lidity of these titles is to adopt the Texas system, which divested herself of the curse that overshadowed the state. The people sent two honest lawyers to Washington to obtain redress. They came back and told the people that the land department at Washington was a den of thieves, that it would rob them of all their money and then sell them. and advised the people to help themselves. So the people called a convention and placed an effigy upon every grant and issued a proc lamation that all claimants of grants should come and prove their titles before a committee of the people (not by the technicalities of law), all that could produce a good title to fear nothing, their persons and property should pear to be only eight acres. In this county there is a concession to a Jesuit priest 115 years ago, located at a place called Natividad. He planted a tree at three of the corners of the eight acres. He then sold his claim (which is now two leagues) and went to the Carmel, established a church and died there. When the mission Soledad was sold to Jose Antonio Pamfilo Soberanes the record says eight acres. If these two are no more than eight acres all the rest must be the same. The eight acres are now 9.280 acres. Then where does the title of about seven hundred grants come from? The officers of a territory or state cannot deed government land away. Mexico was very particular about her lands here, as attested by Peralto. Before he came to California he made application to the gov-be respected. But if they came to prove ernment of Mexico through his brother, who was a member of the government, for a grant of land in California. But with all the influence of himself and brother he could not get a grant of land. But at last he was told to go to California and make his location; then the government would send surveyors from Mexico to survey his land; when they returned to Mexico the government would send an appraiser to appraise his land; when he returned the government would send a receiver for the purchase money and expenses. Peralto said that would cost him more than all the land in California was worth at that time. So he came to California and got a permit to locate for grazing purposes from the department of California. He located in Contra Costa county. From that time up to 1851 this was all the title he had. Then a party went to him (I knew them well) and told him to claim all the land he could and they would make him a Mexican grant of it, if he would deed them one-half of the grant, which he agreed to do. So in one week they produced a pure Spanish title that Peralto said would take him a life-time to get from his own government. But now he had a better title than Castro, Pico, Alvarado, Pacheco, Vallejo or any of them. "and you Yankees made it." Smoked paper and back dates have made all the land titles in California except those recorded in the archives of Mexico. And the only way to test the va fraudulent titles they should hang alongside of their effigies. One year passed and not one came to claim these lands. Then the convention declared all the lands of Texas free of grants and ready for pre-emption and homestead purposes, protected by the people of Texas, and they offer that land now free to any that will improve it. Now, sir, do you think that the grants of California could stand that ordeal? I know that they could not. I will now give you a history of how governors that had no vested rights made grants: In 1848 Col. Stevenson had posession of the mission of San Buenaventura. Pico told a Spaniard if he would give so much money Pico would give him a grant of the mission of Buenaventura. The Spaniard said Pico conld not do it, that the Americans had possession of the mission property. Pico said if he would give him the money that he would fix it. The Spaniard agreed, and Pico told his secretary to get the oldest paper and make a grant, dated back, and give it to the Spaniard. The secretary got the pueblo that he lived on for making the deed. Not many years ago the Spaniard got a patent for eleven leagues of the mission. He dies and the heirs eject Mr. Secretary, who makes oath to these facts. There are but a few grants that have as good a title as that, notwithstanding its fraudulency. Recent Decisions. steam thrashing-machine in operation on the latter's place. The amount, of damages claimed was based upon the estimated value of the grain after it would have been harvested and sacked. The law, it appears, requires all persons operating steam thrashers to use precaution against the spread of fires by plowing a certain number of furrows around the engines. This provision the defendant had not complied with. John W. Armstrong of Sacramento appeared for the plaintiff in the case, and A. P. Catlin for the defendant. When the casc came on for trial the plaintiff amended his complaint so as to deduct from the amount of damages first claimed the cost of harvesting, thrashing, etc, making the sum $960, for which he recovered judgment. TBADE-MARKS.-In view of Judge Dyer's late decision in Milwaukee, the particulars of a trade-mark suit in Philadelphia, wherein a like decision was rendered recently will be found of much interest. The particulars, which we take from the Record of that city, are as follows: "Some time ago a bill in equity was filed by Day & Frick, soap manufacturers of this city, against F. Walls, another extensive soap manufacturer, in which an injunction was asked to restrain the employment of certain labels and wrappers used by Walls on his soap. These labels, it was alleged, contained language similar to that registered as a trade-mark at Washington by Day & Frick. The description secured by them in designating the soaps were the words 'bleacher' 'bleaching', together with HOTEL KEEPERS' LIABILITY.-IMPORTANT the device of a pair of scales and other signs,DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME and it was claimed that the use of this trademark by Walls is an infringement. In behalf of Walls, his counsel, Pierce Archer, subsequently filed a demurrer to the bill, claiming that the act of congress was ultra vires—beyond the constiutional powers which authorize Congress 'to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.' A trade-mark, Mr. Archer held, was neither an invention nor a writing, but simply an advertisement, and as such was not within the pale of the section. Judge Cadwallader, on Saturday, sustained Mr. Archer's objections on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain conflicts over trade-marks. It is probable that this case will be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision will affect thousands of trade-marks. COURT.-In 1873 Henry Elcox stopped at the Matteson house, Chicago, and had with him a valise containing samples of jewelry valued at about $5,000. One evening upon his return to the hotel he left his valise in the coat-room, receiving a brass check for the same. The valise was stolen, and Elcox demanded from Robert Hill & Co., the proprietors of the Matteson, indemnity for his lose. His demand being refused he brought suit and was beaten. Robert Hill & Co. set up at the defense that the notices posted on the doors of their guests' rooms as required by law, notifying their patrons that a safe was provided for the deposit of valuable property, relieved them from all responsibility for loss. The court decided the case in their favor. Elcox carried the case to the United States Court for the northern dis trict of Illinois and was again beaten. He again appealed, and this time to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the decision of that court is as follows: "The court holds it as settled that whatever property is lost or stolen in a hotel through the personal negligence of the guest, the liability of the inn-keeper does not exist; but if the guest has valuables in the safe provided by the inn-keeper he must bear his own loss, unless it occurs by the hand or through the carelessness of the landlord or his employees. Judgment affirmed with costs." This decision settles the question of the liability of the botel-keeper and will serve as a will have the effect of reducing the number of precedent in all trials hereafter. The decision suits against hotel-keepers. Editor Legal Record:---An interesting legal question was discussed by the Alameda County Lawyers on Monday February 3d inst. before Hon. R. A. Redman County Judge--the occasion being the discussion of a petition for rehearing of a motion to dismiss the appeal from a Justice Court in the case of Waterman & Co. vs. Galway. The defendant had judgment September 18th 1878, and the Plaintiff appealed by filing a notice of appeal on the 21st, having service accepted on the 23d, and filing his undertaking on the 28th of the same month. On the hearing of the motion, the Court dismissed the appeal, because the undertaking had not been filed the same day that the notice of appeal was served. The appellant petitioned for a rehearing; and, as a number of other appeals had been taken in the same manner, the question was discussed by quite a number of the members of the Alameda County bar, and Judge W. H. Collins of San Jose also argued the petition in favor of the appellant. The County Judges of the Counties of Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz,--and it was alleged Judge Wright of San Francisco also,-hold that such an appeal is good. Judge Belden of the Twentieth District Court has also held an appeal taken in the same manner, good. It is however alleged that Judge Daingerfield decided one-taken precisely the same wayvoid-but here is no record of his decision. Of course, the question came before Judge Belden and Judge Dangerfield on Certiorari. [WHOLE NUMBER, 70 Those opposed to the appeal cite (Columbet vs. Pacheco 46 Cal. 650.) to the effect that the undertaking must be filed at the service of the notice of appeal, in order, that the notice of appeal may operate as notice of filing the undertaking. Those holding the appeal good, claim that the decision cited was made on section 940 C. C. Procedure, which does not apply to Justice's Courts; and which has also been amended since the case cited was decided. In support of their postion they cite sections 974, 977 and 978 of the same code; and claim that by a liberal construction, the appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal and serving the same on the adverse party, and at any time thereafter, within thirty days from the rendition of judgment an undertaking may be filed; and that these sections, neither by implication or otherwise, require any notice of the filing of the undertaking to be given. They also cite the well established rules in California practice that in Justices' Courts parties are not held to any great strictness in their proceedings; and that an appeal should be allowed whenever the right is even doubtful. They also claim that the sections of the code applying to appeals are remedial in their nature, and must be liberally construed, and so as to admit of the remedy, if possible. It seems that the practice throughout the state has been to take appeals in the same manner that the one in question was taken; and the code has not altered the law, but simply re-enacts sections 624, 627 and 628 of the Pr. Act, and under it there has never been an appeal taken, in which the point raised, has been directly passed upon by the Supreme Court—though, in (Blair vs. Hamilton 32 Cal. 50) they have incidentally held such an appeal good. Judge Redman has reserved his decision; and when given, I shall advise you; meantime, his first decision will be of interest to the profession throughout the state. PLEASANTON, FEB. 5. 1879. P. THE LADY LAWYERS AGAIN.-We recentCUSHING VS. CHOATE.- -The late Caleb ly noted the admission to the Hastings Law Cushing and Choate, at a trial where they College of the two California Lady Lawyers, represented different sides, were both anxious Mrs. Clara S. Foltz, and Laura De Force for an adjournment. As this was an unusual Gordon,—and then supposed, without ques- thing for either, after adjournment, Mr. tion, that the action was decisive, and that Garrish, a friend, asked Choate the reason. they would be permitted to win their way in This is his account: Said I, "How is it that their laudable undertaking to the higher you were ready for a continuance to-day? walks of legal emolument and fame for which It is a little odd of you." Choate replied, they seem so earnestly and vigorously striv- "Oh, I am a little pressed with business, and ing. But we since learn that the "admission" can afford to let this case stand over." Said I, which was then so generally published was "Choate, this is sheer. nonsense. I'll tell only a temparory or preliminary one, pend-you what the matter is. You are afraid of ing the meeting and action of the Board of Cushing." "So I am," was the reply, "and Trustees, who after some delay diclined their admission to the College. Nothing daunted, the women still urged their claims, meanwhile making application to practice in some of the District Courts of San Francisco, to one of which, (the 4th) Mrs. Foltz has since been admitted,—having passed a very creditable examination. The two ladies had before paid their matriculation fee to the Registrar of the Law College, and received a receipt therefor, but with a condition of return in case they were not finally accepted. This return of the money has now been made to them with a final refusal of admission. We feel somewhat curious to learn on what ground their rejection can be based, inasmuch as the "Law College" is now a department of the State University, from which several women have already graduated for one of the other professions (medicine,) fully as objectionable, we should think, as that of Law; and besides, the Legislature has just passed the bill enabling women to practice in the Courts. We understand now that the ladies propose to at once test their right to a seat in the Law College by a writ of manudamus, and we would be glad to see some conclusion reached soon that would relieve them of the suspense as well as the expense of their long waiting, —-and we opine the people of the state feel an interest in the speedy decision of the question. I am not ashamed to own it, either." "Well; THE NEW POSTAL DECISION REVERSED We noted in our last issue a decision by Postmaster-General Key in which he decided that matter produced by the type writer, the electric pen, papyrograph and manfold processes would hereafter be subject to letter postage as first class matter, instead of being transported in the mails as third class matter, and at third class rates, as heretofore ruled by that department. Charles C. Haskell, President of the Papyrograph Company of Norwich, Conn., appealed from the decision, and asked a suspensiou thereof, in so far as it referred to the electric pen and papyrograph processes. In reply, the PostmasterGeneral says that, in view of the fact that additional legislation is pending, by which it is expected that matter produced by these processes will be classed with printed matter, he agrees to suspend so much of the order as relates to matter (which is not in the nature of correspondence) produced by the electric pen and papyrograph processes, and to permit the same to pass in the mails as heretofore, at rates for third class matter, until March 4, 1879, unless earlier action is taken by Congress in the premises. OREGON LIEU LANDS.-Washington Febuary 5th. The Senate Public Lands Committee have unanimously agreed to recommend the passage of the bill authorizing the issuance of scrip locatable on lands in Oregon to indemnify owners of the Oregon Military Road grant for that portion of their grant which, after being duly listed to them and by them sold to third parties, was taken possession of by the Government and used ever since as part of the Klamath Indian Reservation. The committee are satisfied by the record of evidence that the wagon road company's title to these lands is perfect, and that they are entitled to posTHE LAW OF KLEPTOMANIA.—Mrs. Emma the mass of official correspondence on the session and compensation; but in view of J. Parsons was caught stealing in a Roches- subject, including letters from the Governors ter dry goods storǝ. She was wealthy. The of Oregon and California, in which it is Justice before whom she was taken was ask-shown that any attempt to remove the Ined to promise that, if she would plead guilty, dians would be extremely dangerous, the he would not inflict any punishment; but he committee recommend that the company's refused to make any pledge, and the case proposition to accept indemnity scrip in lieu was tried before a jury. Mrs. Parsons was of the choice lands thus occupied should be defended as a kleptomaniac. Her brother complied with, as the most feasible means of swore that her strongest characteristic was adjusting the claim without threatening the cupidity, although he would not admit that public peace. she had ever before stolen any thing. lawyer's argument to the jury was that she had no need to steal, and was so respectable that crime was abhorrent to her, could not have intended to do wrong, and must have been actuated by a mania that made her morally irresponisble. The jury's verdict was: "We acquit the prisoner of any inten tion to steal." The This case should not embolden wealthy women to indulge in shoplifting, for few juries could be depended on to follow the Rochester example; and as for poor women, the plea of kleptomania would be of no avail for them. N. Y. Sun. THE OLDEST AMERICAN JUDGE.--James Garland, Judge of the Corporation court of Lynchburg, Va. is doubtless the oldest American Judge in active service. He was eighty-six years old last June, and during the present month held court for fourteen days, invariably walking from and to his residence, a distance of three-quarters of a mile. WAIT'S LAW OF ACTIONS AND DEFENSES. We take pleasure in calling the attention of the Bar to the announcement of Vol. 5 of this truly valuable work, as given on another page of this number; and can cordially says from the remarks made by those conversant with the plan and accomplishment of the work thus far, that, while there are many new legal works they would like to buythis is one they must have as fast as the volumes are issued, OHIO STATE REPORTS. -The "advance Sheets"-Part 2 of Vol. 32, and part 2 of Vol. 34, are just received from Messrs Robert Clarke & Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio;—Vol. 32, containing the Decisions of the Supreme Court Commission, and Vol. 34, those of the Supreme Court. Thus Ohio seems to be able to run a double team with her decisions-a plan that might not come amiss with California for a while. |