize the document 
handed you, and what is it ? A. It appears to be a com- 
munication from the Commissioner of General Land Office 
to the U. S Surveyor-General for California. 

Q. 85. What is the purpose of it? A. It seems to con- 
tain instructions to the Surveyor-General in regard to fixing 
the eastern boundary line of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio, a!id directing a new survey to be made to conform 
to the juridical possession. 

The document referred to in preceding question is now 
offered by Peter Gardner, and marked Ex. "Peter Gardner 
No. 1." 

Q. 86. How does the line from the point designated by 
you, from E on the official plat to Post 613 on same plat, 
correspond with the line designated in said Ex. Peter Gard- 
ner Ko. 1, on the 3d page thereof, in the following words 
and figures : ''A line running northeasterly from near me- 
ander course 105 to near meander course 24, as said courses 
are marked on the nlat of Mathewson's survey executed in 
1858 ? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as irrelevant and immaterial. 

A. It crosses it. 

Q. 87. At what angle. A. At an angle of about 30 de- 
grees. 

Q. 88. What difference in areas would it make if the 
line A B had been used by you, in answering the late ques- 
tions, instead of the line from E to post 613 f A. By adopt- 
ing the line A B the area would be decreased about 40 acres. 

Q. 89. In approximate estimates like the present, would 
you not consider these two lines as leading to about the 
same results? A. Yes, either line would give approx- 
imately the same area. 

Q. 90. You mean they correspond nearly. A. Yes. 



151 

Adjourned until Thursday morning (2Tth Jan'y), at 10:80 

A, M. 



Thursday, January^ 27th, 1876. Court met pursuant to 
adjournment, and adjourned until Tuesday, Feb'y 1st, 1876, 
at 10.30 A. M. 



Tuesday, Feb'y 1st, 1876. Examination resumed. All 
present 

Gross-Examination of G. F. Allardt Resumed, 

Witness here explains that Deputy Mathewson had with 
him the translation of the juridical measurements when he 
made the siirv^ey of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio 
in 1858, and I read them at the time. 

Q. 91. When measuring the iirst call of the paper above 
referred to, what, it* anything, did you find to indicate the 
termination ot* the original line of the Spanish survey in 
that direction ? A. Deputy Mathewson did not attempt to 
survey according to the separate calls of the juridical 
measurement. As I understood it, he made use of the 
jurid'cal measurements in connection with other papers, to 
determine exterior boundaries. 

Q. 92. Please state, if you now can, what papers Mathew- 
son had with him at the time of making the survey. A. I 
found in my office an envelope endorsed, in Mathewson 's 
handwriting, " Corte Madera del Presidio, heirs of Juan 
Read, one square league," which envelope contains the 
papers that said Mathewson had with him when he made 
the survey, according to the best of my recollection. The 
papers are, 1st, Instructions from the Surveyor-General 
MandeviUe, dated Sept. 22d, 1858. 2d. The report of juri- 
dical measurements and possession, in the handwriting of 
said Mathewson ; also, in the same handwriting, the tes- 
timony of Jose de la Cruz Sanchez and Toraas Jeremias. 
3d. A paper, in handwriting of said Mathewson, with this 
heading : " 497. Heirs of Juan Read vs. The United States." 
4th. The opinion of the Board of Commissioners for the 
place called " Corte Madera del Presidio ;" also, in the hand- 
writing of said Mathewson, on the back of which is attached 
the diseno of said rancho. 5th. A diseno of said rancho or 
copy thereof. 

Q. 93. How many of those papers, and which of them, 



152 

made the official instructions under which Matbewson was 
to act ? A. I do not know. 

Q. 94. From 3'Our experience as a surveyor, whicli 
would you think were embraced in the official instructions? 
A. The instructions themselves and the diseno ; but the sur- 
veyor would be guided more or less by all the papers re- 
ferring to the rancho, for the reason that no single paper is 
sufficiently definite for his guidance in this case. 

Mr. Gardner offers in evidence the instructions of the 
Surveyor-General. 

Q. 95. Did you, in surveying any line with Mathewson, 
look for any monument spoken of in the papers of juridical 
possession ; and if so, did you find any ? A. I do not re- 
member whether Matbewson looked for any monuments, 
but I am certain that I did not find any, ♦except it be tlie 
natural objects referred to in the papers; we found and lo- 
cated Jiian Read's adobe house. 

Q. 96. In surveying the second call of the juridical 
measurements, or that course and distance which you sur- 
veyed to represent that second call, what determined the 
course and distance that you ran from north to south? A. 
As I have stated, I do not think that Mathewson attem[)ted 
to retrace the juridical measurements on the ground; but 
he made a survey of all the meanders of the peninsula, and 
ran a closing line on the west end for the purpose of map- 
ping the same on paper, and then applying a scale to com- 
pare the calls of juridical measurement with his survey. 

Q. 97. Were you with Mathewson when he was survey- 
ing that land, both his preliminary and final surveys? A. I 
was in his employ and directed the field work ; Mathewson 
was on the ground only a portion of the time. 

Q. 98. Were you with him most of the time that he was 
on the ground, and how much of the time? A. Most of the 
time ; "but he frequently left the party and went to San 
Francisco or elsewhere. 

Q. 99. Was any attempt made, under the Mathewson 
survey, to reconcile the calls of the juridical possession with 
the instructions for the survey ? A. I cannot state; but I 
know that Mathewson frequently consulted the papers he 
had with him. 

Q. 100. Could any accurate survey of this rancho be 
made by following the calls of the juridical possession ? A. 
The calls in the juridical possession, where courses and 
distances are given, are impossible to follow, being, if 
literally taken, a mathematical absurdity. 



153 

Q. 101. Could an accurate survey of this rancho be 
made by following the artificial nionunients mentioned in 
the papers of the juridical possession, as placed, or promised 
to be placed, by Read ? A. Straight lines could be run 
from monument to monument ; but whether such straight 
lines would be an accurate survey of the rancho, I am un- 
able to decide. 

Q. 102. Where are those artificial monuments? A. I 
<io not know ; I never found thern, 

Q. 103. Have you ever looked for them ? A. I don't 
think I ever have. 

Q. 104. Taking the juridical possession, could an ac- 
curate survey of this rancho be made by following the calls 
for natural monuments therein mentioned ? By juridical 
possession I mean the paper commencing " being in the 
iields and lands pertaining to the rancho," on page 20 of 
Exhibit S. 11. T. No. 9, and ending on page 24. A. If the 
natural monuments were pointed out to the Surveyor, it 
would serve to give him an idea of the general location of 
the rancho ; but it would be mere guess work to attempt to 
make an accurate survey from such data alone. 

Court here adjourns until 2 o'clock. 



Court re-assembled at 2 o'clock, pursuant to adjourn- 
ment. 

The official plat of the Ransom survey and a paper, 
marked on the back " Expediente IsTo. 27," already in the 
case as Exhibit , are shown the witness. 

Q. 105. Do you recognize on the two maps now shown 
you the point of San Quentiu ? A. I do. 

Q. 10(5. And the Point Tiburon ? A. I do. 

Q. 107. On the ancient map, are there any streams repre- 
sented between those two points, and if so, how many ? A. 
There are two streams represented. 

Q. 108. Do you recognize on the diseno (or said ancient 
map) the lines claimed to represent the boundaries on the 
north and westerly of this rancho ? A. I do. 

Q. 109. ^ Nearest which of the two streams between 
Point de San Quentin and Point Tiburon does the northerly 
of those boundary lines ruii ? A.. It runs nearest to the 
most southerly of those two streams. 

Q. 110. Does it approach the most northerly of those 
two streams ? A. No ; it is some distance from it. 

Q. 111. On which side of the most southerly of those 



154 

streams does it run ? A. Partly on the south side, partly 
on the north side, and partly in the stream itself. 

Q. 112. In what part of its course does it correspond 
with the stream itself? A. Near the head of the stream. 

Q. 113. Do you recognize on the diseno the b ly formed 
by Punto de Tiburon and the Piin::a de Caballos, whichy 
running inland from east to west, ends in a short creek and 
Canada which follows the same direction; if so, what is it 
now called, and is it marked on the official plat ? A. I rec- 
Qormze on the diseno a bay answering to that description, 
and it is evidently intended to represent what is now called 
"Richardson's Bay," and so marked on the official plat. 

Q. 114. How many streams are represented on the di- 
seno as entering the head or western end of said bay ? A. 
Two streims; one at the head of that bay and another a 
little t > the nortti of the first stream. 

Q. 115. Is there any peculiarity in the inking of that 
diseiio that strikes your attention ; and if so, point them 
out ? A. The topography of the -diseiio seems to be drawn 
with one kind of ink, while some of the words and some of 
the lines seem to be made with a different kind of ink. 

Mr. B. S. Brooks objects to the question as not being the 
best testimony, Mr. Allardt not being an expert, as also not 
being cross-examination, no allusion having been made to it 
in the direct examination. 

Q. 116. What experience have you had as a draughts- 
man and map-maker, if any ? A. I consider myself a com- 
petent draughtsman, having had many years' experience in 
drawing topouTaphical maps. 

Q. Il7. Have you had much experience in the examina- 
tion of Mexican or Spanish diserios? A. Yes, I have had 
occasion to examine a large number of disenos. 

Q. 118. Is the:-e anything on the face of this diseno to 
indicate that it was intended originally as the diseno of the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio or ranch) of Juan Read? 
A. ]S"either the words " Corte Madera del Presidio " or the 
words *'Juan Read"' appear on this diseno. The diseno 
appears to be a topographical sketch of the lands, points and 
islands on San Francisco Bay between San Franc'sco and 
San Rafael. 

Q. 119. How well are you acquainted with the Bay of 
San Francisco and its adjacent shores, and islands, and rocks, 
between the latitude of the Presidio of San ^'I'ancisco and 
Yerba Buena Island on the south, and the latitude of San 
Rafael on the north? State your acquaintance with consider- 



155 

able minuteness. A. I am well acquainted with the Bay 
of San Francisco between those points, for the reason that I 
ma'le a detailed siirv-ey of the entire shore line of the bay 
for the Board of Tide Land Commissioners. 

Q. 120. What are the dots on said diseno, just to the 
right of a line drawn from Punta de San Pablo to Isla de 
Los Angeles intended to represent? A. There are six 
dots, and they represent what are now known as '^ Castro 
Rocks." 

Q. 121. What are the rounded spots between "Punta 
de San Pablo" and "Punta de San Quentin " intended to 
represent ? A. There are two of those spots near " Punta 
de San Pablo" and they represent two islands known as 
''The Brothers." 

Q. 122. What are the figures in the hay, which you called 
"Richardson's Bay" "J," "J," "1," '' IJ," "2," "8," "7" 
and the others between the figure last named and "Punta 
de San Pablo " and " Yas. de Marin" intended to represent, 
if you know ? A. From the fact that said fi.gures corre- 
spond approximately to the depth of water shown on the 
Coast Survey maps, I take then to be soundings showing 
the depth of water, in fathoms. 

Q. 123. Upon the diseno, do you see the words " Ter- 
reno que solicita D. Juan Read al otro lado del Pto. de S. 
Francisco," and the word " Sausalito ?" A. I do. 

Q. 124. Have you had experience in handwriting and 
ink and the use of it, enough to enable you to judge of difier- 
ences in them or either of them ? A. I have had consider- 
able experience in writing and drawing, but do not consider 
myself an expert in such matters. 

Q. 125. How much experience have you had? A. I 
have frequently examined old maps while following the 
business of surveying for the last twenty years. 

Q. 126. Do you know, and can you state how different 
kinds of ink will manifest themselves to the eye ? A. The 
question appears indefinite to me. 

Q. 127. Do you see any difference in the ink used in 
making words and lines on said diseno ? A. I do. 

Q. 128. State what difference in the ink you see, and 
where. A. Toe to[>ography, the soundhigs, the word 
" Sausalito," and the picture of a house under said word, 
and tlie scale of the map, and two straight lines bounding 
the Saucelito peninsula, and the words " Pta Tiberun " 
(''Tiburon" being crossed), seem to be drawn with one 
kind of ink ; while the words " Corte Madera," •* Taburon," 



156 

^'Terreno, que solicita D. Juan Read al otro lado del 
Pto. de S. Francisco," and the straight lines bounding the 
peninsula of " Taburon," towards the west, seem to be 
drawn with another kind of ink; also, "Ysla," near the 
island of '' Los Angeles." 

Q. 129. Which seems to be the earUer, and which the 
later of the inks, marks and writings you have described — 
if you can judge as a map-maker 'i A. I cannot judge as 
to the age of the different inks, marks and writings. 

Q. 130. Does that diseno appear to have been made as 
a map of any particular rancho, or for some other purpose 
originally ? A. I cannot say. 

Q. 131. Is it usual in disenos to give soundings of large 
bodies of water in their neighborhood ? A. I never saw 
any other diseno that gave soundini>;s. 

Q. 132. Is it customary in disenos to represent, as 
minutely as in this paper now under consideration, the 
small rocks and islands, and headlands at a distance from 
the land to which the disenos appertain? A. As far as I 
know it is not. 

Q. 133. Suppose the paler ink marks and writings on 
that map were not upon it, what would that diseno sc-m to 
you to be intended to represent? A. It would seem to 
represent a hydrographic map of a part of San Francisco 
Bay. 

Q. 134. Were you present when Mr. Juan Read, the 
grantee of the Rancho " Corte Madera del Presidio," and 
Mr. Guillamo Richardson, the grantee of the Rancho 
" Saucelito," were described as "ex-sailors" by a witness 
in this hearing ? A. I don't remember. 

Q. 135. Is there anything on the face of this diseno to 
indicate that it was not intended originally as the diseno of 
the Rancho " Corte Madera del Presidio," but for some 
other purpose ? A. It would be a mere matter of opinion 
for me to answer that question. 

Q. 136. Suppose the lighter colored straight lines bound- 
ing " Tiburon " on the west, and which you have testified 
are made with a different ink from the topography of this 
diseno were omitted, would there then be anything, on the 
face of this diseno, which could lead you, as a to; ographer, 
a surveyor, or a draughtsman, to suspect that it was intended 
as a diseno to accompany a petition for a grant of land called 
''Corte Madera del Presidio?" A. To answer that ques- 
tion I must know the nature of the petition. 

Q. 137. I emphasize the words : " on the face of this di- 



157 

^cno,^" in the previous question, and request you to answer 
«iy last question ? A. E"o, 

Court here adjourned until 10:30 a. m. to-morrow, Febru- 
ary 2d, 1876. 



Pursuant to adjournment Court met at 10:: 30 a, m. Wedites- 
'day, February 2d, 1876. Ail present. 

Cross-examination of G. F. Allardt resumed. 

A Spanish diseno or map, marked on the back thereof: 
*** 104. Exhibit 1, to the deposition of Thos. Henderson in 
•case E^o. 104, Richardson's claim, H. L T., Com'r," is shown 
-Nvitness, and he is asked — 

Q. 138. Does this diseno represent the land in question 
in this hearins: — the rancho of Read ? A. Yes. 

Q. 139. Will you compare this diseno with the paper 
marked " Expediente N(». 27," which you were examining 
yesterday, and state which of the two represents with most 
accuracy the rancho now in question ? A. That depends 
upon the boundaries of the rancho. 

Q. 140. On which of the twodisenos is the shore line of 
the bay which you call "Richardson's Bay," of '' Racco* n 
Straits," and of San Francisco Bay most accurately deline- 
ated ? A. Both disenos are extremely imperfect, being 
mere sketches; but that marked ''104. Exhibit 1, to the 
deposition of Thos. Henderson, in case I^o. 104, Richard- 
son's claim. H. I. T,, Com'r," is more intelligible than the 
other, inasmuch as it indicates roughly, "Peninsula Island 
and Strawberry Point," while in the other those features are 
not shown. 

Q. 141. Examine the shore line and topography at the 
head and near the head of Richardson's Bay on this diseno, 
marked '' 104. Exhibit 1, to the deposition of Thos. Hen- 
derson, in case No. 104, Richardson's claim. H. I. T., 
Com'r," being the diseno referred to in question 95, page 
121 of this testimony, and in the answer to that question, a 
traced copy of which diseiio is in said question, stated to be 
filed therein, which copy Peter Gardner now asks shall be 
marked " B. S. Brooks, No. 2," and state whether said to- 
pography and shore line are not represented with great ac- 
curacy and minuteness, for a Spanish diseno ? A. Yes; the 
topography at the head of Richardson's Bay is hereon shown 
with considerable accuracy; that is to say, approximately 
correct!; more so than is usual on disenos. 

Q. 142. Is there anything on this last-named diseno to 



158 

indicate the points of the compass, and if yes, state what it 
is, and whether it shows those points with correctness. A^ 
There is; it is a circle with a meridian line drawn through 
it, and a line at ri^^ht angles to the same. Slid meridian 
line corresponds very closely to the true rcteridian compared 
with the topography on said disefio. 

Q, 143. What is the meaning of the zigzag or scalloped 
line at the head of Richardson's Bay; I mean the line run- 
ning through the letter " D " in the word " Madera ? " A. 
This line evidently is intended to represent the outer line of 
the salt marsh, or the line of ordinary|high tide of Richard- 
son's Bay. 

Q, 144, Is any care, skill, and accuracy 8ho^vn in de^ 
lineating the water-courses in the Read rancho^as shown on 
this diseno, towards the western part thereof? A. I think 
the water-courses are shown approximately correct, con- 
sidering them to be drawn from an eye-sketch. 

Q. 145. Are not the principal curves of the shore line 
shown or suggested with a considerable degree of accuracy 
on this disefio, in the part marked thereon '' Rancho de 
Read " and " Tiburon V " A. The delineati(m of the shore 
line on this diseiio is sufficiently accurate to enable a person 
acquainted with the land to identify the principal features 
and b^alieiit points, such as bays, inlets, and points, with coi>- 
siderable certainty, 

Q. 146. Please look at the official r/lat of the Ransom 
survey, and state whether there is any considerable curve 
and point in the shore line of San Francisco Bay east, or 
very nearly so, tl*om the old house of Juan Read; and if so, 
state what they are. A. There is a curve bearing about 
east from Read's house, which is a well-marked feature in 
the shore line of San Francisco Bay ; also a point of land. 
The curve is situated just south of California City Point; 
and the point I refer to is marked " California City Point " 
on this official plat of the Ransom survey. 

Q. 147. Examine the diseno last spoken of, and state 
whether or no there are a point and curve in the shore line 
of San Francisco Bay delineated thereon as lying East, or 
nearly so, of the old Read house? A. Such a point and 
curves are shown on said diseiio. 

Q. 148. Does that curve you have mentioned form a bay, 
a cape, or any projection of land into San Francisco Bay ? 
A. Said curve forms a bay. 

Q. 149. Is there more than one bay of a marked char- 
acter along that shore, between " California City Point " and 



159 

the most easterly point of what is marked "PoiDt Tiburon '^ 
on the official plat ? A. There is not. 

Q. 150. Is there any marked topographical feature in 
California City Point that you can identify readily ? A. 
The land back of CanK)rnia City Point ascends rapidly to 
the main ridge, which forms the back-bone of the peninsula 
of Tiburon. 

Here a recess was taken until 2 o'clock, p. M. 



Court re-assembled at 2 o'clock. 

Q. 151. A map called "Gardner's Map of the Raucho 
*Corte Madera del Presidio,' with its topography and 
surroundings, the Mathewson survey lines, etc.," is here 
shown witness, and he is asked : What does this map repre- 
sent ? A. This map represents on a large scale the Tibu- 
ron peninsula, extending from Raccoon Straits westerly to 
the easterly slopes of the Taraalpais Mountain and the 
head waters of the Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio 
and the Arrovo Holon. The map also contains a part of 
the rancho '' Punta do San Quentin," and a part of the rancho 
Saucelito. 

Q. 152. Please compare this Gardner's map with the 
official plat of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, by 
Ransom, and locate and mark upon this map the points 
marked bv j^ou in your preceding testimony on said official 
plat in pencil, "A," " B," " C,"^*' D," and " E," also Post 
613, station C. M. P. 177 and S. Q. 1858, mentioned in your 
previous testimony ; also the point called "California City 
Point ;" also Richardson's Bay. A. I have marked those 
points on this map in red ink, with the corresponding let- 
ters and words. 

Q. 153. Please compare the two maps mentioned in 
question 152 and see whether they correspond with each 
other so far as the locations of the points and objects named 
in question 152, and the principal features of the exterior 
lines on the official plat are concerned ; and if so, state the 
same. A. The points and objects just named in question 
152 correspond in the two maps and the exterior boundaries, 
as far as the nicandor3 lire ^jracticLily identical in the two 
maps, but the line representing the western boundary on 
the official map is not shown. 

Q. 154. Please designate that western boundary men- 
tioned in your last answer, upon the Gardner Map, and 
mark it with appropriate letters, and state how you do it- 



160 

A. I have designated said western boundary on said Gard- 
ner's map by a dotted red line, "F G*' 

Q. 155. Does the hne " F G,'' just marked by you, 
correspond with the first call of the Juridical possession? 
A. I can't say. 

Q. 156. "Why cannot you say? A. I do not know, of 
my own knowledge, where the initial point of said first call, 
viz., the "solar," is located ; nor do I know in what exact 
direction such measurement was made at the time when 
juridical possession was given. 

Q. 157. Can you determine the bearing and distance 
from the letter "A" just made by you on the '' Gardner 
Map " to the Punta de San Quentin and place a red arrow 
pointing in the direction thereof? A. I have done so and 
represented the bearing by an arrow in red ink, and have 
marked thereon the approximate distance from the point 
"A" to the "Punta de San Quentin," viz.: 170 chains, or 
2J miles. 

Q. 158. Look at the diseno, marked "Expediente No. 
27," the official plat by Ransom, and "Gardner's Map," 
and state whether the stream marked on said diseno as 
nearest to Punta de San Quentin, appears on the other 
maps mentioned? A. Said stream seems to correspond 
with the large stream or slough shown on the other two 
maps, but whether it is that stream or not, is on my part a 
mere matter of conjecture. 

Q. 159. Please mark on the Gardner Map, in red ink, 
with the three letters "H H H" the stream, which you con- 
jecture to represent the stream which is shown in said di- 
seno as nearest to " Punta de San Quentin ?" A. T have 
so marked said stream. 

Q. 160. Please examine the diseno of the common lands 
of the Pueblo of San Rafael found in Vol.- X of Missions of 
the original Spanish archives and state what there is upon 
that diseno to show the boundaries of those lands mentioned 
in the title of that diseno? 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, objects to the question on. the 
ground that it is irrelevant, immaterial, and foreign to the 
facts at issue. 

A. The Mission Lands of San Rafael, on this diseno, 
seem to be bounded by a yellowish brown-colored line. 

Q. 161. Do you recognize upon said diseno, the Peak of 
Tamalpais and Punta de San Quentin? 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, makes same objection to this as 
to question 160. 



161 

, ,A, I see on this diseno a figure representing a mountain 
wiiich from its location may be intended to represent the 
Tamalpais Mountain ; Punta de San Quentin is shown on 
this diseiio and can be easily recognized from its position 
^nd form and by the word Quentin marked thereon. 

Q. 162. State whether or no the yellowish-brown boundary 
line, mentioned in answer to question 160, touches and con- 
nects those two objects. A. It does. 

Q. 163. Starting from what you say might represent the 
summit of Tamalpais, what is the general course or trend 
of that boundary line towards Point San Quentin for the 
first two and one-quarter inches of that distance ? A. About 
north eighty degrees east, as compared with the meridian 
line marked on said diseno. 

Q. 164, Do you recognize on said diseno any streams or 
other natural objects by which you can fix the true direction 
of that line approximately ? A. I do not — no definite ob- 
ject that I am acquainted with. 

Q. 165, Taking the bearing of the extremities of the 
peninsulas, marked on said diseno Saucelito and Tiburon, 
and your knowledge of the true location of them as your 
guide, would the meridian as designated on that diseno be 
correct, or if not, how far would it differ from the true 
meridian ? A. The true course between said extremities is 
about north thirty degrees east, while on the diseno the 
course between the same extremities referred to the meri- 
dian shown on said diseno is about north fifty degrees east, 
a difference of twenty degrees. 

G. F. ALLAEDT. 

Court here adjourned until Tuesday, the 8th of February, 
at 10:30 o'clock a, m. 



Pursuant to adjournment. Court met at 10:30 Ja. m., Tues- 
day, February 8th, 1876. All present. 

Cross- Examination of G. F, Allardt Resumed. 



Court here adjourned until Tuesday, 15th of February, 
at 10:30 o'clock a. m. 



Tuesday, Feb'y 15, 1876. On motion of xMullen & Hyde, 
case adjourned until Wednesday, Feb'y 23d, 1876, at 10:30 

A. M, 



162 

Pursuant to adjournment, Court met at 10:30 a. u.^ 
Wednesday, Feb'y 23d, 1876. All present. 

Present, Hon. II. G. Rollins, U. S. Surveyor-General. 

Re-Direct Examination of G. F, Allardt by Mr, Shanklin, 

Q. 1. Were you in the field with Mr. Mathewson when 
he made the official survey of the Rancho Corte Madera 
del Presidio ? A. I was. 

Q. 2. Were your relations to him in connection with 
that survey such as to enable you to know what official 
documents, bearing upon the juridical possession of said 
rancho, he had with him at the time ? A. I know of cer- 
tain documents he had with him at the time ; they are the 
same that I have heretofore described in this examination^ 
but I am unable to state whether he bad other documents; 
or not, or whether he consulted such other documents-. 

Q. 3. Please to examine the portion of Exhibit S. R. T. 
;N"o. 9, relating to the juridical possession (not measurement) 
as set forth in said Exhibit, commencing with the fifth line 
from the bottom of page 12, and ending with the ninth line 
on the top of page 15, and state whether the original, of 
which this purports to be a translation, or any copy of the 
translation thereof, were used by Mr. Mathewson or yourself 
in locating the westerly and northern boundary of the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio. A. Neither the orig- 
inal of said portion of Exhibit S, R. T. No. 9, described in 
the foregoing question, or a copy thereof, is among the 
papers which 1 have heretofore described in this examina- 
tion ; but I am unable to state whether Mathewson had 
such copy with him at the time ; but I do not remember of 
seeing such a paper at the time of the survey. 

Q. 4. Do you know whether Mathewson at that time 
referred to or consulted any official paper, such as the one 
referred to in the preceding question and answer, in mak- 
ing the survey of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, in 
locating the western or northern boundary of said ranch ? 
A. I do not. 

Q. 5. In making the survey of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio, do you know whether Mr. Mathewson 
made his survey as one for determining quantity, or with a 
view of following or making a survey of boundaries, or for 
determining the exterior boundaries of the ranch ? 

Objected to by J. B. Howard as immaterial, incompetent 
and not the best evidence, the action of the Deputy being 
governed by his instructions on file. 



163 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, joins in the same objecjtions. 

Mr. Cutter makes same objections. 

A. Mathewson made and returned the survey for quan- 
tity ; he surveyed one square lea^^ue, more or less, endeav- 
oring to locate the same within the exterior boundaries of 
Sriid rancho, and to include Juan Read's house and the 
solar. I know this to be a fact, as I assisted him in making 
the necessary computations, and actually surveyed the line 
under him, cutting off said square league. 

Q. 6. From your knowledge of Mr. Mathewson's ability 
as a surveyor, and his familiarity in construing boundaries 
and measurements of Spanish grants, do you think that if a 
document shown you, and heretofore referred to as com- 
mencing on page 12 and ending on page 15, Ex. S. R. T.^ 
No. 9, and that Mr. Mathewson's instructions had been to 
make a survey of the ranch according to the exterior bound- 
aries set forth in such paper of juridical possession, that Mr. 
Mathewson would have located the western and noithern 
boundaries of the ranch otherwise than as you say you 
would have located them, viz : along the Arroyo Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio on the west, as laid down on Ex.S. R. T., 
No. 6, and the Arroyo Holon on the north, as laid down on 
same Exhibit No. 6 V 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, for claimants, as immaterial, 
irrelevant and incompetent. 

Mr. Howard object*, as incompetent, eliciting the opinion 
of the witness, and in conflict with former testimony of this 
witness wherein he stated substantial! v that the line indi- 
cated from Post C. M. P. 181 to Post P" Q. 99 on the official 
plat, and W. R. 203 and continuing to W. R. 204, was run 
by Mathewson in 1858 as a closing line and division between 
the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio and the Rancho 
Punta de San Quentin, and for the purpose of marking the 
outer or western boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera 
in case said rancho should be ordered surveyed without 
limitation as to quantity of one league. 

A. I knew Mathewson intimately, and believed that he 
possessed very superior judgment in locating Spanish grants ; 
nearly all the ranchos which he subsequently surveyed have 
been approved by the Surveyor-General and the United States 
patents issued therefor; whether he would have located the 
western and northern boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera 
del Presidio where I have located them in this testimony I am 
unable to say; but from my knowledge of him I think he 
would have located them there had he had the same papers 



164 

before him. In regard to objection of Mr. Howard I wonid 
saj, that I did not testify that the line from Post C. M. P. 181 
to Post P. Q. 99, W. R. 203, was the division hne between 
the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio and the Rancho 
Punta de San Qiientiu ; nor did I testify that Mathewson 
intended it to be the western boundary of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio. G, F. ALLARBT. 

Mr. Shanklin closes the re-direct testimony of Mr. Al- 
lardt. 

Court here adjourned until Saturday, 26th of February, 
at 10 o'clock A. M. 



Saturday, Feb. 26th, 1876. 
Court met pursuant to adjournment and adjourned until 
Monday, Feb.;28th, 1876, at 10:30 o'clock a. m. 



Monday, Feb. 28th, 1875. Court met, pursuant to ad- 
journment, at 10:30 a. m., and adjourned until half past one. 



Met at half past one o'clock. 

S. L. Cutter, counsel for Gardner, stating that R. C. Hop- 
kins, a witness, was permitted to sign the precedinoj part of 
his testimony already given, when he was about leaving the 
country temporarily, moves that he be permitted to proceed 
with the cross-examination of said Hopkins. 

Gross- Examination of Mr, Hopkins by Mr, Cutter^ Attorney 
for Mr. Gardner. 

Q. 1. How far is the rancho in question, Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio, from this city ? A. I think that the 
nearest point is from six to eight miles. 

Q. 2. From your knowledge of the country embraced in 
the Ransom survey, in what part thereof would the occu- 
pants, in the j^ear 1834 or 1835, have cut madera or timber? 
A. They would certainly have cut it at the most convenient 
point to the place of their settlement. 

Q. 3. Please look at the map S. R. T. l^o. 6, at point 
marked B, in red ink, and state whether there is any pro- 
bability of wood having been cut there in 1834 or 1835. 

Objected to as immaterial, on behalf of claimants ; and 
not cross-examination ; and also, as being secondary. 

A. When the improvements of building, etc., were made 



165 

"by Juan Read ow the rancbo of Corte Madera, in 1884 or 
1835, I presume that the timber used therefor was cut at 
the nearest and most convenient point to said improvements, 
and since I think that good timber at that time was found 
at a point nearei' to wbere said improvements were being 
made, I do not think it probable that timber for that pur- 
pose was cut at the point in question. 

Q. 4. In answering question 55, page 102, of this tes- 
timony, you state that you went from the Kead house to the 
neighborhood of the south-eastern extremity of the rancho, 
as surveyed. How did 3^ou travel over this ground — on 
foot, in a carriage, or on horseback? A, My recollection is 
that I went a portion of the way in a carriage, and a portion 
on horseback. 

Q. 5. Did you follow the shore line or the interior line 
in reaching the south-eastern extremity of the rancho, as 
surveyed? A. I do not remember distinctly what road I 
travelled, but I remember that I went to the sea-coast at 
several points, I don't think I followed the coast around 
the peninsula, but I went to the sea-coast at several points. 

Q. 6. Did you go to or near the southeasterly extrem- 
ity? A. I did. 

Q. 7. Where is the call found of the Cerro Aho, mention- 
ed in question 62, found, that is, in what document? A. 
I think in the expediente of juridical possession. 

Q. 8. What authority have you for translating it Ta- 
malpais ? A. ^'Ihmalpais'' is not a translation; it is the 
original word or name as used. 

Q. 9. What is the literal translation of the words *' Cerro 
Alto?" A. High hill or mountain. 

Q. 10. Is there anything in the connection as used 
where you find it that indicates that it refers to any partic- 
ular high hill or mountain ; or may it mean simply "a high 
hillf A. The words '^ cerro alto^'^ simply means ''a high 
hill;'' but where it is used in this case, I think, in connec- 
tion with other papers in the case, it refers to the place call- 
ed sometimes '' Tamaljpais.'' 

Q. 11. Who went with you upon the land, if anyone, 
to point out the objects called for in the record of juridical 
possession ? A. The first time that I went, I think I was 
accompanied by Mr. Valentine, Doctor L3'ford, Mrs. Lyford, 
and Don Jose de la Cruz Sanchez. 

Q. 12. Did any of those parties point out to you any 
point as the solar, and if so, where was it? A. Don Jose 
de la Cruz Sanchez pointed out to me the point where the 



166^ 

juridical possession commenced ; I do not remretiiber, how- 
ever, that he pointed out the "solar;" my recollection is 
that he said that the jmndical possession commenced at a 
point near the old mill — my object was to have Jose de la 
Cruz Sanchez, who was one of the parties present when 
possession was given, to point out to me of his own accord^. 
the point at which the measarement was commenced. 

(J. 13. What are the meanings of the words '^Oriente," 
and "Poniente?'' A. "Oriente," means the Orient or 
East, and '^Poniente," means West from the Spani&h verb 
"Poner," to place ; the point where the sun places himself 
at setting — and " Oriente,*' the place of his rising. 

Q. 14, Do you know what instruments were used by the 
Mexicans in making their surveys of Ian d&? A. Except 
in a very few instances, they used no instruTOent&, except a 
measuring cord — ^I think that Don Abel Stearns, of Los Au'- 
gele&, had a surveyor s compass^ which he used on nuking- 
some surveys, and perhaps Juan Noget had an iiistrument 
which he used in making some surveys. 

Q. 15. Were the insti uments of which you speak used in 
making the survey of the Cbrte Madera? A. I am certain 
that they were not. 

Court adjourned until Tuesday, February 29th, 1876, at 
1 o'clock p. M. 



Pursuant to adjournment, court met at 1 o'clock, Tues- 
day, February 29th, 1876, and adjourned until Monday, 
March 6th, 1876, at 10;30 a. m. 



Pursuant to adjournment, court met on Monday, March 
6th, 1876, at 10:30 a. m., and adjourned until Tuesday, 
March 7th, 1876, at 10:30 a. m. 

Before the adjournment, the Surveyor-General ordered 
that the testimony should be taken and closed in the follow- 
ing order, viz : 

"From the 6th of March to 11th of March, inclusive, of 
witnesses to be produced by B. S. Brooks. 

From the 13th March to 15th March, inclusive, of wit- 
nesses to be produced by S. R. Throckmorton. 

On the 18th of March, of witnesses to be produced by 
Mullen & Hyde. 

On the 20th March, of witnesses to be produced by Cut- 
ter & Gardner* 



167 

On 2l8t March, of witnesses to be produced by J. B. 
Howard. 

From 22d to 23l1, inclusive, of witnesses to be produced 
by Sol. A. Sharp. 

On the 24th March, of witnesses to be produced by 
Southard. 

On the 25th March, of witnesses to be produced by 
Walter Van Dyke, U. S. District Attorney. 

And that every man be payed for the time he occupies. 



Pursuant to adjournment, court met on Tuesday, March 
7th, at 10:30 A. m., and adjourned until Thursday, March 
9th, 1876, at 10:30. 



Pursuant to adjournment, court met on Thursday, March 
9th, at 10:30 a. m.. and adjourned until Friday, March 10th, 
1876, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



Court met, pursuant to adjournment, on Friday, March 
10th, 1876, at 11 o'clock a. m. 

Francisco Soto, being duly sworn, is called by Mr. Brooks, 
as a witness, on behalf of Mr. Valentine, and testifies as 
follows : 

Q. 1. What is your name, age, place of residence, and 
occupation ? A. Francisco Soto ; 54 years of age ; born in 
the presidio of San Francisco ; and now reside in Watson- 
ville ; occupation, farmer. 

Q. 2. Do you know the Rancho Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio ; and if so, when did you first know it ? A. Yes, sir; 
I have known it, and knew it first in 1843. 

Q. 3. Where did you live at that time ? A. I was on 
the Rancho of Punta de Reyes. I was nine years working 
on that rancho. 

Q. 4. Who was in possession of the Rancho of Corte 
Madera at that time ? A. Dona Ylaria Sanchez Read, the 
widow of Juan Read, was in possession. 

Q. 5. Was Juan Read alive or dead at that time? A, 
He was dead. 

Q. 6. Were his widow and family residing on the ranch 
then ? A. They were. 

Q. 6. How long after 1843 did you continue to see the 



168 

rancli ? A. From that time up to this time I have known 
the rancho. 

Q. 7. What did you ever do on the ranch ? A, Mark- 
ing stock. 

Who for ? A. For Mrs. Read. 

At what times and how often was that ? A. Ev- 



Q. 


8. 


Q. 


9. 


ery year. 


Q. 


10. 


Q. 


11. 


visit the 



For how many years after 1843 ? A. Up to 1852. 
From 1843 up to 1852 how many times did you 
ranch ? A. Every month, or every two mouths, 
I was in the house of Doiia Ylaria Read. 

Q. 12. Did you, during these times, ride over the whole 
ranch ? A. Yes, sir; I did not go over every part of the 
ranch ; I went from the house of Mrs. Read to the Mission 
of San RafUel ; in gatherin<y stock I went over difiereiit por- 
tions of the rancho at various times, but I could not say I 
went over every part of it every time I visited the ranch. 

Q. 13. Do 3^ou know the point of land on the east of the 
rancho called Tiburon ? A. I do. 

Q. 14. During those years how was the point occupied ? 
A. With cattle and horses. 

Q. 15. For pasturage ? A. Yes. 

Q. 16. By whom was this point used for pasturage ? 
A. By Sefiora Ylaria Read. 

Mullen & Hyde and Cutter move that the foregoing ques- 
tion be stricken out as incompetent. Mr. Throckmorton 
also objects for the same reasons. 

Q. 17. Did you know the peninsula to the west of this 
point, called '' Poirero de Tiburon?''' A. I did. All the 
point was called Tiburon. 

Q. 18. By whom was that small penin&ula or Potrero 
^sed, and for what purpose ? 

Mullen & Hyde object to the question, as incompetent. 

A. By Doiia Ylaria Read, for the purpose of enclosing 
horses and cattle. 

Q. 19. Was it so used from the years 1843 to 1852 ? 

Mullen & Hyde make same objection as to preceding 
question. 

A. It was. 

Q. 20. How did they enclose cattle in it ? A. There 
>was a "ence placed across the neck of the peninsula. 

Recess here taken until 2 o'clock p. m. 

Q. 21. What was the length of the fence which you 
speak of as crossing the neck of the little peninsula ? A. 
From 40 to 50 feet. 



169 

Q. 22. Did this fenco, which civ>sse(i the neck of the 
peninsula, reach from the water on the one side to the wa- 
ter on the other side ? A. It extended from the water on 
•one side to the water on the other side. 

Q. 23. Was there a gate in this fence ? A. There were 
Ibars. 

Q. 24. Was there any fence on the main point of the 
Tiburon ? A. There was no fence, except the one on the 
*' bolerta," of which I have spoken. 

Oross^ Eocamination by Mullen ^ Hyde, 

Q. 25. Was there other stock, such as cattle and horse>% 
(between 1843 and 1852, that were not owned by Mrs. Read, 
that grazed upon the lands that you have referred to? A. 
The cattle and horses of Timothy Murphy and of William 
Richardson went upon the land, but none others. 

Q. 26. About how many belonging to Murphy entered 
upon said lands ? A. I cannot say, since the stock all the 
time was entering upon said land and going off. 

Q. 26. About how many belonging to Richardson grazed 
upon the lands described by you ? 

Objected to by Dr. Lyford as immaterial. 

A. I cannot say ; the country Was open, and the stock 
went upon the land and left it at will. 

Q. 27. Of the stock spoken ot by you as grazing on the 
potrero, how many, more or less, belonged to Mrs. Read; 
how many belonged to Richardson ? A. I cannot say ; we 
are speaking of land, and not of stock. 

Q. 28. Do you know, if so, state, who ow^ned the most 
of the stock that grazed on the potrero, by you spoken of-^ 
Mrs. Read, Mr. Murphy, or Mr. Richardson ? A. The 
most of the stock belonged to Mrs. Read. 

Q. 29. Do you know the brand of Mrs. Read's stock at 
that time? A. I know the brand ; but I am not here to 
testif}'' about brands, I do no^ desire to describe '' brands." 

Q. 30. Please describe the brand that you used in mark- 
ing Mrs, Read's cattle. A. I do not desire to paint brands; 
I am speaking of lands, and not of stock. 

Q. 31. In marking the stock of Mrs. Read, please describe 
the manner in which you did the same. A. We marked 
the stock with a brand, and by cutting the ears. 

Q. 32. Please describe that brand that you so used. A. 
I will not undertake to paint that brand, for I do not at this 
date distinctly remember what it was. 

Q. 33. Were the cattle of Murphy and Richardson, that 



170 

grazed on this land, marked with a brand ? A. They weve^ 

Q. 34. Was the brand used by Mrs. Read different fromj 
that used by Murphy and Richardson ? A. They were all 
different. 

Q. 34. Was the brand used in marking- Mrs. Read's cat- 
tle the same that was used in marking her horses? A. It 
was the same, 

Q." 35. Describe the material used ^in the construction of 
the fence across the neck of the peninsula. A. It was com- 
posed of willow posts and rails. 

Q. 36. Were these posts set in holes in the ground, or 
otherwise ? A. They were placed in the gi-ouncL 

Q. 37, During the years fron> 1843 to 1852, did you ever 
see a stone fence across or near the Potreraof Tiburon ? 
A. I never did. 

Q. 38. When was the fence, by you described, co<i- 
Htructed? A, I cannot remember the year, 

Q. 39. State who built it, if you know. A. Ramon 
Valencia, with the assistance of two Indians. 

Q. 40, Was this before or after the Americans took 
possession of California ? A. After they came. 

Q. 41, Where did Mrs. Read live when you first went 
on to this rancho ? A, On the rancho. 

Q. 42. Do you know in what house she lived on thi» 
rancho ? A, I do. 

Q. 43. Was it of wood or adobe ? A. It was of adobe, 

Q. 44, Do you know what bjundaries this rancho ha» 
on the north ? 

Objected to by Mr. S-harp, on the ground that this is not 
cross-examination, but new matter not brought out in direct 
examination. 

A. Two places, where they cut timber. 

Q. 45. Do you know the boundary of the Rancho of 
Corte Madera on the west ? 

Same objection as to foregoing question. 

A, I do not. 

Q. 46. How far west, from 1843 to 1852, was Mrs. Read 
in possession of lands which she claimed to be a part of the 
Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. As far as 
the Cerro of Tamalpais. She had animals on all of this 
land. 

Q. 47, How far east, from 1843 to 1852, was Mrs. Read 
in possession of lands which she claimed to be a part of the 
Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. I don't under- 
stand which is the east boundary. 



171 

Q. 48. How far south was the boundary ? A. To 
Tihuron. 

Q. 49. Up to what line on Point Tiburon did the bound- 
ary extend in that direction ? A. All the land from Corte 
Madera to the Point Tiburon, opposite Angel Island. 

Q. 50. Where did the boundary line of the ranch cross 
Point Tiburon ? 

Objected to as not cross-examination. 

A. It included all, from the Point Tiburon to the Corte 
Madera. 

Q. 51. How does it come that you know the boundaries 
so specifically and well in that direction, and yet cannot be 
equally specific in reference to the boundaries in the other 
direction ? A. Because at that time all the lands of 
Tiburon were recognized as the lands of Mrs. Read. 

Q. 52. Do you know, if so state, if anj' one, between 
1843 and 1852, set up any claim to lands called Point 
Tiburon, adverse to the claim thereto set up by Mrs. Read ? 
A. There was no one who made any one. 

Q. 53. How do you know this ? A. I know, because I 
was at the ranch up to 1852, and up to that time there never 
was any dispute about it. 

Q. 54. With whom have you had any conversation 
within the last week pertaining to matters testified to by you 
in this case. A. With no one. 

Q. 55. At whose invitation or request are you here as a 
witness ? A. Dr. Lyford and Juan Read. 

Q. 56. How were you informed that you were needed 
here ? A. By dispatch on Tuesday to be here on Thursday. 

Q. 57. From w^hom ? A. I think from Mrs. Lyford. 

Re-Direct. 

Q. 58. What was done with the cattle of others that 
came upon the land ? A. Every year, during the rodeo 
times, the respective owners took their cattle ofi* the ran- 
cho to their own ranehos. 

FRANCISCO SOTO M . 

Court adjourned until Saturday, March 11th, 1876, at 11 
o'clock A. M. 



Court met pursuant to adjournment on Saturday, March 
11th, 1876, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



172 

Juan J. Read being duly sworn, called as a witness by Mr. 
Brooks, on the part of the claimants, and testifies as follows ; 

Q. 1. Please state your age, residence and occupation. 
A. I am 39 ; reside in Marin Co.; farmer. 

Q. 2. Do you reside on the ranch ? A. I reside on the 
ranch of Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 3. How long have you resided on that rancho ? A. 
Most ever since I was born. 

Q. 4. Are you related to Juan Read, the grantee, and if 
so, how ? A. He was my father. 

Q. 5. How was the rancho occupied when you first 
knew it ? A. It was occupied wdth stock. 

Q. 6. Who occupied the rancho with stock ? A. Juan 
Read and his family. 

Q. 7. When did your father die ? A. I do not recol- 
lect, but I think it must have been 1844 or 5. 

Q. 8. Was it before the breaking out of the war of 1846? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 9. Where did your father reside upon the rancho ? 
A. At the ranch house. 

Q. 10. Is that the same that is there now ? A. Ko ; he 
was building the present house when he died. 

Q. 11. How was the former house situated with respect 
to the present ? A. It lay about southwest ; about 20 yards 
distant. 

Q. 12. What sort of a house was that old one? A. It 
was a board house ; split boards. 

Q. 13. Was that the first house that was there ? A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. 14. Is the present house an adobe house ? A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. 15. Did you perform any service or duty upon the 
rancho up to the death of your father ? A. I was too young 
then. 

Q. 16. Did you attend any of the rodeos, that were held 
before your father's death ? A. I did not attend to the 
rodeos, but I was at the marking and branding. 

Q. 17. Whatis the object of the rodeo ? A. Generally 
to brand cattle. 

Q. 18. Did you send notice to all of the colindantes ? 
A. Yes sir, that was the rule. 

Q. 18. For what purpose were the colindantes notified ? 
A. So as to come and take their stock away. 

Q. 19. What was the rodeo? A. Gathering of all the 
cattle on the ranchos. 



\n 

Q. 20. How were they gathered ? A. By vaqueros 
•who were mounted en horses and drove in the <jattle from 
the exterior boundaries to the rodeo ground, 

Q. 21. Wliat was done at the rodeo ground ? A. Sep- 
arate the stock of the colindantes from the stock of the 
ranch, 

Q, 22. What was done then with the stock of the colindan- 
tes, and what was done with the &tock of the ranch ? A, 
The stock of the colindantes each one had to take his stock 
out of the boundaries ef the ranch, into his own ranch. The 
Tanch stoek were branded and turned out again. 

Q. 23. From what lines was the rodeo? A. P>oni the 
-exterior lines of the raneh. 

Q. 24, That was recognized as the rodeo bounds? A, 
Yes sir. 

Q. 24. What were the rodeo ^oun^s, or exterioi- limits 
-of this rancho, Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. On the 
north and northwest, it was Corte Madera de San Pablo, on 
the east to the Point of Tiburon, around the Ba}^ of San 
Frai>eisco up to the Canada Tapeste, up to the lagoon and 
Taraalpais. 

Q. 2o. What was the boundary on the north from the 
dorte Madera de San Pablo to Point of Tiburon ? A, San 
Pablo Bay. 

Q. 26, What was the exact boundary at the Corte Ma- 
dera de San Pablo ? _Was it a forest or a stream ? A, A 
jstream, 

Q. 27. What stream was it ? A. Stream Arroyo Holon. 

Q. 28. Where was the laguna of which 70U have spoken, 
and what was its name? A. The lacuna was at the Ta- 
malpais or Sobrante, its name was La Laguna. 

Q. 29, What was it, and where was it situated with re- 
spect to the natural topography ? A, It was a pond of 
water full of tules. It is in a hollow place in the hills, close 
to the beach. It is about six miles from the adobe house — 
it is about southwest from the house, 

Q. 30, Are you speaking now of the limits of the Corte 
Madera del Presidio ? A. I am speaking now about the 
boundaries of the rodeo. 

Q. 31. My question was limited to the rodeo boundaries 
of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio ; please correct 
your description of boundaries so as to restrict them to the 
boundaries of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio. A. 
I do not understand the question. I do not know whether 
you are talking about the boundaries of the ranch or the 
rodeo boundaries. 



IT4 

Q. 32. Did not your mother claim land adjoining the 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio V A. Yes, she did ; and 
we do claim it yet. 

Q. 33, As distinct from the grant made to your father ? 
sir. 
What did you call that ? A, Sobrante^ or Tamal- 



A. 


Yes, 


Q. 


34. 


pais. 




Q. 


35. 


that 


? A, 


Q. 


35. 



On which side of the Rancho Corte Madera was 
On the west side. 

In your description of rodeo boundaries have you 
not included this sobrante? A. Yes, sir, 

Q. 36. What was the exterior limit of the Rancho Corte 
Madera, from the Holon to the Point of Tiburon ? A. The 
Bay of San Pablo. 

Q. 37. Does this boundary, from the Holon around by 
the shore of the bay to the point nearest your father's house,, 
form a part of the boundary of the Rancho Corte Madera, 
or does it include any part of the Sobrante ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as leading^. 

A. No, it does not include any part of the sobrante. 

Q. 38. What improvements were on the rancho at the 
time of your father's death ? A. There was the house, the 
mill, and another fence between the house and the mill, 
called Las Papas and Corral Grande. 

Q. 3i». Where was the Punta de Tiburon ? A. Where 
it is yet. 

Q. 40. Question repeated. A. It is about east from the 
house. 

Q. 41. Describe it, as you would describe it to a stranger, 
so that he could find it, A. Mr. Brooks, I do not see how 
I can describe it unless I make a map. 

Q. 42. Point it out on the plat of the official survey, 
which is now shown you. A. The point on the map, which 
is called Strawberry Point, we call El Meja. Goini^ from 
the house, after I passed that Alnieja Point, -I considere 
myself on Point Tiburon. This (pointing to that marked 
Peninsula Island) we called the Potrero. 

Q. 43. What is the Punta del Tiburon? A. At the ex- 
treme end marked Point Tiburon on the official map, and 
from Sta. 3-43 to Sta. 3-85 inclusive, as marked on the official 
map. 

Q. 44. How was this Tiburon occupied by your father 
and his family ? A. By stock. 

Q. 45. Up to what time did they continue to so occupy 
it ? A. Up to the present time. 



175 

Q. 46. How was the parcel of land that is marked on 
the map, Peninsula Island, how is it occupied, and by 
whom ? A. It was occupied by our horses. 

Q. 47. Was it separated from the rest of the house, and 
if so, how ? A. It was separated by a little fence. 

Q. 48. Was there any opening in this fence ? A. We 
had bars on the fence. 

Q. 49. What is the meaning of the word Potrero ? A. 
Potrero means an enclosed field to turn in horses. 

Q. 50. Did you have any other name to it besides Po- 
trero ? A. !N"o. 

Q. 51. Was it not known as the Potrero del Tiburon ? 

Mullen & Hyde object to question as leading, and be- 
cause it has been answered in a manner difterent from that 
which the question suggests. 

A. ]^o. 

Q. 52. Simply El Potrero ? A. El Potrero de la Punta 
del Tiburon. 

Q. 53. Was there any fence across any portion of Tibu- 
ron besides this little one across the neck, spoken of prior 
to the change of government ? A. No. 

Q. 54. When was the first fence put on Tiburon, cross- 
ing Point Tiburon ? A. About ^ve or six years ago. 

Q. 55. Wherefore, and by whom ? A. Because me 
and my sisters have made a partition ; the fences were put 
up on the lines of partition, and were made by myself. 

Q. 56. You have said that you have lived on the rancho 
almost from your birth; how was it, as your parents lived 
there, that you did not live there at and from j'Our birth ? 
A. My mother being alone at that place, it was natural that 
she should desire to come to the Presidio, so as to be among 
her fi'iends to be confined. 

Q. 57. With that exception, did you reside always on 
the rancho ? A. Except when the administrators were 
upon the rancho, but this was after the occupation of the 
country by the Americans. 

Q. 58, From your birth, up to the time of the change of 
the government, did any person, to your knowledge, beside 
your father and his family, claim the right to use or occupy 
any portion of the land included in the present official sur- 
vey, or the " Peninsula f A. E"o. 

Q. 59. You have spoken of the cattle of the colindantes 
being separated at the rodeos ; how did such cattle come to 
be upon the rancho ? A. The whole country being with- 
out fences, the cattle could not be prevented from going 
from one rancho to another, seeking pasture. 



176 

Q. 60. Is your remark directed t(7 this part of the 
country alone, or to the whole of California ? A. To such 
portions of the country that I knew. 

Q. 61. What was the fact, as to California generally, in 
respect to fences ? A. There were no fences ; there were 
nothing hut mojoneras, creeks, bays, &c. 

Q. 62. How did you distinguish the cattle of one rancho 
from those of another ? A. By brands and ear marks. 

Q, 63. How did you distinguish those that were not 
branded or ear marked ? A. The small stock, that is the 
calves that were running with tlie cows, these were the 
only stock that the colindantes had the privilege of taking 
out ; the balance of the stock that were unmarked were 
claimed by the owners of the land. 

Q. 64. To whom did the calf following the cow go ? 
A. To the owner of the cow. 

Q, 65. To whom did the stock which bad no mark, and 
which was not following the cow, belong? A. It belonged 
to the person that had given the rodeo, and that owned the 
land. 

Q. 66. Could the owner of a rancho rodeo beyond the 
limits of his rancho ? A. Not without permission. 

Q. 67. If unbranded cattle were brought from beyond 
the exterior limits of the rancho, would they belong to the 
person giving the rodeo ? A. If it was proven that they 
were brought from beyond the outside limits of the rancho, 
they would not. 

Q. 68. How often was the rodeo given ? A. Generally 
four or ^ye times a year on each rancho. 

Q. 69. Would the young stock, born after the preced- 
ing rodeo, ordinarily be following the mother? A. They 
ordinarilv would, up to the next rodeo. 

Q. 70. Then the unbranded stock, not following the 
mother, would only be such as had accidentally escaped at 
the preceding rodeo ? A. Yes, sir. 

Gross-Examination by Mr. Shanklinfor Mr. Throckmorton. 

Q. 71. On page 488, question twenty-four of your testi- 
mony, you were asked " what were the rodeo bounds or 
exterior limits of the Kanclio '' Corte Madera del Presidio f^ 
Was there any difference between the rodeo boundaries and 
the rancho boundaries ? A. At that time there was not, 
because we claimed the whole of the land. 

Q. 72. What years do you refer to ? A. I refer to the 
year 1845, to the time that the administrators took posses- 



177 

sion of the land, in 185Q or 1851. During their possession 
'110 rodeos were made. 

Q. 73. The first question to which your attention was 
-called referred to the Corte Madera del Presidio ; please to 
•confine your answer to said rancho, as to the bounds of its 
rodeo. A. I do not recollect that I was questioned as to 
the bounds of the rodeo of the Rancho of" Corie Madera del 
Presidio.'^ 

Q. 74. Then answer the question now, as asked you on 
page 488. A. At that time, the rodeo bonndaries were the 
■^' Laguna," the Canada of Tapeste (called now Coyote 
-Creek), and the Tamalpais, the Corte Madera de San Pablo 
and Point Tiburon. 

Q. 75. You have stated that the rodeo bounds were the 
■same as the boundaries of the rancho. Are we to under- 
stand by your last answer that the boundaries therein named 
were the boundaries of the Rancho of " Corte Madera del 
Presidio/" as you understood them in 1845? A. I did not^ 
The rodeo boundaries were one and the ranch boundaries 
w^ere another. 

Q. 75. Did you know the boundaries of the Rancho of 
Corte Madera del Presidio in 1845 ? A. Yes. sirv 

Q. 76, Wherein did the ranch boundaries of Corte 
Madera del Presidio, in 1845, as you understood them, 
differ from the rodeo boundaries, as given by you in answer 
to question 75, on page 497 ? A. The ranch boundaries 
were difierent from the rodeo boundaries. We claimed two 
ranchos — that is, ray mother claimed one rancho adjoining 
my father's Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, the Corte 
Madera del Presidio being the boundarj^ of ray father's 
rancho, and the other boundaries being those that I have 
mentioned, as the rodeo boundaries of my mother's rancho. 

Q. 77, Now, give us the boundaries of your father's 
Rancho of" Corie Madera del Presidio.'' A, Arroyo Holon 
or Corte Madera de San Pablo, Punta del Tiburon, the Bay 
oi San Francisco and the Bay of San Pablo, and Arroyo of 
Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 78. Did your father's estate claim as boundaries of 
the Rancho of the " Corte Madera del Presidio," the Arroyo 
Corte Madera del Presidio on the west, from its mouth to 
its source, and the Arroyo Holon on the north, from its 
mouth to its source? A. My father claimed — I cannot 
exactly state what distance — on the Arroyo Corte Madera 
del Presidio, up to the Arroyo Holon. I cannot exactly 
state the distance he claimed on either arroyo. 



178 

Q. 79. Are you an etlocated man, and are you educatecF 
in the English lang-uaiJ^e ? A, I received a very poor 
edu<3atioii, aixl I have- to thank the Americans for sucli 
deficiency. 

Q, 80. Have you ever testified res^ar ding- the boundaries^ 
of the Rancho of " Corte Madera del Presidia" an any 
former occasion ? A. I have. 

Q, 81. Where did~ you place them on that occasion ? A^ 
I do not recollect. 

Questions by Mr, Sharp, for ClaimaMs, 

Q. 82. State if the boundaries of the Rancho of Corte 
Madera del Fresidioy as given by you in the foregoing 
testimony, are substantially the same as ^ven by you in 
your farmer testimony, as near as- you can recollect. A^ 
They are. 

Q, 83. I ask you to restate those baundaries, and say if 
they are not the true boundaries as learned by 3^au in boy- 
hood? A. Arroyo Holon ; Bay of San Pablo; Punta del 
Tiburon ; Bay of San Francisco ; Corte Madera del Presidio ;, 
from Corte Madera del Presidio to the Arroyo Holon. 

Q. 84. State if there was any space of ground, or land^ 
between the place yon call Punta del Tiburon, and that por- 
tion of the Bay of San Francisco, now marked ^' Eaccoon 
Straits'' on the official plat, and whether Punta del Tiburon 
did not extend to the w^aters of that portion of the bay ? A.. 
The Punta del Tiburon extended to the water's edge, and 
there is no intermediate land between that point and the 
waters of the bay. 

Q. 85. Can you point out on the official map what you 
understand to be the location of your father's solar, as referred 
to in the record of juridical possession; if you can do so^ 
point it out on said official map ? 

Objected to by Mr. Brooks, because it is not competent 
for the witness to determine which was tlie solar referred to 
in the act of juridical possession, at which he was not present, 

A. I cannot do so, because all the creeks are not laid 
down on said map; somewhere near point marked "C. M. 
181." 

JOH^^ J. READ. 

Adjourned till 13th. 



179 

March 13th, 1876, 10 o'clock a. m. 
Parties c jiitestaiits, met pursuant to adjournment ; 
Whereupon, B. S. Brooks, attorney for T. B. Valentine, 
ottered the following exhibits: 

B. S. Brooks, counsel for T. B. Valentine, here offers the 
following exhibits in the case of the rancho of " Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio." 

First : The opinion and decree (bj certified copies) of the 
Board of Land Commissioners in the case of the rancho of 
** Corte Madera del Presidio," marked (T. B. V. No. 1). 

Also : The expediente (traced copy) of the rancho of 
^* Corte Madera del Presidio," Juan Read, confirmee, mark- 
ed : (T. B. V. J^-o. 2). 

Also: Agreement of James C. Bolton with John J. Read, 
et al, (by ^-ertified copy) dated August 12th, 1865, marked : 
(T. B. V. No. 3). 

Also: Deed from H A.Boyle to T. B. Valentine, (by 
certified co[y,) dated January lOth, 1872, marked (T. B. V. 
^o, 4). 

Also : Deed (by certified copy) from H. A. Boyle to Thos. 
B. Valentine; dated September 23d, 1872; marked (T. B. 
V. No. 5). 

S. R. Throckmorton ofi'ers the following as an exhibit : 
/'Decision of Secretary of the Interior (by certified copy) 
in the case of the rancho of " Corte de Madera del Presidio," 
dated January 6th, 1872, the date of the certificate of the 
General Land Ofiice to the same being February 7ih, 1876, 
marked Exhibit (S. R. T., No. 17). 

Cross- Examination by S. B. Throckmorton. 

R. C. Hopkins recalled. 

Q. 1. You mentioned going upon the rancho of Corte 
Madera del Presidio, accompanied by Mr. Valentine, 
Doctor Lyford, Jose de la Cruz Sanchez, et al; at what date, 
can you remember ? A. About the month of September, 
1873 (see page 470 of this examination). 

Q. 2. You stated that Jose de la Cruz Sanchez, at that 
time, pointed out to you the point where the juridical pos- 
session of rancho of " Corte Madera del Presidio " com- 
menced. 

Q. 3. Did he so point out to you, at that time, such point 
of commencement ? 

Objected to by Mr. Gardner, as not the best evidence. 



180 

A. He did. 

Q. 4. You state on page 471, " My object was to have 
Jose de ]a Cruz Sanchez, who was one of the parties pres- 
ent when possession was given, to point out to me, of his 
own accord, the point at which the measurement was com- 
menced." Was that your object ? 

Objected to, as incompetent and irrelevant, by Mr. Gard- 
ner. 

A. It was. 

Q. 5. Did Jose de la Cruz Sanchez so point it out to 
you ? 

Same objection by Mr. Gardner, 

A. He did. 

Q. 6. Where did he locate the commencement of that 
measurement ? 

Same objection by Mr. Gardner. 

A. As well as I recollect, at a. point at or near an old 
saw mill, the frame work of which still remains. 

Q. 7. Did Jose de la Cruz Sanchez point out to you the 
direction of said line from the point of commencement ? 

This question objected to by Mr. Howard, together with 
all conversation had by witness with said Jose de la Cruz 
Sanchez, or other persons now living and subject to be ex- 
amined, on the ground that such conversations are not evi- 
dence of any fact; on the further ground, that it is not 
shown that said Sanchez is interested or was interested in 
the ownership of any of the lands in controversy, and his 
declarations are without force or effect ; the question is 
further objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrele- 
vant. 

A. He did. 

Q. 8. In what direction did that line run, as he pointed 
it out ? 

Same objection as foregoing. 

Counsel for Mr. Throckmorton states that this and the 
preceding question are in cross-examination, and that the 
counsel now examining offered no objection to the direct 
examination to which these questions refer ; he is therefore 
barred from now interposing an objection. 

J. B. Howard, to avoid misunderstanding by the Surveyor- 
General, or Commissioner of the General Land Office, ob- 
jects to all such questions and answers, appearing anywhere 
in the record, by this or any other witness, and relating con- 
versations by or with any person, not shown to be, or to 
have been interested as owner, or claiming ownership in 



181 

saiTiy of said lands in controversy^ or of a witness proved to 
'be deceased, or unless proper foundation is laid for the in- 
troduction of secondary evidence, or perpetuated testimony, 
A. As well as I recollect, Jose de la Cruz Sanchez 
'pointed with his hand in a dii^ection across the mountains, 
and said that the line ran in that direction ; and that he 
''Could show me a certain marked tree on the other side of 
'the mountain, near where said line terminated ; but he gave 
no other indication as to the course of this line, except by 
pointing the direction with his hand. 

Q. 9. Bid he state where that line terminated 2 A. I 
thif'k he said that it ran to the Arroyo Holon. 

Witness is here shown the official map of survey, and 
lisked to point out on said map the locality of said mill and 
point which he (Sanchez) designated as the staining jKViiit 
•of said line, 

A. The old mill referred to is not shown on the official 
inap. 

Q. 10. Witness is here shown Exhibit "S. R. T. ^o. 6," 
and asked if he can locate the mill on said Exhibit, as 
pointed out to witness by Sanchez. 

Exhibit objected to as uncertain, and not verified for ^ny 
purpose ; nor does it represent the official action of any 
-officer or person charged Avith any official duty relating to 
•the examination or ascertainment of the juridical possession 
•of the lands in controversy, and the question is objected to 
as immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent. 

Sol. A. Sharp makes same objection on behalf of claim- 
ants. 

A. My recollection is, that the old mill pointed out to 
me by Jose de la Cruz Sanchez as the point at which th^ 
juridical measurement was commenced, is situated on a 
<3reek, westerly from the Read house, and at a distance from 
said house of a mile, more or less. 

Q. 11. Is it not on the westerly branch of the creek ? 

Objected to as leading, 

A. I think it is. 

Q, 12. Witness is shown the official map of the survey 
of the Corte Madera del Presidio, and is asked. With the 
aid of Exhibit 6 to guide you, how far west, or north of 
west, would said site of old mill be from post ** C. M. 181,'' 
as marked on said official map; what distance in chains on 
said official map? 

Same objections, as of second preceding objection, so far 
as it relates to Exhibit No, 6. 



182' 

A. About forty-five chains, ii) a direction a little to the* 
^ortli of west. 

Q. 18. Witness is shown the official map, and is asked 
to point ou^^ as nearly as he can, the point on the Arroyo 
Holoii to which his attention was directed by said Jose de 
Ta Oiiz Sanchez, as the direction of the line of juridical 
measurement herein referred to. A. I cannot identify the^ 
spot on said official map; I can on]y say that Sanchez 
pointed out to me an oak tree standing on a little knoll near 
the Arroyo Ilolon ; but since I went to that point only 
once, and then by a roundabout way, I cannot, from any 
data found upon said map, locate thereon the position of 
said tree. 

Q. 14. ]>(> you recognize the Arroyo Hoi on on the 
official map ? A. I find upon the official map the repre- 
sentation of a stream^ marked "^ Arroyo Holon." 

Q. 15. Assuming that said Sanchez pointed to the ex- 
treme eastern point of said Arroyo Holoti, as laid down on 
said official map, at what distance in chains frwn "Post C. 
M. 181 '' would a Rne extended froni said site of said mill, 
as pointed out by said Sanchez, to the most eastern point 
of said Arroyo Holon, {is shown by said official map, cross 
the Arroyo " Corte Madera del Presidio," as laid down on 
said official map? 

Objected to by Mr^ Sharp, as incompetent, in^eievant and 
immaterial, and not the best of evidence, it not having been 
shown that the witness has any experience in surveying. 

A. Fifty chains. 

Q. 16. In what direction from said Post G. M. 181 ^ 
would it cross said Arroyo of Corte Madera del Presidio ? 
A. About northwest. 

Q. 17. Witness is shown ^' S. K. T. No. 6," and is asked 
to mark on said Exhibit the point where said line would 
cross the said x\rroyo of" Corte Madera del Presidio.'' A. 
Witness makes a mark in black ink, which mark is en- 
closed with a circle, as the point referred to. 

Adjourned till to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 



March 14th, 1876. 
Met pursuant to adjournment. 

William I. Lewis, sworn on the part of S. R. Throck- 
morton, one of the objectors. 

Q* 1. What is your name, age, place of residence, and 



183 

occupatioti ? A. My name is William I. Lewis; age, near- 
ly 64 years ; residence, San Francisco ; and occupation^ 
surveyor and civil engineer. 

Q. 2. Have you had any relation with U. S. surveys; if 
80, state where you have made surveys under the U. S., and 
when you first commenced making such surveys. A. I 
have made a large numher of surveys for the United States, 
in the capacity of U. S. Deputy, from the years 1852 to 
1871, in this service, having made surveys of a large num- 
ber of Spanish grants in California. 

Q. 3. Have you had any extended experience in locating 
Spanish grants, from the title papers and descriptions 
therein, and in ascertaining the boundaries thereof, from 
such descriptions? and if so, please name some of such 
grants, the descriptions of which you have been called upon 
to illustrate and apply. 

Objected to by J. B. Howard, because no foundation for 
the examination of this witness as an expert in and with 
reference to his knowledge of the language, laws, and cus- 
toms of Mexico ; and furthermore, surveys oi' Spanish 
ranchos in California, so far as made by this witness, or any 
other person, are shown by the records of this office, here 
present and available, and which constitute the best evi- 
dence. 

Sol. A, Sharp makes same objection. 

A. I have had an extended experience in the location of 
land held under Mexican and Spanish titles ; I have 
surveyed, under instructions from State Courts and from the 
tJ. S. Surveyor-Gen'l, the following ranchos : '*Los Coyotes," 
Santa Clara County ; "San Ysidrio," same county; ''Las 
Animas," same county; '' El Refugio," same county; "Los 
Serritos," "Las Puntas," Contra Costa County; "Los Me- 
denos," same county; "El Einconada," Santa Clara Co., 
and many others, covering twenty years of service. 

Q. 4. Have you been frequently called as a vyitness in 
the quaUty of an expert, in cases in the courts of this State, 
and examinations pending between the United States and 
owners and claimants of ranchos, claimed under Spanish or 
Mexican grants ? 

Objected to by Sol. A. Sharp, on same grounds as stated 
in foregoing objection. 

A. I have been called as an expert in a great number of 
cases in the State Courts of California, but in rnany more 
cases in the U. S. District Court. 

Q. 5. Have you also been frequently called as an expert 



184 

iQ cases in the U. S. Surveyor-Genemrs office in Califoriua^ 
in reference to Spanish grants ? A. I have. 

Q. 6. The attention of witness is here called to Exhibit 
S. R. T,, No. 9, commencing on page 12 with the words : 
Being in the field, at the place named "El Corte de Madera 
del Presidio de San Francisco," and ending on page 15, 
with the signatures, " Haro, Fernando Feliz, Jose de la C. 
Sanchez, Tomas Jeremias Jones, and Manuel Sanchez;" 
and particularly to the description of the boundaries therein 
contained of the rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, com- 
mencing at the words: *'they led the way to the west, to a 
Canada, where they showed me a forest of tall trees which 
they called redwoods, in the canada itself and some little 
valleys which form the base of the high pea'< called ' Pal- 
mas," which forest is called 'Corte Madera del Presidio;' 
a little brook with a willow thicket, and the remains of a 
rancheria called 'Animas;' thence continuing the examin- 
ation and view of said lands, they led me north to another 
arroyo and forest of redwood trees called Corte Madera de 
San Pablo, and they said it was the boundary with the Pu- 
eblo of San Rafael; and thence continuing the examination 
south, as far as Point Tiburon, which they said was the limit 
in that direction ; we continued to the west to the point of 
an estero, which empties into the bight formed by said Point 
Tiburon and Point Cabal los on the south, and which ends 
at the entrance of said canada, where is situated the house 
of the owner of said lands, Don Juan Read, the arroyo, wil- 
low thicket, and forest of redwood trees named Corte 
Madera del Presidio, aforesaid, which they said was the last 
boundary of the said lands pertaining to the ranch referred 
to, of ' Corte de Madera,' of Seiior Read." 

From the description of boundaries just read to you from 
Exhibit S. R. T., No. 9, would you as a surveyor be able to 
go upon the ground and locate the calls as given? A. I 
have read the description contained in the first part of the 
question propounded, and will answer in regard to the whole 
question : " No surveyor of ordinary intelligence could have 
any difficulty in defining the calls of the grant as described 
in the papers exhibited ; they are well known marks, about 
which I do not think there is any controversy. 

Q. 7. Exhibit S. R. T., No. 6, is now shown the witness, 
and he is asked whether the calls set forth in the previous 
question are delineated on said exhibit ; if so, state the calls 
he recognizes, or whether he can locate the calls on said 
ranch. 



185 

Objectetl to by Sol. A. Sharp, for the reasons set forth in 
^objections to question No. 10, p. 509. 

A. Exhibit " N"o, 6," has been shown to me ; I believe 
\t deUneutes precisely the land that was granted to John 
Head, known by the name of Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 8. Witness is shown Exhibit No. 6, and is asked if 
this exhibit conforms to the official map of the survey of 
the liancho of Corte de Madera del Presidio; and if not, 
4n what respect does it differ from said map. 

A. I find that Exhibit No. 6 accords (excepting in the 
numbers of intermediate status and other descriptive calls) 
with official map, from Station C. M. P. No. 181, around the 
margin of said map southeasterly to the extreme southeast- 
«ern point of said map, and northwesterly to Station, markeA 
*' Redwood post, P. Q. 99, W. R. 203;" also excepting the 
marsh lands shown upon said Exhibit, which are excluded 
on the map of the said official survey; Exhibit No. 6 S. R. 
T. di tiers from map of official survey in this, that Exhibit 
No. 6, S. R. T,, includes the land, lying west of a straight 
line drawn between point on official map marked " Red 
Post, R A. 99, W. R 203" and post marked " C. M. 181," 
and lying between a line so drawn and stream marked on 
^aid Exhibit as Arroyo del Gorte Madera del Presidio, 
which tract is included in the exhibit referred to, but is ex- 
cluded in the map of the official survey. 

Q. 9. Have you any personal knowledge of the topo- 
graphy of the country and the geographical features of the 
same, as delineated on the western and northern portion of 
.said exhibit '-6. S. R, T.?" A. I have. 

Q. 10. Can you point out the locality of the remains of a 
rancheria called ^' Animas ?" A. There is a mound to the 
northwest less than a quarter of a mile from the house ot 
Juan Read, which shows the remains of an old rancheria. 

Q. 11. Can you point out on said exhibit, a little brook, 
and ajwillow thicket ? A. I can. 

Q. 12. What is the brook or arroyo called on this Ex- 
hibit ? A. The brook is the Arroyo Corte Madera del 
Presidio; the willow thicket is a little to the southwesterly 
of the ranch house of Juan Read, as marked on said exhibit* 

Q. 13. Can you point out the head or source and course 
of said brook or arroyo, from its source to its mouth? A. 
I cannot tell precisely its source, but it is a little to the west- 
ward of the point delineated on this Exhibit, and the course 
of the stream is correctly shown upon this Exhibit, from the 
point indicated at the northeast of Tamalpais, to its mouth, 
at the head of Richardson's Bay. 



186- 

Q. 14, When you mention Tanialpais, do jou uveuu the^ 
liigh rocky peaks, as indicated on this Exhibit? A. I do^ 

Q. 15. Can you h>cate an this Exhibit the forest of red- 
wood trees, called the " Co rte Madera del Presidio?*' A.. 
The southern point of said grove is near the letter ''^C " oit. 
said Exhibit, aixl extends up the creek indefinitely^ 

Q. 16. Can you locate on the said Exhibit the arroyo' 
called " Holon V A, I can ;. as it is plainly indicated. 

Q. 17, And a forest of redwood trees called "Corte Ma- 
deira de San Pablo?" A. I can, the point is indicated on^ 
the Exhibit Corte Madera de San Pablo. 

Q. 18. What forms the northern boundary at the rancho- 
of Corte de Madera, as describeti in the rect)rd af juridical 
possession ? A. The Arroyo Holon and the Corte de Ma- 
dera de San Pablo, 

Q. 19. Witness is shown '^ S. R. T. No, 8," and is 
asked, and his attention being called to the following words 
in the juridical possession : ^^ Tliey led rne north to another 
arroyo and forest of redwood trees, called also Corte de Ma- 
dera de San Pablo, and they said it was the boundary with 
the Pueblo of San Rafael;" — can yon rec*ognize on this Ex- 
hibit the southern boundary of the Pueblo of San Rafaeh 
and can you apply the same to the northern boundary of 
the Raneho of Corte de Madera del Presidio, as shown on 
said Exhibit No, 6, and reconcile them as consistent with 
each other and with the description you have read in the 
record of juridical possession ? A. The southern line of the 
Pueblo of San Rafael is delineated on this map, and is 
marked, as all the boundaries of the Pueblo of San Rafael 
are on this Exhibit, by a yellow line ; the creek, *' Corte de 
Madera del Presidio," is also delineated; and a little to the 
north of that, and at the mouth of another creek, which 
must be the Holon, there is represented another creek, 
which is in the southern boundary of the Pueblo of San 
Rafael, as represented by the yellow line on said Exhibit. 
This yellow line leaves a slight interval between the creek 
and its entrance into the San Pablo Bay ; for the greater 
portion of the distance the Holon is the boundary of the 
Innds of the Pueblo of San Rafael on the south. The jurid- 
ical possession of the Raneho of" Corte de Madera" on the 
north, Was the Arroyo Holon, which it followed to its 
mouth, and corresponds nearly with the southern line of the 
lands of the Pueblo of San Rafael, as already described ; 
and the act of juridical possession of the Raneho of Corte 
de Madera del Presidio reconciles, very nearly, the title of 



187 

the " Corte de Madera del Presidio " and the map "Exhibit 
No. 8," shown me. 



Wednesday, March 15th. 
Met pursuant to adjournment, and adjourned till IQ 
o'clock to-morrow. 



Thursday, March 16th. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. Parties being present, 
direct examination of Wm. J. Lewis continued. 

Q. 20. From the knowledge you have of the geography, 
topography and natural objects of that part of the country 
marked on Exhibit ''S. R. T. ^N'o. 6," delineating the '^Ar- 
royo Corte de Madera del Presidio," can there be found a 
series of objects which will answer the calls as described in 
the juridical possession of the Rancho Corte de Madera del 
Presidio, named as the '' Rancheria," called "Animas," 
" Willow Thicket," " Little Brook or Arroyo," " Forest of 
Redwood Trees," which would C(jnstitute and furnish the 
objects for the western boundary of said Rancho '' Corte de 
Madera del Presidio," as described in said papers of juridi- 
cal possession, in anj^ other place in the vicinity ? A. I 
cannot find them anywhere else. 

Q. 21. Have you ever seen in that vicinit}^ any con- 
secutive set of calls and objects which could reasonably be 
mistaken for these ? 

Question objected to by Mr. Sharp as immaterial. 

A. I have not. 

Q. 22. Are those calls and objects so distinctly marked 
as to be unmistakable to a surveyor accustomed to tracing 
and locating such objects from descriptions? A. They 
are. 

Q. 23. Was you acquainted with R. C. Mathewson in 
his lifetime, and his qualifications for interpreting and 
fixing the boundaries of Mexican points from the original 
title papers and records of juridical possession ? A. I was 
acquainted with Doctor Mathewson in his lifetime. I know 
that he was a surveyor of great ability ; had much expe- 
rience in the location of titles of Spanish and Mexican land 
grants. 

Q. 24. From your knowledge of Doctor Mathewson, 
and from what you have read of the description in the act 



188 

of juridical possession of the " Gorte Madera del Presidio/' 
where do you believe Doctor Mathewson, if he had studied 
the said description as given in the juridical possession^ 
together with all the maps and evidence which you have 
had before you, would have located the western boundary 
of the said feancho of Corte Madera del Presidio ?" 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp as immaterial, irrelevant and 
incompetent. 

A. He would have made the western boundary the 
Arro}' o of Corte Madera del Presidio, as the same is located 
on Exhibit " S. R. T. J^To. 6/' 

Q, 25. As a surveyor and civil engineer, do you believe 
that any fair, frank, intelligent surveyor, with the sole 
object of ascertaining the correct western boundary of said 
rancho, could place tlie said western boundary in any other 
locality than the one designated on said Exhibit " S. E. T. 
^o. 6 ?" 

Same objection by Mr. Sharp as to foregoing question. 

A. I think that he could not. 

Q. 26. Are you acquainted with the Mexican mode of 
measuring and ascertaining the quantity of lands in Mexi- 
can grants, upon giving juridical possession of the same in 
California in former times ? A. I am ; the mode is 
described correctly in the testimony of witness Hopkins, in 
this case, as read to me on the day before yesterday. 

Q. 27. Witness is asked to mark on Exhibit " S. R. T. 
6 " the measurements as made in giving the juridical pos- 
session of the Rancho of " Corte Madera del Presidio," as 
the said measurements are set forth in Exhibit S. R. T. ]N'o. 
9, commencing on page 21, line 12 from top. 

Same objection by Mr. Sharp as foregoing. 

A. I shall do this to the best of my ability ; but the 
measurements cannot be reconciled. Taking the first call, 
they measured to the arroyo called Holon, 90 cordeles of 50 
varas each from the solar. The Holon is a definite object 
or line, and measuring in a contrary direction from north to 
south, ninety cordeles would place the solar at the letter 
** o " in the word " Presidio," a little to the south of Juan 
Read's house. " At the Holon, the person interested fixed 
there a known point as a mark, and said that he would 
place there a bound. From this point, taking a direction 
from north to south, the measurement was continued to 
Point Tiburon, and they measured 200 cordeles, said point 
serving as a mark and limit ; he promised to place there 
the corresponding bound." The distance called for could 



189 

iidt have been measured from north to soiitli, but mast 
lliave been measured in a southeasterly direction, tormiuat- 
ing somewhere about the point that I mark '*L " on said 
Exhibit "S. R. T. No. 6," which is one inch on the map, 
representing tvventy chains, to the west of the letter ** T " in 
the expression "T, 1, N". R., 5 W." Witness m.irks said 
letter " L " in red ink. Witness, continuing, says : 

I read in continuation from said Exhibit **No. 9, S, K, 
'T :" " Thence continuing the measurement, from cast to west, 
to the mouth of the canada and the point of the sausal, 
which is near the estero lying to the east of the house of the 
person interested, which is at J3resent on tlie ranclns tl^/e 
were measured 94 eordeles ;'' I have measured from letter 
^' L,'' 94 eordeles, to a point that I have marked on s lid Ex- 
hibit "S. R. T., :N'o. 6," with the letter "eT" in red ink ; 
.this direction is westerly, to the north of west, Witne.-s, 
continuing the quotation, says : "And from this last point, 
continuing the measurement, from east to west, along the 
last line, to the place of beginning, they iinished by meas- 
ing sixteen eordeles." I measured sixteen eordeles from 
the letter J to a point which t have marked with the letter 
** W," in red ink, instead of coming to the point (d' begin- 
Jiing, which is the letter " " in the word Presidio ; there 
is a distance of 30 eordeles which juridical measurement 
lacks of closing, 

Q. 28, Will you please turn to page No. 11 in Exhibit 
S. R. T., No. 9, and read from the top of said page to the 
«nd of the third line on the succeeding page, ending with 
the word "Tiburon V 

Witness reads : "In continuation I, the aforesaid Alcalde, 
caused to appear before me also, and those of my assistance, 
the citizen Manuel Sanchez, by occupation a laborer, of 
whom I received oath, which he made by God and the sign 
of the Holy Cross, in form, under which he promised to 
speak the truth ; and being asked for his knowledge of the 
lands, limits and boundaries of the lands pertaining to the 
rancho of * Corte de Madera del Presidio,' he said "that for 
28 years he has been a resident of this jurisdiction, and 
knows that the lands of the aforesaid rancho are of citizen 
Juan Read; and they have for boundaries, on the part to- 
wards the port of San Francisco, on the south, the bay 
formed by the Point Caballos and Tiburon on the east, 
which, running inland to the west, terminates in an estero 
and a canada, which follows the same direction as far as a 
forest of redwood trees called ^ Corte de Madera del Pre- 



sidio,' which lies at the foot of a high peak of that name; 
oil the north, towards the Pueblo of San Rafael, the bound- 
ary i&an arroyo called Holon,and a forest of redwood trees^ 
which is also called '^ Corte de Ma.dera de San Pablo;' and 
on the east they terminate in said Point Tiburon." 

Q. 29. Point oat, if you please, on Exhibit " &. K T.. 
Ko. 6/' the- bay formed by Point Caballos and Tiburon on 
the ea^t, whicb ternvinates in an estero and canada running 
as referred to above, A. This Bav is designated on said 
Exhibit S. R. T. Na 6Vas " Richardson's Bay," w^hieh bay 
>s an arm, or branch of the Bay of San Francisco. 

Q. 30. What part of that bay which you call " Richard- 
son's Bay " would form the southern boundary of the land 
and of the Rancha of " Corte. Madera del Presidio," in- 
cluded within the measurements tbat you have last made? 
A. The ran<3h() would be bounded on the south by the 
northern and iK>rthwe3tern portion of Richardson's Bay, 
i^rom the mouth of the estero around to a point which I 
mark *'''X " in red ink.- 

Q. 31. Please lo )k at point marked "old saw mill,'' on 
Pixhibit '' S. R. T. 6," and answer, could a line drawn from 
said point marked '^old saw mill," to any point on the 
^^ Holon," exclude the tract of land colored green on said 
Exhibit '' S. R. T. 6," marked " tract of land owned by and 
referre I to in the objections by S. R. Throckmorton." A. 
It could not, by any possibility. 

Q. 32. Is the said tract of land last described, colored 
green on said Exhibit, described as " tract of land," etc.^ 
and referred to in last question, clearly and certainly within 
and to the east of the western boundary of said Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, as described on said Exhibit 
S. R. T. No. 6 ? A. It is clearly and unmistakably within 
tind to the eastward of the western boundary of the Rancha 
of Corte de Madera, as shown upon said Exhibit. 

Q. 33. Is it also within the northern boundary of said 
rancho, as so laid down on said Exhibit ? A. It undoubt- 
edly is, and within all the boundaries, 

Q. 34* Please look at said papers ol juridical possession, 
Exhibit S. R. T. Ko. 9, on page No. 11, and point out the 
boundary on the north, on Ex. S. R. T. No. 6, as described 
in said paper. A. In the papers it is said that *' on the 
north, towards the Pueblo of San Rafael, the boundary is an 
arroyo called Holon, and a forest of redwood trees, which is 
also called ' Corte de Madera de San Pablo ;' " that bound- 
ary is marked on Ex. S. R. T. No. 6, and designated as the 



191 

Arroyo Holon, and there is also marked, " Corte Madera de 
San Piiblo,'' extending on both sides of said arroyo. 

Q. Sij. Please state where that Arroyo Holon takes its 
rise, and thcj direction in which it runs. A. The point 
where it rises, is indicated by the letter "B," and is a little 
to the east wa I'd of the Arroyo of Gorte Madera del Presidio ; 
its course is eastward for a larger portion of the distance; it 
then change-; its course to the northeastward, which is its 
general course till it reaches the Bay of San Francisco, and 
fs delineated on Exhibit " S. R. T. ^o. 6," as the northern 
boundary of the raneho of " Corte Madera del Presidio." 
Continuing the description — "and on the east, they term- 
inated at the Point of Til)uron." 

Q. 36. Can you take Exhibit " S, E. T. I^o. 6 " and in^ 
<licute thereon, the point in said Tiburon, at which said 
boundary would terminate on the east ? A. I could not in- 
dicate it by any description found on page 12. 

Vr OSS- Examination by Mullen ^ Hyde. 

Q. 37. Please indicate on said Exhibit S. R. T. I^o. 6, 
from all the information and data that hav^e been presented 
to 3'ou in this case, how tar, from the letter L in red ink, as 
marked thereon by you, the boundary in that direction 
would lay ? 

Objected to by Sol. A. Sharp, on the ground that only a 
part of the instructions have been shown to the witness, and 
as being immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent. 

A. 1 think the point " L," is in the southern boundar}^ 
of the raneho. 

Q. 38. Would a direct line, that would pass through the 
letter L, and from southwest to northeast, represent approx- 
imately tlie line of boundary in that direction? 

Same objection by Sol. A. Sharp, iis foregoing. 

A. I think it would represent approximately the south- 
eastern boundary of the raneho. 

Q. 39. Have you any interest, immediate or remote, in 
the results of this investigation, and are you related by 
blood or marriage to any of the parties to this controversy? 
A. I have no interest, direct or remote, in the matters 
involved in this controversy, and do not know that I am 
connected by blood or marriage with any of the parties in 
this controversy. 

Witness explains that the cordele used in the foregoing 
measurements was of the length of 50 varas, as set forth oa 
page 19 of Exhibit S. R. T. No. 9. 

Adjourned till lOJ o'clock to-morrow. 



192 

P'RiDAr, March 1 7th. 
Met pursuant to adjournment. 

Direct Examination of Mr, Lewis resumed by Consent. 

Q. 40. (Calling witness' attention to Exhibit " S. R. T. 
No. 9") Do you find in said act of juridical possession, 
namely : 

1st. The examination of witnesses for the purpose uf 
ascertaining the boundaries of the Rancho of Gorte Madera 
del Presidio, on the 26th day of the month of November, 
1835? 

2d. The going upon the ground with the witnesses, on 
the 27th day of November, 1835, and having them then go 
upon the ground and point out the boundaries, to which 
they had testified on the 26th, for the purpose of certainly 
identifying said boundaries ? 

3d. The assembling in the field of the officers giving pos- 
session, accompanied by the witnesses and other parties, on 
the 28th day of November, 1835, for the purpose of measur- 
ing and ascertaining the quantity of land embraced in said 
juridical possession ? 

Are the foregoing acts, as stated in subdivisions 1, 2 and 
3 of the foregoing question, described in said Exhibit as 
separate and distinct acts? A. They are found in said 
Exhibit S. R. T. No. 9, and are thereon described as separate 
and distinct acts, performed at the respective dates, as set 
forth in said Exhibit. 

Q. 41. Witness is now shown paper marked " Ex. L. R. 
Dep. Sur.," and say what it is. A. Field notes of the final 
survey of the Rancho of El Corte Madera del Presidi(\ 
finally confirmed to heirs of John Read; surveyed, corn- 
piled and arranged under instructions from the IJ. S. Sur- 
veyor-General, by Leander Ransom, Deputy Surveyor, in 
November and December, 1873. 

Q, 42. Witness' attention is called to the map accom- 
panying the same, and asked to observe thereon character 
indicating summit, and marked '' Mt. Tabaron." A. I do; 
it is found in S. 31, T. 1 N., 5 W., and is marked immedi- 
ately north of section 31. 

Q. 43. What is the distance from said Arroyo Holon 
from the head thereof to the summit of said Tiburon ? A. 
It is exactly 200 cordeles from the intersection of the Tp. 
line and the Holon to the summit of Mount Tiburon, said 
cordeles being of the length of 50 varas. 



193 

Q. 44. What is the scale of the map on which yon malce 
tthese measnremeuts ? A. Forty chains t<» the inch. 

Q. 45, What is the title of this map en which you now 
measure? A, "Plat of the Rancho of Ooite Madera del 
Presidio, finally confirmed to the heirs of John Read, sur- 
^eyed, under instructions from U, S. Surveyor-General, by 
Leander Ransom, U, S. Deputy Surveyor, October, 1873, 

-containing acres ; va^*. 16° 81' E, Scale, 4 chains to 

sthe inch," 

Q. 46, Bo jou consider yourself an expert in matters 
pertaining to the location and surveys of Spanish and Mex- 
ican land grants in California ? 

Objected to by Mr. Gardner as incoinpetent, arrelevanc, 
and immaterial. 

A. I do. 

Q, 47. Have you given your previous testimony 'n thi?j 
<^ase as an expert ? A. I have. 

S. R, Throckmorton here states that this witness was and 
is called as an expert, and in that capacity he regards his 
stestimony as subject to cross-examination 

Q. 48. Do you find in the paper now before you, in tiie 
:Spanish language, which is the record of juridical possession 
of the raneho of Corte Madera del Presidio, the words: 
-^^hasiala'punla del Tihuronf" A. I do. 

Q. 49. In what connection are those words used 1 A. ] 
<io not understand the question. 

Q, 50. Do you know what paper that is you haye before 
JOU? A. It is the original record of the juridical posses- 
sion of the raneho of Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 51. What term is therein used to describe the line 
from north to south, which runs to Point Tiburon ? A. ^'De 
este punto tornando el rumbo de N, a S, se eontinuo la medida 
hasia la punta del Tiburon,' ' 

Q. 52. Will you please write that in English? <*From 
this point, taking the direction from north to south, the 
measurement was continued n^ to 'Ha Punta del Tiburon.'^ 
To translate the word "punta," I refer to "Leones, Kew- 
man and Barretti's Spanish and English Dictionary, ^ Velas- 
quez' Edition,' " which is good authority : *'• 1st, Punta, the 
** sharp end of an instrument; 2d, extremity of an3.thing 
^* which terminates in an angle, top, head, summit ; 3d, point, 
" head land, promontory ; 4th, coulter of a plough ; 5th, a 
** small part of anything ; 6th, act of a dog in pointing out 
**game; 7th, tartness, sourish taste; hacer punta, to excel, 
" to surpass, to oppose, to contradict, to take the road to ; 



194 

''^'(eoll.) to knit; (Met,) to be the first, the leader; 8th^ 
*' sharp bodkin; pL 1st, bone-lace; 2d, horns of a bull; de 
"^■pnntaSj on tiptoeSy soi'tly ; pwiias, in a dress, scallops, 
'' The words dd tiburon., used in the- phrascy meao ' of the- 
"shark."" 

Q. 5S. If you translate tbe words of which yo« have given> 
the English, the original of w^hich is set out in answer to* 
qestion 51, ''Up to the top of Tibaron^'" would it be a good- 
translation ? A. It would, according to the second defini-^ 
tion of the word punt a, as already given ,^ 

Q. 54. If it were translated '' up to the- Promontory of 
Tiburon,"' would it be a good translation ? A. It would ; 
eorresponding to the third definition already given. 

Q. If it were translated by the words: "^up to the sum^ 
mit of Tibnron," would that be a good translation ? It 
would ; and corresponds to the second definition of the word 
punta, whicrh I have already given. 

Q. 55, Witness is again shown "-Ransom's- mapyEx. L^ 
li., Dep. Sur.," and is asked, Would that last definition of 
the S-panish phrase referred to indicate the su^m mit of Ti- 
buron, as marked by the sign of summit on said Hansom's 
map? A. It would r 

Q. 56. Will you please measure on said map, from said 
summit referred to, to the water hue on the southeastern 
terminus of said promontory ? A. I measure from said 
summit to stake No. 393, which I believe to be the south- 
eastern point or extremity of said promontory, and find the 
distance to be Mxy cordeles, which o^oes to the water line. 

Q. 57. Please measure from said summit to the water at 
the extremity, at the southwestern terminus of said prom- 
ontory, indicated by the numbers "353," near the letter I 
in the letters T. L S. A. The distance is fifty- two cordeles. 

Q. 58, Between, and including those two last termini, 
have you found in the papers of juridical possession. Exhibit 
S. R. T., No. 9, any water line called for ? 

Objected, by Mr. Brooks, on the ground that the papers 
referred to speak for themselves. By Mr. Sharp, because 
only a portion of the papers have been shown to the witness. 

A. The two termini referred to in the question, at the 
water line, are not referred to in the papers referring to ju- 
ridical possession ; and the nearest approach to a water line, 
in which they contiued to the west to the point of an estu- 
ary empties into the bight formed by said point of Tiburon 
and Point Caballos on the south, and which ends at the en- 
trance of said Canada, etc. 



195 

Q. 59, Are jou sufficiently acquainted with that part of 
the promontory of Tiburon which is between the summit, 
as (Jescribi'd on that map (L. R., Dep. Sur.) and the south- 
«ern water line thereof, to be able to say whether or not it 
«eould have been measured with a facility equal to that of 
ithe line from the summit to the Hoi on ? A, I am not suf- 
Hciently tkmiliar with the ground to answer that question. 

Mulkn ^ Hyde Oross^ Examine. 

Q. 60. LMease state what meaning, as a surv'Cyor and ex- 
pert, in locating Spanish and Mexican grants, from informa- 
tion and data contained in the record of jundical possession 
thereof* you would attach and give to the words following, 
to wit (and which words I now read from the English trans- 
lation of the original juridical possession of the Rancho 
Oorte Madera del Piesidio, as set forth in Ex. '' S. R, T.^ 
i^o. 9," on tile in this case) : '* So that the square league of 
Lmd which the rancho of Corte Madera contains, forms a 
.square of 20,000 Castill.ian varas," A. I presume that it 
means that it is equivalent to a square measuring 5,000 
varas, or one league on each side. 

Q. 61. Do the words 20,000 Castillian varas, as set forth 
above, mean lineal or superficial measurement ? A. It un- 
doubtedly means lineal measurement. 

Adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow. 



Saturday, March 18th. 
Met pur.suiut to adjournment. 

Cross-Examiaation. by Mr. Brooks. 

Q. 62. Where were you born ? A. Chester County, 
Pennsylvania. 

Q. 63. What is your natural tongue ? A. English. 

Q. 64. When did you leave Pennsylvania and at what 
time did you come to California? A. I left Pennsylvania 
about Februarv 1st, 1849, and reached California June 9th, 
1849. 

Q. 65. Have you remained in California since that time ? 
A. I have, with the exception of two visits to the east, one 
in 1857, of four months, and one in 1870, of about S^ months. 

Q. 66. In what occupation did you engage on your ar* 
rival, and how long did you continue in such occupation? 



A. I first went ta the southern niines, near StMiora, lo this 
Btate, and worked as a miner ; returned in November fol- 
lowing to this city, went to San Jose^ and engaj^ed in Feb- 
bruarjy 1850^ made a survey of the Los> Coehes Rancho 
under the Court of First Instance. 

Q, 67. Did you then enga2:ein the occupation of survey- 
ing as a business ? A. I did. 

Q. 68. Have you continued exchisively in that business* 
ever since ? A. I have continued in the business of sur- 
veying and civil engineering ever since, but I also have 
engaged a portion of the time in farming. 

Q. 69. Where have you resided during that time, as 
your home ? A. I resided near San Jose up to June, 1855, 
from February, 1850 — and since that time in San Francisco. 

Q. 70. Were you educated as a surveyor, and if so, 
when and where? A. I was educated as a surveyor and 
mathematician under the instruction of my father, Enoch 
Lewis, at E^ew Garden Boarding School, Chester County, 
of which he was principal ; my education extended from 
early youth, to April 1st, 1828, when I enoraged as chairman 
on the survey of the Philadelphia and Columb a Rail l\oad, 
in the service of the State of Pennsylvania, and continued 
following surveying until I came to the State of California, 
with occasional interruptions; the only other business I was 
engaged in during that time, was that from 1838 to 1841 I 
was engaged as a contractor in railroad construction, and 
from 1841 to 1846, I was teacher of mathematics and civil 
engineering in Philadelphia. 

Q. 71. What do you understand to be the meaning of 
an expert ? A. One who understands his business. 

Q. 72. Where did you learn the Spanish language ? 
A. On the Isthmus of Panama, and in California. 

Q. 73. Were you educated in the Spanish language, 
and if so, where and by whom ? A. I do not remember 
any teacher that I have had. I have stated where ; it was 
on the Isthmus of Panama and in California. 

Q. 74. At what school did you attend in Panama, and 
how long ? A. I attended no school. 

Q. 75. How long were you in Panama, and what did 
you do there? A. I think that I arrived in Panama on the 
23d of February, 1849, and remained until about the 18th 
of May, 1849. I was, during this time, awaiting a steamer 
to bring me to California, and occupied the time I was there 
in various ways, and in conversation with the people and in 
studying the Spanish language; I was engaged in no regu- 
lar business. 



197 

Q. 76. How did jou study the Spanish language there ? 
A. I made use of Ollendorff's Grammar, and another gram- 
mar, the author of which I do not remember. I boarded 
with a Spanish famil\', and had an opportunity of reading 
1;he Spanish newspapers taken by the gentlema.n with whom 
I boarded. 

Q. 77. Did you ever attend a school or receive, instruc- 
tions from a teacher of the Spanish language ; if so, when 
;and where ? A. I never did. 

Q. 78. Do you consider yourself an expert in surveying ? 
A. I do. 

Q. 79. Do you consider yourself an expert in the teach- 
ing or interpretation of the Spanish language ? A. I do 
not think that I am. I am able to translate Spanish docu- 
ments into English, but I have not the knowledge or 
familiarity that" entitles me to be called an expert in the 
^Spanish language. 

Q. 80. What do you understand to be the meaning of 
the word " ran-eheria V" A. '* Rancheria," as used in Cali- 
fornia, signifies the location of an Indian settlement. I do 
not think that it is applied to a settlement by native Cali- 
fornians, or Mexicans, It is the diminutive of rancho — ^a 
hut or house, and, therefore, means a little house ; but is 
applied in California as already of stated. 

Q. 81. Did you ever see such a rancheria ? A. I have 
seen several, and the remains of more. 

Q. 82. Where ? A. There were several in the Sacra- 
mento Valley ; at Ide's Ranch ; at Colusa several ; and re- 
mains of these rancheriasat the missions of San Jose, Santa 
Clara, San Carlo, and at other places. 

Q. 83, Did you ever see an Indian rancheria, such as 
you have described, connected with an Indian shell mound, 
and if so, where ? A. I have not dug into the remains of 
rancherias, to ascertain whether they were composed in all 
of skeletons and bones, or partly of shells and partly of such 
skeletons and bones, and am therefore unable to answer the 
question, either in the affirmative or the negative. 

Q. 81. I have not asked you anything about skeletons, 
or bones, or of the materials of which the mounds were com- 
posed, but you said that a rancheria was a collection of 
Indian huts, the correctness of which I have not questioned, 
and that you had seen such collections of huts ; and I asked 
you, whether any such collections were connected with an 
Indian shell mound, and if so, where ? A. The rancherias, 
or collection of huts, have generally disappeared, and the 



19g 

phrase ^''rancheria^'' is applied to the mounds designating 
the site of the former buildings or villages, and it was in re- 
ference particularly to these mounds and their identity and 
connection with Indian shell mounds, that I was unable to 
state how far they were connected, and consequently could 
not answer the question either in the affirmative or negative. 

Q. 85. You have said that you have seen collections of 
huts or the ruins thereof, in various parts of California, and 
I also gather, from your testimony, that you have seen Indian 
shell mounds in California, and I have asked you whether 
you had ever seen them associated. Why is it" that you say 
that you cannot answer this question in the affirmative or 
the negative ? A. I think that the shell mounds and ran- 
cherias are equivalent terms, or nearly so. 

Question 85 repeated. A. Yes. 

Q. 86, When and where ? A. At a ranch eria just south 
of San Mateo Creek ; I saw this in 1863. 

Q. How many Indians, and how many Indian huts were 
there? A. There were no Indians and no Indian huts 
there. 

Q. 87. What was there in 1863? A. There was a 
mound in the general shape of the remains, or foundations 
of a rancheria, and popularly regarded as such ; in the con- 
struction of the San Francisco and San Jose Eailroad, we 
excavated through this mound and found numerous shells, 
and human skeletons and bones. 

Q. 88. What do you mean by '' being in the general 
shape of a rancheria?" A. The rancherias in the Sacra- 
mento Valley were generally nearly an exact square — each 
side measuring on an average about 100 yards. 

Q. 89. Where did you see a rancheria in the Sacramento 
Valley? A. On the Ran cho " Barranco Colorado " (Ide 
confirmee); at the north end of the Jimeno Grant, Colusa 
County ; at the town of Colusa ; near the Sacramento River, 
same county; north of the upper end of Sycamour Slough; 
near Eddy's Landing, on the Sacramento River, in same 
county. 

Q. 90. Were these rancherias inhabited by Indians ? A. 
These on Ide's Ranch, at the town of Colusa, and at Eddy's 
Landing were inhabited ; the rest were not. 

Q. 91. Were there any Indian mounds associated with 
either of these collections of huts ? A. There were, and of 
the ejeneral form already described. 

Qt 92. What were these huts built of? A. Chiefly of 
willows, covered with mud, and having a very narrow en- 
trance. 



199 

Q. 93. Why do you say, in one answer, that you have 
not explored the interior of these mounds, and in another 
answer minutely describe the construction of the Indian 
mound at San Mateo? A. At the time I made my first 
answer, I did not recollect the fact of the railroad having 
cut through that mound. 

Q. 94. In your twenty -six years' residence in California, 
how many of these Indian mounds have you seen ? A. I 
have seen the one called Las Animas, referred to in this 
testimony, and a large one on the east side of Coyote Creek, 
where there were about 75 Indians in 1850, which Coyote 
Creek is about two miles to the east of San Jose ; I have 
seen these in addition to those I have already described, and 
besides these I have seen one on the Bidwell Rancho, on 
Chico Creek — I believe that I have named them all. 

Q. 95. Do you mean to be understood, that wherever 
there was a rancheria or Indian village, there was a mound"? 
A. I do, except when these villages were adjoining the 
missions, and under the control of the Fathers. 

Q. 96. You have enumerated some half a dozen ; how 
many Indians do you think these would accommodate ? A. 
I do not know; I think about 1,800. 

Q. 97. Do you not know, as a matter of history, that 
there were many hundreds of thousands of Indians in the re- 
gions that you have traversed? A. I do not think that 
there were 100,000 ; a reference to Forbes' history of Cali- 
tornia will show you the number of Indians belonging to 
the missions. I have no knowledge of the number of the 
wild Indians of the country. 

Q. 98. Do you know Point Caballos ? A. I belive I 
do, on the map. 

Q. 99. Do you know the bay of which it forms one side, 
and if so, what is it ? A. I do ; it is Richardson's Bay. 

Q. 100. What forms the other side of that bay ? A. 
The southern extremity of Point Tiburon, between which 
and Angel Island is Racoon Straits. 

Q. 101. Then I understand you, that the point of land, 
which terminates at Racoon Straits, is the terminus of the 
land which forms the northeast side of Richardson's Bay ? 
A. Yes. 

Q. 102. And that point is the southern extremity of 
Point Tiburon ? A. Yes. 

Q. 103. Is not that the Point of Tiburon? A. The 
Point of Tiburon, or Shark Point, is the promontory, the 
southern extremity of which is the point designated in the 
last answer. 



200 
Examination by J". B. Howard. 

Q. 104. Have you examined the ground represented on; 
the official plat, and if so, when aiid in what capacity ? A. 
I made the survey of the adjoining Hancho of Saucelito, and 
I have a general knowledge of the lands of this liancho of 
Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q. 105. All of it ? A. I have never passed over the 
part known as Point Tiburon, on the south portion of the 
plat, and only know it by having passed through Eacooii 
Straits, and around said point. 

Q. 106. At whose request did you come here as a wit- 
ness ? A. At the request of Mr. Throckmorton. 

Q. 107. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Throck- 
morton, as to the matters about which you have testiiied ? 
A. Yes, several. 

Q. 108. At what times and places ? A. In San Fran- 
cisco within the past few days. 

Q. 109. Have you followed the suggestions of .Mr. 
Throckmorton, in giving your testimony in this case? A. 
No, not further than I believed them to be correct, and cor- 
responding with my own judgment. 

Q. 110. Have you not taken the statements and sugges- 
tions of Mr. Throckmorton on matters connected with the 
location of this rancho, where your own knowledge was 
more or less defective, as being correct statements of facts 
and history, and upon which you might rely in giving your 
testimony ? A. I think not." 

Question 110 repeated. A. No. 

Q. 111. Did not Mr. Throckmorton sit beside you, dur- 
ing your direct examination, facilitate you in selecting maps, 
papers, documents, whisper to you, as to the nature of cer- 
tain documents, and certain questions, and of the effect of 
your testimony, in certain matters? A. Mr. Throckmor- 
ton did sit beside me, during my direct examination; he did 
facilitate me in selecting maps, papers, and documents called 
for ; he gave me no information as to the efiect of certain 
documents ; as to the nature of certain documents, which 
were about to be exhibited, he told me what they were. 

Question 111 objected by Mr. Throckmorton, as imperti- 
nent and improper. 

Q. 112. Did Mr. Brooks or any of the other parties in 
this case, while you were being examined by them, sit be- 
side you and whisper to you and otherwise act as you state 
Mr. Throckmorton did ? 



201 

Objected to by Mr.. Throckmorton, as irrelevant and- im- 
proper, and by involving a x30uclusioTi that has not been tes- 
itified to. 

A. Neither Mr* Brooks nor any of the other parties, 
while I was being examined, sat beside me, and endeavor 
improperly by whispering, or otherwise, to control my tes- 
•timony ; nor neither did Mr. Throckmorton, in the direct 
•examination, by whispering, or otherwise, attempt to control 
oiy testimony, 

Q. 113. Examine your answer to question 111 and state 
if it is correct ? A. It is eorrect. 

Q. 114, Bid not Mr, Throckmorton whisper to you dur- 
ing .your examination ? A. I could not say, that he ever 
spoke in a whisper, but during the confusion and great noise, 
he sometimes spoke to me in a low voice, so as to allow pro- 
ceedings to go on with -as little interruption as possible, 

Q. 115, Has not Mr. Throckmorton, on this cross-exam- 
ination, suggested to you answers, to questions propounded 
by Vne, and to modify your answers thereto ? A. He may 
have made one or two suggestions, but my answers have 
been made according to my own judgment, not controlled 
by dictation from anybody. 

Q. 116. Have you ever made a survey officially at the 
Eancho of Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. I have not. 

Q. 117, How did you acquire your information concern- 
ing this rancho? — from actual surveys, or from hearsay? 
A. I made, in 1858, an official survey for the U. S» Govern- 
ment, of the adjoining Rancho of Saucelito, and in making 
that survey, I had to become particularly acquainted with 
the western boundary of the Rancho of "Corte Madera del 
Presidio;" and afterwards, when Doctor Mathewson sur- 
veyed the same rancho, he exhibited the papers to me and 
consulted with me as a friend in regard to the survey ; also, 
in a suit in the U. S. Circuit Court, I was called upon as a 
witness, prior. to which I examined points in the vicinity of 
the Read house', and testiiied in regard to them in the Cir- 
cuit Court; the rest of my evidence I believe is all based 
on maps and documents exhibited, and my general knowl- 
edge of the country as set forth in the preceding answers. 

Q. 118. The case in the Circuit Court was filed about 
1870, <' Bolton vs. Van Reynegom et als.," in which Mr. 
Throckmorton claimed to be a party defendant, as the lessor 
of Philip Ray et al. Please state if you were not called by 
Mr. Throckmorton, to testify in that case. 

Objected by S. R. Throckmorton, because it is a case in 



f02 . 

another Court, the records of whicli are the only testirnoiiy 
that can be used as evidence, and that it is irrelevant, irr^ 
material and incompetent. 

A. I do not know the title of the case at all ; but in one 
ease, since ISTO^and in only one, have I given any testimony 
relative to this rancho, and in that case I was asked by Mr. 
Throckmorton to appear as a witness. 

Q. 119. The testimony you gave in that case, concerned 
the location of the solar and the western line of the present 
liancho of Corte Madera, and fixes said solar and western 
line substantially, substantially as represented on the official 
plat, and in accordance with the testimony of said S. R. 
Throckmorton and George F. Allardt, witnesses in said suit 
in said Circuit Court ; please state now, whether said testi- 
mony was or was not correctly reported, and by what 
means or from what source of information you have been 
enabled, in this examination, to vary your testimony as to 
the location of said solar, and the western line of said raneho. 

Objected to by S. R. Throckmorton, as incompetent, irre- 
levant and immaterial, and because there is no evidence ad- 
duced in this case that S. R. Throckmorton testified there 
at all, or if he did, the testimony is not here produced, that' 
the witness may tell what it is, nor is there any testimony 
here produced of George F. Allardt, or that he testified in 
that case, nor is the evidence of Wm. I. Lewis produced 
here, and consequently the witness in this c*ase, Wm. I. 
Lewis, cannot testify whether his testimony in that case 
was correctly reported or not ; neither can be testify, for the 
same reasons, whether or why his testimony in this case 
differs therefrom, or from any of said testimony, referred 
to in said question. 

Question withdrawn. 

WM. J. LEWIS. 

Adjourned till 10 o'clock Monday morniqg. 



Monday morning, March 20th. 
Met pursuant to adjournment. 

Hiram Austin, examined in behalf of Mr. Gardner. 

Q. 1. What is your name, age, occupation and place of 
residence ? A. My name is Hiram Austin, 50 years of 
age, occupation surveyor and civil engineer, residence San 
Rafael, Marin County. 



^03 

Q. 2. The official plat of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio is shown to witness, and he is asked, Do you know 
the territory embraced within this plat, and the circumja- 
<.'ent country? A. I do. 

Q. 3. State how long you have known it, and how inti^ 
mately you know it. A. I have known it for ten years, and 
am familiar, by personal inspection and survey, with all the 
land shown on this plat, and that immediately adjoining it 

Q. 4. The map entitled, " Gardner's Map of the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, with its topography and sur- 
roundings, the Mathewson survey lines, etc., by Hiram 
Austin, Surveyor, January 15th, 1876," is shown witness, 
and he is asked, Are you the maker of this map ? A. Yes, 
I am. 

Q. 5. From what sources did you make this map, and 
is it a correct representation of the country it represents ? 
A. I made the map from surveys, made on the ground, by 
myself, by the U. S. Deputy Surveyor, and by order of the 
Board of Tide Land Commissioners, and from personal 
acquaintance with the territory included in the ranch, and 
from topographical notes taken^on the ground, and other re- 
liable surveys. 

Q. 5. Is it a correct representation ? A. It is correct in 
its main features. 

Map offered in evidence as "Ex. P. G. No. 2." 

Gross- Examined by Mr, Throckmorton, 

Q. 6. Mr. Austin, will you please point on this map, 
"Ex. P. G. ¥0. 2," a stream called the Arroyo " Holon ?" 
A. The stream indicated on this map as the " Arroyo de 
los Esteros," is named the Arroyo Holon on Dr. Mathew- 
son's map of the Rancho "Punta de San Quentin." 

Q. 7. Witness is shown "Ex. S. R. T. ]^o. 8," and is 
asked if he can identify it approximately with a little stream 
near the word "Animas," on said map. A. The stream 
known as the Arroyo Holon is probably in the vicinity of 
where the word Animas is written on said Exhibit. 

Q. 8. Witness is shown the official plat in this case, and 
is asked if the stream marked thereon " Arroyo Holon " is 
the same as the stream marked " de los Esteros," on his 
Gardner map, " Ex. P. G. No. 2." A. It is. 

Q. 9. Please look on said map, Ex. P. G. No. 2, and is 
asked where the said stream has its source. 

A. It heads about a mile and a half northeasterly from 
the top of Tamalpais Mountain ; the head of the stream is 
not shown on the map P. G. No. 2, referred to. 



204 

Q. 10. What is its general course, until it reaches the 
vicinity of the post marked P. G. l^o. 2 ? A. Southeasterly. 

Q. 11. What is its general course from there to station 
marked " Laurel P. A. 99 ?" A. It runs almost due east. 

Q. 12. What is its general course from said station un- 
til it enters the marsh ? A. ^Northeasterly ; nearer north 
than east. 

Q. 13. Are you acquainted with the stream that has 
been referred to in this examination as Arroyo Holon ? A. 
I am, and also the valley through which it runs. 

Q. 14. Are you acquainted with the forest on that ar- 
royo commonly known as the " Gorte Madera de San Pa- 
blo ?" A. I know all the timbered lands along and in the 
neighborhood of this stream ; I do not know the local name 
by which each particular portion is or may have been known; 
if the tract of timbered land along that stream is known by 
that name, then I do know it. 

Q. 15. Is there evidence of there being, or having been, 
a forest or body of redwood timber along the line of thi.s 
stream ? A. There is, and there was undoubtedly such a 
forest. 

Q. 16. Do you know of a marked and distinct ridge to 
the south and west of this stream; and if so, in what direc- 
tion does it run, and where does it terminate ; near the Bay 
of San Francisco? A. I do know of such a ridge ; it is 
shown on Exhibit "P. G. ISTo. 2," and marked as the main 
ridge, running from Tamalpais mountain easterly in the di- 
rection of Point Tiburon, and its eastern termination is at 
Raccoon Straits in the Bay of San Francisco. 

Q. 17. Look on Ex. P. G. 'No. 2 ; do you see a charac- 
ter marked remains of " rancheria ?" if so, describe its loca- 
tion with relation to some post or station. A. I do see a 
character so marked ; it is something less than a quarter of 
a mile east from the station marked "Laurel, C. M. P. 77." 

Q. 18. Do you see a mark '* willows," and an indication 
of willows in the neighborhood thereof i* A. I do. 

Q. 19. Do you see the head of a stream about ISTE. by 
E. from peak marked ''Tamalpais " on said map P. G. No. 
2, near post P. Q. 106 ? A. I do. 

Q. 20. Witness is asked to trace the course of that 
stream down to station Laurel C. M. P. post 177, and name 
its general direction. A Its course and location are shown 
on the map P. G. ISTo. 2 by a blue line, and it runs generally 
SE. 

Q. 21. Do you find on the map indication of a creek 



205 

Tnniiing close to and to the west Qf a character marked ^'Ue- 
gnains of Kancheria," on said map, as heretofore described 
'by you, and what is it marked? A. There is a lin'e drawn 
in blue along the location referred to in the question, and 
is marked on said map, P. G. T^o. 2, as <* Old Creek." 

Me-direci^ by Mr. Gardner, 

Q. 22. State whether the main ridge from Tamalpais, 
maention^d in your answer to question 16, on page 566, 
has any marked prominence at, or near, California City 
Point? A. There is a higher point on the ridge there than 
on the portion of the ridge immediately adjoining. 

Q. 23. Is there any marked depression dividing that 
Tidge, just south-east of that point? 

Question objected to by Mr. Sharp, as immaterial and 
Irrelevant. 

A. There is a depression in the ridge, over which the 
road to tho^ Califoniia City track passes, as shown on the 
map. 

Q. 24- Please state whether there is, or ever has been, 
any body of timber or wood land along the northerly slope 
of the main ridge you have spoken of, as tending in a gen- 
«eral easterly direction from the redwood forest mentioned 
in answering Mr, Throckmorton's question, Ko. 15 ? A. The 
northerly slope of this ridge is, and has been, more or less 
densely timbered for the distance of a mile and a half south- 
•easterly from the forest referred to in the answer to question 
15, as shown on the map, 

Q. 25. Does this strip of timber extend down to the 
marsh, or fall short of it? A, The forest is almost entirely 
on the slope of the ridge, 

Q. 26. Please look at " Ex. S. E. T. Ko. 8," and no- 
ticing the creeks laid down thereon, between Quentin 
and Tiburon, state how many creeks there are in that space, 
and what their general course is, and main deflections are? 
A. There seem to be two creeks shown between the points 
marked Quentin and Tiburon ; the one nearest to the word 
Quentin, runs generally southeasterly; the one nearest to 
the word Tiburon, has a direction first northeasterly, then 
easterl}^ then almost south, into the bay. 

Q. 27. Which of these two creeks "is it that is nearest 
the boundary line, as marked in brown on this Exhibit S. 
K. T. JNTo. 8 ? A. The southerly one ; the one nearest the 
Point Tiburon. 

Q. 28. Is there any marked and decided difference in 



10^ 

^eir courses,, as shown on the mup ? A. My answer to* 
question 26 shows their courses. 

Q. 29. Is there any considerable distance between their 
mouths, according to this Exhibit "S, B. T, No. SJ " A. 
There is about three-quarters of a Spanish- league, as shown.* 
by the scale on this Exhibit. 

Q. 30. State by what names the arroya shown on Ex- 
hibit P. G-. Ko. 2y as Arroyo *' de los Usteros,'' and on the. 
official plat as Arroya i/oto,, has been, or is« known? A. On; 
the earlier maps which I have seen, this creek is indicated 
as the Arroyo ^'de los JEsteros y " on later maps, the upper- 
part of the creek, and perhaps the valley through which 
it runs, is shown as the ''Holon;'' but the maps of late 
surveys show the creek as the Arroyo '^JlolonJ' I refer to- 
the fresh water portion, of the creek. 

HIEAM AXJSTII^. 



Ji, C. Hoplm^ recalled by Mr,- Gardner. 

Q. I. You have stated that you have been keeper of 
the Spanish Archives in the office of the XJ. S. Surveyor-^ 
General for California^ since 1855. State whether the vol- 
ume now shown you is a part of those archives^ and if so what 
it is? A. It is a part of the Spanish Archives referred to, and 
is an ancient record book, in which, before the system of 
making land grants in California under the colonization law 
of 1824, was organized, were recorded descriptions of 
missions, grants of lands, lands belonging to Presidios, 
brands and marks of cattle, &c. After the organization of 
the system of making grants under the laws of colonization,, 
the records kept in this book were discontinued. 

Q. 2- Look on leaf 4 of said book, and state what is- 
thereon inscribed? A. A description of the lands of the 
Mission of San Rafael, together with a representation on 
the margin of the record of the brand of said mission. I 
have made a translation of the record referred to, which is 
in my hands. The record referred to is offered as evidence 
by certified copy, marked Exhibit " P. Gr. No. 3 ; " also trans- 
lation referred to is offered, marked ''P. G. No. 4 ; " both 
offered by Gardner. 

R. C. HOPKINS. 

R. S. Brown, witness called by Mr. Gardner. 
Q. 1. What is your age and where do you reside? A. 
i reside on Corte de Madera, and my age is sixty-two years. 



2G7 

Q. 2. How long have you resided on Gorte de Madera? 
A. I have lived there permanently since 1853. 

Q. 3. Exhibit P. G. No. 2 is shown to witness, and he is 
asked, is the place where you live shown on this map, and 
if it is, will you point it out ? A. I live on the tract be- 
tween the Arroyo Estero, as marked on said map, the line 
of the railroad, and the wagon road. 

Q. 4. Do you know a high ridge running from Tamal- 
pais mountian, towards California City Point? A. Yes. 

Q. 5. State whether or not that ridge does, or does not, 
slope towards your place of residence? A. It slopes to- 
wards my place of residence. 

Q. 6. State whether or not that slope of the ridge was, 
when you first saw it, wooded. A. A perfect forest of red- 
wood. 

Q. 7. How far did that forest of redwood extend 
towards the east, along that slope ? A. Three miles, more 
or less ; I think more than three miles. 

Q. 8. Did that forest extend down to the marsh ? A. 
Very near. 

Q. 9. State whether or no there was any farming land 
between that timber and the marsh. A. I should think 
there was eight or nine hundred acres. 

Q. 10. Where was the Arroyo Holon in 1852, when you 
first knew it ? A. This same arroyo, as you call it, was in 
the same place as now, but I never heard it called the 
Holon. R. S. BROWK 

Peter Gardner re-called, this time on behalf of himself, 
being sworn, says : 

Q. 1. State whether you ever lived within the limits of the 
land shown on the oflicial plat of the Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio liancho (plat here shown witness); and if so, point 
out the spot on said plat. A. I have ; my house was situ- 
ated near Station 596 on this map. 

Q. 2. Examine Exhibit P. G. l^o, 2, and point out, if 
you can, the location of your house. A; It is marked on 
the map, "Peter Gardner." 

Q. 3. What was the nature of your possession, and how 
much land had you at that place, and how was it situated ? 
A. I located there in 1859, intending to pre-empt, and took 
150 to 160 acres, as near 160 acres as I could get ; built a 
house, and lived there till about 1872, when I was ejected 
in the action of Bolton vs. Van Eeynegom, in the U. S. 
Circuit Court, which is now pending on appeal to the Su- 



208 

prerae Court of the United States at Washington. I have 
also patents of the State of California for adjacent marsh 
land. PETER GARDIS^ER. 

R. C. Hopkins re-called by Mr. Throckmorton, on cross- 
examination. 

Q. 1. In the former part of your testimony, you testified 
as to the mode of makino^ iuridical measurements of Mexi- 
can land grants ; please state whether that was or was not a 
part of the act of juridical possession, for the purpose of 
ascertaining the quantity of land granted, and of which 
possession was given. A. I have so stated. 

Q. 2. Was that process of measurement a. separate and 
distinct part of the act of giving juridical possession, and 
necessary thereto ? A. It was. 

Q. 3. How were those measurements generally made, 
with reference to the lands to be measured ? A. Some- 
times all of the exterior boundaries vTere measured ; some- 
times two or three of the exterior boundaries were measured, 
and the length of those that were not measured were esti- 
mated ; and sometimes but two lines were measured, one 
for the length of the tract and one for the width, in which 
case, often, the exterior boundaries were not run or meas- 
ured. 

Q. 4. Do I understand you to state by ihU answer, that 
frequently lines of measurement of Mexican land grants, in 
giving juridical possession thereof, do not necessarily indi- 
cate or establish lines of boundaries ? A. Often they do not; 
for sometimes a line was measured through the centre of 
the rancho, for the length, and one for the width for the 
same purpose ; and from the lines so measured, an estimate 
was made of the quantity. 

Q. 5. Look at offered map of survey of rancho of Corte 
Madera del Presidio, and measure from Post C. M. P. 181, to 
Redwood Post P. Q. 99, W. R. 203, on the Arroyo Holon, 
and please state the distance between those points in cor- 
deles. A.. About seventy-three cordeles. 

Q. 6. Please measure from said last named station, south- 
erly 200 cordeles, to the westerly side of Tiburon, and note 
the termination of that measurement. A. The measure- 
ment of 200 cordeles from the point referred to terminates 
on said map at point marked " Granite monument, on base 
line, between stations 296 and 298." 

Q. 7. Measure from said redwood *' Post P. Q. 99, W. 
R. 203/' southerly to the east side of Tiburon, and note the 



209 

f)oint to whicli tlie measurement of 200 cordeles reaches. 
A. It would reach to the station marked *' 434 " on the 
■official map. 

Q. 8. Would either of th^se lines which you have traced 
on said map, necessaTily and could all of them by any pos- 
sibility be considered lines of boundary ? A. I think not. 

Q. 9. Reading from page 12, "Ex. S. E. T. No. 9," as 
follows : " They commenced said measurements, and, going 
from south to north, they measured to an arroyo called the 
Holon, etc.;" and again, quoting from said record of juridi- 
•cal measurement, on same page : " From this point, taking 
^ direction from north to south, the measurement was con- 
tinued to Point Tiburon ; they measured 200 cordeles; 
w^ould that or either of those lines be necessarily a bound- 
ary of said rancho ? A. By the customs observed in making 
juridicnl measurements of Spanish and Mexican land grants, 
it would not necessarily be ari exterior boundary, 

Q. 7. Are you acquainted with the papers of juridical 
possession in this ease — enough so to answer in relation 
thereto without having the same read to you ? A. I think 
i am. 

Q. 8. Referring you to that part of the description of 
juridical boundary commencing with the words, (on page 
13), '*In conformitj' they led the way to the west, &c." Are 
you sufficiently acquainted with said record of juridical pos- 
session to state whether that juridical boundary would place 
the western boundary of the Rancho of Corte Madera del 
Presidio on the land marked as the western boundary of the 
official survey ? A. The call of this boundary is a ^' Canada 
where there is a forest of tall redwood trees, which the}^ 
call redwoods, in the Canada itself, and some little vail ej^s 
which form the base of a high peak, called Palmas, etc." 
This description is given by the witnesses who were giving 
their testimony as to the location and boundaries of the 
Raucho of Corte Madera del Presidio. It is too vague 
and too general for me to be able to fix, upon the map of 
the survey, the boundary intended to be described ; nor am 
I able to designate on the official map, the exact boundary 
sought to be described by said witnesses. 

Q. 10. Does the above testimony appear to you suffi- 
ciently clear to positively ^x that western line, as laid down 
upon the official map ? A. I think that as descriptive of an 
exact call for the commencement of a line or boundary, it 
does not. 

Adjourned by order of Surveyor-General, till Friday, 24th. 



2T0' 

Friday, 2ith^ 

Met pursnant to adjonrnment. 

Examination of Hopkins continued. 

Q. 11 — {By Mr. Throcknaorton). Are you acquaintet? 
with Mr. William J. I^wis, a witness in this case^ and if 
so, do you know of him as a surveyor and civil engineer,, 
and if so, what is his general reputation and value in thi» 
country a& an expert in the- location and surveying of 
Mexican' land grants in California, and the interpretation 
and application of the descriptions in Mexican title papered 
to surveys? A. I have known Mr. William J. Lewiti 
intimately for nearly a quarter of a century ; have known* 
him, socially and professionally, as a surveyor and civil 
engineer, and I also am familiar with the reputation that he 
lias borne in California, professionally, for the- last twenty- 
five years, and can say that I have ever looked upon Mr. 
Lewis as one of the most able and skillful mathematicians 
and civil engineers on this coast, and as being eminently 
qualified, in consideration of the character of the knowledge 
he possesses, for making locations and surveys of lands^ 
described in Spanish and Mexican grants. And I can 
further say, that this is the reputation that Mr. Lewis has 
borne in California for the last twenty-five years, and during 
which time I think he has been generally employed in the 
difl"erent branches of his profession ; and I know also that 
he has often been called as an expert in matters pertaining 
to his profession. 

Wm. J. Lewis Be- Called by Mr. Throckmorton. 

Q. 1. Witness is shown ofiicial map, '^ Corte Madera del 
Presidio," and is asked: Please notice the line laid down on 
that map as the western boundary line, and state if you 
recognize in that line a trial line run by I>octor Mathewson 
when he surveyed said rancho, and whether he had with 
you any conversations or consultation at the time in refer- 
ence to said trial line. 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as irrelevant, immaterial and 
incompetent. 

A. I do not know the object of running this line, as shown 
on the map referred to ; said line is laid down as the western 
boundary on said map ; but I think it must have been run 
as a trial line ; the consultation that I had with Doctor 
Mathewson was in regard to the exterior western boundary 
of the Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, in which we 
agreed that Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio was the 
western boundary. ^ 



211 

Q. 2. When you say the Arroyo " Corte Madera del 
Presidio," please look at " Ex, S. E, T. Fo. 6," and describe 
the source and course of the same, as laid down on said 
Exhibit. 

Same objection by Sharp. 

A. The source of said Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio 
is a little to the west of the most northern point of the 
Saucelito Ranclio, as shown on Exhibit 'Ho. 6, a portion of 
the northwestern boundary of said Saucelito Rancho, cross- 
ing Mount Tamalpais, is shown on said Exhibit; the course 
of said Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, from said northern 
point to its mouth, is shown on Exhibit S. R. T. ISTo. 6, and 
from the eastern boundary of the Saucelito Rancho, and the 
exterior western boundary of the Rancho del Presidio, as 
far as the latter rancho extends northerly ; or from the let- 
ter ^'B " to the mouth of the Arroyo of Corte Madera del 
Presidio, as said letter "B'' is marked on said Exhibit 
^' S. R. T. J^To. 6.'^ 

Q. 3. Was that western boundary of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio, as described by you in your last an- 
swer, the conclusion arrived at by Doctor Mathewson and 
yourself from the conversations and consultations which 
you had together : A. It was. 

William J. Lewis Cross- Examined by Mr. Howard. 

Q. 1. Do you know, of your own knowledge, the loca- 
tion on the official plat of the westerly line of said rancho, 
as originally run by Deputy Surveyor R. C. Mathewson in 
1858 ? A. I see the line indicated on the official map, but 
I have never been over that ground, from post C. M. P. 181 to 
redwood post P. Q. 99 and W. R. 203, at the Arroyo Holon. 

Q. 2. How then do you know that said line represents 
the westerly line of said rancho, as run by said Deputy R. 
C. Mathewson in 1858 ? A. I do not think it does ; on the 
contrary, I have stated that that was a trial line; it is not 
the line indicated in the official plat and return of Dr. R. C. 
Mathewson in 1858 ; but it is marked as western boundary, 
and described in the field notes of the survey of said ran- 
cho by Leander Ransom, Deputy Surveyor, in September 
and October, 18T3, and G. F. AUardt, Deputy Surveyor, in 
June, 1874 ; both maps referred to being official maps, filed 
in this office. 

Q. 3. Does not the westerly line of said rancho, from 
post " C. M. 180 " to post " C. M. 181," on both maps, viz ; 



212 

the Mafchewson of 1858, and the Ransom- Allardt of 1873-4, 
exactly correspond ? A. The points are nearly identical 

Q. 4. Do you not know that the westerly line of said 
rancho, as on the official Allardt-Ransom plat of 1873-4^ 
from post " C. M. P. 181 '' to post P. Q. 99, W. R. 203, corres- 
pond exactly with the westerly line of said rancho as run 
by Deputy K. C. Mathewson in 1858 ; and that the change 
or diflerence in location of said w^esterly line on said Ma- 
thewson plat arose from the fact that the claimants, being 
directed to select one square league and no more, within the 
said exterior boundaries of said rancho, and accordingly that 
the Surveyor-General, in 1858, directed Deputy Mathewson 
to modify his said survey on the westerly end of said rancho^ 
so as to conform to government subdivisions ? A. I do not 
know that the line marked as the westerly boundary, from 
post C. M. P. 181 to redwood post P. Q. 99, and W. R. 203, 
was the line surveyed by Dr. Mathewson, nor do I know 
what instructions he received from the Surveyor-General, 
or from any source, in regard to the survey of the northerly 
boundary according to section lines; but the official plat of 
Dr. Mathewson shows that the northern line followed the 
legal subdivisions of public lands, runniiifi^ by several courses, 
east and north from 0. M. P. 181 to 0. M. P. 1. 

Q. 5. Do you know what is represented by the letters 
and figures, *' W. R. 203?" A. I do not, but that can be 
easily ascertained by referring to the field notes where it is 
explained in detail. 

Q. 6. Do you not know that said letters and figures rep- 
resent " Widow Read, post 203," and that said post was 
ascertained and fixed by Deputy Mathewson in 1858, as the 
termination of the westerly line of the Read Rancho, or 
Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, from post " C. M. P. 181 
to the intersection of the Rancho Punta de Quentin, and 
there represented by the letters and figures, redwood post 
"P. Q. 99'r" A. I do not know anything about it; the fine 
from post C. M. 181 to redwood post P. Q. 99 and W. R. 
203 is on the map of Ransom and Allardt, and is not on the 
map of Dr. Mathewson. 

Q. 7. Do you not know that said posts were fixed, and 
said line was surveyed by said Deputy Mathewson in 1858? 
A. I do not. 

Q. 8. Do you know, of your own knowledge, anything 
definite and specific concerning the survey of said Mathew- 
son in 1858, of the v^esterly boundary of said rancho, other 
than what you have lately ascertained from parties inter- 



21B 

<e^ed and from an examination of tbe records? A. 1 laa've 
^testified already that I made the survey of the Saucelito 
Jliancho in 1858, the eastern boundary of which is the exte- 
rior western boundary of the Corte Madera del Presidio 
[Hancho, and have been acquainted for the last eighteen 
years with the said division line and with several local 
points in the vicinity. In 1871 I was at post " C. M. 181," 
iiit I know nothing of the lines running northerly from that 
point, except what I derive from th<3 two official maps. 

Q. 9, Mr, Howard now shows witness certified copy of 
^complaint, amendment, and stipulation in the case in the U. 
•S. Circuit Court, entitled as follows: 

In the United States Circuit Court for the District of Cal- 
ifornia. 

■James Clii^on Bolton, Plaintiff, 

vs. 



John L. Fan Reynegom, Mary King, Philip 
Bay, Francisco Angenett, aiid others, De- 
. fendants. 



^ Na 190. 



Filed originally in 1865, and the amendment and stipula- 
tion filed in 1871, and also certified transcript ot* testimony 
of one William J. Lewis, sworii in said case in behalf of 
said defendant, Philip Ray, but not of the other defendants, 
including direct and cross-examination, and asks witness: If 
he testified in said cause, and if he is the same William J. 
Lewis mentioned in said transcript of evidence? A. I am 
the William J. Lewis who testified in that case. 

WM. J. LEWIS. 



John B, Howard now offers as Exhibits duly certified 
copy of a complaint of James Clinton Bolton, plaintiff, 
representing all the owners of the Rancho Corte Madera 
del Presidio, against John L. Van Reynegom, Mary King, 
Philip Ray and others, defendants, bemg suit No. 190 of 
the docket of the United States Circuit Court for the Dis- 
trict of California, filed February 6th, 1871 (the original first 
filed in 1865, and the present complaint being an amendment 
thereto and substitution therefor), with an amendment 
and stipulation filed February 11th, 1871, too;ether with 
the answer thereto of said defendant, Mary King, whose 



2T^ 

^t\xe name is Mary J. King. Also the- testimony of Samuel 
R. Throckmorton, George F. Allardt, and William J. Lewis,, 
together with stipulations and agreements by and between? 
the said Throckmorton (claiming to be a defen dent therein)' 
and others of said defendants, and the- said plaintift' repre- 
senting all the then clainmnts ta the Rancho Cbrte Madera 
del Presidio, and said complaints and stipidatione, limiting^ 
fixing, and e&tabiishing by agreement the westerly bound- 
ary line of the said rancha as laid down on the- official plat 
of survey known as the Ransonj-Allardt survey of 1873-4. 
Also, the final judgment of said Circuit Court m said causes 
— final as to said Mary J. King and as ta her rights of own- 
ership and possession of the lands by her then occupied, and 
originally claimed in said proceeding by said Bolton, beiug- 
tbe same lands now occupied and claimed by Frances D^ 
Barlow and John J. Cushing, and of all the lands lying- west 
of and immediately adjacent to the westerly boundary line 
of said ranclio ; and alsa, the title of the CTnited States 
thereto by reaso-n of the abandonment of the same by the 
claimants of said rancho, to wit : all the lands marked 
" Public Land' west of said rancho, as on said official plat. 

Said documents, duly certified by the Clerk of said Cir- 
cuit Court, are herewith offered as Exhibits, together with 
endorsements, date of filing aixl certificate of correctness,, 
and are designated as "• Circuit Court Exhibits," Number* 
1 to 10 inclusive, as follows, viz : 

Exhibit J^o. 1, J, A, R — Complaint a& amended, with 
stipulation, etc* 

Exhibit No. 2, J, A, R> — Answer of Mary King. 

Exhibit No, 3, J. A. R.— Testimony of S, R. Throck- 
morton. 

Exhibit No. 4, J. A. R.— Testimony of George F. Al- 
lardt. 

Exhibit No. 5, J. A. R. — Testimony of William J, Lewis. 

Exhibit No. 6, J. A. R. — Judgment of the Court in said 
cause. 

Exhibit No, 7, J. A. R.— Stipulation. 

Exhibit No. 8, J. A. R. — Stipulation. 

Exhibit No. 9, J. A. R. — Afiidavit of James M. Seawell. 

Exhibit No. 10, J. A. R.— Affidavit of S. R. Throck- 
inorton. 

S. R. Throckmorton objects to so much of this record as 
what purports to be a part of this record, commencing at 
page 591, and continuing 592 and 593, up to this entry, be- 
cause the same were interpolated and formed no part of this 



2i^ 

record, having been inserted during recess, and the manner 
and mode thereof having been ruled against by the Sur- 
veyor-General ; and the said Throckmorton asks to have 
the same expunged, because they are void, and improperly 
placed here. The said S. R. Throckmorton having objected 
to the mode and manner of offering Exhibits, and having 
appealed to the .Surveyor-General, the Surveyor-General 
sustained his objection, and ordered the offering to be made 
of each paper separately. 

J. B. Howard requests that it be entered of record that 
the above objection be simply that of S. K. Throckmorton, 
stating his opinion on the subject. 

J. B. Howard now re-offers said Exhibits from "1," to 
** 10 " separately as follows : 

Exhibit N"o. 1. — Complaint, amendment, stipulation, etc. 

Mullen & Hyde object to said Exhibit on the ground: 
1st. That it is incompetent for the purposes of establishing 
the exterior boundaries of this ranch, in conformity to the 
decree of the United States District Court and the record 
of juridical possession thereof, and it is in no wise binding 
upon the United States Surveyor-General in making a final 
survey thereof 
' S. E. Throckmorton makes the same objection. 

Peter Gardner objects to the above Exhibit and reserves 
grounds of objection for future statement within three days, 
from March 24th, 1876, on the grounds that the Court did 
not have jurisdiction other than to ascertain the boundaries 
segregated by this Department. 

Also, Exhibit No. 2. — Answer of Mary J. King, defendant, 

Mullen & Hyde object, and for the reason stated in objec- 
tion to Exhibit No. 1. 

S. R. Throckmorton makes the same objection. 

Peter Gardner objects, and will file grounds within three 
days. — Same objection. 

Also, Exhibit No. 3. — Testimony of S. R. Throckmorton 
in said suit. 

Mullen & Hyde object, and for the reason stated in objec- 
tion to Exhibit No. 1. 

S. R. Throckmorton makes the same objection. 

Peter Gardner objects, and will file grounds within three 
days, as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. 

Also, Exhibit No. 4. Testimony of Geo. F. Allardt in 
said suit. 

Mullen & Hyde object, and for the reason stated in objec- 
tion to Exhibit No. 1. 



216 

S. R. Throckmorton makes the same objection. 

Peter Gardner objects, and will file grounds within three 
days. — Same objection. 

Secondl3^ Mullen & Hyde further objects, because said 
Geo. F. Allardt has already testified in this case, and said 
Exhibit i^o. 4 has not been shown the same, and thus afforded 
an opportunity either to explain any matters therein con- 
tained, provided there exists any conflict between the con- 
tents of said Exhibit No. 4 and the testimony of said Allardt 
as heretofore given in this case. 

Secondly. S. R. Throckmorton makes the same objections 
and for the same reasons, as the foregoing Secondly of Mul- 
len & Hyde. 

Also, Exhibit No. 5 — testimony of William J. Lewis in 
said suit. 

Mullen & Hyde object, and for the reason that said Lewi* 
has not been shown said Exhibit for the purpose of explain- 
ing any matters therein contained, that might or would 
seem or appear to differ from the testimony heretofore given 
by said Lewis in this case. 

S. li. Throckmorton makes the same objection. 

Peter Gardner objects — same objection. 

Also, Exhibit No. 6— judgment of said Circuit Court in 
said suit. 

Mullen & Hyde object, and for the reason stated in objec- 
tion to Exhibit No. 1. 

Sc R. Throckmorton makes the same objection as Mullen 
& Hyde, and further that it is, on its face, a judgment for 
but a part of the rancho. 

Peter Gardner objects because the court has no jurisdic- 
tion of the exterior boundaries, as has been decided in this 
case by the General Land Oflice ; and that said action was 
appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and is 
now pending there and is not yet decided. 

Also, Exhibit No. 1 — stipulation filed in said cause. 

Mullen & Hyde object to said Exhibit as immaterial and 
incompetent. 

S. R. Throckmorton objects for the same reason as Mullen 
& Hyde, and also for the reason that it does not affect the 
boundaries of said rancho on final survey of the same. 

Peter Gardner objects as incompetent and immaterial. 

Also, Exhibit No. 8 — stipulation filed in said cause. 

Mullen & Hyde object to said Exhibit as immaterial and 
incompetent, and that it does not affect the boundaries of 
said rancho on final survev of the same. 



217 

S. R. ThroclcmoTton objects for the same reasons as MaV 
9en & Hyde. 

Peter Gardner objects to question as immaterial, irrele- 
vant and incompetent; besides it was a fraud on all the de- 
fendants, except S. R. Throckmorton, because it was done 
without th^ consent or knowledge, and against the wishes 
of the defendants and their counsel, J. McM. Shafter. • 

Also, Exhibit JSTo. 9 — Affidavit of James M. Seawell, in 
:said cause, tiled. 

MuHen ^ Hyde makes same objections as to Ex. H. 

S. R. Throckmorton makes same objection. 

Peter Gardner objects to question as incompetent, imma- 
terial and iiTelevant, and on the ground that it attempts to 
.amend his own wrong. 

Also, Ex. ]S^o. 10— Affidavit of S. R. Throxjkmorton in 
rsaid suit. 

Mullen & Hyde objects to Ex. ]^o. 10, as irrelevant and 
incom[')etent. 

S. R. Throckmorton objects to same, as irrelevant, in- 
•competent, and because it does not affect the boundaries of 
the said rancho, on a final survey, when same shall be made 
«nder the order of the Secretary of the Interior, promul- 
gated January 6th, 1872, ordering a survey of said rancho 
to be made in accordance with the act of juridical posses- 
sion of said rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio ; and 
further, for the reason that the said affidavit, when made, 
was intended to refer only to so much of the said survey 
therein referred to as marched with the eastern boundary 
hue of the rancho of Saucelito ; and was intended to be, as 
was all the testimony offered in that case by said Throck- 
morton, simply a defense and a bar against any other sur- 
vey of said Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, impinging 
upon or overlapping any part of the lands of the said ran- 
cho of Saucelito. 

Peter Gardner objects. 

J. B. Howard now offers certified copy of deed, bom said 
defendant, Mary King, whose true name is " Mary J. King," 
to Francis D. Barlow, dated October 28th, 1873, for the 
lands claimed of said King by said Bolton. 

Mullen & Hyde objects to deed as incompetent and im- 
material. 

S. R. Throckmorton makes same objection, and because 
it does not affect the final survey of this rancho. 



2^8" 

K S. Brooks, Esq., called for Frances jy\ Karlow, et at^ hy 
I. B. Howard, and duly sworn, deposes and says : 

My name is Benj. & Brooks ; I reside in San Francisco ; 
my age i» fifty years andf upwards; occupation, attorney an(l 
counsellor at law. 

Q. 1. Are you acquainted with the Kancho of Cbrte- 
Madera del Presidio, in Marin ComrtVy and if so, for how 
Tong^ a time have you been acquainted with the same ? A. 
I am acquainted with the said ranch ; I have been acquainted 
with it, more or less, ever since I have been here^ but more 
particularlv for the last eleven years. 

Q. 2. Have you known tbe state of the title under the- 
confirmees to said rancho since 1864 ; the depositions sub- 
sequently niade,- and present ownership thereof, and if so, 
state. A. During that time, I have acted as the counsel of 
the Read heirs, of Rudolf and Emil Steinbach, and Emil 
Grisar, James C. Bdton and Thomas B. Valentine. Much 
I have done ; much I have directed, and much that was 
done by others I have known at tbe time; still there may 
be some things done that I have not known. 

Q. 3. State, if you know, what interest in said raucho 
the said James C. Bolton had when he acquired it, and what 
measures, if any, be took during the time he held title 
thereto, with reference to his interest therein. 

Mullen & Hyde object : 1st. Because it is not the best ev- 
idence ; and 2d, because it is incompetent for the purpose 
of this investigation, which is, simply to ascertain whether 
the Ransom survey conforms to the record of the juridical 
possession of this rancho, as deduced from the Mexican ar- 
chives. 

A. He was interested as a tenant in common with the 
Read heirs, in that portion of the rancho not included within 
the Mathewson survey ; the date at which he acquired his 
interest will appear from the deed, which is August 12th, 
1865 — his deed calHng for i interest. Mr. Bolton was a 
lawyer of New York ; he came here as the counsel of Jno. 
C. Fremont, with letters to myself; while here he became 
acquainted with the Read heirs, and then or before with 
Steinbach ; they entered into an arrangement for prosecut- 
ing the claim of the Read heirs to the land within the ju- 
ridical possession, to which it was considered by them and 
all of us that they had a good title ; I think that Steinhack 
came in, or it was agreed that he should come in at the same 
time ; it was well understood by all that Bolton was here 
only temporarily, and that I was to attend to the matter 



219 

here, and that Mr. Bolton was to attend to the matter at the 
east; Stein bach was to pay me and the expenses, in consid- 
eration of which he received from Bolton the conveyance 
of an interest ; Mr. Bolton, I think, left very soon after ; 
as his representative I entered immediatelj^ upon the dis- 
charge of my duty as the attorney for these claimants, and 
have continued in the discharge of these duties unremit- 
tingly up to the present minute ; as a part of such duty, be- 
sides the immediate prosecution of proceedings to obtain a 
new survey, I instituted the suits of Bolton against Ker- 
shaw, and Bolton against Van Reynegom, in the Circuit 
Court, and Read against Van Reynegom, et at., in the State 
District Court, later; in all of which there were judgments 
for the plaintiffs. 

Q. 4. Examine complaint, marked Ex. ^o, 1, and state 
if that complaint, as amended, was the complaint filed by 
you in the Circuit Court, and upon which judgment was 
rendered. A. i^ot having compared this paper with the 
original, I cannot say whether it is a copy or not ; the orig- 
inal complaint filed in that cause was for the tract of land 
lying between the Mathewson survey, the Arroyo Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio — on which stood the remains of the old 
mill — and a line drawn trom the old mill to the Holon ; the 
south line of the tract, did not conform exactly to the ar- 
royo, but, if I remember aright, it was a straight line drawn 
from the point of the sausal, where that arroyo disembogues 
in the estero, thence to the mill ; after the evidence was 
closed, including an '' ojo de vista" (ocular inspection on 
the ground) by the judge, and had been some time under 
consideration, a stipulation was entered into between plain- 
tifis and defendants, by their respective attorneys, by which 
the western line was brought to its position on the present 
official survey; said stipulation, with the amended com- 
plaint^ was presented to the judge in open court, and ordered 
filed with an expression of great relief. I remember that 
there was an error in our first amended^ complaint ; it did 
not conform to our intentions ; Philip Ray and Jose Alber- 
nos were struck out, because they were occupants of the 
land which was cut off by the amendment. 

Q. 5. Read the description of land in the second amended 
complaint, and also the stipulation Exhibit No. 7, and state 
if said description corresponds to the land sued for and 
stipulated as in the amended complaint and stipulation you 
refer to. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, and S. R. Throckmorton, 
as immaterial and irrelevant. 



220 

A. The description contained in the second amended 
complaint is unquestionably the land that we agreed the suit 
should stand for, and the judgment should cover. Whether 
the copies conform or not, I cannot tell, and the copy of the 
second amended complaint filed here corresponds, so far as 
the western boundary is concerned, the arroyo and the 
meander line ; and I presume the rest of the boundary con- 
forms to the western line of the Mathewson survey — I could 
not tell certainly without comparing it. As for stipulation 
]^o. 7, I should suppose that it did not describe the land 
that we intended to describe; and my recollection is that it 
does not ; but I cannot specify from anything here what the 
error was. 

Q. 6. Does not the second amended complaint describe 
the western boundary of said rancho, in accordance with the 
official plat; are not the descriptions identical ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, 1st, Because it is in- 
definite as to what official plat ; and 2d, That it is not the 
best evidence ; and 3d, It is immaterial. 

S. R. Throckmorton joins in said objection. * 

A. It corresponds with the last official survey. ^ 

Q. 7. Examine Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, and state if George 
F. Allardt and Wm. J. Lewis, therein certified as witnesses 
in said cause, are the same Allardt and Lewis who testified 
in this examination. A. They are. 

Q. 8. Examine Exhibit I^o. 3, the testimony of S. E. 
Throckmorton, and state if the said witness is the same 
Throckmorton who appears as a party to this examination. 
A. He is the same. 

Q. 9. Examine Exhibits Il'fos. 8, 9 and 10, and state if 
you know whether said Throckmorton was, during the 
pendenc}^ of said suit, interested both with the defendants 
and with the plaintiff, and if so, the nature, duration and 
character of his said interest. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde as incompetent and imma- 
terial, except as may relate to Mr. Throckmorton himself 

Objected to by Mr. Throckmorton as inlmaterial and 
irrelevant, and as containing a contradiction which can only 
be reconciled by a long explanation. 

A. At the commencement of the suit he was interested 
with the defendant, Philip Ray, who was his tenant, and he 
took upon himself the defense of said Ray, he claiming the 
Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, as marked on the last 
official survey, as the northeastern boundary of his Rancho 
of Saucelito. He had no other interest with the defendants 



^21 

t<3r B-ny oF them, and when that land was struck otit, his 
interest in the defence ceased. He was the most active 
'defendant, and the others seemed to trust a good deal to his 
success as iinplying their own ; but he was making his own 
-fight; he did not claim or pretend to represent them ; pend- 
ing the suit, I think he acquired an interest by purchase 
from Steinbach, in th« plaintiff's title, 

Q. 10. What was the extent of the interest acquired by 
said Throckmorton from plain tiffb, between the limits and 
'bounds of the lands described in the second amended com- 
^j:)laint if any ? A. He acquired an undivided interest, in 
the same tract of land, and the whole of it, which was con- 
veyed to J. C. BoJton. 

Q. 11. What interest did said Throckmorton have in 
the land sued for, at the date of the judgment in said suit, 
as in Exhibit No. 6 ? A, Kone. 

Q. 12. What interest, if any, has said Throckmorton, in 
^he lands embraced in the last official survey, or in these 
described in the second amended complaint? A. None. 

Q. 13. Examine Ex. No. 6, and state if said judgment 
embraces all the lauds sued for as described in the second 
-iimended complaint, A. It does, upon looking at Exhibit 
6, and comparing it with the map of the official survey, it 
would appear that of a tract of land which was conveyed to 
him at the time of this arrangement a part thereof is inside 
of this survey. When I answered the preceding question, I 
gave the impression from my memory, and it remains the 
«ame, but the deed is better than my memory. 

Q. 14, Are you on friendly relations with Mr. Throck- 
morton ? A. Certainly. 

Adjourned till lOJ o'clock to-morrow. 



Met at i past 10 o'clock, Saturday, March ^5th, 1876. 

J. B, Howard oiFers as Exhibit No. 12, certified copy of 
decision of Secretary of the Interior, dated January 6, 1872. 
Certified, February 7, 1876. ' ' 

Peter Gardner re-called by J. B. Howard. 

Q. 1. Did you know Mary King, a defendant in a suit 
in the United States Circuit Court No. 190, Bolton vs. Van 
Reynegom, Mary King and others, and the lands occupied 
by her during said suit, and claimed in the original com- 
plaint from her, and if so, state ? A. I knew her ; her name 
was Mary J. King. I knew the land occupied by her; the 



222: 

Iknd is situated outside and to the west of the'Ranclio Corte? 
Madera del Presidio, according to the' official plat ; is situate 
in Township No. 1, K K> 6 W, Mount Diablo Meridian, andJ 
constituting' portions of sections 20 and 29. The exact lo- 
cation T cannot specifically paint out. 

Q. 2. Bid you know that said Mary J. King, appeared? 
and defended the- suit? A. She did'. 

Q, B. Did you know the result of the suit as to saic^ 
Mary J. King ? A. It was decid-ed in her favor. 

Oro^s-Ekamination hy S. B, Tlwockmorton,. 

Q. 1. Dkl you know a man- by name of Shaw who lived! 
i-n that neighborhood ? A. I knew A. R. Shaw in that 
neighborhood, when he was living on that place. 

Q. 2. Can you descinbe the piece of land he occupied, in 
the mouth of that gulch where Mrs. King lived. 

Objected to by J. B. Howard as inumaterial, untili the in- 
terest oi said Sl^iaw is shown as to land within the survey,, 
or he is brought in privity with some claimant thereto, or 
until the purpose intended is n^ade known. 

A. Yes, sir ; he lived on section 29. 

Q. 3. Can you tell what part of that land he lived on ? 
A. He lived within a few yards of the ne^v fence, a little 
north-east of where the house of Borotra is. 

Q. 4. Can jou tell how far up the valley his claims ex- 
tended? A. T do not know that he had^ or pretended to 
have a claim there. 

Q. 5. Do you know that be lived there ? A. He lived 
there. 

Q. t). Did be live there with bis family ? A. He liyed 
there with his family. 

Q. 7. Do you know of bis having a child born to him 
on the 4th of July on that land ? A. I do not. 

Q. 8. Do you remember who lived to the Korth of his 
place at the time that he lived there. A. I do ; John Gray 
and his brother lived north of Shaw, and they were suc- 
ceeded in the occupation by a Chileno who kept sheep 
there. Gray claimed as a pre-emptor. I do not know 
whether he had tiled his pre-emption claim or not. 

Q. 9. How long did the Chileno live there ? A. A 
couple of years, or so. 

Q. 10. Do you remember the year Gray went there ? A. 
I think it was 1864 when Gray was there ; am not very 
clear as to the date. 

Q. il. Do you know of any one having pre-empted that 



223 

valley before Gray ? A. I do not know about the pre- 
emption ; I know that some person lived there before Gray. 

Q. 12. Do you know that the heirs of Juan Head asserted 
that the persons living on the land we are now speaking of 
were their tenants ? 

Question objected to by J. B. Howard, as not being the 
best evidence; and farther, that Circuit Court Exhibits 1 to 
10 inclusive set forth the claim of the Read heirs to said 
lands, and the abandonment thereof, as public lauds. 

S. R. Throckmorton excepts to the foregoing objection, 
because the said Exhibits from 1 to 10 establish no such 
conclusion, as is asserted ; but on the contrary, the Judg- 
ment Exhibit l!^o. 6 establish conclusively that no such 
abandonment was made or contemplated. 

A. I do not know that they asserted that the parties 
were their tenants ; but I do know that they, the heirs of 
Read, claimed the land. 

Q. 13. Were you present most of the time during the 
trial, in theU. S. Circuit Court, of the cause entitled Bolton 
vs. Van Reynegom and others ? A.I was. 

Q. 14. Look at official map of Ransom & Allardt, and at 
the line marked thereon, from post C. M. 181 to redwood 
post P. Q. 99 W., R. 203, and state whether that is so laid 
down on said map as the western boundary of the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, and whether at that trial you 
heard testimony given by the witnesses for plaintiffs in that 
suit, and whether said testimony went to establish the boun- 
dary to the west of said line on official map. 

Objected to by J. B. Howard, on the ground that the 
official map and the judgment roll in said suit are the best 
evidence. 

A. That line is laid down on that map as the western 
boundary, but the testimony of the plaintiffs upon that trial 
went to establish the western boundary nearly half a mile 
to the west of said line, up to the old saw mill. 

Q. 15. How long have you lived in the neighborhood of 
the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. About twenty- 
three years. 

Re-examined hy J. B, Howard, 

Q. 1. State if you know, and point out on the official 
Allardt-Ransom plat, the location of "Wormouth's House " 
mentioned in Circuit Court Exhibit No. 5. A. I know- 
where it is. It is near Station No. " C. M. 181," point of 
beginning on said plat. 



224 

Q. 2. Please state if you know, and point out the Joea^ 
tion on the official plat of the point, '• Station 18" mentioned 
in Circuit Court Exhibit 'No. 4, as on defendants' map "B,"" 
in said suit No. 190 in Circuit Court. The testimony of Al- 
lardt is as follows : " My recollection " is that we considered 
that the solar, Station 18. Testimony of Lewis, Exhibit 5^ 
locates said solar near Wormouth's house. The testimony 
of S. R. Throckmorton in said Circuit Court, Exhibit !N'o. 
3, as follows : " The land of the solar is a clear field, arable, 
and has been cultivated. The pencil line running through 
the solar, runs through a natural ravine, through which 
came in 1857, and quite lately, a trail through from San 
Rafael ; and this solar formed an open field between that 
and the house. In vicinity of the mill, up to the mill, the 
redwood forest tapers ofif to single trees, large trees scat- 
tered, and soon comes to madrona, heavy laurel interspersed 
with an occasional redw^ood. Excepting the side of the 
creek, the ravines and gulches are clothed with redwood 
mixed with laurels and undergrowth. There are enough 
redwoods in the vicinity of the mill to call it a grove, but 
not enough to call it a forest. In the vicinity of the mill 
the slope of the hill is to the south, nothing to the west." 
The witness is requested to state if the above be correct 
according to his knowledge, and also to locate, if he can, 
on the official plat, said "Station 18," said '''Wormouth's 
House," and said "solar," as established by said Throck- 
morton as above indicated ; also, the location of the begin- 
ning of the forest of redwoods, as set forth in said exhibits, 
and the extension northerly from said solar of the westerly 
line of said rancho as indicated in said exhibits 3, 4, and 5, 
as you understood at the time from the testimony, agree- 
ments, and stipulations of said Throckmorton in said suit, 
and as you now understand the same from his position in 
the said suit. 

Objected to by S. R. Throckmorton as irrelevant, imma- 
terial, and as not tending to establish the boundaries of 
juridical possession of said Rancho Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio; also on the ground that disconnected and garbled 
extracts from testimony cannot be used as evidence, and be- 
cause when Mr. Allardt used the words "are established the 
solar," the w^ord "are " was not used in connection with 
any of the parties to these objections, but referred to an 
erroneous or uncertain location of said solar made by him 
and Dr. Mathewson at a former period and at a time when 
they had not full and proper instructions from this office for 



225 

the purpose of making said snrvey ; also because said 
Throckmorton, spoken of in said testimony', did not locate 
the solar or pretend to do so from nny knowledge of his 
•own, and also because there exists in record of said suit in 
the Circuit C5ourt referred to no agreement made by said 
Throckmorton with any parties, and because stipulations 
made by counsel, parties to that suit, is attempted to be 
perverted and fahaciously asserted as an agreement or agree- 
ments, neither of which, beyond said stipulation, exists in 
said cause, and because this question is made in its form a 
vehicle of misrepresentation and false conclusions. 

A. Station '^ 18 " referred to is station " 3 " on the offi- 
<jlal Ransom^Allardt Map; '' Wormouth's House" is near 
post C. M. P. 181 on said plat. '' The beginning of the for- 
est of redwoods," I cannot describe without examining the 
Exhibits thoroughly, but I can describe of my own knowl- 
edire where it is; it is at station '^ 5 " on the Allardt map. 

Here J. B. Howard interrupts witness, and said; Solar 
fis established by Throckmorton as above indicated, is near 
^Station 3 on the official map, but it is not a proper location 
of the solar. The opinion of the witness is not desired, but 
only facts. J. B. H. 

Shanklin, counsel for Throckmorton, moves to strike out 
the above objection made by Mr. Howard to the answer of 
his own witness, since the opinion of the witness was called 
for by the previous question of Mr. Howard, as to the cor- 
rectness of Throckmorton's testimony concerning the loca- 
tion of the different points referred to in the question. 

J. B. Howard requests the witness to answer according to 
his own knowledge only, and not to give any opinion on 
any subject, and question repeated as to location of westerly 
line of said rancho in said suit. 

Shatiklin, counsel for Throckmorton, objects to the fore- 
going instruction of witness, since it appears that the latter 
part of the instruction refers to new matter and not to the 
previous question or the Exhibit now before witness. 

A. Mr. Throckmorton was the principal instigator of 
this stipulation, which was the principal foundation for the 
establishment of the boundaries designated in the judgment, 
for the other defendants nor their attorney knew nothing 
about it. 

Q. 3. What was the location of the western boundary 
of said rancho, as urged and agreed to by said S. R. Throck- 
morton in said suit? 

Question objected to by Mr. Shanklin, counsel for S. E. 



226' 

Thrackmorton, on the groundy 1st. That the jaJgment of 
the Court did not attempt to establish any boundary or 
"boundaries of the ranch a as such, but boundaries between; 
parties referretl to in the stipulation, which cannot be 
ehanged or affected by parol testimony ; 2d. That it is not 
the best evidence ; and because the judgment of the saidi 
Circuit Court, which is put in evidence in this case by J^ 
B. Howard as the result of said stipulation, does not estab- 
lish any western boundary to the said raneho Corte Madera 
del Presidio, as the result of said stipulatioii, either directly, 
or infer en ti ally, or at all; but is simply for the possession 
of certain lands described as a part of. said raneho by the 
courses and distances therein set Ibrthy and is expressed as- 
being for '' the possession of those certain lands and prem- 
ises, situate in the county of Marin^ State of California, and 
described' in the amended complaint herein as being part of 
the Kancha Corte Madera del Presidio, or Read rancho^ 
bounded and described as follows, etc.;" said Exhibit No. 
6 showing conclusively the judgment of the Court as not 
having established any boundary whatevery but oi>ly a judg- 
ment in ejectment, referring to a part of the land inclosed 
in said rancho. 

Question withdrawn, 

Q. 4. Was S. R. Throckmorton^ ik)w present, the same 
Throckmorton who appeared as a party witness and active 
man in said suit ? A. The same man. 

Shanklin, counsel for Throckmorton, moves to strike out 
the forgoing question and answer, so far as the same relates 
to S. R. Throckmorton as a party to the suit referred to, the 
documentary evidence only showing that he was called as a 
witness in the case. 

Adjourned till 10:S0 o'clock Monday next. 



Met, pursuant to adjournment, Monday 27th, and ad- 
journed till Tuesday 28th. 



Met, pursuant to adjournment, Tuesday 28th, and ad- 
journed till half past one. 



Adjourned at 2 o'clock p, m. until to-morrow, at half past 
ten A. M. 



227 

Wednesday, March 29th, 1876. Met, pursuant to adjourn- 
ment. 

Mullen & H^^de here ofter to be filed as an Exhibit, and 
to be used in this case as a measure, as follows : 

A metallic scale of cordeles, made and graduated so as to 
be equivalent to, and identical with a scale of 20 chains to 
an inch (the said last-named scale being the one used in 
compiling the official plat of the Ransom survey of the 
rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio), and which metallic 
scale of cordeles is colored as follows, to wit : the portion 
colored green, to represent a length of ninety cordeles, of 
fifty Castillian varas each; the portion colored black, to rep- 
resent the length of sixteen cordeles, of fifty Castillian varas 
each ; the portion colored red, to represent a length of nine- 
ty-four cordeles, of fifty Castillian varas each ; the portion 
colored blue, to represent a length of two hundred cordeles, 
of fifty Castillian varas each. 

The said lengths being attached to each other, and form 
a figure — shape it as you will — the periphery, or lineal 
length, of the exterior boundaries^of which will measure ex- 
actly 20,000 Casiillian varas. 

Objected to by Sol. A. Sharp. 

Geo. F. AUardt recalled by Mullen & Hyde. 

Q. 1. Are you the same G. F. Allardt who has already 
testified as a witness in this case ? A. I am. 

Q. 2. Have you recently, and if so, state when, made 
any instrumental examination, and if so, state what, and 
how made, of any points on the ground of land represented 
as a portion of the Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, on 
the official plat of a survey purporting to have been made by 
the late Leander Ransom, and which plat I now show you — 
if so, state fully and in detail all matters thereto pertaining. 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp on the ground that his official 
instructions to, and his return of the survey under said 
instructions, are the best evidence. Mr. Brooks makes the 
same objection, and that the same is irrelevant and imma- 
terial. 

A. I was on the ground, March 23d, 1876, where I found 
an old stone mound, which was pointed out to me by Peter 
Gardner. 

For the description of said mound, I quote from my field 
notes, as made at the ground on that day : " Beginning at an 
old stone mound, on the top of a round grassy knoll; the 
mound is evidently an artificial one, about four feet in 



228 

diameter, and two feet high, composed of stone, from six 
inches to two feet long, and bears evidence of great age; by 
Aneroid measurement, it is 440 feet above the tide; it is 
the nearest high knoll to the bay ; there are no other loose 
stones near the mound." From this stone mound, I ran, by 
compass and chain, N. 15| degrees east true course, 35.77 
chains, to a post marked "6.55;" which post is identical 
with Station 522 ; that is at the end of the 521st course, of 
the Ransom survey of said ranch o. 

Q. 3. From said old stone mound, did you take any 
bearings to any other objects, and if so, what objects, and 
what bearing ? 

Objected to by Sharp, as immaterial, irrelevant and in- 
competent. 

A. I did ; I took the following bearings, namely : Tibu- 
ron Peak, bears S. 41 E.; the extreme easterly point of San 
Quentin Ferry wharf bears K 12i<^ E. The Peak of Ta- 
malpais bears IS". 78J ^ W., and California Oity Point bears 
very nearly due East. 

Q. 4. Please describe* the face of the ground that would 
lay on a direct line, passing through said stone mound, and" 
the end of the 521st course on the map of Ransom survey of 
said Rancho of *' Corte Madera del Presidio." 

Same objection by Sharp. 

A. From said mound, the ground descends quite regu- 
larly, to the end of the said 521st course ; being a flat, grassy 
spur, extending to the bay; south of said mound, the ground 
descends for about five chains, and then ascends fifteen 
chains, to the top of the main ridge. 

Q. 5. From the top of the ridge — lying between said 
old stone mound, and John Read's present house, the posi- 
tion of which is represented on the plat of the Ransom sur- 
vey, near the course 241, did you take any bearing of any 
objects, and if so, what bearings, and to what objects? 

Mr. Sharp objects as being irrelevant, and calling for facts 
foreign to the issue in controversy, and also that it is 
hypothetical: and because it assumes facts not in proof. 

A. I did; from a point on the top of the ridge, said 
stone mound bears I^. 42J E., distant 20.23 chains, and said 
John Read's house bears S. 47^^ W. The Peak of Ta- 
malpais bears N. 75J <^ W., and Tiburon peak bears S. 47 ^ 
E. The distance as I ascertained it approximately by trian- 
gulation from said stone mound, to the Peak of Tamalpais, 
is 375 chains ; from said stone mound to Tiburon Peak is 
193 chains. 



•229 

Q. 6. You speak of said mound as being an old iiont 
cniound ; please state what are the external indications of 
lao^e that cause vou to desisjnate it as beiw^ old ? A, Its 
.general appearance. 

Q. 7. Bo the stones constituting the exterior of said 
'mound show on their surface old mosses, and do said stones, 
as shown from the exterior of said mound, bear evidence of 
^ want of disturbance in their several positions in said 
mound? 

Objected to bj Mr. Sharp, on the grounds that any number 
of stones so gathered in that locality^ and tbus placed together, 
would show the sarrte mossy evidence^ since all the stones in 
that vicinity are covered with moss. 

A. The stones are covered with mosses on the side ex- 
posed to the air, and in my judgment have not been dis- 
turbed for several years ; how many years, it is impossible 
for me to state. 

Q. 8. Did .you, on t-bc sjround, at the date of this last- 
named survey °(23d of March, 1876), make any sketches of 
said old stone mound and the grassy knoll, upon the top of 
which said stone mound at said date stood, or of any other 
prominent featui^s or landmarks in the immediate vicinity 
thereof? 

Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, 
^nd as not tending to prove any fact at issue in this contro- 
versy. 

A. I made a topographical sketch of said knoll; also of 
the slope between said knoll and the bay ; also of the main 
ridge near and south of said knoll. 

Q. 9. Will you prepare a sketch, such as you have de- 
scribed in jour last answer, at your earliest leisure, tor the 
purpose of being filed in this case ? A. I will do so. 

Q. 10, Please indicate and mark in lead pencil on the 
official map the position of said stone mound, and the posi- 
tion on the top of the ridge, from both of which you took 
the bearing, as stated by you, and transfer the same on the 
plat filed by Mullen & Hyde with their motion of October 
27, 1875, and now ofiered in evidence as Exhibit, marked 
as follows, " M. H. X. Y. Z." 

Exhibit objected to by Mr. Sharp. 

B. S. Brooks reserves the right of objecting to the fore- 
going questions. 

A. I have transferred the same as requested, and marked 
and designated the same in red ink on said Exhibit for said 
stone mound ; I have written " stone mound,'' and for said 



my 

nctge 1 have written, " top of main ridge," and I have- sketches- 
some topography at those points. 

Q. 11. Please mark in red' ink on said map the position- 
of said course "521/' and abo that of John Read's house^. 
as testified to by you, being near course 241 as represented 
on the plat of the Ransom? sui^vey. A. I have marked in 
red ink the end of the said 52l8t course, "• end of course^ 
521," and I have marked in red ink said Read's house witb 
the words ''J. Read's house." 

Mullen & Hyde now offer in evidence, by certified copy^ 
the testimony of Eusebio Galinda, James T. Strattan and 
Juan Read, as by them given in the case of James C. Bol- 
ton vs. John Lp. Van Reynegom^e^ aL,m the case so entitled^ 
before the Circuit Court of the XJ. S; for the circuit includ- 
ing the State of California, and marked M. H., A. B. C. 

Q. 12. Since the date when you last testified in this^ 
case, have you had any interest in the result of this contro- 
vers}' ; or have you ever had any interest in the same, im- 
mediate or prospective ; oi' are you related by blood or mar- 
riage witli any of the parties herein? A. I have not, nor 
have I ever had any interest in the result of this contro- 
versy, nor am I related either by blood ar marriage with 
any of the parties thereto. 

Mullen & Hyde here give notice that they will furnish 
topographical sketch referred to-. 

Mr. Allardt, the witness, is asked by Mr. Cutter for 
Mr. Gardner, to transfer from the official plat the position 
of the old stone mound mentioned ; the j>osition on top of 
ridge from which witness took the bearings, as stated by 
him in answer to previous question to-day ; and also the end 
of 521st course of the Ransom survey, and mark them in 
red ink on Exhibit "P. G. No, 2." 

A. I have so marked said points on said Exhibit, and 
properly designated them in red ink. 

Mullen & Hyde withdraw Exhibit marked M. & H. A. 
B. C, by consent, and ask leave to file the whole i'ecord in 
the case ot James C. Bolton. 

Q. 13. In the distances that you state from said old 
stone mound to Peak Tiburon and Peak Tamalpais, are 
said distances by direct air line, or such as would be obtained 
by surface measurement on the ground ? A. The distances 
are by direct air line, and correspond to horizontal chaining. 

Q. 11. Would the undulations of the ground increase or 
diminish those distances ? A. It would increase the dis- 
tance as measured by a chain, along such undulations. 



231 

Cross- Examination by B. S. Brooks, 

Q. 15. How many surveys have you made in the vicinity 
of the looaUty of which you speak in your direct examina- 
tion to-day ? A. I have surveyed in that vicinity the " Cal- 
ifornia City tract ;" also, the survey of this rancho under 
R. C. Mathewson ; also, the tide land surveys for the State 
of California. 

Q. 16. When did you first see the mound of stones tes- 
tified to by you ? A. On March 23d, 1876. 

Q. 17. In making your surveys did you not frequently 
cross the rancho? A. I have traveled over the rancho at 
various times, in difierent localities of the same. 

Q. 18. You have made other surveys on the rancho, 
have you not ? A, Yes. 

Q. 19. Have you not very frequently seen heaps of stones 
just like that on lands that have been ploughed ? A. I have 
not. 

Q. 20. Is it not customary on lands where a reaper is 
used, to gather up stones in similar heaps? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, because the question 
assumes, somewhat remotely, that the knoll upon which 
this old stone mound stands, either is or has been under cul- 
tivation, which fact is not established as yet. 

A. I am not familiar with farming operations or the use 
of reapers. 

Q. 21. Will you swear that that mound is over three 
years old ? A. I would not positively. I am unable to 
state how old it is. 

Q. 22. On which side of the stones is the moss? A. On 
the sides exposed to the weather. 

Q. 23. Then I understand you to mean that the moss 
does not grow on the side of the west, any more than it 
does on the sides at the north, south, or east? A. No, I do 
not mean that; I mean that the moss grows on all sides of 
the stones except its bottom, on which it rests on the earth, 
or on other stones. If the mound were near one, I would 
expect to find moss on the bottom of the stones as well as 
on other surfaces. 

Q. 24. You were taken then expressly to locate that 
mound, were you not ? A. Yes, to locate the mound and 
determine the adjacent topography. 

Q. 25. Did the man who conducted you there show you 
the mound ? A. Yes. 

Q. 26. K a person of ordinary common sense were to 



232 

construct a mound which he desired should have the appear- 
ance of antiquity, don't you think he would have sense 
enough to put the stones mossy side up ? A. I think he 
ought to have sense enough to do so. 

Be-direct by Mullen ^ Hyde. 

Q. 27. Was said grassy knoll, on which said old mound 
was situated, on the 23d of March, 1876, under cultivation,, 
or did it bear any evidence of ever having been under cul- 
tivation in any manner? 

Mr. Brooks objects to competency of witness to answer^ 
since he has already testified to his want of such knowledge. 

A. Said gragsy knoll was not under cultivation on March 
23d, 1876, nor did I discover any traces of cultivation or 
ploughing, there or in that vicinity. 

Q. 28. Could any person have passed over or have been 
upon said grassy knoll since the date when said old stone 
mound was established thereon without seeing said mound; 
could such a thing be possible ? A. Said stone mound is a 
very prominent and conspicuous object, and no one could 
cross the knoll, with his eyes open, without seeing it. 

Q. 29. In all the surveys that you have made, or been 
engaged in making of the lands represented on the plat of 
the Ransom survey of the rancho of Corte Madera del 
Presidio, did any of the lines thereof extend over this par- 
ticular knoll, upon which this particular old stone mound is 
estabhshed ? A. They did not. 

G. F. ALLARDT. 

OrosS'Examination of Mr, Brooks by Mr, Throckmorton. 

Q. 1. How long have you been acquainted with Mr. 
William J. Lewis, surveyor and civil engineer, who has tes- 
tified in this case, or about what length of time ? A. I do 
not know, and I do not know that I have ever been ac- 
quainted with him ; I have come in contact with him as a 
surveyor, in the course of my professional practice as a law- 
yer, at rare intervals, during the last twenty years. 

Adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow. 



Thursday, March 30th, 1876. Met, pursuant to adjourn- 
ment. 



m 

i?.' C. Itopkins re-calted bij S. /?. ft&oclMorton. 

ti. 1. Exhibit S. R. T. Kb. is shown to witness, aiut 
he is asked if the paper shown him, and which is on tile iii 
this case, marked in blue " 383," is in his handwriting, and 
whether it is a copy of the instructions given to Leunder 
Ransom for the surve}^ of the rancho of Corte de Madera. 

Objected to by J. 13. Howard, 1st, because it does not ap- 
pear that the witness was Surveyor-General in 1873 ; 2d, 
because records of the office of Surveyor-General must be 
jM'bved by the certificate of that officer ; and 31, because 
said paper does not appear to have been signed by any per- 
son, nor filed with any record, and is not dated ; it is ad- 
dressed in pencil, and is evidently a rough draft of some 
paper not pertaining to the records. 

Sol. A. Sharp makes sdme objections. 

A. The Exhibit referred to is in my hand\vntinor ; T 
cannot say whether or not it is a copy or unsigned duplicate 
of the instructions given to Leander Ransom of the survey 
of the rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio. 

J. A. Robinson, beitig called by Mr. Throckniorton, 
and sworn by H. G. Rollins^ U. S. Siltveyor-General, testi- 
fied as follows : 

Q. 1. What position do you hold in this office, aiul for 
what length of time have vou held the same ? A. I ahi 
Oaief Clerk of the office, ana have held such position going 
on six years. 

Q. 2. Do you know, either from your own knowledge or 
from the official records of this office, whether any special 
\vritten instructions w^ere issued to Leander Ransom by the 
U. S. Surveyor-General for California, J. R. Hardenburgh, 
w^hen the said Ransom was appointed as a Deputy U. S* 
Surveyor, for making the survey of the Rancho "El Corte 
Madera del Presidio," in 1873? A. The records at the 
office, under date of December 9, 1878, say that instructions 
were issued to Leander Ransom, 

Q. 3. Do the records say that spiecial written instriic- 
tions were given, or that any written instructions were giveii? 
A. No, sir. 

Q. 4, Do you know of any written instructions being on file 
for the survey of the aforesaid rancho, in this office, or that 
a,ny sucli have ever been in this office, as a part of the rec- 
ord proceedings concerning said ranclio? A. I do not find 
4iny among the papers in the case. 



234 

Q. 5. Have you ever known of any written instructions 
to l)ave been c^lven in the case to Col. llansonn ? A. I re- 
member that he had instructions to make the survey from 
G e ?i e ra 1 Hard e n b u rgh . 

Q. 6. Please to answer my question as to written instruc- 
tions. A. I don't remember whether he had or had not. 

Q. 7. Would you, from your relations with this othce, 
be likely to know whether or not written instructions were 
given in this case? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 8. Have you any knowledge that written instructions 
were ever issued to Col. Ransom for the survey of the ran- 
cho of Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. No, sir. 

Cross-examination by S. A. Sharp. 

Q. 9. Please make a concise statement of all you know 
concerning or appertaining to the instructions issued to Col. 
Ransom, directing him to make a survey of the rancho of 
Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin, as not being cross-examina- 
tion, and also because verbal instructions for the survey of 
a rancho was contrary to the rules and regulations issued 
by the department for making official surveys of Mexican 
grants. 

A. Mr. Leander Ransom, the oldest Deputy connected 
with this office, was, by Mr. Ilardenburgh, directed to make 
the survey of this rancho in 1873; he was furnished with a 
copy of the decision of the Secretary of the Interior, dated 
January 6th, 1872 — copy of opinion of W. H. Smith, As- 
sistant Attorney-General, dated December 26th, 1871 — copy 
of the letter of Commissioner of General Land Office, trans- 
mitting map as guide to surveyor for making survey— copy 
of original diseiio of the rancho — a copy of the record of 
juridical measurement and possession ; and my recollection 
is, the map that accompanied the letter of the commissioner 
ordering the survey was furnished him or delivered to him. 
Whether he had written instructions to make the survey, I 
do not know ; I know that he had verbal instructions from 
General Hardenburgh to make the survey ; I think if writ- 
ten instructions were given him, they were prepared by R. 
C. Hopkins, then keeper of the archives ; Mr. Ransom, in 
sworn return of^ — 

Objected to by Mr. Shanklin, because witness has no 
right to quote from a paper in the case; the record must 
speak for itself. 



235 

Objectiofi oveiTiiled; witness permitted to complete 
answer to the question. 

Field notes, December 30th, 1873, in this case, uses tlie 
following language : '' Agreeably to your instructions, both 
written and verbal," «&;c., &c., from which it would appear 
that he had written instructions. 

As to the verbal instructions, after he had been appointed 
to make the survey some time, he came to the office of the 
U. S. Surveyor-General for additional instructions. He was 
in doubt as to including within the survey the marsh land 
bordering upon the grant or rancho. General llardenburgh 
called in the attorneys in the case, Messrs. Brooks and 
Sharp ; and Mr. Ransom was present, Mr. Hopkins, the 
Surveyor-General, and, I think, Mr. A^alentine; the at- 
torneys referred to made their arguments before General 
Hardenburgh, sitting in his room, and after hearing their 
argument, he directed Mr. Ransom to include the marsh 
land. Whether those instructions were in writing, I do not 
know. 

Q. 7. Please continue anj^ further statements, if any you 
have to make, as regards the general instructions to this 
office, under which this or other similar grants have been 
located. A. In making a survey of a grant, the office is 
governed by the decree of confirmation ; instructions to the 
deputy, directing him to make the survey, are prepared in 
duplicate, embodying the substance of the decree of con- 
firmation ; one copy is delivered to the Deputy, with the 
other papers procured from the archives — copy of diseiio, 
grant, &c. — the other is retained among the papers belong- 
ing to that Cdse, in the office. In making a survey in 
accordance with a decision of the Secretary of the Interior, 
or Commissioner of the General Land Office, a copy of the 
decision ordering a re-survey is furnished the Deputy, with 
the necessary papers from the archives to enable him to 
(arry out the order of the department. 

J. A. ROBmsoisr. 

Adjourned till 10 o'clock Monday morning, April 3d. 



April 3d, 1876. 
Met pursuant to adjournment 

Geo. F. Allardt recalled by S. R. Throckmorton. 
Q. 1. Exhibit S. R. T. No. is here shown witness, be- 
ing the plat and field notes of survey, made by G. F. Allardt 



^36 . 

arid referred to in the deed, from T. B. Deft'ebach, Ine;5 
Read et al., signed " Inez Mead Deffebach." Are you the per- 
son who made the survey and plat attached to the survey, 
as set forth in said Exhibit? A. lam. 

Q. 2. For whom did you make the survey ? A. I'or S. 
E. Throckmorton. 

Q. 3. When ? A. January 7th, 1871. 

Q. 4. AVere any of the lines, as represented on the plat 
in said Exhibit, run by you, at the time referred to, for the 
purpose of segregating a tract of land embraced in said 
survey so run by you, with reference to the line marked on 
*' Kansom-Allardt," official survey of the Rancho of Corte 
Madera del Presidio, as the western boundary of said rancho ? 
A. They were not. 

Q. 5. "^Did any of the lines run by you in making said 
survey conform to or have any reference to a trial line run 
bv Mathewson, from the solar to the Hojon, in 1868 ? A. 
K^one whatever. 

Q. 6, Please to look at the letter here shown you, marked 
"Exhibit Solar Ko. 4," and state whether said Exhibit 
are the instructions under which you made a survey of the 
so-called western line of the " Ransom-Allardt " official 
survey of the Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio. A. The 
instructions contained in said Exhibit, as I understood tliem, 
when making the survey, required me to ascertain the exact 
course and distance from the laurel marked "P. Q. 99," to 
the post marked '' C. M. P. 181," being the 598th, or last 
course of said Ransom's official field notes of said rancho; 
this I did, and made return to the Surveyor-General accord- 
ingly. 

Q. 7. Did you have any discretion, in locating said line, 
or establishing the western boundary of the Rancho of Corte 
Madera del Presidio, according to your own judgment, and 
from the papers of juridical possession of said rancho, on 
that occasion ? A. I had no discretion in the matter — for 
the reason, that said ^vestern boundary had already been 
determined by Deputy Ransom, he having fixed the begin- 
ning and end of said line. 

Q. 8. Are there any objects of geography or topography, 
which indicate a natural boundary on that line, referred to 
in your last answer, or is said line an arbitrary one? A. 
The line is an arbitrary one, between two fixed points, and 
follows no notable natural objects, streams or ridges. 

Q. 9. Did you make the subdivisional survey of the land 
lying west of said so called western boundary line, ds repre- 



287 

rented on the official Tp. plat of T. 1 K, R. 6 W., and if so, 
when ? A. I did, on June 2d, 1874. 

Q. 10. 'Was that before or after yon ran the so called 
western boundary of the Rancho of " Corte Madera del 
Presidio," referred to in your preceding answer ? A. I 
ran said western boundary first, and subsequently I ran thi^ 
said subdivision lines, and connected them with said western 
boundarj' — the western boundary, and the subdivision lines 
were run while I was in the field on the same occasion — and 
all completed in two davs ; that is, on the 2d and 3d of June, 
1874. 

Q. 11. Was S. R. Throckmorton present on that occa- 
sion, or did he give any instructions or make any sugges- 
tions, while you were making the survey of the so-called 
western boundary line, as to its location? A. He was not 
present, nor did he offer any suggestions or instructions 
prior thereto concerning the said survey. 

Q. 12, Where did you stop while you w^ere making said 
survey? A. I and my party boarded and lodged at the 
house of Dr. J. J. Gushing. 

Q. 13. Do you remember running the northern line of 
the tract surveyed for Throckmorton, on January 7th, 1871, 
concerning which you have testified to-day? A. I do. 

Q. 14. At the time of making the survey of said north- 
ern line, marked ^' courses 3 and 4," was there any fence 
near the line of either of those courses, marking a southern 
boundary of the adjoining tract in that direction? A. 
There was a fence along the last half of the 4th course, 
running parallel to said course, and a few finks north of it; 
the fence was the southern boundary of a ploughed field. 

Q. 15. Ex. "No. 4 J. A. R." being shown to witness, 
he is asked: "At or about the time referred to in said Ex- 
hibit, on the trial of the cause of Bolton vs. Van Reynegom, 
in the U. S. Circuit Court in this city, were not the surveys 
you made for S. R. Throckmorton, and the testimony given 
by you supporting the same, made and given in reference 
^oleli/ to the boundary line between the' Saucelito and Corte 
de Madera del Presidio ranchos? 

Sol. A. Sharp objects on the ground that the Exhibit itself 
is the best evidence. 

A. The surveys which I made at the time for Mr. Throck- 
morton, was for the purpose of determining the boundary 
between Throckmorton and his neighbor Defiebach, along 
the Arroyo Corte de Madera del Presidio, and were merelj 
a re-survey of lines previously run by Deputy Mathewson, 



238 

m .snrveying the raneho of " Corie de Madei-a del Presidio/'" 
Q. 16. Did the surveys then made, or the testimony 
given by yon in connection with said surveys, have any re- 
lation to the establishment of the so-called western bound- 
ary of the rancho of Corte de Madera del Presidio, a& 
marked on the " Kansom-Allardt " map? A, I made no 
survey at the time of said western boundary, and my testi- 
mony, as I understand it, had reference to the initial point 
oF said western boundary only, namely, the '^ solar." 

G. F. ALLARDT. 

Adjourned till to-morrow morning at 10^ o'clock. 



Met pursuant to adjournment. 



April 4th, 1876. 



John Borotra, called and sworn on helialf of 8. R. 
Throckmorton. 

Q. 1. State your name, age, occupation and place of res- 
idence. A. My name is as stated ; 37 years ot age ; occu- 
pation, " ranchero." 

Q. 2. Are you acquainted with the tract of land, now 
claimed by S. R. Throckmorton as a part of the rancno of 
Corte Madera del Presidio, lying east and n(>rth of a por- 
tion of the arroyo of Corte Madera del Pi'osidio. A. I am. 

Q. 3. How long have you been acquainted with said 
place? A. About ten years, more or less. 

Q. 4i Were you present when the northern line of said 
tract was surveyed by G. F. Allardt, in 187i ; and if so, 
what part, if any^ did you take in making the survey of 
said line ? A. I was present, and carried the chain. 

Q. 5. While said line^was being run was ^[rs. King, or 
any of the members of her family, present ? A. Mr. King, 
her son, was present. 

Q. 6. Did he point out or designate any of the bounda- 
ries of the land claimed by his mother? if so, state the 
boundaries. A. He pointed out a stake on the top of a hill, 
and a redwood sapling at the other end, on the Inink of the 
Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, whi^-li fornuHl the line. 

Q. 7; Was the survey then made in accordance with the 
boundaries which he then pointed out? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 8; Diagram Exhibit Iso. 15 (plat and iield notes of 
survey made by G. F. Allardt, January 7th, 1(S71, etc.) is 
here shown witness, and he is asked to point out on said 



239 

map the boundaries pointed out by Mr. King, according to 
which the survey was made. (Witness points out Post A ; 
from point A to redwood stump " W.") 

Q. 9. Since the survey so made, has there been a fence 
made on that line; and if so, by whom ? A. Yes, sir; a 
fence made by myself, and a man that I had to help me. 

Q. Was Mrs. King, or any of her family, present, when 
that fence was made 't A. Yes, all of King's family were 
present. 

Q. 10. Was Mrs. King satisfied with the location of the 
fence as you located it, on the line surveyed by Allardt. A. 
She was, as far as I know; she never objected to it. 

Q. 11. Have you been in occupation of the land south 
of the fence since you built the fence ? A. I have. 

Q. 12. Are you in occupation of it now ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. 13. Under whom are you now occupyins^ it ? A. Mr. 
Throckmorton. JOHN B^OROTRA. 

J. H. Wilder, called and sworn on behalf of S. R. Throck- 
morton, says : 

That he resides in San Francisco; occupation, Surveyor 
and Civil Engineer and Chief-Draftsman of the Office of the 
U. S. Surveyor-General, and has been so since 1859. 

Q. 1. Official Tp. plat, of Tp. 1 K, R. 6 W., is here 
show^n witness, and question asked, when was the sub- 
divisional designation, by lots and otherwise, made of 
sections 28 and 29 ? A. In l^ovember, 1874. 

J. H. WILDER. 

Adjourned till 10 J o'clock to-morrow morning. 



April 5th, 1876. 

Case called. 

Mullen & Hyde now offer, by certified copy, the original 
complaint of James C. Bolton, in the case of James C. 
Bolton vs. J. L. Van Reynegom, in the U. S. Circuit Court 
for the District of California, for purpose of explaining more 
fully, and being supplemental to Ex. ^o. 1, as offered by J. 
B. Howard in this case, and stamped Surveyor-General's 
Office, March 24th, 1876, and which last Exhibit is marked 
Mullen & Hyde, Ex.^ "D. E. F.," April 5th, 1876. 

Peter Gardner objects, as immaterial, irrelevant and in- 
competent. 

Also, by certified copy, the answer in said case of one of 
the defendants, to-wit: Philip Ray, tenant of Samuel R. 



240 

Throckmorton, which Exhibit is marked Mullen & Hyde, 
"G. II. I./' April 5th, 1876. 

Mullen k Hyde now ofter in evidence diagram marked 
Mullen & Hyde's Exhibit, April 4th, 1876, marked '<0.K'^ 

Exhibit oibjected to by Sol. A. Sharp. 

B. S. Brooks also reserves objection. 

Also, by certi tied copy, the testimony of Eusebio Galindo, 
James T. Stratton and Juan Read, as given by said p^arties 
in said case so entitled, and which Exhibit is marked Mul- 
len & Hyde " A. B. C," April 5th, 1876. 

Peter Gardner objects, as immaterial, irrelevant and 
incompetent. 

Also, by certified copy, map entitled map of the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, according to the original diseiio 
and juridical measurement granted to Juan Read ; scale, 20 
chains to 1 inch ; C. C. Tracy, Surveyor and Marker. Ex- 
hibit 1^0. 2, to Tracy's deposition in said case, and which 
certified copv will be marked Exhibit L. M. N., Mullen & 
Hyde, Aprir5th, 1876. 

Also motion of Mullen & Hyde to dismiss all proceedings 
in the case for reasons herein stated, and marked Mullen & 
Hyde, Ex. 0. P. Q., Apnl 5th, 1876. 

Also by certi tied copy various papers pertaining to claim 
of land i north 6 west, M. D. M., as certified by Jas. T. 
Stratton, Julv 20, 1875, and marked Ex. Mullen & Hyde, 
K., April 5th, 1876. 

Also letter of Mullen & Hyde to S. I. Burdett, Com'r G. 
L. ()., marked Mullen & Hyde, Ex. R. S. T., April 5th, 1876. 

Also by certitied copy of map attached to the deposition 
of Wm. E. Hartnell, in case No. 104 of the late Board of 
Land Commissioners, and marked Exhibit, Mullen & Hvde, 
W. y. W., April 5th, 1876. 

Also the original instructions, by certified copy, of Willis 
Drummond, Commissioner, to J. R. Hardenburgh, U. S. 
Surveyor-General for California, of date February 5th, 18 J2, 
and which is marked Mullen & Hyde, A. B, C, April 5th, 
1876. 

Counsel for S. R. Throckmorton here offers Ex. S. R. T. 
No. 18, certitied copy of instructions to Leander Ransom to 
make survey of Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, dated 
July 1873, according to certain lines described in said 
instructions. 

Also " Ex. S. R. T.,No. 19," certified copy of instructions 
to G. F. Allardt, to run a certain line, on the Rancho "Corte 
Madera del Presidio," dated May 8th, 1874, 



241 

Also " Ex. S. R. T. ^o. 20," to accompany S. R. T. ^V 
13, being certified copy of power of attorney from T. B. 
Valentine to S. D. Valentine, dated April 28th, 1870. 

T. B. Valentine re-called b)j Mr. Throcknioriuv. 

Q. 1. Are you acquainted with the heirs of John Road, 
deceased; if so, please state who they are. A. I am. Tliey 
are John J. Read, Ililarita, the wife of Dr. Lyford, and 
Inez, the wife of Mr. Thos. B. Detiebach; I think that the 
said Ililarita was married subsequent to the year 186;). 

Q. 2. Are you acquainted with Maria Garcia de Boyle? 
A. I am. She is a half sister of John, Hilarita, and Inez 
Read, and the wife of Hugh A. Boyle. She is of the same 
mother, but not of the same father as John, Ililarita, and 
Inez. 

T. B. VALEXTIXK 

Peter Gardner being re-called on behalf of Mr. Throck- 
morton, te.stitied as follows : 

Q. 1, Are 3^ou acquainted with the heirs of John Read; 
if so state who they are. A. I am. They are John J. Read, 
Ililarita Read, and Inez Read ; Ililarita being married to 
Dr. Lyford, and Inez being married to T. B. Deffebach. 

Q. 2. State if you know when Inez and Ililarita were 
married. A. I do not recollect the time. 

Q. Do you know if Hilarita Read was married prior to 
or subsequent to May 24th, 1869? A. I think it was after 
that date. 

Q. 8. State if you know who Maria Garcia de Boyle is. 
A. She is a half sister to the other three children before 
mentioned, by the same mother, and Hugh A. Boyle is her 
husband. 

PETER GARDNER. 

Mr. Shanklin, by certified copy, offers a map entitled 
""Plat of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, finally con- 
firmed to the heirs of John Read, surveyed under instruc- 
tions of the U". S. Sur.-Gen'l, by Leander Ransom, Deputy 

Surveyor, in Oct., 1873, containing acres. Var. 16 ^ 

30^ East. Scale 40 chains to the inch," being the map at- 
tached, to the field notes of the final survey of the Rancho 
El Corte Madera del Presidio, finally confirmed to the heirs 
of John Read, surveyed, compiled, and arranged under in- 
structions from the U. S. Survivor-General, by Leander 



242 

Kansoni, Deputy Surveyor, Xov. and Dee., 1873, eontaiiiing' 

acres, concluding with the affidavit of G. F. Allardt^ 

dated January 27, 1874, and Leander Ransom, same date;, 
said map here ottered being made to accompany the testi- 
mony of Wm. J. Lewis, marked S. li. T. l^o. 21. 

Also, Ex. 22 S. E. T., a scale of cordeles conforming to 40 
chains to the inch. 

Also Ex. 'No. 23, S. R. T., certified copy of the map an- 
nexed to deposition of Wm. Hartnell, and referred to in 
objections of S. R. Throckmorton, filed Mav 26th, 1875, be- 
ing also Ex. Mullen & Hyde, U. V. W., April 5th, 1870. 

Here adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m., to-morrow. 



Thursday, April 6th, 1876. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mullen & Hyde hereby give notice that they will file, by 
certified copy, as soon as the same can be prepared from the 
original records, a copy of the memoir, or exposition, ad- 
dressed, in 1837, by General Vallejo, to the departmental 
authorities, particularly remarking the importance of Point 
Tiburon for the defence of the harbor of San Francisco, 
and to which reference is made on pages 393 and 394 of 
Hottrnan's Land Reports. 

R. C. Hopkins is asked to give the date of the San Rafael 
map, filed in the case as Exhibit S. R. T. No. 8, whereupon 
he states that the original records in relation thereto show 
that the survey of the common lands of the Pueblo of San 
Rafael was made by Ignacio Martinez on the 1st of October, 
1834 ; that on the 9th of November, 1834, the field notes of 
the survey were sent to Governor Figuerra for his approval 
thereof; that on the 20th of November, 1834, Figuerra 
wrote to Martinez that because he had not shown the con- 
figuration of the tract surveyed, etc., the approval of the 
survey was suspended ; and finally, that on the 21st of Sep- 
tember, 1835, Ignacio Martinez wrote to the Governor, for- 
warding the map or diseno of the lands surveyed, which 
map now forms a part of the record in relation to the mat- 
ter. R. C. HOPKINS. 

Q. 1. Thos. B. Valentine, called by Mullen & Hyde, in 
connection with Exhibit filed April 5th, 1876, and marked 
*' L, M, N,'' and is asked the question whether he recog- 
nizes said Exhibit as used in connection with Tracy's depo- 



243 

sition, in the ease of Bolton vs. Van Heynegom, et at. A. I 
do not recollect anything about it ; it does not seem to be a 
copy of the Tracy map. 

Q. 2. Please now look at the original from which this 
was traced, and state whether you recognize it as a map 
that you have seen before to-day, and which was used on the 
trial of said case. A. I don't recollect this map as being 
used on the trial of the case referred to. 

Adjourned till 10 J o'clock to-morrow a. m., April 7th, 
1876. 



April 7th, 1876. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mullen & Hyde now offer the deposition of Chas. C. 
Tracy, in the case of James Clinton Bolton vs. Jas. L. 
Van Reynegom, et al., together with the Exhibit No. 2, 
marked Exhibit 2, to Tracy's deposition before the U. S. 
Circuit Court for the District of California, and which Ex- 
hibit is marked "Mullen & Hyde, D. E. F., April 7th, 
1876," said map being referred to as part of said deposition, 
and filed therewith, and spoken of therein, in words as 
follows: "Exhibit Ko. 2 to Deposition of Tracy." 

B. S. Brooks and Sol. A. Sharp reserve objections to fore- 
going ofter. 

R. C. Hopkins called by Mullen & Hyde. 

Sharp objects to any new testimony being introduced at 
this stage of the proceedings. 

B. S. Brooks makes same objection. 

Surveyor-General rules that the testimony sought to be 
introduced by Capt. Mullen is alleged by him to relate to 
new matter, and that that being the case, the office requires 
of him an affidavit setting forth the fact. 

Q. 1. Please look at the original record of the juridical 
possession of the Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, and 
state whether the word " Holon," therein contained in line 
23, on page 1 thereof, appears to have been written in a 
space left blank at the date of the fij-st writing of the 
certificate or paper, or body thereof. A. I think that the 
word " Holon " was written in a space left for that purpose, 
when the body of the instrument was written. 

Q. 2. Is said word Holon written with the same ink, 
the same pen, and same handwriting, as in the body of said 
instrument ? A. I think it is written with different ink, 
but in the same handwriting as the body of the instrument. 
As to the pen, I cannot tell. 



244 

. Objections to foregoing and subsequent questions in detail 
reserved by B. 8. Brooks and Sol. A. Sbarp. 

Q. 3. I ask the same question with reference to word 
San Pablo, on the same page below. A. I think it is writ- 
ten with the same ink as the word Holon on the same page, 
and that was written in a space left for. that purpose. 

Q. 4. I ask the same question with reference to the 
word "Palmas," "Animas," and "San Pablo," in page 5 of 
said original instrument A. I make the same answer in 
relation to those words; that is, that they w^ere written in 
spaces left and in different ink from the body of the instru- 
ment. 

Q. 5. I ask the same question in reference to the words 
*''Yndejena Neri " on page 9 of said record, and the same 
word on page 11. A. The words " Yndejena Neri," on page 
9 appear to have been written in a space, and in ditterent 
ink from the body of the instrument, and the word "Neri" 
on page 11 appears to have been written in a space and in 
different ink. 

Q. 6. Is there any evidence of any kind in this office, to 
show whether the original record of juridical possession of 
the Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio remained in the 
possession of the heirs of the claimant liead and his heirs, 
after the date thereof? A. There is none. 

Q. 7. Have you reason to suppose that said record did 
remain in the possession of Juan Read and his heirs after the 
(bite thereof? A. I suppose it did ; since it was customary 
to give the parties receiving juridical possession, a copy of the 
proceedings had in making the measurements and giving 
possession. 

Q. 8. Do the official records in the archives show any 
other record of juridical possession of said rancho ? A. They 
do not. 

Q^. 9. Do not the official reports on the mission boun- 
daries of record in this office show that the land known as 
Rinconada del Tiburon was claimed and occupied by the 
Mission of San Rafael? A. Anciently, I think that the 
Mission of San Rafael claimed, and perhaps occupied by 
stock, a very large extent of countr}^ north of and bounding 
on the Bay of San Francisco ; I do not think, however, that 
the lands'claimed and occupied by the Mission of San Rafael 
ever had any fixed boundaries — until an attempt was made 
to secularize the mission by converting it into an Indian 
pueblo, in September, 18 B5. 

Q. 10. Would such records be likely to mis-state or 



245 

mistake the facts, and do they vary according to subsequent 
•events ? A. I think not. 

Q. 11. What do you understand the words "Rinconada 
del Tiburon" to mean, as used in the report on the bonn- 
diries of the lands of the Mission of San Rafael of the date 
ot* October 1st, 1834, as shown by the archives of this office^ 
and referred to in this case ? A, The Spanish word " Rw- 
aon^'' means "inside corner," Rinconada, as used by Califor- 
nians, means a large corner or elbow — hence the ex[)ression 
Rjnconada defTiburon means the tract of land embraced 
by the lines forming the point or peninsula of Tiburon. 

Q. 12. lias your attention been heretofore attracted to 
the matters contained in qnestious 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, on pages 
672 and 678 of this record ? A. It has. 

Q. 13. Have you at anj- time, heretofore, given it as 
your opinion, in any manner, to any persons whomsoever, 
that the lands known as the Rinconada del Tiburon did not 
constitute a portion of the rancho of Corte Madera del Pre- 
sidio, and of which juridical measurement was made and 
^iven, as set forth in the records of this case ? A. I never 
have, that I remember of. 

Q. 14. Have you not heretofore called the attention of 
•any party whomsoever to the above subject matters, lead- 
ing to the conclusion that said Rinconada del Tiburon did 
wot constitute a portion of the rancho of " Corte Madera 
<lel Presidio?" A. Beyond giving testimony in this case 
before the courts, and in making translations of the original 
title papers in the case, I do not recollect that my attention 
has been called to this case, or that I have called the atten- 
tion of any one voluntarily or specially to the matter ; I do 
remember, however, that some 5 or 6 years since a gentle- 
man, who at that time was stopping at my house, was em- 
ployed by Mr. Gardner in this case; I think that I trans- 
lated for him the original title papers; I do not remember 
whether I made written or verbat translations of the same ; 
I remember that in examining the original papers, he ob- 
served that spaces had been left for certain names, and that 
these names were written in with different ink ; what his 
theory of the case was I cannot now remember, nor do I 
think I gave it more attention than to translate the papers 
4ind make the required explanations. He is now dead, 

Q. 15. Have you not heretofore furnished, to any person 
whomsoever, data relative to said matters for the purpose of 
showing that said Rinconada del Tiburon did not constitute 
41 part of the rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, of which 



246 

Jiii'idica] measurement was made as set forth in this case ? 
A. I cannot now remember of having furnished data to any- 
One for that purpose, nor do I remember of having giveii 
anv opinion in the matter ; I have from time to time given 
eopies and translations of papers from the archives ; how- 
such papers may have been used I cannot say. 

Q. 16. Then do you understand that the theory that the 
Rinconada del Tiburon did not canstitute a portion of the 
rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, has been entertained 
by parties entirely outside of this case, and for a period of 
at least live or six years prior to this date, and not including 
any parties to this controversy, and at a date subsequent to 
the rejection of the Limentour claim thereto ? A. I cannot 
say. li. C. HOPKINS. 

Adjourned till 10 o'clock a. m., April 10th. 



Monday, April 10th, 1876. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. 

B. S. Brooks offers the following Exhibits, to wit : 

Field notes of survey of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio, finally confirmed to heirs of Juan Read, surveyed, 
compiled and arranged, under instructions of U. S. Surveyor- 
General, by Leander Ransom, Dep. Surveyor, in September 
and October, 1873, with map attached thereto. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde ; grounds of objection re- 
served. 

B. S. Brooks, for claimants, oft'ers in evidence certified 
copy of deed from James C. Bolton to Thos. B. Valentine, 
dated July 25th, 1868, marked T. B. V. Eo. 6. 

Also a deed from John J. Read, Hillaria M. Read, Thos. 
B. i)etfebach, and Inez Deffebach, his wife, to James C. 
Bolton, dated August 12th, 1865, marked " Ex. T. B. V. 
Ko. 7." 

Also a certified copy of the testimony of Eusebio Galindo, 
taken in the case of Bolton vs. Van Reynegom, as a part of 
the record of testimony in said case, marked Ex. T. B. V. 
Ko. 8. 

J. B. Howard objects as to the not the best evidence of 
juridical possession, and U. S. is deprived of the benefit of 
cross-examining said witnesses, who are not shown to be 
dead or without the State. 

Peter Gardner makes same objection, because the wit- 
nesses should be produced, that they may be cross-exam- 
ined. 



247 

Mullen & Hyde object for the reasons as above stated, and 
second, because it is an ex-parie deposition, so far as this 
case is concerned, and therefore violates the instructions of 
the Hon. Com'r General Land Office of the 13th day of 
August, 1872. 

Third, Because it does not bear internal evidence of ever 
having been used as evidence in said case before said Court, 
and the endorsement in words as follows : *' Testimony of 
Eusebio Galindo, taken in Jas. L. Bolton r^. Jno. L. Van 
Reynegom, U. S. District Court," is in the hand-writing of 
R. C. Hopkins, and but recently written. 

Fourth, Because said Exhibit does not show any cross- 
examination, or that the adverse parties were cited to ap- 
pear at the time and place of taking said deposition ; and 
ruling of Surveyor-General asked tor to exclude said depo- 
sition as evidence in this case. 

Surveyor-General rules as follows : 

Also, a certified copy of the testimony of Jose de la Cruz 
Sanchez, taken in the case of Bojton vs. Van Reynegom, 
and Bolton vs. Kasha w, in the U. S. Circuit Court, marked 
"Ex. T. B. V. No. 9." 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as incompetent for the 
purposes of this case, and because said Sanchez is repre- 
sented as being the same Sanchez who has already given a 
deposition some time in 1873, and filed in this case, also ex- 
parte, and which last deposition has mysteriously disappeared; 
and also because it is understood that said Sanchez lives 
within the City and County of San Francisco, and should be 
produced in propria persona, and should be produced for the 
purposes of cross-examination, and ruling of the Surveyor- 
General asked. 

Surveyor-General rules as follows : 

Adjourned till Thursday, April 18th. 



April 18th, 1876. 
Met pursuant to adjournment, and adjournedj till April 



17th at lOJ o'clock 



April 17th, 187d. 
Met pursuant to adjournment. 

Hirani Austin called and sworn on behalf of the claimants. 
Questions by 31r. Sharp, 

Q. 1. AVhat is your name, a^e, occupation, and place of 
residence? A. My name is Iliram Austin, age 55 years, 
occupation surveyor and civil engineer, and residence San 
Rafael, Marin County. 

Q. 2. Do you hold any official position in Marin County; 
if so, what official position? A. I am acting as County Sur- 
veyor of said county. 

Q. 3. Bo you know, and are you familiar with the rancho 
of Corte de Madera del Presidio? A. I do know it, and 
am familiar with it. 

Q. 4. To what extent and in what capacity have you be- 
come famihar with said Rancho? A. I am thoroughly with 
all portions of said ranch(^ and have been so in my capacity 
of surveyor and civil engineer. 

Q. 5. When did you last visit said ranch in your voca- 
tion of surveyor and civil engineer? A* I visited it on the 
8th day of April, 1876. 

Q. 6. Were you upon that occasion shown what has been 
represented as an "old stone mound," as referred to in the 
testimony of G. F. Allardt, during this investigation, as fol- 
lows : " I was on the ground March 23d, 1876, where I 
found an old stone mound, which was pointed out to me by 
Peter Gardner. For a description ot said mound I quote from 
my field notes as made on the ground on that day : Begin- 
ning at an old stone mound, on the top of a round, grassy 
knoll; the mound is an artificial one, about four feet in 
dianieter and two feet high, composed of stones from six 
inches to two feet long, and bears evidence of great age; by 
aneroid measurement it is 440 feet above the tide ; it is the 
nearest high knoll to the bay ; there are no other loose 
stones near the mound. * * * In next succeeding ques- 
tion, Mr. Allardt continues, "I took the following bearings, 
namely, Tiburon Peak bears S. 41^ E.; the extreme east- 
erly point at San Quentin Ferry wharf bears IN". 12i ^ E.; 
the peak of Tamalpais bears N. 78J ^ W.; and California 
Cit}^ Point bears very nearly due east ? A. I was. 

Q. 7, By whom were you conducted to said old stone 
mound? A. By Doctor Benjamin F. Lyford, the gentle- 
man now present. 



249 

Q. 8. 1)1(1 any other persons accompany yon and l)oc{or 
L}ford on that occasion ; if so, who were they ? A. Thos. 
B. Valentine accompanied us, who was the only person. 

Q. 9. Did you, on that occasion, have a copy of th« 
testimony of G. F. Alhirdt, giving courses and distances 
bearing on the location of the old stone mound descrihed 
bv Ailardt ; also, a traced copy of Ex. marked '' O. K.," 
filed by Mullen & Hyde, April 4th, 1876 ? A. I had a copy 
of the Exhibit, and a copy of the testimony containing 
"Courses, distances, &c., referred to in previous questions. 

Q. 10» Did yon, upon the ground and in the presence 
of Doctor B. F. Lyford and Thos. B. Valentine, make 
instrumental tests, and compare said tests with and to said 
bearings, as made by said G. F, Ailardt, in his testimony 
given in this case? A. I did. 

Q. IL Did you, upon said test and comparison, ascer- 
tain the stone mound, to which you were conducted by 
Doctor Lyford, to be the same identical stone mound as indi- 
cated by said G. F. Aliardt's testimony, as above given in 
this case ? A. I ascertained by instrumental ohservation 
that the mound of stone to which I was conducted occupied 
the same location as the one from which Ailardt made his 
observation^ 

Q. 12. What is the nature and general description of 
the land contiguous to and adjoining the stone mound and 
grassy knoll referred to in Aliardt's testimony ? A. Th« 
knoll on w^hich the mound is situated is without brush or 
timber, and what would be considered rocky or stony soil; 
and the adjoining country slopes to the nortlieast, and is 
quite uneven^ 

Q. 18. Does this grassy knoll and the adjoining land 
bear any evidence that it has ever been cultivated 1 A. It; 
does not, 

Q. 14. From what special evidence do you infer that 
said grassy knoll and the adjoining land has never been 
cultivated? A, In the first place, the knoll and th^ sur- 
rounding land is too steep and rocky for cultivation by 
ploughing; in the second place, the rocks and stones lie in 
a natural position, with the mossy sides up, as tliough tliey 
had not been disturbed by cultivation. 

Q. 15. Did you find loose stones in any quantity upon 
this grassy knoll referred to, in appearance similar with the 
stones with which this old mound was formed ? A. I found 
ati abundance of such loose stones ; there are not less thaw 
•iive wagon loads within a radius of 100 feet. 



250 

Q. 16. On this occasion was jonr attention called to 
witness the building of a stone mound upon said p^rassy 
knoll, from loose stones gathered therefrom. A. It was. 

Q. 17, By whom was it built ? A. By Doctor Benj. F, 
Lyford. 

Q. 18. How many minutes were occupied in its con- 
struction ? A. Less than ten minutes, by the watch. 

Q. 19. Did you, as a civil engineer, carefully inspect the 
said mound (constructed by Doctor Lyford) w^ith special ref- 
erence as to its exterior appearance, as regards the position 
of the stones therein placed, and their mossy evidence of 
antiquity ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as irrelevant and incom- 
petent, and it not appearing that it was the duty of a civil 
eiiirineer to establish the mojoneras, as called for in the title 
papers ; nor does it appear that it is the duty or part of the 
profession of civil engineers to build any mounds of this^ 
character in the line of their profession, and therefore the 
judgment of this witness as a civil engineer on this particu- 
lar point has no weight greater than that of any other wit- 
ness. 

A. I did carefully examine the mound constructed by 
Doctor Lyford. 

Q. 20. Under your most searching scrutiny how did thi* 
young mound compare with the old stone mound, as regards 
evidence of its great age ? A. It has the same ancient ap- 
pearance in every respect ; it would be difficult for a stranger 
to discover any difference in appearance between the two, 
with respect to age. 

Q. 21. Please state if the old stone mound presents the 
appearance of having been built with a view to its perma- 
nency, or were the stones placed in a careless manner, as if 
thrown there without respect to position or durability, as 
you saw it at the time referred to ? A. The most of the 
stones lie in a promiscuous manner, without an appearance 
of having been placed to mark some exact specific point. 

Cross- Examination by Mullen ^ Hyde. 

Q. 22. Did you find the bearings and measurements, as 
reported by G. F. Allardt, as far as you examined the same, 
to be correct ? A. I found the point located by Mr. Al- 
lardt, by their cross bearings, and used them to find the pile 
of rocks. 

Q. 23. Please answer the question asked you. A. The 



251 

bearings and measurements pjiven by Mr. Allardt correctly 
point out the location of the pile of rocks. 

Q. 24. Did you, on the occasion spoken of, see any loose 
rocks on the top of the knoll on which the old mound re- 
ferred to is situated ? A. I did ; by the top of the knoll I 
mean ; all the ground within 100 feet, or thereabouts, of 
the stone mound referred to. 

Q. 25. IIow, in shape, does the top of that knoll com- 
pare with the upper end of an egg set on end ? A. The 
top of the knoll is, in shape, a very regular oval. 

Q. 2G. Had this mound, when you saw it, any well de- 
fined shape ; and if so, what shape ? I refer to the exterior 
thereof A. I think a line drawn around the outer portions 
of the stones, as they lie on the ground, would have the 
form of an oblate spheroid. 

Q. 27. Did uot the outer faces of said old stone mound, 
on the occasion you speak of, bear evidence of having been 
put up or constructed with some degree of care, and that 
the rocks included within the said outer faces were the ones 
that were thrown in without any reference to colocation or 
■ care? A. The west and south sides of the mound show 
that they have been built up with some care ; the east and 
north sides look like a pile of rubbish rock, as it would 
after being dumped on the ground from a wheelbarrow. 

Q. 28. From said old stone mound as a center, within 
what length of radius would said knoll have the shape of a 
regular oval? A. The oval extends in a very regular 
shape for a distance of 200 feet or more on nearly all sides 
of the stone mound ; the stone mound is not on the summit 
of the knoll, but is probably 50 feet therefrom. 

Q. 29. Are you positive, that within a radius of 100 feet 
from the old stone mound, as a center, you saw lying on 
the ground not less than five wagon loads of loose stones ? 
A. I am positive that there is that amount of loose stone 
within the radius of 100 feet from the stone mound as a 
center. 

Q. 30. Did you examine said loose ^stones for the pur- 
pose of ascertaining whether they were carried to the places 
found within a recent time, say about the last thirty days? 
A. I did not examine them with special reference to that 
point. 

Q. 31. Did said rocks, from the character of grasses 
growing on said knoll, or other superficial indications, ap- 
pear to have been transported thither within a recent pe- 
riod ? A. I noticed no indications of their being lately 



262 

moved; I recollect now that I noticed numbers within the 
radius of 100 feet from the stone mound, as a center, that 
lay with their mossy sides up. 

Q. 32. Were^not all the slopes of the knoll, upon which 
this old stone mound is situated, covered with a growth of 
green grass, within said radius of 100 feet ? A. It is partly 
covered with rock, partly with grass, and partly bare ground, 

Q. 33, Had you ever seen said old mound prior to the 
8th of April, 1876 ? A. I am not positivethat I had. 

Q. 34. Have you had any experience in judging of the 
age of stone mounds similar in appearance to this old stone 
mound referred to ? A. I have had occasion in retracing 
government surveys of lianchos, etc, to hunt up and inspect 
stone mounds, where they have been monuments on govern- 
ment surveys, 

Q. 36. If you were called upon to express your opinion 
as to the age of this particular old stone mound, what great- 
est age would you say it had or would you venture an opin- 
ion ? A. I do not know of any means by which any one 
could decide by observation on the age of this pile of stones, 

Q. 37, Did you observe at the said radius of 100 feet 
any indications leading to show that either the rocks or 
stones, or soil, had been recently disturbed? A. I did not, 
excepting what occurred on the day that I visited the place, 

Q. 38. How far from the old stone mound is the place 
situated, where Doctor Lyford built his ^^ young stone mound," 
as by you narrated ? A. Within a distance of less than 
50 feet — in an easterly direction therefrom. 

Q. 39. Was any of the stones of the old stone mound 
Used in the construction of the young stone mound, or was 
said old stone mound in any manner disturbed by any of the 
parties then present? A. ^one of the stones of the old 
mound were used in constructing the new one, and the old 
stone mound was in do way disturbed during my visit on 
that occasion, so far iis I know. 

Q. 40. Did said old stone mound bear any appearance- 
of recent disturbance ? A. The northeast portion of the 
mound has within a recent period fallen or been thrown 
outward. 

Q. 41, From what place of rendezvous did you start on 
said visit to said mound? A. I came from San Rafael to 
Mr. Kead's house, from whence I went on foot in company 
with Mr. Lyford and Mr. Valentine to the knoll and mound 
in question, which is situated in a northeast direction at a 
distance of about one mile from Mr. Read's house. 



253 

Q. 42. "Who led tlie way? A. The gentlemen men- 
:tioned, who were in company with ine. 

Q. 43. Did either of them say or intimate that they had 
1)een there before ? A. I don't recollect what they said, 
but I understood from what was said generally that they 
knew where the mound was. 

Q, 44. Did yon, en route, mistake any other mound for 
this particuhtr one that you were in question of? A. I have 
110 recollection of makinsr ^^v such mistake; I did not look 
for or ex[>ect to find the mound until it was shown me by 
•the gentlemen who accompanied me, 

Q. 45. Then you found the mound in the manner as by 
you stated, without tlie wse of instruments up to that time ? 
A. I found that mound in the manner stated ; I then used 
the instrument to determine as to wliether it was the same 
*niound visited and described by Mr. Allardt. 

Q. 46. What instrument did you have ? A. A sur- 
veyor's transit instrument, 

Q. 47. With a tripod ? A. Yes, witli a tripod. 

Q. 48, Did you make any measurements of distance? 
A. I did not test Mr. A31ardt^s measurements ; I made some 
measurements. 

Q. ,49. What angles did 3'our measure fi'om said monu- 
ment or bearings take ? if any, please give the same, without 
using the memoranda that was furnished you. A, I used 
the bearings of Allardt, and found therefrom that I was at 
the same stone mound as described by him. 

Q. 50, Did you see Mr. Read at Ids house on this occa- 
sion ? A. I did. 

Q. 5L Did you have any conversation with him on that 
occasion or at any other time relative to that stone uiound 'i 
A. I do not think that 1 did. 

Q. 51. Did you leave the young stone mound built by 
Doctor Lyford, just as he constructed it ? A. 1 did. 

Q. 52. llow far was it necessary to ti-ausport the stones 
to construct the young stone mound, constructed by Doctor 
Lyford ? A. About ten feet — the stones of which this 
mound is constructed range from a few inches to two feet in 
length. 

Adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow moniing. 



254 

Tuesday, April I8tlj, 1876: 

Met pursuant to acljoiirnment^ 

John J. Read, called and sworn on behaif of the claimants. 

By Mr. Sharp : 

Q* 1, What is yoar name, age, occupation and place of 
residence? A. My name is John J.. Read; age 89 years;, 
occupation farmer ; and residence Marin Cbuuty, California; 
on the Rancho Corte Maclera del Presidio. 

Q. 2. Do yon know the stone mound situated upon saitJ 
Rancho " Corte Madera dol Presidio," to which your atten- 
tion (upon the ground) was called by Doctor R F. Lvford 
on the 1st day of April, 1876 ? A. 1 do. 

Q. 3. Please state what other ^>er&ons accompanied yoii 
and Doc^;or Lyford on that occasion ? A. Mr. R. C. Hop- 
kins and Mr. llngh A. Boyle. 

Q. 4. Has yoLUr attentioii been previously called to the 
same locality ? if so^ please state, if you recollect, when and 
how your attention w^isjirsi specially called to the position now 
occupied, by what has been de^igimted as the " old stone 
mound/' A. In 1858, when I took charge of the rancho 
from the Administrators, in driving up the stock around 
the ranchy I found a stake that had live or six rocks hold 
ing the stake in position. 

Q. 5. Please state, if you know, who piletl the additional 
stones upon those iive or six you found against, or around 
the bottom of the stake you have referred to — so that ( what 
is designated) the old stone mound presents its present size 
and condition. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, because it assumes as 
facts matters not proven to be such, 

A. I myself built it, with my own hands,[a& I have built 
a good many others on the ranch, 

Q. 6. What motive had you, if any, in thus building 
upon these five or six little stones, you found placed against 
and holding this stake, to which your attention was first 
called ? A. Kothing more than to clear ofi:* the ground. 

Q. 7* Have you frequently built like stone piles upon other 
similar localities, over which you were in the habit of passing 
in search of stock on said rancho ? A. I have built a good 
many, in different places on the rancho. 

Q. 8. Has the land upon which these stone piles you 
have referred to been cultivated? A. No, never, and never 
will be; it is too rocky. 

Q. 9. Is that stake still standing within the stone pile 
first referred to, upon which the old stone mound is built ? 
A« No. 



255 

Q. 10. State, if 3-011 know, when, and by whom, said 
stake was removed, and where was this stake placed at that 
time ? A. It was removed the same day that I made that 
pile of stones ; it was Removed by myself, and was put in 
the crevice of a rock, which is shaded by a laurel tree. 

Q. 11. Have you since seen said stake; if so, please state 
when and where? A. I have, on the 1st day of Ar-ril, 
1876, and at the same place where I placed it when I re- 
moved it in 1858. 

Q. 12. Has said stake since been removed from the 
crevice of the rock, in which you placed it in 1858 ? if so, 
please state, if you know, when and by what person it was 
removed. A. Yes, it has been removed, by myself, on the 
1st of April, 1876. 

Q. 13. Was there any other person present at the time, 
and saw you remove said stake from within the crevice of 
this rock, as above referred to ? if so, state who was present, 
and what was done with said stake on that occasion, to wit, 
1st of April, 1876. A. Yes, Mr. II. C. Hopkins, Doctor 
Lyford, and Hugh A. Boyle, and I handed the stake to Mr. 
Hopkins, who took charge of the same. 

Q. 14. When you, in person, took charge of said rancho 
in 1858, did you, or did you not, also see several stakes, stand- 
ing in different lines in this locality, of similar size, and 
comparative age as to their external appearance — suggesting 
that they were all connected with some special survey? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as leading and assuming 
reasons as facts, matters not proven to be such. 

A. I did; I saw a good many standing up, and a good many 
knocked doivn, as the California City tract, and on that side 
of the hill. 

Cross- Examination by Mullen ^ Hyde, 

Q. 15. Had you, prior to 1858, ever seen said old stone 
mounds ? A. No, I was not over the rancho before that 
time. 

Q. 16. What time in 1858 was it that you first saw thi^ 
mound, and this stake? A. It was after the month of 
June, 1858, when I took charge of the rancho. 

Q. 17. Was any one present with you when you piled 
these rocks, and removed this stake ? A. No, no one. 

Q. 18. You were alone then, were you ? A. I was. 

Q. 19. What was your object in removing this stake ? 
A. I had no special object. 



256 

Q. 20. Did you remove the other stakes referred to by 
you ? A. No. 

Q. 21. Explain to us, if capable of explanation, bow it 
comes that you removed this particular stake, and carryinj^ 
it off, placed it in the crevice of a rock, and yet did not 
disturb any other of the several stakes standing in that lo- 
cality ? A. Being a high knoll, when I was after stock, 
used to stand on the top of it to look on the slope of the 
hill ; I gotoff of my horse, and without thinking anything 
more than to clear off the ground, I took the stake out, 
that the rocks were holding, and went to work and gathered 
all the loose rocks that were on the knoll near the stake, 
and built that hill of rocks, and I took the stake, and laid it 
w^here I have already stated, without thinking anything 
about it. 

Q. 22. Why should you exercise such great care, at 
that time, in preserving the stake, as you have stated ? A. 
As I have already stated, I did so without thinking any- 
thing about the stake. 

Q. 23. Why did you not take the same care, with re- 
ference to the other stakes of the same kind, size, etc? A. 
I do not know ; but, I did not ride over the other portions 
of the rancho as often as I did over this place ; because 
from this knoll I could see all the slope of the hill, which 
saved one from riding over nearly one-half of the rancho. 

Q. 24. Had you, just prior to the 1st day ot April, 1876, 
visited said old stone mound, and said crevice, where the 
stake was placed, and if so, how long prior? A. No, I had 
not ; I had not seen said stake since I placed it there, till the 
1st day of April, 1876, nor had I thought of it. 

Q. 25. How many mounds similar to this have you built 
on this Eancho of Corte Madera del Presidio ? A. I do not 
know; I have not counted them, but I have built a good 
many, perhaps twenty or thirty. 

Q. 26. Please state and describe the localities where you 
have built, say ten of them. A. I have built them in dif- 
ferent places, where there is plenty of loose rock to build 
them, and wherever I have pleased to build them. 

Q. 27. Please answer my question. A. I have built 
that one, and I have built one within about 250 or 300 yards, 
in a westerly direction, from the stone mound referred to, on 
the top of a hill; I cannot state the time at which I built it ; 
but it was a short time after I built the one in question. 

Q. 28. When did you last see the last mound described ? 
A. On the 1st day of April, 1876. 



Q. 


30. 


Q- 


31. 


Q. 


32. 


Q. 


83. 


Q. 


34. 



257 

Q. 29. Describe a second mound and locality. A. I can't 
describe it. 

Describe a tbird. A. I can't describe it. 
Describe a fourth. A. I can't describe it. 
Describe a fifth. A. I can't describe it. 
Describe a sixth. A. I can't describe it. 
Describe a seventh. A. I can't describe it ; they 
are on the o^round and anybody can go and look at them. 
Q. 35. Describe an eighth. A. J can't describe it. 
Q. 36. Describe a ninth. A. I can't describe it. 
Q, 37. Describe a tenth. A. I can't describe it. 
Q. 38. How far from the old stone mound is the crevice 
of the rock in which you placed said stake ? A. About 150 
yards, or 200. 

Q. 39. Describe the size and character of said stake, as 
you saw it in 1858. A. The stake is about 18 inches or 
two ft'Ct long ; about three inches square, and of redwood ; 
it had no bark upon it. 

Q, 40. Was said stake split or sawed ? A. I cannot say 
whether it was split or sawed, but it was smooth enough to 
put marks upon it. 

Q. 41. Had it any marks upon it in 1858 ? A. Yes, it 

Can you describe, such as were on it in 1858 ? 

Do so. A. The marks were VII W". 
Any other marks in 1858 ? A. Not that I know 
or recollect. 

Q. 45. What special survey, did you at that time sup- 
pose that this mound or this stake suggested ? A. I did 
not think of any survey at that time, but afterwards, I 
thought it was Buckelew's Survey, 

Q. 46. Did the other stakes by you referred to have 
similar marks thereon, or any marks thereon ? A. Most 
all the stakes were marked. 

Q. 47. Describe the marks on the same as you saw them. 
A. The marks were with the same kind of numbers as this 
one, and with different letters, pointing' out JS. W. N. and K 
in that way. 

Q. 48. Describe the letters and numbers on all the stakes 
you saw marked. A. It is imposible for me to describe 
the letters on all the stakes; for I think there were more 
stakes there than I could count in an hour or two, if I had 
to walk to every one of them, and pick them out. 

Q. 49. Describe the letters on these stakes, as you saw 



had. 




Q. 


42. 


A. 


Yes, 


Q. 


43. 


Q. 


44. 



258 

them in 1858. A. I have ah-eady described them to the 
best of my recollection. 

Q. 50. Well, what letters did they have on them ? A. 
It is imposlble for me to recollect all the letters they had on 
them. 

Q. 51. Describe, or state, what letter was on any one of 
them ? A. W. 

Q. 52. Any other letter on the same stake ? A. VII. 

Q. 53. Anything else ? A. Not that I can recollect. 

Q. 54. "Was this same letter " W," and tb.ese figures on 
all the stakes? A. Ko, different letters and different num- 
bers. 

Q. 55. Why did you not preserve some of these stake^^ 
so marked and numbered, in the same manner and with the 
same degree of care with which you state you d;d witn ihe 
stake that you removed from the old stone mound referied 
to ? A. I do not kndw. 

Q. 56. On the 1st of April, 1876, did you find tljis old 
stone mound in the same condition in wliich you left it in 
1858 ? A. Almost in the same condition, with the exce[>- 
tion that there were a few small rocks down. 

Q. 57. Describe the manner in which, in 1858, you built 
said old stone mound, and the shape and the size thereof. 
A. I believe that I have already stated that I found the 
stake on the top of the knoll, with ^ve or six rocks, holding 
the stake ; I took up the stake, and fixed up the rocks, and 
built on the top of those few rocks, with all the loojje rocks 
that were laying on the top of the ground near the stake ; I 
cannot state about the size of the pile of rocks, because I 
did not measure it ; the shape was kind of round ; I tried to 
get it as even as I could. 

Q. 58. Was this because you supposed this old stone 
mound was a monument, suggesting that it was connected 
with some special survey ? A. No ; I did not suppose any- 
thing, or think anything of a survej^, or anything else — at 
that time. 

Q. 59. Did you not suppose that the other stakes were 
monuments, suggesting that they were all connected with 
some special survey ? A. I had heard that the other 
stakes were for town lots, that Buckelew had laid out on 
the California City tract. 

Q 60. Did you hear the same thing in reference to the 
stake which you removed from the old stone mound ? A. 
No — because where that stake was set was considered out- 
side of the California City lines, or tract. 



259 

Q. 61. Then the stake in the old stone mound bad no 
K50iinection with the special surveys that were marked with 
the other stakes ? 'A. That is more than I can say. 

Q, 62, Have ^''ou seen an5' of those other stakes referred 
to since 1858 ? A. I have. 

Q. 68, How recently V A. I do not -recollect, but it 
was when, I believe, Mr. Buchanan was surveying for Peter 
<jrard ner, 

Q. 64, Was any one with you at the time? A. I be- 
lieve Buchanan, the surveyer, was with me, and either 
Peter Gardner or his brother. 

Q. Q5^ J')o you know where that man Buchanan is, and 
state his first name, if you know it. A. I do not know 
where he is wor 4.o I know his first name; the last I heard 
of him was that he had gone to Los Angeles. 

Q. 66, Was that stone mound over inside of what was 
dialled the California City tract? A. No, 

Q. 67. A re you one of the parties in interest in this case? 
A. J am; I am one of the heirs of John Read, deceased. 

Q. 68. Was there any rock moands at the localities 
where the other stakes were [»laced ? A, No; some of 
■them were driven in the ground and others were down. 

Q. 69. Were all these other stakes inside the California 
City tra€t? A, The most oi them were ; thei'c were a few 
outside. 

JOHN J. READ. 

Hiram- Aasiin recalled % *S. A. Sharp ^ for clamaits. 

Q. 1. Witness is here shown a map and asked if he re- 
cognizes the same; if so, what does it represent, and how 
J(mg since you have known the same ? A. I have the m ip 
before me ; I saw this map fir.st in 1865, (jo, or 67, 1 am not 
positive which year, at Peter Gardner's house ; it is a phit of 
the surveys or a portion of them at least, made under the 
direction of B. R. Buckelew, in laying out the streets and 
blocks of California City and Marin Cit\'. 

.Q. 2. Does it also contain other [)latting? if so, state 
what. A. It does; among otlier things, it shows the exterior 
boundary lines of the tract of land known as the Caltfornui 
City Tract; it also shows the shore line of the Bay of San 
Francisco, and it shows the base atri meridian lines, from 
which the streets and streets are laid otfand numbered. 

Q. 3. Do you believe said map to be a copy, or an ori- 
ginal plat of the surveys referred to ? 



260 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as incamp^tent ; on'gfnaP 
maps, or copies thereof, cannot be proved in any such man^ 
ner, 

A. I believe it to be an oriorinal plat; the work on it 
showing that it was made from the field notes of the survey, 

Q. 4, Does the map before yo« purport to be an ori-* 
ginal or a copy ; or does its appearance indicate that it is 
ancient or modern? A. The appearance indicates that it 
is a number of years old; I know it to be as much as nine 
3'ears old; but I have no means of knowing how old it is; 
the indications on the map would indicate to any draughts- 
man that it was platted from the lield note^, and conse- 
quently an original map, 

Q, 5, Witness is shown Exhibit ''P. G. 'Eo. 2/' and is 
asked if this map correctly represents the California Oity 
Tract, as claimed, and now in possession of Edwin Gardner; 
and marked on said P^xhibit: ''^ Claim by Edwin G^rdner^ 
320 acres/ ^ 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde as irrelevant, 

A. The lines drawn on tiie map, and shaded yellow, cor- 
rectly represent the location of the California City tract, so- 
called, as now i!i possession of Edwin Gardner; a portion of 
the sentence '' California City, claimed by Edwin Gardner, 
329 acres" — is written outside of the lines drawn to repre- 
sent the California City tract, 

Q, 6. l>oes the tract yon have mentioned on your last 
answer, correspond with the tract represented upon the old 
Buckelew map, which has been exhibited to you, and which 
you state from its appearance to have been made from iield 
notes and which map we now offer, marked "Ex. B, li. 
Buckelew !No. 1," by traced copy. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde; said two Exhibits being 
in evidence will speak for themselves ; said last Exhibit is 
objected to as incompetent ; it has no scale ; it has no 
meridian; it bears no title ; it does not show when or by 
whom, or for what purpose it was made, nor authenticated 
in any manner whatsoever, but bears on its face marked 
discrepancies, as to the exterior boundaries of the tract-re- 
ferred to. 

A. It does not ; the showing of the boundary lines on 
the Buckelew map, Ko. 1, correspond with the description 
given in the deed of the tract from Buckelew to Gardner, 
while the tract as shown Ex. P. G. No. 2, does not show 
lines corresponding with the deed above referred to. 

Q. 7. Look at Exhibit P. G. No. 2, at the place marked 



261 

*'old stone mound," and state whether that is the same mound 
referred to in the testimony of Mr. AUardt and in your for- 
mer testimony in this case, and whether it is correctly re- 
presented thereon, and your means of knowledge ? A. The 
point marked " old stone mound," on Exhibit P. G. No. 2, 
shows the location of said mound with respect to surround- 
ing objects shown on said Exhibit. By surrounding objects 
I mean the shore line of the Bay of San Francisco, Califor- 
nia City Point, the lines of the California City Tract, and 
particularly the point marked on the map as the end of the 
521st course of the Ransom survey. I ascertained this state 
of facts by reducing the measurements on the Buckelew^ 
map No. 1, and applying them on the map marked P. G. 
No. 2, as also by applying the bearings taken by Mr. Allardt 
as shown in his testiniomy and tested and found correct by 
myself on the ground, 

Q. 8. The witness is here shown Exhibit ^'M. and H. 
X. Y. Z." and is asked if he has compared said last named 
Exhibit with Exhibit P. G. No. 2, with reference to the 
exact position of what is represented thereon as stone mound, 
and state if they agree with each other as to position of the 
stone mound as above referred to ? A. I have compared 
the position of the point marked *^ stone mound," on the Ex- 
hibit M. and H. X. Y. Z. with the position of the point 
marked old stone mound on Exhibit P. G. No. 2, and find 
them to be identical. 

Q. 9. Witness is now shown Exhibit Buckelew No. 1, 
being a traced copy of the map heretofore designated by 
him in his testimony as Buckelew's map of California and 
Marin cities, and is asked to locate the position of said old 
stone mound thereon. A. I have heretofore, by careful 
measurement, located the exact position which the old stone 
mound occupies with reference to surrounding objects on 
the Exhibit before me, and it is shown on said Exhibit by a 
red dot within a small re<l circle in the central portion of the 
left hand end of the map. The certificate dated April 17th, 
1876, and signed by me, and also the reference to the scale 
sighed by me, and also tlie references and writing, referring 
to the dot as representing the position of the old stone 
mound signed by me, and the other writing on the map re- 
ferring to the old stone mound, and the dot representing the 
same, signed by me, were made by me on this traced copy, 
and do not appear upon the original. My object in making 
the said certificates and writings and signing the same was 
to elucidate and explain my evidence. All of which appears 
in each of said writinirs. 



262- 

Q. 10. Please look upon saict last mentioned Exhibit 
and' state what the position marked with a red dot surround- 
ed by a circle represents? A. It represents the crossing, 
ol' two streets; one is shown on the map as a Street 1 1^^ 
and the other as a Street VII W. The Exhibit before me 
shows only the portions of the original which were drawn in 
ink. The pencil portions are not copied. 

MuHen & Hyde object to the introduction and \me of, as- 
an Exhibit in this case, the copy traced on linen of what is- 
purported to be a map of what is termed the Buckelew 
survey of the California City Tract, for reasons as follows: 

1st. Because said traced copy i& not certified or other- 
wise authenticated by the U. S. Snrv^eyor-Gei>eral, as being a 
full, true and correct copy of the original thereof a& hereto- 
for oifered and already on file in this case. 

2d. Because said traced copy is not certified or authen- 
ticated by any other person, capable ar authorized in law to- 
certify to the correctness thereo£ 

3d. Because said traced copy, w^ben introduced and filed, 
had thereon writings, figures, annotations and other addenda 
not contained on the original thereof. 

4th. Because said traced eopy tails to show lines, anno- 
tations and other matters delineated on the original, w^hicli 
in our judgment are essential and necessary to be shown, 
and which not being so sliown, under said tracing only a 
partial and garbled copy of the original. 

5th. Because said original would appear to be represen- 
tations of matters by new or fresh lines delineated on a 
sheet of very old and soiled paper, as if for the purpose of 
giving antiquity to said original, and lays the same open, 
and liable to, if not deserving of the objection^ of being pre- 
pared for a specific purpose in this case, to wit ; for the pur- 
pose of confounding an old stone mound, claimed to be, by 
us, an old land mark of the original survey of this rancho 
with the intersection of two imaginary streets of an im- 
aginary^ town "site," and which town, in fact, has not, nor 
ever did have, nor is ever likely to have an}" existence, and 
which, even on said original plat, does not appear ever to 
have been laid down, as having any existence on paper. 

6th. Because said original plat is purported to represent 
and delineate the field notes of an actual survey, when 
neither said field notes, nor survey, nor any part of either, 
nor the surveyor w^ho made them, nor living witnesses cap- 
able of testifying to the facts, nor any oflicial or other cus- 
todian thereof to account for their loss or absence. 



263 

lt\u Because all of said matters and said testimony per* 
taining thereto are sought to be established by a gentleman 
a, stranger to the survey, a stranger to the original map so 
far as the record shows, but who, apparently in anticipation 
of certain specific questions to be propounded to him, had 
not in the presence of this office when asked to locate the 
exact position thereon of certain objects, shows by his an- 
swers that he had already, and not in the presence of this 
office or of counsel, located the same. 

8th. Because the correctness and truth of all of said mat- 
ters are sought to be established by a witness heretofore 
called, and only two days ago, and by the same party who 
MOW calls him, and whose direct testimony had not only 
been closed and subjected to the cross-examination of these 
objections and in accordance with the rule invited insisted 
upon by the parties producing this witness and made against 
these objectors, the U. S. Surveyor-General established it as 
a rule to be followed without exception in this case, that the 
truth of such matters could not be shown in any such man- 
ner, and did decline, and did refuse to permit these objec- 
tors to introduce new matter in this manner unless preceded 
by affidavit of the part}^ so offering the same, and did com- 
pel against their wishes these objectors to make and file in 
this case an affidavit before they could proceed in this man- 
ner, and counsel now moves that all testimony given by Mr. 
Hiram Austin, from page 717 to page 724 be stricken out 
for the reasons above stated, and that neither now nor here- 
after they constitute any portion of the evidence of this case, 
and the Surveyor-General is now called upon to rule upon 
said motion. 

Objections overruled and motion denied. 

Questions by Mr. Sharp: 

Q. 11. Please take Mullen & Hyde Exhibit marked O.K, 
filled April 4, 1876, and is asked to please pass a line in pen- 
cil due east and west, through the center of said old stone 
mound thereon represented, and is asked to measure along 
said line thus drawn in pencil due west 800 feet, and at the 
termination of said distance make a dot in circle, and is 
asked, could a person standing in the locality of said dot in 
circle, see California City Point ; if not, please state why 
said point could not be seen ? A. I have drawn the lines 
and points called for in the question on the Exhibit referred 
to ; the dot in the penciled circle falls in a ravine, or depres- 
sion, from which California City Point cannot be seen, on 
account of the intervention of the hill on which the old 
stone mound is situated. 



264 

Q. 12. Please likewise draw a line in pencil, through 
the center of said mound, on a true meridian, and measure 
along said line thus drawn 800 feet due south, and indicate 
the termination of said line by a dot likewise in circle, and 
is asked could a person standing upon said dot, or termina- 
tion of said measurement, see what is known as the part of 
San Quentin Point due north of said line ; if not, please state 
the reasons why. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde as irrelevant and immate- 
rial. 

A. They could not see that part of Point San Quentin 
due north of the stone mound, from the point indicated, on 
account of the intervention of the hill, on which said old 
stone mound is situated. 

Q. 13. Witness is now shown a certified traced copy, 
marked Ex. B. E"o. 2, and is asked to mark, in ink, the same 
points and lines and circles upon said traced copy. A. I 
have transferred said lines and points as desired. 

Q. 14. Have you, upon the ground and from the records 
of Marin County, seen any evidence that such a survey as 
Buckelew's survey of Marin and California cities, as repre- 
sented upon Ex. Buckelew No. 1, has ever been made ; if so, 
please state what such evidence shows ? 

Objected to as immaterial and incompetent. 

A. I have, on the ground included in these surveys, seen 
numbers of stakes marked, which from tests applied in 
measurements, the data of which I took from this map 
proved to be monuments, set to perpetuate lines of streets 
and blocks, as shown on this map ; I have also had occa- 
sion, in my official capacity of County-Surveyor of Marin 
County, to re-locate on the ground a lot conveyed by B. R. 
Buckelew to Susan Wright, said lot being one of the lots 
shown on this map, in. the portion of this plat known as 
Marin City, at Point San Quentin, the description in that 
deed, (which is a matter of record in the Recorder's Office 
of Marin County,) refers to and follows, in measurement and 
direction, the lines of streets and blocks, as shown on this 
map, marked "Ex. Buckelew No. 1 ;" there have been also, 
within the last 18 months, other stakes on Point San Quen- 
tin, so marked as to be evideiitly of the same series of mon- 
uments found on California City Survey. 

Mullen & Hyde move that the foregoing answer be stricken 
out, as secondary and incompetent. 

Q. 15. Can the site upon which this old stone mound is 
situated be seen by a person standing upon the deck of a 



265 

steamer crossing from Saucelito to San Francisco, over the 
usual course of steamers between these two points ? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde ^s irnmaterml. 

A. It cannot. 

Cross- Examination by Mullen ^ Hyde, 

Q. 16, You state that you first saw th-e original of " Ex, 
Eackelew l^o. 1" in 1865, 6Q, or 67; please state when, 
where and in whose ciastody you next saw said original ? 
A. I have not seen it since that time until the present oc- 
casion. 

Q. 17. Did you not see said original outside of this office 
prior to being recalled by claimants to testify in relation 
thereto ? A. I saw it in my office, in San Rafael, and 
here, before I saw it yesterday. 

Q. 18. How did it get into your office in San Eafael, and 
when ? A, Doctor Lyford brought it to my office in San 
Kafa€l, one evening last week. 

Q. 19. For what purpose ? A. I think his object was 
to see at what point on the map Mr. Allardt's bearings and 
measurements woula locate the old stone mound. 

Q. 20. Did he state that to be the object ? A. He did 
not state to me explicitly what object he had in vi^w, that 
I recollect of — but I judged afterwards from what occurred 
during the time he was at my office ; and I think also he 
wished to ascertain whether I recognized the map as one that 
I had previously seen. 

Q. 21. Does this original map appear on its face as to 
lines in ink and pencil, and annotations, the same in all 
respects as when you saw it in 65, 66, or 67 ? A, I recol- 
lect that a portion of the lines were drawn in ink, and a 
portion in pencil at that time ; but do not know absolutely 
that there have not been additional hues inked in since that 
time. 

Q. 22. Do you know whether any of the lines thereon 
have been re-traced in ink since you first saw it ? A. I do 
not know whether there has been or has not been. 

Q. 23. Did you indicate on this map in any manner the 
position that would correspond to the position of the old 
stone mound, as represented on the other Exhibits, concern- 
ing which you testified yesterday ? A. I made no marks, 
or dots, nor any addition to the map whatever, I may have 
pointed out on the map where the point would come. 

Q. 24. I notice on this original map two dots in lead 



26(y 

p-errcif, freshly made, which I will point out to you, armi 
loark in pencil opposite to theni A.. B. within circles ; were 
said two dots on the map when you first saw it ? A. I think 
the dot A.y at the time I saw the m^ap last weeky had an ap- 
pearance like the two dots abo\^e it^ bitt has since been 
shaded deeper with a pei>cil ; I thi»k the dot B. was not on* 
the map at that time^ 

Q. 25. Was dot B. oo th?s map yesterday, when yotn 
were testifying in relation to said map^ then before you ? 
A. I cannot tell whether it was or not. 

Q. 26. Please project on said original map, in pencil,, 
the position con-esponding^vith the position of the old stone 
mound referred to. A, I have not the necessary instru- 
ments here to do so, and it would require more time than I 
have at my command just now — ^I am willino^ to do so iin 
presence of counsel^ whenever an opportunity offers, 

Q. 27. Did you make this traced copy oi the o-riginal ? 
A. No, I did not, but carefully compared them, 

Q. 28, Did you project on this- tracing the position of a 
red dot marked in a circle thereon, to represent the position 
of the old stone mound? A, I placed the dot surrounded 
by a red circle which indicates the location of the old stone 
mound on this map, from measurements and courses taken 
thereon: 

Q. 29. Did you furnish the data to any other person ? 
A. I did not, 

Q. 30. What data and from what sources obtained, did 
you indicate said position? A. I used Mr, Allardt's field 
notes as given in his testimony and proven by myself on 
the grounds to be c<)rrect as far as bearings are concerned. 

Q. 31. Please indicate on this tracing by a red dot marked 
"B" the position corresponding with the position of the 
dot marked " B," referred to by you in answer to question 
24? A. Surveyor-General explains that dot '^ B " was 
placed on the map by himself this morning, while consider- 
ing the objections of counsel for contestants, 

Q. 32. Do you know the date, when the so-called Buck- 
elew Survey was made? A. I do not. 

Q. 33. Do you know of any reason why any points on 
the ground, outside of the land you speak of, as having been 
deeded by Buckelew to Gardner, shuld he marked to denote 
intersection of streets, and which points are shown to be 
entirely outside of what purports to represent a town site on 
the original map marked as Exhibit Buckeiew No. 1, in 
ink ? A. At the time that the town site was laid out, Buck- 



267 

«lew ownefl, or claimed to own, several thousand acres of 
land in Marin County, which inclnded the Read Rancho, 
on which California City was laid out, and the Rancho of 
Punta de San Queatin, on a portion of whi<3h Marin City 
was laid out; the tracing marked Ex. Buckekw x^To. 1, 
■does not show the portion of the town site which is shown 
on the original by lines drawn in pencil ; a large portion of 
which town site was outside of the tract of land conveyed 
by Bnckelew to Gardner. 

Q. 34. Bo you know, or have you any means of ascer- 
taining what sifi^ns or characters were used or employed in 
«ald survey to denote and mark the intersections of streets ? 
A. These which I have seen, or to which my attention has 
been culled, have been mai'ked with letters N". S. E, or W, 
and with Roman numerals indicating the position of the 
stakes on which the niarks were made from the crossing of 
the base and meridian lines, as shovyn by the lines and figures 
on said mayj. 

Q. 35. Have you seen the stake, which is said to have 
been removed from the old stone mound in 1858, by John 
Read ? • A, I have. 

Q. 36, Does it bear any letters and numerals, and if so, 
what ? A. It has very distinctly, on it, the Roman num- 
erals VII. and the letter W; the stake appears to me to have 
had other marks or figures cut thereon, but they have become 
illegible, as I judge, from the lapse of time. 

Q. 37. If said numerals were used to denote the number 
of the street from the base line and sajid W to indicate its 
direction from the meridian, would not said stake apply to 
any point of street VIL, from the base with an intersection 
of any other street at right angles therewith equally as to 
the intersection of streets indicated in said plat as Street I. 
]^. and VIL W, in the absence of any positive proof to the 
contrary ? A. Most undoubtedly it would. 

Q. 38. Have you seen any other stakes, either on the 
Marin City plat, (»r California City plat, similarly marked^ 
and if so, when ? A. I have, at different times during the 
last ten years, in making surveys and in passing over these 
lands, seen stakes marked with the letters and numerals in 
my answer to question 34. 

Q. 39. Can you, and will you, if possible, please do so, 
furnish this office for the purposes of this case, any one of 
the stakes, that you have found so marked, say within the 
next 30 days ? A. I know of one that I can furnish and 
will furnish it. 



26^8' 

Q, 40r When, where aud in whose custody did you last 
see the stake, which it is alleged stood in the old stone- 
mound and as having been removed therefrom by Mr. Johni 
Read ? A. I saw it last in the Surveyor-General's Office,, 
in San Francisco, but I don't know i» whose custody it was; 
I think it was on Monday or Tuesday of this week. 

Q. 41. In whose custody did said stake appear to be at 
that time ? A. I saw it in the hands of Mr. Wild, Doctor 
Lyford, and had it in my hands in the draughtsmen's room,, 
but do not know in whose custody it wa&. 

At this stage the witness says I know of one which I will 
furnish now, which is marked IT S. on one side and X. W. 
on another side. This stake I found standing without doubt 
in its original position, and from crossbearings taken and 
measurements made on the ground and from that position,, 
and applied to the Buckelew Map of California City, it un- 
doubtedly stood at the point shown on the map as the cross- 
ing of the street II. south with the street X, w^est. 

Q. 42. Are the marks "X W." made in the same man- 
ner and with the same instrument as the iigures "II S?'' 
A. I have no means of knowing; they were both made by 
some sharp instrument, as the point oi a kiufe, but I have 
no means of knowing whether they were both made by the 
same knife. 

Q. 43. Please indicate on the original Buckelew Map 
the position where yon found said stake ? A. I am indi- 
cating that point with my pencil. 

Witness now points to a position on line ten from the 
meridian, which he marks in pencil with a cross, 

Q. 44. Can you, and will you, produce the stake which 
is said to have been taken from the old stone mound ? A. 
It is not in my possession nor keeping. 

Q. 45. Where did you get the other stake from which 
you already produce ? A. Dr. Lyford procured and handed 
it to me on the occasion of my reference to it. 

Q. 46. Please indicate on the original Buckelew map 
the street in the ink portion thereof, the intersections of 
which with other streets would likely have been marked 
with II. S ? A. It would be the second street south of the 
base line. 

Q. 47. If the lines of that street were prolonged westerly 
and in the same direction, would the intersection thereof 
with street corresponding with X. W, be coincident with or 
difterent from the position which you have marked in pencil 
with a cross on the traced copy of said original ? 



269 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial 

A. The pencil cross on the tra<3ed map is drawn at the 
crossing of the second street south of the base line running 
parallel with said base line and the street marked X. W. 

(}. 48. That answer not being responsive to my que^ion 
please answer the question as I asked it ? A. The cross 
on the traced map is not made on the street which Mr, 
Mullen understands to be the second street south of the base 
line, but it is at the crossing of the second street south of 
the hase line and the street marked X. W., if the streets are 
nnnibered from the base line south along -the street marked 
X. W., heginning at the base line, 

Q. 49. Have you ever seen any other map purporting 
to be a survey of this same town site ? A, I have seen one 
representing the California City Tract, but with no showing 
of streets or blocks. 

Q. 50. Is there anything on file in the County Sur- 
veyor's office, in Marin County, relating to the subject mat- 
ter? A, Nothing relating to the town site of California 
Citv, 

HIRAM A^USTIK 

Adjourned till 11 o'clock to-morrow, the 20th dav of 
April, A, D. 1876. 



April 21st, 1876. 
Met pursuant to adjournment, and adjourned till 9J o'clock 
to-morrow morning. 



Friday, April 21st, 1876. 
Met pursuant to adjournment. 

I. H. Wildes, called and sworn as a witness on behalf of 
claimants. 

Q. 1. What is your name, age, and place of residence? 
A. My name is I. H. Wildes, age 21 ^^ears and upwards, 
occupation surveyor and civil engineer, and chief draughts- 
man in the ufHce of the U. S. Surveyor-General for Cali- 
fornia. 

Q. 2. Did you direct a traced copy to be* made of a map 

marked " Ex. Buckelew I^o. 1 ?" A. I did. 

Q. 3. Is it usual in your office, when called upon to 
make traced copies of maps from an original map, to cop}' 



2Ta 

any pencil marks not filled in with ink ? A. It fs not^ 
our maps in the office often contain notes of explanation^ 
etc., in pencil, in making copies of such maps. It is not 
usual to copy such notes. 

Q. 5. Please look at the original map marrked Exhibit 
Buckelew ]S"o 1, and state what the lines in pencil, extend- 
ing the lines of straight and diverging streets, up to their 
respective base line, would seem to represent ? A. They 
would seem to represent, to the best of my judgment, the 
base line, from which the lines of streets and blocks were 
projected, 

Q. 6. Would you from this fact consider this an oi'iginal 
plat ? A. I should so consider it from the fact of the peu'^il 
lines being on it; from the fact, also, that a copy of the plat 
would not require the pencil lines, 

Q. 7. Then I understand you to mean that you do not 
consider these lines in pencil pertinent to a finished map re- 
presenting blocks and streets, not filled in ? A. I do not. 

Q. 8, Please look at the original map, and state for what 
evident purpose was the line drawn high up into the ad- 
joining land (drawn in ink) and marked base line, taking 
into consideration the pecuHar location of land in respect to 
that with water? A. As far as the map shows, evidently 
for the purpose of the projection of the lines of streets at 
right angles thereto. 

Q. 9. Please look with special reference to the same 
question on the plat of blocks and streets on the western 
portion of said map, and answer with reference thereto. A, 
I make the same answer as to question 8. 

Q. 10. After making said traced copy of said " Ex. Buck- 
elew No. 1," were you directed to deduce from Ex. marked 
''Mullen & Hyde," X. Y. Z., and certified traced copy of 
M. & H. O. K, "Ex. P. G. i^o. 2," the position marked 
" old stone mound," and indicate the same upon said traced 
Exhibit, marked Buckelew E"o. 1 ; if so, please state how, 
and what position it occupies ? A. I was requested so to 
do; I measured the distance at right angles from the Ran- 
ges 5 and 6 W of T. 1 north ; I then measured a distance 
at right angles thereto, through California City Point to the 
position marked "Old Stone Mound ". on Ex. P. G. ^o. 2. 
I then marked the position of the old stone mound, as nearly 
as I could upon " Ex. Buckelew ^o. 1 " (traced copy ) that 
is, as nearly as I could by the comparison of the two scales. 

Q. 11. Did you do so without the slightest knowledge 
as to the reasons why or where said mound would locate on 



271 

said ExTiilsit ? A. No reasons were given to me, nar did I 
ask any. 

Q. 12, Is the position in a red dot and circle, the one 
jou indicated ? A, I presume it to be so ; I marked it in 
pencil, but it seems to be the same position that I indicated 
in pencil. 

Q. 13. Did 3^ou, or did you not test said position this 
morning and found the same to be correct ? A. I did so. 

Cross- Examination by Mullen ^ Hyde, 

Q. 14. Did you mark on the traced copy of Ex-Buck* 
<elew l^o. 1, the red dot in a red circle at the place so indi- 
<jated on said tracing, or was it done by somebody else ? 
A. I did not; it was done by somebody else. 

Q. 15. Are you positive that the position of said red dot 
in said red circle, is coincident with the lead pencil dot, 
that you indicated thereon V A, As nearly as I am able to 
judge it is, by measurement on the map, 

Q. 16, Was this done in this room and in our presence, 
pending the hearing of this case, or elsewhere and under 
other circumstances? A. It was done in my own room, 
and not here, nor in presence of any one now present, ex- 
cept Dr. Lyford. 

Q. 17. Will you please, in our presence, test the accur- 
acy of the projection of said point? A. I have done so, 
and the distance corresponds within two links, and the an- 
gles within 2J degrees ; in this matter mathematical exact- 
ness cannot be expected on traced copies of maps measured 
by the scale. 

Q. 18. Does this last measurement assume that the ex- 
treme point of California City Point, as delineated on tracing 
of Buckelew jSTo. 1, is coincident with California City Point, 
as located on " Ex. M. & H. O. K ?" A. It does. 

J, H, WILDES. 

R. C. Hopkins, called and sworn on behalf of claimants. 

Q. 1. Were you present on the Rancho of Corte Madera 
del Presidio, on the 1st day of April, 1876, when a certain 
stake was found within the crevice of rocks overshaded by 
a small laurel tree ; if so, please state fully wiiat was said 
and done on that occasion, concerning what has been desig- 
nated as the old stone mound, and the stake referred to ? A. 
On the first day of April, 1876, at the request of Doctor B. 
F. Lyford, I accompanied him to the Rancho of Carte Ma- 



2T2 

dera del Presidio, for the purpose of examining the oM 
§tone mound referred to ; we went directly to the house of 
John Read, on said rancho ; from that place we went in eom^ 
pany with John Read and Hugh A. Boyle to a place that I 
understood to be the grassy knoll, described by G. F. Al- 
lardt in bis deposition herein, and was shown what I under- 
stood was the old stone mound, also referred to hy said Al- 
lardt in his testimony. 

This stone mound. Read stated in my presence, had been 
mostly built by himself; that in 1858, when he took posses- 
sion of the Rancho of EI Corte Madera, a stake stood at the 
spot where the stone mound now stands; and that at that 
time, there were several stones placed around said stake; 
that he removed said stake at that t"me, to wit, in 1858, and 
placed it in the rift of a rock some few hundred yards frora 
where it stood, and in the direction of his residence. 

When asked if the stake was still there, he replied that 
he did not know, that he had not seen it since the time that 
he placed it in the rift of the rock referred to. Whereupon,, 
we all went in company to the rock indicated, and as mak- 
ing an examination of the rifted rock, the stake heretofore 
referred to, was found laying therein, with, I think, the side 
exposed to the action of the atmosphere, upon which, upon 
examination, some indistinct marks were found, which I 
think, upon close examination, proved to be VII. W ; I was 
asked to take charge of this stake, which I did, and the 
same is now in this oHice. 

Q. 2. Will you please to deliver the said stake into the 
special custody of the Surveyor-General, as an Exhibit, and 
for his special instruction and use, in this case, as he may 
deem proper ? A. I will do so. 

Mullen & Hyde move to strike out of foregoing answer 
all statements ma<le by John Read as incompetent and 
hearsa3^ 

Q. 3. Please state if you are familiar with the laws, 
usages, and customs, observed by the authorities of Mexico 
in making grants of land in California ? A. I am. 

Q. 4. State if in the grants so made, you find the loca- 
tion and boundaries are usually correctly given, so far as 
relates to courses and distances, and if not correctly given, 
about what would approximate the des(n'iption, the courses 
and distances given on the original title papers, and the 
true courses and distances as found on the ground, by obser- 
vation and measurement, in your opinion. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as immaterial and incom- 



273 

petent ; what would be true in one case, would not neces- 
sarily be true in another, and no uniform difference in such 
matters, could possibly exist, and the answer of witness must 
necessarily be surmise and guess work. 

A. I find from my experience, acquired in the examin- 
ation of the title papers of Spanish grants in California, that 
the boundaries as called for in the original grant or titulo, 
are generally vaguely given ; and that when co'irses and 
distances are given in the title, they are generally found 
upon observation and measurement to be unreliable : I 
speak now of the calls as given in the original grant or title 
deed, which bears the signature of the Governor and Se- 
cretary of State, and which generally refers, for particular 
description of the premises granted, to a diseiio or map, 
which is generally rudely and inexactly made. 

In the juridical possessions as given by Alcaldes or Jus- 
tices of the Peace, I have also found, from an examination 
of all the records of such possessions now on file in this 
office, the same general uncertanity and incorrectness, so 
far as relates to courses and distances, as given by the offi- 
cers making such surveys ; in some instances, the points of 
the compass being reversed, and perhaps scarcely ever cor- 
responding to the true courses, by observation ; and the 
same inexactness will also be found as regards the distances, 
as set out in the records of juridical possession. And this, 
perhaps, is not surprising, since these grants were generally 
surveyed without instruments, and by persons unfamiliar 
with that kind of work, and who, while they knew and 
could describe landmarks, had but little idea of courses and 
distances. 

As to the measure of this discrepancy, of course I can 
only make an estimate, but I would say, that taking all the 
measurements of surveys made of Spanish grants, when pos- 
session was given, together, that the discrepancy between 
the courses and distances as given, and the true courses as 
found by measurement, could not be less than fifty percent. 
+ or — from the truth. 

Q. 5. Can you give a probable reason or explanation for 
these discrepancies ? if so, please do so. A. In the early 
times in California, land was of little value, unless some 
spring or other desirable locality were in question ; hence, 
the boundaries of ranchos were not of that importance that 
as land marks are with us; the measurements were there- 
fore carelessly made, and for the want of instruments, and 
of a knowledge of their use, the courses were incorrectly 



274 

giveii — ^tbe country .was isolated, and tfiinTy settled; the 
people were pastoral in their habits, living mostly on horse- 
back ; and travelling more by land marks than hy roads ; 
and measuring distances more by the fleetness of the horse* 
they road than by measureme-nty or even an intelligent esti- 
mation. 

These habits of a people, would necessarily beget inexact- 
ness and vagueness, in all matters pertaining to the descrip- 
tion or measurement of lands. 

Adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. 



Saturday, April 22d, I876„ 
Met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mcamination of Hopkins resumed, 

Q, G. In giving instructions for the locations of Spanisl'i 
grants in California, has it been usual or would it have been 
possible, iijenerally, for the Surveyor-General, in his office, to 
give positive orders to his deputies, as to the lines to be 
selected in making the location and survey, or w^as it usual 
to leave much to the discretion and intelligent judgment of 
the deputies in making the survey ? 

The testimony referring to the customs of the office, ob- 
jected to as irrelevant and incompetent, and unnecessarily 
encumbering the record with matters not pertinent to the 
case. 

Mullen & Hyde make the same objection. 

A. In giving instructions to deputy surveyors for mak- 
ing surveys of Spanish grants, it has been usual for the Sur- 
veyor-Geiieral to give the deputies copies of the descriptive 
calls as found in the decree of confirmation, the original 
title, and in the act of juridical possession, and also a copy 
ofthediseno as found in the expediente of the grant, to- 
gether with any other data that might be found in the ori- 
ginal title papers or in the testimony given by witnesses 
before the Board of Land Commissioners and the District 
Court. But as these data sometimes involved inconsis- 
tencies, the deputy, in making the survey-, was often com- 
pelled to exercise his best judgment in endeavoring to har- 
monize as far as possible these discordant elements in seek- 
ing a proper location of the rancbo to be surveyed, hence, 
much depended on the intelligent judgment of the surveyor. 



^5 

Vrtyss-Examinaiion by Mullen ^ Hyde, 

Q. 7, This -case discJoses the fa^t that no instractiom 
signed by the Snrveyor-Greneral -can be found of record in 
th.\% office^ nor anj orders signed by the Surveyor-General, 
positive or otherwise, given to Deputy Ransom by said Sur- 
veyor-General, nor anj authority of any kind signed by said 
."Surveyor- General to Leand-er Ransom to make any survey 
of this rancho; therelbi^ please stat^ whether th^ plat repre- 
senting a purported survey of this rancho bears any internal 
evidence that Deputy Ransom ever went upon the ground, 
having iu his possession anj- of the data as set forth in your 
.answer to question 6, for the purposes of making an actual 
survey on the ground, and in th^ manner which seems to 
liave been the custom in making siirveys of Mexican and 
Spanish grant land claims under the act of March 3d, 1851,, 
■by the U, S. Surveyor-General. A. ]^one, save the en- 
dorsement found thereon : " Surveyed under instructions 
from the U. S. Surveyor-General, by Leander Ransom, De- 
puty Surveyor, in September and October, 1873, and G. F. 
Aliardt, Deputy Surveyor, in June, 1874." 

Q. 8, Since your connection with the Surveyor-General's 
Office, in 1855, have you ever known any map to have been 
ever made by compiling the field notes of any unsworn 
private surveyor, and have the same purport to represent 
the actual survey of a private land claim, under the act of 
March 3d, 1851? A. Beyond making an examination, trans- 
lations, etc., of the original title papers, and making out 
the necessary instructions to deputies therefrom, or furnish- 
ing the necessary data, therefore I have had little or nothing 
to do with anything in relation to the action of the office 
upon the returns of the deputies, of surveys made in the 
field; therefore, I cannot state with any degree of certainty 
what may have been done in the office in such cases. 

Mullen & Hyde object to the Exhibit referred to in ques- 
tion 2, [Jage 752, for the following reassons ; and does so, at 
this time and place, for the reason that during the examin- 
ation of yesterday the record fuiied to show that said Exhi- 
bit was ott'ered as so recorded, and for the reason as stated 
by Doctor Lyford, that the words " as an Exhibit and " were 
inadvertently left out, and have been inserted to-day. 

2d. It is incompetent. 

3d. Because, it fails to show any marks thereon, such as 
are represented to have been used in denoting the intersec- 
tion of streets in harmony with the original map "Buckelew 
1^0. 1.'' * • 



me; 

4th. Because it fails to show that it belongs to the sys^ 
lem or class of stakes similar to the one marked II. S. anci 
X. W., and which last stake seems to have been taken fromj 
the ground, exposed to the weathej, on all sides, while thi& 
last Exhibit was taken from the rift of a rock where it is al- 
leged to have laid protected for 18 years, and the side or 
face that was exposed to the weatber, by laying uppermost,, 
bears, in the judgment of those producing it, quite plainly 
the marks that are alleged to have been thereon as early aa 
1858, and no otber marks, or letters, or figures were dis- 
eernable on any of the other sides tbereof. 

K a HOPKINS. 

J. B. Howard appears for claimants in the absence of SoL 
A. Sharp, Esq., and George F. Alllardt recalled for cross- 
examination, and for the purpose of identitying testimony 
alleged to have been given by him (the said Allardt, in the 
U. S. Circuit Court in Case 190, Bolton vs. Van Reynegom 
et al). 

Q. 1. Examine Ex. No. 4 J. A. R.— U. S, Circuit Court, 
and state if you testified for the defendants in said case on 
direct and cross-examination as stated, and if said Exhibit 
correctly represents the testimony then and there by you 
given. 

Objected to by S. R. Throckmorton, as incompetent and 
irrelevant to these proceedings, and because said testimony 
has no bearing upon the question of the boundaries of the 
Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio, as described in the 
evidence of the papers of juridical possession in this case, 
and because said testimony referred to was given and offered 
in another case, the issues of which have no connection with 
this survey and the said testimony not having been offered 
or given for the purpose of establishing any survey whatever, 
but having been offered and given simply for the settling of 
an initial point in dispute in said case — and also, because the 
witness has already been fully cross-examined upon the same 
subject matter in this examination. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, because this said Exhibit 
is a copy of testimony certified to be correct, by the Clerk 
of the U. S. Circuit Court, and as given as stated in said 
certificate, and its correctness cannot be questioned in this 
case, in this manner, and particularly by Mr. Howard, who 
is the party who presented and filed said Exhibit ; and while 
his relations as attorney in this case seems to have been 
shifted from those be heretofore represented and now sub- 



■277 

tstitntoS for Sol A. Sharp, Esq., his rehition to this ExhiVi't 
Temaiiis unchanged and is uot subject to his cross-exainina- 
t\()n for the purposes stated in tire question, and the Sui^ 
veyor-General is wow by us called npon to rule upon the 
propriety of such proceedings. 

Objections sustained by Survejor-Genera'l. 

Mr. Howard excepts. 

A. I did testify in said case and Court, and believe that 
this Ex. 1^0. 4 contains a correct copy of my testimony, but 
such testimony not being signed by me, I cannot be positive, 
of my own knowledge, as to its accuracy. 

Q. 2. Exarjftine the official Ransom AUardt map and 
estate if you assisted officially. Deputy R. C. Mathewson in 
1858, in makiuiJ: a survey of said Rancho Corte Madera del 
Presidio: and if so, whether you ran a provisional line from 
Post C. M. 180, to Redwood Post P. Q. 99, and W. R. 203, 
:at said date, as the westerly boundary^ of the lands of said 
ranoho. 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, ixs the acts of this witness 
in said matters, if possessing any virtue, in this case, and 
done officially, were the acts of his principal Mathewson; and 
if of record, said record would be the best evidence. 

2d.' Because the question is indefinite as to what is in- 
tended to be understood by the word '^provisional line." 

3d Because it is immaterial 

S. R. Throckmorton makes some objection, and for rea- 
sons in addition thereto, that the witness has already fully 
testified in this case, in regard to the provisional line referred 
to in the question, as being an experimental line, and as not 
establishing any line referred to in the juridical possession ; 
and further, that the said provisional line has no connection 
with, or relation to, the western boundary of said rancho, as 
alrtaly proved by this witness, 

A. I assisted said Mcithewson in making the survey of 
said rancho in 1858, and I did run a line from " C. M. P. 
180" to ''C. M. P. 181," and from '' C. M. P. 181," to said 
redwood post " P. Q, 99 " and '* W. R. 208." But I did not 
know at the time whether said provisional line was intended 
by Mathewson to represent the western boundary of said 
rancho. * 

Q. 3. Is that line identical with the .western line as re- 
pi-esented by the AUardt Ransom survey of 1873 and 1874 ? 
A. It is. 

Q. 4. What papers and documents did J)eputy Ma* 
thevvson have in 1858, in making said survey? 



2TS ■ 

OBiected to by Mullen, as the iiistructrons to Mathewsore 
fcre of record id this office, and' the- papers speak for them- 
selves. 

S. K. ThrockiBorton interposes a like abjection and for 
the reason that said offixiia! inetructions set fcwth what papers- 
the U. S; Surveyor-General furmshed him for his said gui- 
dance. 

A. I have alreadj described those papers in this exam- 
ination-; I do not remember now what they are; I cannot 
designate them from memory.. 

Q. 5. I cannot now find the list yo\x refer to. Please 
state as nearly as you can from memory. A. He had the 
JnstructioDQ sitrned by the U. S. Surveyor-Genernl J. W> 
Mandeville, a diseno and a copy of the juridical measure- 
ments in his handwriting, 

Q. 6, Did he liave the decree of confirmation or a copy 
thereof? A. I think a copy of the decree was contained in 
the instructions. 

Q. 7. Did he have the diseno' or map of the land from 
the expediente? 

Objected to by Mullen as irrelevant, the said Mathewson 
survey having been by the Secretary of the Interior set aside. 
All matters of whatsoever kind or nature pertaining thereto 
are necessarily immaterial in the present investigation so far 
as relates to said MathewsoDy or those who ass^isted him in 
any capacity in making the survey. 

S, K. Throckmorton joins in this objection, and for the 
reason that Mr. Allardt has already testified in full in this 
case and that this survey does not afl*ect the western boun- 
nary of this survey. 

A. He had a diseno with him, but I do not know whether 
it was a copy from the expediente, 

Q. 8. You say he had all the i>apers and documents 
mentioned in the instructions of September 22d, 1858, which 
instructions are now shown you ? A. I do not know 
whether he had them all or not. 

Q. 9. You say he had the record of juridical possession 
or a copy of it ? A. I said be had a copy of the juridical 
measurements. 

Q. 10. Where would you have located the western I'ne 
of said rancho if you had made the survey with the papers 
furnished Mathewson? A. ^ot knowing all the papers 
Mathewson had with him, I cannot answer that question 
definitely. 

Q. 11. To particularize: if you had the papers mentioned 



2T9 

an said instructions of September 22d, 1858, marked Ex. IB 
J. A. R., together \<^ith the record of juridical measurements, 
how would you have located said westerly line ; I meati the 
grant, the decree of confirmation, diseno or map, record of 
juridical measurements and letters of instruction ? A. You 
ask me where I would locate the western line of said rancho ? 
If I were governed by the calls in juridical measurement I 
should run said western boundar}^ from the solar due north^ 
to the Arroyo Holon, but if I were governed by the descrip- 
tion in the grant, I would run the western boundary line in 
.such a manner as to bound the rancho by the Mission Lands 
of San Rafael on the north, this northern boundary being 
the Arroyo Holon. 

Q. 12. What papers or documents, were presented to 
jou, in your examination in these proceedings, by Mr* 
Throckmorton, or other objectors, by reason of which you 
expressed an opinion the Arroyo Corte de Madera might 
constitute the westerly boundary line of said Ran<;ho of 
'' Corte Madera del Presidio ?" 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, and S, R. Throckmorton. 

A. There were several Exhibits shown me, and I was 
asked how I would locate the western boundary, if guided 
by said Exhibits; I do not remember the numbers or con- 
tents of said Exhibits. 

Q. 13. Please examine Ex. S. R. T. 'No. 23; also marked 
^' Ex. Mullen & Hyde U. V. W., April 5, 1876, Filed May 
26, 1875," purporting to be a map annexed to deposition of 
William Hartnell, referred to in objections of S. R. Throck- 
morton from Land Case 104, and state if that is one of the 
Exhibits by force of which you were guided to the opinion 
that the Arroyo de Corte Madera might form the western 
boundary line of the Rancho of Corte Madera del Presidio ? 
A. It was not. 

Q. 14. Had you seen said document prior to the 5th of 
January, 1876, on which day you testified that said arroyo 
might constitute the western boundary of said rancho ? A. 
I have seen this Exhibit before; but do not recollect when 

I first saw it, nor whether or not it was prior to January 
5th, 1876. . 

Q. 15. Is the solar you mention, in answer to question 

II of this date, identical with the solar, or starting point, as 
represented near Post C. M. P. 180 or 181 ? A. "it is. 

Q. 16. Do you know whether the owners of the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, in the year 1858 or thereabouts, 
consented and agreed to the selection made by Deputy 



28a . • 

Mathew^son of the survey of said ran^bo, by legal sirbdi vi- 
sions, as represented on the official plat- of said survey of 
1858, and herein offered as the official plat by the U, 8^ 
District Attorney? 

Objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as incompetent; consent 
of said claimants^ if evermadcy cannot be established in this 
manner ; and if ever made, must be a matter of record, and 
if of record, would be immaterial for the purpose of locating 
this grai>t, and does not bind either the United States or 
any of the parties in thi^ case. 

8, R. Throckmorton makes same objection^ 

A. I do not know. 

Q. 11, Did they object? 

Same ol::gections by Mullen & Hyde and Throckmorton^ 
as to preceeding question and for same reasons as above. 

A. I do not know, 

J, B. Howard now offers in behalf of claimants : 

1st. Agreement for a partition of said rancho. 

2d. A report of arbitrators or commissioners. 

3d. A plat and description of the part allotted to Hilaria 
Read, one of said heirs and owners thereof. 

4th. Deed in partition from Jno. J. Read and Inez Read 
Deffebach, the two remaining heirs and owners to the said 
Hilaria Read. 

5th. A map of said rancho, Ex. 2, to deposition of Tracy, 
showing the location of said rancho ss partitioned, as afore- 
8 dd and according to the said survey of said Mathewson in 
the year 1858. 

The Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4, are offered in original and 
certified copies thereof, will be filed in this case and marked 
H. R. L., "A." "B," ''C." and "D." 

Exhibit No. 5 is herewith filed in original, marked Ex. 
H. R. L. E. 

The foregoing Exhibits are all objected to by Mullen & 
Hyde and S. R. Throckmorton, as immaterial and incom- 
petent, portion of said Exhibits being mere memoranda 
agreements as ariiong themselves, and not binding upon any 
other parties. 

Q. 18. Please examine Mullen & Hyde ^'D. E. E." and 
Ex. *'H. R. L. E." and " H. R. L. B." and state if said Ex. 
'• D. E. E." is, or is not a compound map, representing fea- 
tures of said Exhibits "H. R. L."— "B." and "E." A. 
The map D. E. F. is generally a combination of the other 
two maps, that is to" say, the map D. E. F. seems to show 
all the lands that are shown on the other two maps combined. 



281 

1. B. Howard now moves to strike out all objections filed 
jjgainst said Ransom-Allardt survey of said rancho, b}^ Mu-l- 
■len & Hyde, attorneys for their clients, for the reason that 
said objections were not filed in season. 

2d. Ail objections .filed herein by S. R. Throckmortoi>, 
'or his attorney, for tlie reason that he is not show^i to claim 
•adverse to said grant any lands embraced within said survey. 

3d. All objections tiled herein by Peter Gardner, be- 
cause he is not shown to have any title or claim, to any 
lands embraced within said survey or grant, and all othef 
objections coming within the portion of the foregoing; sec- 
■ondly, to strike out all papers, documents, plats, and Exhi- 
bits, representing or relating to the elaimsof Jose Y. Li- 
mentour, Wm. A^ Richardson. Wm. T. Coleman and Hart, 
S. R. Throckmorton, or the University of California; and 
farther, especially to strike out Ex. S. R. T. ^o. 23, being a 
map — on the ground that all of said claims are held as in- 
Valid, by the Executive Departments of the U. S., and <jan- 
not be considered in these proceedings ; and because said 
documents, papers, claims, and Exhibits are not valid, and 
represent no interest that can be recognized by the United 
States, and are not binding on th-e claimants, and constitute 
no evidence of juridical measurement or of the boundaries 
or ownership of the lands in question. Said riiotion to apply 
■to all papers and documents improperly filed in these proceed- 
ings. 

Mullen & Hyde object to all of said matters and motion, 
•for reasons as follows: to be given on Monday, April 24th, 
1876. 

S. R. Throckmorton objects to all of said matters and 
•motion, for reasons to be given on Monday, April 24th, 1876, 
to which day, at 11 o'clock a. m., he moves that this Comis- 
sion adjourn. 

G. E. ALLARDT. 

Adjourned till 11 o'clackon Monday morning, April 24th. 



April 24th, 1876. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mullen & Hyde object to motion being granted, and fot 
reasons as follows : 

Ist. It appears, on page 761 of this record, that J. B. 
Howard appears as counsel, as a substitute for Sol. A. Sharp, 
Esq., who is counsel for certain claimants herein as set forth 
in tliis record. 



28-2 

2(1. It also appears that said Sol. A. Sharp is neither a 
claimant or a party in interest in this oase, but appears in 
the capacity of counsel and attorney far certain claimant* 
herein. 

3cl. That where there are seveiul defendants or contest- 
a!its, as in this case, ^ind where it appears th;it each appears^ 
by his own attorney, the procee lings hei'ein.on behalf of 
these defendants, and contestants, must be conducted by 
their res^pective attorneys, and that the attorney of any one 
(lofend lilt or contestant cannot give any notice of motion, or 
rn:ike any motion or validly file any motion or accept notice 
of motion, or stipulate or do any other thing for another at 
any stage of the proceedings in this case. 

And counsel 'does therefore move that all the matters from 
page 761 to page 776, inclusive, as elicited, shown or moved 
througn J. B. Iloward appearing, for Sol. A. Sharp, E-sq., be 
striken out, and be considci^i^d no portion of the evidence, 
or matters pertinent in this case; and the Surveyor-General 
is asked to rule on the motion. 

S. R. Throckmorton joins in tlie foregoing objectionsand 
for same reasons as stated by Mullen & Hyde, and unites in 
in the same motion as made above by Mullen & Hyde. 

Objections sustained by Surveyor-General and motion of 
claimants denied. Claimants except to the rulings and ap- 
peal to the Commissioner, and will farther show, by evi- 
dence, that said J. B. Howard has been and now is, and here- 
tofore been tiie attorney of said claimants, and furtherniore, 
that the claims and interests of said claimants, Hilaria Read 
de Lytbrd, Inez Read de Deffebach and d no. J. Read, are 
identical and in full • harmony iwith those of the United 
States, and the pre-ernptors ('ushing, Barlow and Riley. 

Cour\sel for Valentine (B. S. Brooks) objects to the fore- 
going motion and exception, on the ground that said Valen- 
tine is one of the claimants, and the said motion and excep- 
tion is not made by his authority or consent, and also on 
the ground, that he, said Brooks, is the counsel for and re- 
presents said claimants, as shown by the record in said case, 
and that said motion and exception are unauthorized on 
their part. 

J. B. Howard expressly disclaims any representation 
herein of T. B. Valentme, S. R. Throckmorton, or any of the 
interests of said parties in these proceedings — and disclaims 
any representation of B. S. Brooks, Esq., and only claims to 
represent the interests, for this purpose, of the clients of Sol. 
A. Sharp, Esq. — above named. 



283 

J. B. Howai d now otters for the claimants, in behalf of Sol, 
A. Sharp, Esq., a copy of Whitney's State Geological Sur- 
vey, of 1873, of Bay of San Francisco and vicinity, for the 
purpose of showing the location of the said Rancho Corte 
Madera, of liaccoon Straits, of Tiburon Point, and Angel 
IslaiuL 

Exhibit objected to by Mullen & Hyde, as being secondary 
and a conipihition, and as showing upon its face that the 
rancho, township and Sec. lines represented thereon are 
delineated and so shown from materials furnished by the U. 
S. Surveyor-General's office, and therefore incompetent and 
not the best evidence for the purpose of showing the -'locus" 
of this or any other Spanish grant claim. 

J. B. Howard also otters in connection with Ex. H. R. L. 
A. B. C. D. and E., a deed in partition from said Hilaria 
Read and Inez Read Dettebach to said Jno. J. Read ; and a 
deed in partition from said Jno. J. and Hilaria Read, to paid 
Inez Read Dettebach, marked Exl^. H. R. L. " F." and " G.," 
by cetified copies thereof. 

Otter objected to as incompetent for the purpose of estab- 
lishing the " locus" of this grant, or any other purpose ex- 
cept that of matters as between the parties of the liist and 
second parts thereto. 

Doctor Benjamin F. Lyford, called and sw^orn in behalf of 
claimants, testitied as follows : 

Q. 1. State your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
A. My name is B. F. Lyford, age 38 years, profession 
physician, and reside in the City of San Francisco. 

Q. 2. Do you know the claimants as represented by Sol. 
A. Sharp in this case ? if so, state wiio they are. A. I do. 
Jno. J. Read, Hilarita Read de Lyford, Inez Readde Dett"e- 
bach, who are the children of Juan Read, deceased. 

Q. 3. What relation do you bear to said claimants, or 
either of them ? A. I am the husband of Hilarita Read de 
Lyford, and brother-in-law to Jno. J. Read and Inez Read 
de Detiebach. 

Q. 4. State, if you know, what attorneys at law or in 
fact, have represented the said Hilaria 'Read de Lyford in 
these proceedings, and what attorney or attorneys are auth- 
orized to appear for the said claimant. 

Objected 'to by Mullen & Hyde, because the record shows 
what attorneys appear, and for whom they appear, and be- 
cause it is incompetent. 

A. Sol. A. Sharp appears on tfie record for Hilaria Read 



2S4 

de Lyford, Jno. J. Read, and Inez Read de Deffebacli, and 
in his absence Jno. B. Howard is also now authorized to- 
appear, and has appeared, as heretofore shown by this re- 
cord. 

S. R. Throckmorton, a claimant, here enters of record his 
disclaimer of being represented in any way in this case by 
J. B. Howard, and he makes this disclaimer to avoid,' by 
implication or in any other way, being represented by J. B. 
Howard in this case. 

Q. 5. riease examine the official plats of said survey, 
the Ransom & Allardt, 1873-1874, and the Mathewson of 
1858, and point out and designate the lands thereon, now 
owned and claimed by said named claimants, Hilaria Read 
de Lyford, Jno. J. Read, and Inez Read de Detfebach. 

Objected to by S. R. Throckmorton as irrelevant and in- 
competent; the records being the best testimony not de- 
termining the boundaries of the Rancho of Corte Madera. 

B. S. Brooks joins in objection for T. B. Valentine. 

Q. 6. Question withdrawn, and witness requested to state 
if said named claimants own and claim all of said lands, re- 
presented in the partition deed and proceedings herein filed, 
represented by Exs. H. R. L., A. B. C. D. E. F. G. 

Objected to by B. S. Brooks as irrelevant, incompetent 
and immaterial ; S. R. Throckmorton makes same objection 
as made by him to previous question. 

A. Witness refers to Ex. " B.," the map and plat attached^ 
thereto, giving the conjoined segregations upon said plat, 
and referring to the central division marked "A." thereon — 
"Portion of Jno. J. Read, area 2,061 51-JOO acres, as now 
claimed and occupied by the said Jno. J. Read, as his allot- 
ted portion of said rancho as divided. 

The divisions C. C, portion of Hilaria Read de Lyford, 
area 1,020 51-100, and 446 47-100 as the portion now claimed 
and occupied by the said Hilaria Read de Lyford — as di- 
vided. 

The division marked B., portion of Inez Read de Defte- 
bach, 646 51-100 acres, as the portion now claimed and oc- 
cupied by said Inez Read de Deftebach, excepting about> 
1^0 acres, disposed of since making said partition as divided.- 



28o / 
Cross- Examin^ff ('on hi/ Mallrri ^ IL/de. 

Q. 1. riease state whether either Ililaria Read de L}^- 
forJ, Inez Read de Deffebach, or Jno. J. Read, claims any 
interest of any kind, immediate or remote or contingent, pre- 
sent or prospective, in or to any portion of what is repre- 
sented as Peninsuhir Ishmd on the plat of the Ransom-Al- 
lardt survey ot the Rancho Corte Madera def Presidio. 

Objected to as not being cross-examination, by J. B. 
lloward. 

B. S. Brooks joins in objection. 

A. Xot to mv knowledge. 

Q. 2. Has Hilaria Read de Lyford any interest contin- 
gent, or other, in the determination of the award of Penin- 
sular Island in controversy in tliis case ? 

Objected to by J. B. Howard as not cross-examination. 

B. 8. Brooks joins in objection. 

A. Tlie question is very indefinite ; but she has no pre- 
sent interest in the lands designated on the plat as Peninsular 
Island. 

Q. 3. Would said Hilaria Read de Lyford be, in any 
ma!ii\er whatsoever, benefitted, if said Peninsular Island 
should be included in the iinal surve^^ of this rancho ? 

J. B. Howard objects. 

B. S. Brooks joins in objection. 

A. She might or might not be benefitted. 

Q. 4. In what manner might she be benefitted, by hav- 
ing said island included within said survey ? A. She might 
be remotely benefitted by its being occupied and built upon, 
and by enhancing the value of the adjacent property. 

Q. 5. In any other manner ? A. She at present has no 
pecuniary interest in Peninsular beyond that, to my knowl- 
edge. 

Q. 6. Has she or ber family, at present, any contingent 
interest? A. Not to my knowledge. 

Q. 7. Do you, as lier husband, at the present time, or 
liave you as such at any time, claimed, to have any contin- 
gent interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in having said island 
included within the final survey of this rancho? A. ISo 
pecuniary interest whatever, j)ast, present or remote — of my 
o^vn. 

Q. 8. I now ask the same questions as numbered 2, 3, 4, 
5, 6, 7, in the case of Inez Read de Deffebach. 

Objected to by J. B. Howard and B. S. Brooks, as not 
^cross-examination. 



2S6 

A. I do not know what pecuniary interest she has in 
said peninsuhi, if any. 

Q. 9. Have either one of these three parties, to wit, 
Hilaria Read de Lyford, Inez Read de Detfebach and Jno. 
J. Read, any interest, immediate or remote, continiJfent or 
otherwise, in any portion of the Rancho of Corte Madera del 
Presidio, outside of the portion deeds, and lands represented 
on the plats referred to in connection therewith V 

Ol)jeeted to by J. B. Howard, who instructs the witness 
not to answer the question, as it may involve questions re- 
lating to the title to swamp and overflowed lands adjacent 
to said rancho, and pertaining thereto, or riparian rights 
and otherwise. 

Mullen & Hyde call upon the Surveyor-General for a rul- 
ing in the case. 

Surveyor-General rules that witness answer the question. 

A. The question is a matter of law; the records and Ex- 
hibits in this case will be the best evidence. 

Q. 10. Please state speciiically what lands outside of the 
land in said partition described, said parties claim, and the 
whole thereof. A. My last answer will apply also to this 
+ so far as relates to this rancho. 

Q. 11. Please answer my question — I refer to the lands 
constituting or claiming to be a part of the Rancho of Corte 
Madera. 

Objected to by J. B. Howard, because the question is not 
confined to lands embraced witliin the survey. 

2d. Because it is not cross-examination; and 3d, because it 
has been substantially answered by the witness in his state- 
ment of the interest of said parties, and that he did not know 
of the interests of said parties outside said partition deeds; 
furthermore, these objections were made and witness directed 
not to answer, simply and onl}' because there is no otlicer 
or judge present with authority to rule out irrelevant testi- 
mony, and there is no other means of closing this examina- 
tion than by directing the witness not to answer further. 

On motion of witness, adjourned till lOJ o'clock to- 
morrow morning. 

Tuesday, April 25th. 

Case called. 

A. I do not know the interest they claim in the Rancho 
Corte Madera del Presidio, except those mentioned in Ex. 
A. B. C. D. E. F. and G., all marked H. R. L. A., including 
the records, all of which will be the best evidence. 



28T 

Q. 12. What do you understand to be Ex. E.? (I mean 
Ex. H. R. L. '' E.") A. It is a map of said rancho "Ex. 2," 
to deposition of Tracy, showing? the location of said rancho. 

Q. 13. Please look at said Exhibit H. R. L. " E," being 
Ex. 2 to deposition of Tracj^, and state whether said claim- 
ants, named in your direct testimony, claim any interest in 
and to all the lands represented thereon as being within the 
exterior boundaries of the Mathewson and' Tracy survey, 
and not including Peninsula Island. 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, objects, as it is not cross-examina- 
tion, and immaterial and incompetent. 

A. I cannot state of my own knowledge as to what they 
claim beyond the records and Exhibits tiled in this case. 

Q. 14. State particularly all you know with reference to 
any claim thereto or therein by Hilaria Read de Lyfbrd. A. 
I cannot state of my own knowledge her claims beyond 
those shown in said Exhibits and lecords referred to. 

Q. 15. Do you know or have any means of ascertaining 
whether either of said parties have any interest, present or 
prospective, or resulting in any portion of the land lying be- 
tween the western boundary of the Mathewson survey and 
the western boundary of the Tracy survey, as represented in 
said Exhibit li. R. L. "E.?" I refer to aiiy interest in the 
whole thereof 

Mr. Sharp, f )r claimants, objects to question as incompe- 
tent and irrelevant. 

A. I have no means of knowing other than by the re- 
cords. 

Q. 13. Is not this Exhibit one of the record papers set- 
ting forth the extent of such claim, and said Exhibit filed 
by your own counsel? A. A note attached to said Exhibit 
reads as follows : " The red line indicates the survey made 
by R. C. Mathewson, without regard to the lines of the jur- 
idical {)Ossession. The yellow lines indicate the additional 
quantity, according to the juridical measurement, including 
the peninsula of the same color. ^ indicates the sola^^ 
mentioned in the act of the juridical possession. B, the 
' Punta de Sausal,' mentioned in the juridical survey." 

Question 13 repeated. 

Same objection by Mr. Sharp, for claimants. 

A. It is one of the papers filed by my counsel, and in 
explanation of such I refer to the preceding answer. 

Q. 14. Then Ililaria Read de Lyford does claim some 
interest of some kind and of an undivided character in and 
to each and every parcel of land lying between the west 



288 

boundary of the Matliewson and the west bonndarv of vh^ 
Tracv survey of the Corte Madera Rancho, as represented in 
Ex.H. R. L>'E?" 

Mr. Sharp for claimants make same objection. 

A. For your knowledge and information I refer you ta 
the records affecting the hinds within designated, and cannot 
answer beyond those. 

Q. 15. Is that the only answer you can give to that 
question ? A. I cannot answer it in any other way as re- 
gards this case in controversy. . 

Q. 16. You are the husband of one of the parties in in- 
terest in this case, are you not? A. lam. 

Cross- Exaynmation hj Mr. Gardner. 

Q. 1. Have you and your wife and the rest of the heirs 
made their selections of one square league of land, referred 
to in the decree of final confirmation ? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp as incompetent and irrelevant ; 
also it appears that Mrs. Lyford and Mrs. Deffebach are 
married women and incapable of making a selection, alid' 
also as calling for a conclusion and not a fact. 

A. I know nothing of such selections excepting from 
the record, 

be:n'j. f. lyford, m. d. 

Case adjourned until 2 o'clock. 

G. F. Allardt,' called by Mr. Tliroekmorion on Cross- Exami- 
nation. 

Q. 1. In your testimony given ou the 22d inst, in this 
examination, you said that you would give the western bound- 
ary of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, in such a 
manner as to bound the rancho by the mission lands of San 
Rafael on the north ; this northern boundary being the 
"Arroyo Holon;" will you please look at the Ex. marked 
"Whitney's Geological Map, 1873;" will you look at the 
point "Arroyo de los Esteros" on said map, being ihe ar- 
royo running nearly iu an easterly direction from the ridge 
of Mount Tamalpais, and say if you recognize that as the 
Arroyo Holon, mentioned in your testimony. 

J. B. Howard objects to question for this : that it does not 
truthfully state the facts testified to by said witness, in re- 
lation to the boundaries of said rancho under the juridical 



'2«y 



■measurement thereof, and the decision of the Secretaryof 
the Interior of January 6th, 1872. 

A. I do ; it is evidently intended to represent the Arroyo 

Q 2 Will yoii please look at the map and answer if yoa 
recognize the Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, which 
heads near tlH3 arroy o you ha ve j ust described i A, i (io ; 
it is marked Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio. 

Q 3. Do yon recognize in those two streams on saul 
map the Arroyo Holon, which in your former testimony you 
gave as the northern boundary of said rancho, and the Ar- 
royo Corte Madera del Presidio, which for its whole course 
YOU gave as the western boundary of the Kancho ot Corte 
Madera del Presidio ? A. I recognize both arroyos on thi^ 
map ; the Arroyo Holon being marked Arroyo delos Lste- 
ros and the other arro\o being marked Arroyo Corte Ma- 
dera del Presidio. . , ,. . i ^i • 

Both arroyos s^em to be correctly dekneated on tins 
map; I recognize these two arroyos on this map as the ar- 
royos referred to by me in niy testimony regarding the 
northern and western boundaries of said rancho. 

^OrosS' Examimiim by Peter ^Gardner, 

Q 1 Your answer to question 11, you say tliat the 
northern boundary is the Arroyo Holon. Will you point 
out in the juridical papers where it says the northern bound- 
ary is the Arroyo Holon ? ^ - ^ 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp as being incompetent and irrel- 
evant, u. T -C 1 *1 A. 

A In the copy of tht3 juridical measurements i Imd tlie 
following words, viz : "'They commenced said measure- 
ments, and, going from S. to N., they measured to an ar- 
royo called Holon." These words locate the Arroyo Holon 
at' the northern end of said line, and seem to determine said 
arroyo to be a boundary of the rancho in that direction, that 
is to say, on the north, 

Q. i. I)o you find anything int:he juridical papers whicli 
causes you to follow said arroyo down from the pomt you 
first mentioned ? if so, state what and whei^ it is. 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as incompetent and irrelevant. 

A I cannot answer that question, unless I have all the 
juridical papers before me. (The papers are now presente(l 
to the witness.) :N"ear the bottom of page 11, and top ot 



290 

puoje 12, of said juridical papers, I find these words: " On 
the north, towards the Pueblo of San Rafael, the boundcuy 
is arroyo called Holon," and a forest of re<lvvood trees, which- 
is also called Corte Madera de San Pablo. 

Q. 3. By whom was that language used ? 

Mr. Sharp objects, as before. 

A. It purports to be the testimony of the Alcade's assist- 
ants, viz : Manuel Sanchez, Eusebio Galindo, Thomas Jer- 
eniiaSy Jose de las Cruz Sanchez. 

Q. 4. D«> you find any such thing in the act of juridical 
measurement ? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as before. 

A.' What thing? 

Q. 5. The language you* just used. A. I do uot» 

Q. 6. Do you find it in the grant ? 

Mr. Sharp objects, as before. 

A. I have not the grant before me. 

Mr. Brooks here ofters a certified copy of judgment roll, 
in the case of James C. B )lton vs. Israel Kashaw, et als., 
marked Exhibit T. B. V., No. 10. 

Objected to by Messrs. Gardner and Throckmorton, as 
incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. 

The witness is here handed a copy of the grant, and 
says : 

A. The paper handed me is a printed copy ot the deci- 
sion of the Secretary of the Interior, and the opinion of the 
Assistant Attorney-General, in the case of the survey of the 
liancho Corte Madera del Presidio. On page 11 is what 
purports to be the translation of title and juridical posses- 
sion. I do not find those words here. 

Q. 7. Do you find words to that efi^ect ? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as before. 

A. I tind these words : "- bounded by the Mission of San 
Rafael." 

Q. 8. What evidence did you have before you to locate 
the solar near Post C. M. P. 181, referred to in question 
15? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as before. 

A. I never located it myself, but was governed in my 
opinion by the judgment of Deputy K. C. Mathewson, in 
the matter. 

Q. 9. Did you have any evidence before you, in your 
experience in this matter, that there Avas a building lot 
there as early as 1834 ? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as before. 



291 

A. I had not. 

Q. 10. Do you know the Arroyo Holon of your own 
knowledge, or by hearsay ? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as before. 

A. I know it of my own knowledge, having been at the 
arroyo a number of times, and have surveyed it in its entire 
length. 

Q. 11. State how and when you first knew it of your 
own knowledge. 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as before. 

A. It was first pointed out to me, as the Arroyo Holon, 
in the year 1858. » 

Q. 12. By whom ? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as before. 

A. I don't remember. 

Q. 13. Is not said arroyo at, or near its source, called 
the Arroyo Holon, and at or near the mouth, the Arroyo de 
los Esteros? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as before. 

A. I do not know. 

Q. 14. Witness is shown Exhibit Whitney's Geological 
Map, of 1873. Do you recognize any public or vacant 
lands between the Arroyo de los Esteros, thereon, and the 
lines of Corte Madera Rancho, as shown on the map? 

Objected to by Mr. Sharp, as incompetent, irrelevant, and 
opening up new matter, and not cross-examination. 

Objected, also, by Mr. Throckmorton, for the same 
reasons. 

A. There seems to be some vacant land lying between 
the Arroyo de los Esteros and a zigzag line, which probably 
represents the western boundary of the Rancho Corte 
Madera del Presidio, according to the Mathewson survey, 
but it is not marked vacant land. 

Adjourned till to-morrow, the 26th' day of April, 1876, at 
10 o'clock. 

G. F. ALLARDT. 



April 26th, 1876. 

Met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, moves that the Surveyor-General 
re-instate the pages of the testimony, from page 761 to page 
776 inclusive, which appears to have been stricken out on 
motion of Mullen & Hyde. 



And Mr.* Sharp nowhere adopts the appearance of Mr.- 
Howard for his clients on the occasion of the taking of said 
testimony. 

The Surveyer-General says that he has no power to strike 
out testimony when, once reduced to writing; and that the 
ruling made l)y him April 24th, as written on page 778,. 
w^as not intended to strike out any portion of the record. 

T. B. Valentine tailed by SoL A. Sharp. 

Q. 1. Were you acquainted with James G. BoTton, the' 
person mentioned in Ex. 'T. B. V. Ko. 3, dated August 12th, 
1865? A^ I was acquainted with him, and have known him 
since about the year 1867. 

Q. 2. Were you acquainted with Rudolf Steinbach, Emil 
Steinbach,and Emil Grisar, as early as 1866, 67, 68, and 69? 
A. I knew them all during those years. 

Q. 3. What, if any, connection had they with James C. 
Bolton with regard lo Ex. T. B. V. B. jS^o. 3? A. Mr. Ru- 
dolf Steinbach told me that, in 1865, he knew of the Boltoa 
agreement about the time it was made. 

Q. 4. When did he tell you this? A. At the time I 
made the purchase from Bolton, on the 28th of July, 1868. 

Q. 5. You had notice of the existence of the original of 
Ex. T. B.. Y. ]S"o. 3, on the 25th of July, 1868, had you not, 
when you made your purchase ? A. I had. 

Q. 6. Was, or not, the fact of the existence of the ori- 
ginal of Ex. T. B. V. No. 3 a matter of notoriety among all 
persons having or claiming any interest or any portion of^ 
the Rancho Gorte Madera del Presidio, or any lands adja- 
cent thereto, as early as 1867, '68, '69, '70, and '71? 

Gbjected to by S. R. Throckmorton, on the ground that, 
as an agreement referring to real estate, it should be a mat- 
ter of record, in order to give notice ; and further, that it is 
irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, because it cannot' 
affect this record of title, inasmuch as Hilaria Read and 
J no. Read have divested themselves by deeds of convey- 
ance, now on record, of all the right, title, and interest, both 
in law and equity, present or prospective, in all the lands 
conveyed by them to Bolton, and that Inez Read de Deffe- 
bach, the remaining party in interest in said lands, has by 
deed of record conveyed to said S. R. Throckmorton all her 
right, title, and interest to the one-fourth part of all the 
lands so heretofore conveyed by Jno. Read, Hilarita Read^ 
and herself,- ta said James G. Bolton* 



29S 

A. I think it was generally known that an agreement was 
made with Bolton, to recover the lands outside of the 
Mathewson survey, and within the juridical possession, for 
an interest in the lands outside of the Mathewson survey. 

T. B. VALENTINE. 

Sol. A. Sharp, counsel for claimants, offers certified copy of 
•decree of the District Court of the IT. S., in the case of the 
United Stat-es vs. Jose Y. Limentour, marked ^'11. R. !>. 
H." 

T. B. Valentine called by Peter Gardner. 

Q. 1. Did you ever hate a school land warrant laid on 
the land adjoining to the north and West of the Mathewson 
survey, on the Corte Madera de San Pablo, claiming that 
3aud as public land ? A. Not that I rememher ; and I know^ 
th-at I never had any interest in anv warrant laid on that 
land. ' T. B. VALENTINE. 

H. d Newhall called and sworn on behalf of claimants 
(Sol. A. Sharp, attorney). 

Q. 1. Please state your name, age, and place of residence 
and profession. A. Henry C. Newhall, 88 years of age ; 
reside in San Francisco, by profession a lawyer, 

Q. 2. Do you know S. R. Throckmorton ; if so, about 
liow long have vou known him ? A. I do know him, since 
1868 or 1869. 

Q. 3. Look at ExhilDit, marked S. R. T. No. 13, and 
state if you are one of the persons who signed the original, 
of wdiich said exhibit purports to be a copy. 

S. R. Throckmorton objects, as being incompetent and 
irrelevant, aaid the record is the best evidence. 

A. I am. 

Q. 4. Look at Exhibit, marked T. B. V. No. 3, and 
state if you ever knew of the existence and the contents of 
the origitial, of wdiich said last named Exhibit purports to 
be a copy; if so, wdien did you first know of it ? 

Objected to by S. R. Throckmorton, as incompetent and 
irrelevant, and as having no connection with the subject 
matter of Exhibit S. R. T, No. 13. 

A. I don't know that I ever saw tlie original; I have 
seen a copy of this paper^ represented to me to be a copy of 
the original agreement, and which was shown to me by 
some one of the Read family or by Mr. Valentine, at the 
time I w^as first employed in the case of Bolton vs. Van 



294 

Kcynegoni, et als., same time in 1868 or 18(39, anJ so reprc- 
sentecrbj them to be a copy of the original ; I road it then^ 
and conversed frequently with some ol the parties interested 
in the case concermng the subject matter of that case; also 
read it frequently afterwards, 

Q. 5. S'tate if you know whether S. K. Throekmoitous 
and Plugh A. Boyle before and at the time of theexe(!Ution) 
of the original deed of which Exhibit marked 8^. R. T. Xo. 
13 purports to be a coiy^ knew or had notice of the exist- 
ence and contents of the original of whicii Exhibit marked 
T. B. V. Xo, 3 purports to be a €^o}»y ; und if so, state your 
means of knowledge. 

Objected to by S. R. Throckmoitoii as incompetent, ir^ 
relevaDt and immaterial, ai)d because this witness is no pro- 
per source from which to obtain the information sought iu 
the question, and because the question nor any of its bear- 
ings has any relevancy to the rights of property of any of 
the parties in this controversy, for the reason, viz: that the 
entire status of ownership in the lands described in said Ex- 
hibits, by reason of full and complete divestiture by deeds 
of conveyance made by all the parties conveying the said 
lands to said James C. Bolton, by whom said covenant 
marked T. B. Y. Xo. 3 is said to have been made, ha» 
changed, and that the said covenant T. B. V. No. 3 has no 
standing or value in this case. The whole of the parties in 
favor of whom the same purports to have been made, have, 
since the execution of said covenant marked T. B. V. No.»3, 
and before the execution of deed marked Exhibit S. R. T. 
Xo. 13 were executed, had entirely divested themselves of 
all right, title and interest to the property therein described. 

A. Mr. Boyle undoubtedly did, because as his attorney 
in the case of Bolton vs. Van Reynegom et als, we fre- 
quently conversed about the contents and purport and object 
of the original, of wdiich Exhibit marked T. B. V. No. 3 
purports to be a copy, and prior to the date of the Exhibit 
marked S. R. T. No. 13 ; and that 1 should presume that Mr. 
S. R. Throckmorton was well awai-e of the contents of the 
original of which Exhibit marked T. B. V. No. 3 purports 
to be a copy, from the fact that prior to the execution of the 
deed marked S. R. T. No. 13, we had frequently conversed 
about the same. That in such conversations he appeared to 
know the contents and object of the agreement, a copy of 
which is marked T. B. V. No. 3. By ''we" I mean Mr. 
Throckmorton and myself. 



295 

Q. 6. Before, and about the time of the execution of the 
original, of which Kx. S. R. T., No. 13, purports to be a 
c'opy, did yon have any conversation with S. K. Throck- 
morton, in relation to the lands or portions of the Rancho 
ot Corte Madera del Presidio, included in the Mathewson 
survey — if so, state as nearly as you can what was said on 
that occasion. 

Objected to by S. R. Throckmorton as incompetent, im- 
material and irrelevant, and because all the subject-matter 
relating to property and lands owned or claimed by said S. 
R. Throckmorton are matters of conveyance, by deeds duly 
executed and recorded, and which cannot be changed or 
affected by any recitals or assertions at desultory conversa- 
tions by or with anybody; and because it is not shown that 
the parties to these instruments were present during any- 
such conversations, or were influenced thereby. 

A. I frequently had conversations with Mr. Throckmor- 
ton, prior to the date mentioned, in reference to the lands 
both included within and excluded from the Mathewson 
survey; during such conversations it w^as stated that the 
Read heirs had undisputed title to the greater portion of 
the lands within the Mathewson survey, and that such por- 
tions as were included in the Bolton contract, Ex. " T. B. 
V. 'No-. 3.," were the subject-matters of the suit of Bolton 
vs. Van Reynegom. 

S. R. Throckmorton moves to strike out so much of the 
foregoing answer as relates to the land covered by the suit 
of Bolton vs. Van Reynegom, the same not being included 
in the Matthewson survey, to which the question only re- 
ferred. 

Gross- Examination by P. Gardner, 

Q. 1. For what object was said Ex. T. B. Y. Xo. 3 with- 
held from being recorded until the late date of 1871 ? A. 
I don't know. 

Q. 2. Was it not withheld for tlie purpose of keeping 
the said defendants in said action from the knowledge of 
there being any such agreement made until after the said 
case was decided by the Court? A. I have no doubt that 
you and the other squatters, and Mr. Throckmorton, knew 
the lull contents of the Bolton agreement long prior to the 
trial of the suit mentioned, and I base sucli belief upon fre- 
quent conversations with all of you in relation to this mat- 
ter. 



296 

Q. 3. Do I understand you, as an attorney at law, tliat 
the last answer is an answer to niv last question? A. 1 
think it is. '^ H. C, NEWHALL. 

Walter Van Dyke, U, S. Attorney for the District of Cali- 
fornia, oliers as follows : 

Motion ; That the Honorable Surveyor-General of the U. 
S. for California dismiss the proceedings on the Ransom-Al- 
lardt survey of said rancho now under consideration, and 
that the plat of survey of said rancho, made by TJ. S. De- 
puty Surveyor R. C. Mathewson, of October 18, 1858 — plat 
filed Sept. 19, 1859, and survey approved b}' Surveyor-Gen- 
eral on the 15th of August, 1860, and duly approved and 
published accoi^ing to law, under the Act of Congress, ap- 
proved June 14, 1860, be substituted as the official plat of 
survey of said rancho in the place and stead of Ransom Al- 
lardt's survey, and that the same, plat and papers, be forth- 
with forwarded to the honorable the Commissioner of the 
General Land Office at Washington, for the issue of letters 
patent of the United States for said rancho and according' 
to said Mathewson's survey to the confirmees, the heirs of 
Juan Read. This motion is presented and made on the 
ground that said survey of said rancho by said Deput}^ Ma- 
thewson, approved and published as aforesaid, became final 
under said Act of June 14, 1860, and proceedings had, and 
that said survey is final. 

In support of this motion, said attorney of the United 
States submits the following, to wit : The record of proceed- 
ings had in said case and survey prior to July 1st, 1864, and' 
those embodied in the written motion, and Exhibits here- 
with, filed as follows : 

1st. Motion of the United States to dismiss proceedings, 
etc., marked '^ U. S. A. l^o. 1." 

• 2d. Order of approval of &aid Mathewson survey by the 
Surveyor-General, dated August 15, 1860, marked Exhibit 
U. S. A. No, 2. 

3d. Certificate of publication of said survey, under the- 
act of June 14, 1860, marked Ex. U. S. A. No^ 3. 

4th. Order entered directing return of survey into Dis- 
trict Court, on Sept. 13, 1860, marked Ex. U. S. A. JSTo. 4. 

5th. Order of said District Court approving said survey 
Sept. 28, 1865, marked Ex. U. S. A. E"o. 5. 

6th. Decree of said U. S. District Court, dated October 
16, 1865, reciting that the foregoing proceedings were in- 
advertently had, and ordering the approval of said survey 



29^ 

^i^iit aside, ami llie proceedings had dismissed. The abov^ 
Exhibits, Nos. 2, 8, 4, 5 and 0, are offered by duly ce-rtifie,d 
copies. 

And the said ITnited S-tates, by her said Attorn-ey, here- 
by gives notice that said motion will be urged before the 
■Surveyor-General, the Coniniissioner of the General Land 
Office, and the Honorable Secretary of th^ Department of 
the Interior, and will ask th^ immediate consideration af 
the matter. 

The said U. S. Attorney also offers in this connection the 
map of the region adjacent to the Bay of San Francisco, 
^Stute GeologicaJ Survey of Cahfornia, by J. D. Whitney, 
State Geologist, for the purpose of showing the location of 
the Kancho Corte Madera del Presidio, as surve3'ed 'fey said 
Deputy Mathewson, marked Ex. U. S. A. Xo. 7. 

Objections to the foregoing motion and Exhibits by S. li. 
Throckinorton, to be enumerated to-morrow morning, April 
27, 1876, after half-past 10 o'clock ; also, by any other 
parties who may see lit to make objections to the same. 

Adjournedno Thursday, April 27th, 1876, at 10:80 a. m. 



Met this day, April 27th, 1876, pursuant to adjournment. 

The motion of the District Attorney is suspended, to be 
•re-instated and renumbered at the close of the case, subject 
to the objections made, and to he made, by the contending 
parties, as per order of 'the Surveyor-General. 

Mr. S. R. Throckmorton now offers Exhibit "S. R. T. 
'Xo. 24,'' deed (being certified copy) Juan J. Read, Itilaria 
M. Read, Thomas B. Deffebach'and Inez Deffebach, his 
wife, to James C. Bolton, dated August 12th, 1865, 
heretofore off'ered in this case, and also marked ''T. B. Y. 
No. 7." 

Sol. A. Sharp, for <ilaimants, objects for the reason that 
said Exhibits already ap[»ear in evidence, and because it is 
incompetent and irrelevant, and also, that the contestant 
offering the deeds does not claim any interest thereunder. 

Also, Exhibit (certified copy) S. R, T. No. 25, deed of 
James C. Bolton to Thomas B. Valentine, dated July 25, 
1868, heretofore in this case, and marked T. B. V. Ko. 6. 

Sol. A. Sharp, for -claimants, makes the same objection. 

Also, Exhibit S. R. T. No. 26, certified copy of deed of 
James C. Bolton to Rudolph Steinbach, dated September 
16, 1865. 

Same objection by Sharp. 



298 

Also, Pjxbibit 8. R. T. Xo. 27, certified copy of deed from 
i^miolpli Steinbach to Emil Steinb:i<jii, dated March 28tb. 
1866. 

Saaie objection b}' Sharp. 

Also, Exhibit ''^. R. T. Xo.. 28/' Power of Attorney (by 
certified copy) of Emil Steinbach to Riidolp Steiubaeh^ 
dated February 18th, 1864. 

Same oljjection by Sliarp. 

Also, Exhibit S. R. T. No. 21>, certified e>pv of deed of 
Emil Steinbach to Emil Grisar, dated June 16th, 1866s. 

Same objection by Sharp. 

Also, Exhibit ''S. R. T. No. 30, ^' certified copy of deed 
of Emil Grisar to S. R. Throckmorton, dated June 19ih, 
1866. 

SoL A> Sharp makes same objeetioiK 

Also, three partition deeds oftV-red in connection witli Ex- 
hibit S. R. 1\ Xo. 13, which last Exhibit is deed froni Thom- 
as B. Deffebach, Inez Read, T. B. Valentine, H. C. Xew- 
hall, Maria G. de Boyle. The said partition first named and 
referred to beine; marked as follows: 

1st, "S. R. T.^Xo. 31." J)ee(l fron^ S. R. Throckmorton 
to Iludi A. Boyle, dated January 28, 1871. * 

2d, Exhibit S. R. T. Xo. 32. Det^i] from S. R. Throck- 
morton to Thomas B. Valentine, dated January 28, 1871. 

3d, Exhibit S. R. T. Xo. 33. Deed from S*. R. Throck- 
morton to Inez Read de Deffebach, wife of T. R. Deffebach,. 
dated January 28, 1871. 

Mr. SoL A. Sharp makes the same objections as before. 

Also, Exhibit "S R. T. Xo. 34." Deed from Hugh A. 
Boyle to H. C. Xewhall, July, 1871. 

S. R. Throckmorton ^worn as a witness in his own be- 
half. 

Q. 1. Are you the Sam'l R. Throckmorton referred to 
in Exhibits S. R. T. Xo. 31, 32, and 33 ? A. I am, and a 
contestant in this case. 

Q. 2. Please look at Exhibit S. R. T. Xo. 13, and ex- 
plain, if you can, the relations, if an}^ that existed between 
the three Exhibits last referred to, and the deed of f. B. 
Deffebach, et al., to Julius C. McCeney, being "Exhibit S. 
R. T. Xo. 13." A. The three deeds marked Exhibits S. R. 
T. Xo. 31, 32, and 33, executed by me respectively to Hugh 
A. Boyle, Thos. B. Valentine, and Inez Read Deffebach, 
were executed by me as deeds of partition, deeding to them 
their respective interests, as between myself and the parties 



299 

thereto, and the said deed executed by them to Julius C* 
McCeney, that is to sa3\ the deed executed by Thos. B. 
DefFebach, et al., to Julius C. McCeney, marked Exhibit S. 
R. T. No. 1-3, was macie to him for my use and benefit, and 
was made in his name for convenience, and to avoid confu- 
*5ion, and was made in the execution of said partition. 
Recess till 2 o'clock. 

8. R. THROCKMORTON. 

Exhibits offered by Edwin Gardner, to wit: " Kx. G. R. 
No. 1," Edwin Gardner's objections, and subdivisions of the 
Mathewson survey, by the heirs of Jno. Read. 

^'Ex. G. R. No. 2.'' Probate Court, Marin County. In 
In the matter of the estate (>f Jno. Read, deceased. Cer- 
tified copy of order, appointing Jno. S. Gibbs administrator 
or guardian for minor heirs. 

E.x. G. R. No. 3. Certified copy of deed, Jno. S. Gibbs, 
administrator, to B. R. Buckelew. 

Ex. G. R. No. 4. Certified copy of appointment of Jat-\ 
McShafter and T. Murphy as guardians. 

Ex. G. R. No. 5. Certified copies of complaint and an- 
swer and decree, Garcia et al. vs. Buckelew and Gibbs, 7th 
J)ist. Court, Marin County. 

Ex. G. R. No. 6. Certified copies of complaint, answer, 
and judgment, Albert Gardner vs. B. R. Buckelew, 7th Dist. 
Court, Marin County. 

Ex. G. R. No. 7. Certified copies of complaint, answer, 
and judgment, Edwin Gardner vs. B. R. Buckelew, 7th Dist. 
Court, Marin County. 

Ex. G. R. No. 8. Certified copy of deed, V. D. Doub to 
Edwin Gardner. 

Mr. Sharp, for claimants, objects to each and all the fore- 
going exhibits, marked respectively G. R. No. 1 to G. R. 
No. 8 inclusive, on the ground that each of the same is in- 
competent and irrelevant, and do not tend to elucidate nor 
prove any of the issues in this proceeding. Also, that G. 
R. No. 1 was not filed in time. Also, it appears that John 
Read, the grantee of the ranch, died bef >re the admission 
of the State of California, and during the time that the Mex- 
ican law of descent prevailed, and there was no authority 
for the appointment of any adtninistrators of his estate ; and 
said exhibits do not connect, nor tend to connect the said 
Edwin Gardner with the grant of said rancho, or show any 
title in him to any portion of said Ranch, Corte Madera del 
Presidio. 



SCO 

Peter Gardner is called in rebuttal, and sworn.- 
Question by Mullen & Hyde : 

Q. 1. Did you, on the twenty -third day of March, ISTti^ 
Visit, in company with G. F. Allardt, the old stone mound, 
concerning wbieh the said Aliardt has .testified in this caseV 
A. I did.^ 

Q. 2. State when prior to said d'ate^ if ever, ymi first saw 
said old stone mound? A. In the fall of 1853 or 1854, 

Q. 3. At the date when you first saw said old stone- 
mound, was there any stake standing therein ? A. I do not 
recollect. 

Q. 4. Had there been any such, would yon not be likeh' 
to remember the fact V A. I do not recollect anything 
about that particular stake, as the whole California Cit}' 
tract was surveyed and laid ofi:" in lots, and marked with 
stakes. ' PETj^.R GARDNER. 

Peter Gardner offers the following Exhibits on behalf of 
self: 

P. G. Ko. ly being his objections to the survey.— ^P. G. 
No. 2, Gardner's Map, heretofore ofiV*red. — P. G. No. 3, 
being certified copy of instructions to R. C. Mathewson. — 
P. G. No. 4, heretofore offered. — P. G. No. 5, being deposi- 
tions of Francisco Sanchez, J. J. Papyand M. G. Vallejo. — 
P. G. No. 6, petition of Widow Read for the lands adjacent 
to the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio.- — P. G. No. 7, 
being a certified copy of pre-emption claim of Jolm J. 
Read, dated the 28th day of May, 1863.— P. G. No. 8, being 
Exhibit marked T. B. V. No. 3.— P. G. No. 9^ being a cer- 
tified copy of loeatioti of school-land warrants and plats, T. 
R. Valentine ei al. 

Mr. Sharp, for the claimauts,^ objects to each and all of 
said Exhibits, as being incompetent and irrelevant, and also 
because said Peter Gardner has no status on the record in 
this case. 

B. S. Brooks and S. R. Throckmorton, in propria persona,' 
join in the above objection-. 

Testimony here closed. 

Here again appears Walter Van Dyke, U. S. Attorney for 
the District of California, and moves as follows : 

Motion. — That the Hon. Surveyor-General of the U. S. 
for California dismiss the proceedings on the Ransom- 
Allardt survey of said rancho now under consideration, and 



301 

tliat the plat t)f snrvev of s'nd ranclio made by IT. S. Depute 
Hnrvoyor R. C. Matiievvson, of October 18th, 1858— plat 
tiled September 19th, 1859, and survey approved by Sur- 
veyor-General on the 15th of Aui^ust, 1860 — be substituted 
as the official plat of survey of said rancho, in the place and 
stead of Ransom Allardt's survey, and that the same — plat 
and papers — be forthwith forwarded to the Honorable the 
Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington, 
for the issue of letters patent of the United States for said 
rancho, and according to said Mathewson's survey, to the 
contirmees, the heirs of Juan Read. 

This motion is presented and made on the ground that 
said survey of said rancho by said Deputy Mathewson, ap- 
proved and published as aforesaid, become final under said 
«,ct of June 14th, 1860, and proceedings had, and that said 
survey is final. 

In support of this motion said Attorney of the United 
States submits the following, to wit : The record of pro- 
"ceedings had in said case and survey prior to July 1st, 1864, 
and tliose embodied in the written motion and Exhibits 
herewith filed, as follows : 

1. Motion of the United States to dismiss proceedings^ 
-etc., "U. S, A. 1^0, i;' 

2. Order of approval of said Mathewson's survey by the 
Surveyor-General, dated Aug. 15th, 1860, marked Exhibit 
U. S. A. ¥o, 2, 

3. Certificate of publication of said survey under the act 
of June 14th, 1860, marked Ex. U. S. A. Ka 3. 

4. Order entered directing return of survey into District 
€ourt, September 18th, 1860, marked U. S. A, "No. 4. 

5. Order of said District Court approving said survey, 
September 28, 1865, marked Ex. U. S. A. l^o. 5. 

6. Decree of said U. S. District Court, dated October 16, 
1865, reciting that the foregoing proceedings were inadver- 
tently had, and ordering the approval of said survey set 
aside and the proceedings had, dismissed. The above Exhi- 
bits i!»J"os. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, ai-e offered by duly certified eopies. 

And the said United States, by her said attorney, hereby 
.gives notice that said motion will be urged before the Sur- 
veyor-General, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, 
and the Honorable Secretary of the Department of the Inte- 
rior, and will ask the immediate consideration of the matter. 
The said U. S. Attornej^ also offers in this connection the 
map of the region adjacent to the Bay of San Francisco, 
State Geological Survey of California by J, D. Whitney^ 



302 

•State Geologist, for the purpose of showing the location of 
the Raueho Corte Madera del Presidio, as surveyed by said 
De])uty Mathewson, marked Ex. U. S. ^o. 7. 

Adjouriied until Tuesday, the 2d day of May, 1876, at 10 

o'clock A. M. 



Case called this 2d day of May, a. i>. 1876, at 10:30 

o'clock A. M. 

Mullen & riyde object to the foregoing motion, and said 
Exhibits, and for reasons stated on pages from 830 to 838 in- 
clusive. 

, Mullen & Hyde, while uniting as they do in the motion 
of Hon. Walter Van Dyke made herein — as they understand 
the same — to set aside the Ransom-AUardt survey of the 
"Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio," and because, as they 
allege, for the various irregularities, and 3y virtue of other 
matters set forth and shown in the rocord of these proceed- 
ings, do object to the substitution therefor, and the reinstat- 
ing of, the so-called "Mathewson survey of said raueho," 
as approved by U. S. Surveyor-General Mandeville, and for 
reasons which they set forth and as follow, to wit : 

1st. That admitting, which they do not, that any and all 
action of U. S. Surveyor-General Mandeville, heretofore had 
in the matter of the survey of the "Rancho Corte Madera 
del Presidio," to be correct and valid, the same was not 
final but was subject to the control, supervision and right of 
review of the Hon. Commissioner of the General Land Office, 
and because said control and right of review was vested in 
said Commissioner by law. 

By the Act of Congress of July 4th, 1836, (5 Statute 10") 
reorganizing the G. L. 0., it was specially provided: 

That all the Executive duties then or afterwards to be 
prescribed by any law^ touching the disposition of the public 
lands or any private claim thereto, were made subject to 
the supervision and control of the Hon. Commissioner of the 
G. L. 0. 

That the making this particular survey by U. S. Surveyor- 
General Mandeville was one of the Executive duties referred 
to in said law, and that General Mandeville's action in the 
premises was subject to the supervision and control of said 
Commissioner of the G. L. 0. 

That the action of the Hon. Com. G. L. 0., already had 
herein, and the subsequent review^ thereof on appeal to the 
Hon. Secretary of the Interior, whose right of supervision 



808 

extends to all matters over which the Commissioner has ju- 
risdiction, was the exercise by that officer of such supervi - 
ory power and control, and t\vdt this action and judgment of 
these officers was a final disposition, by the highest execu- 
tive authority of the II. S. Land Dept., over this subject 
matters, and is now ''■res adjudkata ;" and as such, the par- 
ties thereto having been represented and fully heard, are 
now concluded, and that the said matter is not how subject 
to review by their successr>rs in office, and that the IT. I*^, 
Surveyor has no jurisdiction in the premises, and cannot en- 
tertain said motion. 

2d. Because said motion contains recitals of matters as 
facts which are incorrectly stated, in this. 

That i)lat of Mathewson survey was approved by \] . S. 
Sur.-Gen'l Mandeville, on Aug. loth, 1860, when said date 
should have been Sept. 15th, 1859 ; aiid that said survey 
was published (meaning thereby correctly, and validly and 
legally published) under the act of June 14th, 1860, which 
is error. 

3d. Because, whdt purports to be the original of said 
*' Exhibit U. S. ^o. 2," filed in support of said motion, is 
nothing more than a series of loose sheets of printed mem- 
oranda (dated Aug. 15th, 1860) oK certain matters therein 
contained and posted in memorandum form of scrap book, 
and that said original does not bear the signature of the U. 
S. Surveyor-General Mandeville, subscribed thereto; but 
said name, like the remaining material matters therein con- 
tained, is printed; and said original seems to be a series of 
memoranda sheets for convenient reference to the matters 
therein contained, as shown by the many and various lead 
pencil jottings and annotations thereon; and that neither 
the said original memoranda, nor a certified copy thereof, is 
the best or even competent evidence of the fact or date of 
approval of the survey of this rancho ; but that the original 
writing of the date of the approval of said survey, as signed 
by U. S. Sur.-Gen'l Mandeville on the original plat ot the 
survey of said rancho, is the best evidence of both of said 
facts ; and that said date is not Aug. 15, 1860, but is Sept. 
19th, 1859. 

4th. Because what purports to be tlie original of " Ex- 
hibit U. S. A. Xo. 8," is not in hai-mony with what purports 
to be the original of ''Exhibit U. S. A." Xo. 2," in this, that 
the date of approval of survey of the ranclio in the one 
case is set forth as Aug. 15th, 1860, and' in the other as Sept. 
19th, 1859. 



304 

5th. Because said "Exhibit U, S. A. N'o. 3/' must be 
taken in its entirety; and when so taken, it appears that 
the original thereof is from a book of printed forms, with 
blank spaces left in said forms to be filled up, and which 
spaces are so filled up in said original, bj mattors therein ; 
but that it is specially shown and written in red ink, on tl)e 
face of said original and ali^o on the face of the certified 
copy thereof, that the Mathewson survey of this rancho was^ 
on the IWi day of Sept. ^ 18(50, ordered into the U. S. District 
Court, 

That on said 13th day of September, 1860, the Mathew- 
son survey of this rancho, as set forth in said ''Exhibit U. 
S. A. No. 3," had not been published for four weeks in two 
newspapers, as prescribed by law, but that said survey had 
been published m 07ie newspaper for /or^r weeks, and for only 
three weeks in another newspaper, and that prior to its pub- 
lication for four weeks in two newspapers, as prescribed by' 
law, and as set forth in said Exhibit, the said survey was 
ordered into the IT. S. District Court, as provided for by 
section 2 of the Act of June 14th, 1860. 

That immediately thereupon, to wit : September 13th, 
1860, the U. S. Surveyor-General lost all public jurisdiction 
thereof, and on that same day, September 13th, 1860, as 
shown by said Exhibit IT. S. A. No. 4, the V. S. District 
Court assumed jurisdiction (and that, too, upon the motion 
and the filing objections to said Mathewson survey hy the 
claimants herein) of the subject-matter of said survey, and 
that said District Court retained said jurisdiction and con- 
trol thereof, and continued to exercise the same until Octo- 
ber 16th, 1865, as shown by "Exhibit U. S, A. No. 6," and 
which was filed in said IT. S. District Court on the 24th of 
October, 186e5, and that the Act of 14th June, i860, reserved 
to the courts of the United States the power of such revis- 
ion of the surveys of all private land claims.. 

That; on July 1st, 1864, neither the survey of this Rancho, 
lis made by said Mathewson, nor the plat of said survey, as- 
approved by IT. S. Surveyor-General Mandeville, had been 
approved by the IT. S. District Cjurt for California, nor by 
the Commissioner (^f the General Land Office, and that, 
therefore, under section 2d of the Act of July 1st, 1864, the 
provision of section 1st of said Act became applicable there- 
to, and that thereunder said survey had to be pubUshed as. 
provided for in said A.ct of July 1st, 1864. 

That whatever approval of said survey, as had by said IT. 
B. District Court, was by said Court vacated and set aside. 



§05 



^"incl, tljLM'L'fore, the said ?vliitliuvvsoH survey, both under sec^ 
lion 3d of said special Act of July 1st, 1864, as well as un- 
"xler the special Act of March 8d, 1851, and the general 
laws of July 4th, 1836, again came under the supervisiou, 
control, and right of review of the CommissioneV of the 
(general Land Office. 

Finally. A survey of a private laud claiui in California, 
"lUiide under the |)n)Vision of the Act of Congress of March 
M, 1851, and approved hj the IT. S. Surveyor-General, piior 
to the Act of June 14th, 1860 (which were the facts in this 
case), could not he legally published under said act, but 
must be }>ub]ished under the i)rovisions of the Act of Julv 
Ist, 1804. 

MULLEX & HYDE, 
Attorneys for Objectors-. 



Mr. Shanklin, comnsel for S. R. Tlirockniorton, objects to 
•the motion made by U. S. District Attorney Van Dyke, and 
to the papers filed by him in support of his motion, for 
Teasons as follows : 

1st. That the District Attorney knew that the case of 
the United States vs. the Heirs of Juan Read, had been 
dismissed in the District Court by proc-eedings had the 16th 
•day of October, A. D. 1865, as will' appear by the certified 
'Copy of proceedings had therein on that date, and now of- 
fered. [See next page— 839.] 

2d. Because the papers offered in support of the motion 
•are only a [sartial record of th<i court proceedings therein. 

3d. i3ecause the grant of the Rancho Corte Madera del 
l^-esidio was a [>erfeet grant, under the Mexican laws ; and 
the survey thereof, under the Mexican laws, had settled, 
fixed and determined the boundaries of said Rancho more 
than ten. years prior to the treaty c»f Guadalupe Hidalgo, 
•and, under said treaty, the United States acquired no rights, 
in any respect, over said ranoho, as to the character of the 
grant or the determination of any of its boundaries, and 
acquired no power to change said boundaries. 



306 

At a terra of tbe District Court of the United States, in and 
for the Northern District of California, held at the 
Couit Room of the said Coart, in the City and County 
of San Francisco, in the district aforesaid, on Monday^ 
the '1 6tli day of October, A. D. 1865. 

4 

Present, Hon. Ogden HoiFraan, Judge. 

The United States, ^ 

vs. I 

The Heirs of Juan Read. J 

Upon reading and filing the notice of motion, on the part 
of the District Attorney, to dismiss the exceptions to the 
survey and the affidavit of B. S. Brooks and S. A. Sharp, 
Attorneyj^ of the clainiHiits, from which it appears that the 
order or decree heretofore entered was entered under mis- 
apprehension. On motion of B. S. Brooks, Esq., Attorney 
of the claimants, it is ordered that the said order or decree 
overruling said exceptions and approving the survey, be set 
aside — be vacated and annulled ; and it is further ordered, 
on the like motion, that all proceedings in this court touch- 
ing the said survey, be, and the same are hereby dismissed. 

OGDEN HOFFMAN, 

District Judiire. 

o 

A true copy of original order now on tile, in the case U. 
S. vs. Juan Read. 

Attest : Geo. C. Gorham, Clerk. 

By S. Neall, Dep. Clerk. 

[Endorsed.] Order setting aside survey approved by 
U. S. District Court, September, 1865, Corte Madera del 
Presidio. U. S. Surveyor-General's Office. Filed Feb. 5, 

1867. 

Mr. B. S. Brooks, on behalf of claimants, objects that the 
Surveyor-General has no jurisdiction to entertain said 
motion, because 1st, the Surveyor-General has no jurisdic- 
tion to review the proceedings of the Honorable Commis- 
sioner and Honorable Secretary of the Interior; 2d, the 
matter now pending is upon the order referring the matter 
back to the Surveyor-General under special directions, and 
the power and duty ot the Surveyor-General is confined to 
a compliance with the instructions of the Honorable Com- 
missioner and Secretary. 3d. The question of the finality 
of the Mathewson survey has been adjudicated by the Dis- 
trict Court, the former Surveyor-General, the Commissioner 



307 

of the Generiil Land Office, and the Secretary of the In- 
terior, and the question is now res judicata, and their decision 
has become^ the law of the case. Mr. lirooks also concurs 
in the objections of Mr. Mnllen and of Mr. Shanklin. 

Mr. Slianklin, counsel of Mr. Throckmorton, concurs in 
the objections of Mr. Bi-ooks. 

J. H. Wilde, chief draftsman of the United States Sur- 
veyor-General's office, called by Mullen & Hyde. 

Q. 1. Were you in the office of the Surveyor-General in 
1859 V A. I can't remember whether I came in September 
or October, 1859 ; but in October I certainly was, and have 
been ever since. 

Q. 2. In whose handwi-iting are the certificates on plat 
i^o. 206, being that of Mathewson's survey of this rancho ? 
A. The certificate of approval of survey is in the handwrit- 
ing of Bielawski, chief draftsman in the Surveyor-General's 
office at that time, except the signature "J. W. Mandeville," 
which is in the handwriting of said Mandeville. 

The certificate of publication, the body of it is in my own 
handwriting— I was then assistant draftsman ; the signature 
is in the handwriting of the United States Survevor-General, 
J. W. Mandeville. 

Q. 3. What is the book now shown you, entitled on the 
back: Certificate of Advertised Surveys, Volume I ? A. It 
is a record book of this office; it contains the certificate of 
publication of surveys for the years 1860 and 1861. 

Q. 4. Is a similar record continued down to this date ? 
A. To the best of my knowledge it has been, as I have had 
occasion to refer to it from time to time. 

Q. 5. Is the Volume I, as originally prepared for use, of 
blank paper or of printed forms V A. It is of printed forms. 

Q. 6. Are the words, " and I further certify that no order 
for the return thereof to the U. S. District Court has been^ 
served upon me," written or printed ? A. Printed. 

Q. 7. Is it struck out in any instance in said volume ? 
A. It is not. 

Q. 8. You find a memorandum in red ink at the top of 
the page on divers pages similar to that on page i^^ ? A. I 
do. 

fj. 9. What is it, and by whom made? A. It is an en- 
try of the fact tliat the survey has been ordered into the 
District Court, and the date of the order ; tliey are in the 
handwriting of difierent clerks in this office; I should say 



. 308 

that the one on page 66 is in the handwriting of C. E. GliJ- 
den, chief field-note clerk in this office at that time. 

Q. 10. Is that vohime an official record of this office, and is 
that entry an official entr}? A. It is the only record of 
that kind that I know of, and has ahvavs heen kept. 

Q. 11. Where is Mr. GUdd'en ? A. He is dead. 

Q. 12. Is page 66 of said Yolnnie I the original of Ex- 
hihit U. S. A. ISo. 3 ? A. It is. 

Q. 13. Look at the hook now shown you, labelled on 
the side: "Ranchos- ordered into U. S, ])ist. Court," and 
state what it is. A. It is a record haok, kept in this office, 
of the orders ordering the surveys of ranchos into court. 

Q. 14. What is <jntered in said book ? A.. ]^anies of 
ranchos, the date when the older was filled, when the sur- 
vey was filed, and a column of remarks. 

Q. 15. Do you, on page 14, find an entry respecting this 
rancho; if so, what is it V A. I do. Under the head of 
name of rancho, "Corte Madera del Presidio," and under 
the head of when order filed, " Sept. 13th, 1860 ;" under the 
head of when survey filed, "Dec. 22d, 1860," and under the 
head of remarks I find nothing. 

Q. 16. Look at the book ik)vv shown you, and state what 
it is. A. It is a recard kept in this office of publication of 
private land claims. 

Q. 17. Is that the original fram which Exhibit U. S. A.- 
No. 2 is taken ? A. It is. 

Q. 18. How is this book forraed ? A. It is a scrap-book 
originally, in which printed fornr^s are pasted, siraihir to 
Exhibit V. S. A. No. 2. These printed forms are filled up 
and pasted in. There are no blank ones in it, and the book 
is not full. 

Q. 19. Does Exhibit U. S. A. No: 2 conform in all 
respects to the said original ; if not, wherein does it differ ? 
A. The word copy is not on the original ; certain pencil an- 
notations that' are on the original are not on the copy. At 
the end of each line are certain figures in pencil which ap- 
pear to be a date, and they are probably the date of the 
approval of the survey. The first column preceding the 
names are the names of places in ink, with a pencil mark 
drawn across them. At the end af these names, in most 
instances, the letter " C," sometimes in red ink and some- 
times in pencil. There are various other check marks in 
pencil that I do not understand, which are not on the copy. 

Walter Van Dyke, the U. S. District Attorney, on behalf 
of the United States, offers supplemental to the Ex. U. S/ 



309 

A., 1 to 7, the following papers: 1st. Published certificate 
of approval and publication of said Mathewson's Surve3\ 
Publication in the Sonoma County Journal^ from August 24th 
to September 14th, 1860, and in the daily and weekly San 
Francisco Herald, rive insertions, certificate dated U. S. Sur- 
veyor-General's office, San Francisco, August 16th, 1860. 

The above are offered in orio^inal, and copies thereof filed, 
marked Exhibit U. S. A. IS^o. 8, and Exhibit U. S. A. No. 9. 

Adjourned till 3 o'clock p. m. this day. 



3 o'clock p. M. 

Sol. A. Sharp, fv>r claimants, joins in the objections of B. 
S. Brooks, to the said motion of Walter Yan Dyke, U. S. 
District Attorney ; also, because the Rancho of Corte Madera 
del Presidio was segregated from the public domain by the 
act of juridical possession, under the Mexican Government, 
and thereby became a grant of the specific quantity, and the 
specific tract of land so measured off to the grantee, which 
was binding on the Mexican Government, and is equally 
binding on the Government of the United States, under the 
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and neither our Government, 
nor any of its courts or ofiicers, have any power or right to 
change the same. 

Mr. Sharp now, at this date. May 20, 1876, moves on be- 
half of the clients he represents, that the case be now closed 
and submitted, together with the motion of the District At- 
torney, on briefs to be filed within thirty days from this date, 
with leave to Mr. Throckmorton's attorney to file an Exhibit 
from District Court in this case. B. S. Brooks joins with J. 
B. Howard, Walter Van Dyke, U. S. attorney, Peter Gardner, 
and S. L. Cutter, attorney for E. E. Gardner, join in and sec- 
ond the above motion. 

S. R. Throckmorton moves to amend said motion and 
substitute therefor, in accordance with the consent and or- 
der of the United States Surveyor-General, that this case be 
ridjourned until 10 o'clock a. m. of Thursday next. 

Amendment not accepted by any of the attorneys. 

S. R. Throckmorton protests against said adjournment. 

The amendment is denied, and the case declared closed. 

July 14, 1876, S. R. Throckmorton filed Exhibit marked 
" S. R. T. IN'o. 35," being notice of motion to dismiss pro- 



cz 

310 

eeedings in U. S. District Court in case of U. S. vs. Heirs of 
Juan Read. .,,,,.. . : • : 

No. 306 Pine Street, San Francisco, Cal, 

I, J. A. Robinson, United States Commissioner, duly 
appointed, qualified and acting, do certify that the witnesses 
named in the foregoing record in the matter of the survey 
of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, were each by me 
first duly sworn on their respective corporal oaths, to testify 
the whole truth touching the matters in controversy in said 
cause ; That their testimony was taken on the several days 
specified in the foregoing record, at the office of the United 
States Surveyor-General. . 

July 15, 1876. Attest r J. A. R0BINS0:N", 

{seal.} United States Commissioner. 



t