1
10
27
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local News Index
Description
An account of the resource
An index to newspaper and periodical articles from a variety of Santa Cruz publications.
It is a collection of over 87,000 articles, primarily from the <em>Santa Cruz Sentinel</em>, that have been clipped and filed in subject folders. While these articles of local interest range in date from the early 1900's to the present, most of the collection and clipped articles are after roughly 1960. There is an ongoing project to scan the complete articles and include them in this collection.<br /><br />Also included are more than 350 full-text local newspaper articles on films and movie-making and on the Japanese-American internment.<br /><br /> In addition, this is an online index for births, deaths, and personal names from <em>The Mountain Echo.</em> The complete print index is available at the library. For more information see <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/134957#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0">The Mountain Echo</a>.
Most of the indexed articles are available on microfilm in the Californiana Room or in the clipping files in the Local History Room at the Downtown branch. Copies of individual articles may be available by contacting the Reference Department - <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/contact/">Ask Us.<br /><br /></a>
<p></p>
While there is some overlap between this index and <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/historic_newspaper_index/">the Historic Newspaper Index</a><a> (approximately 1856-1960), they are different databases and are searched separately.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LN-28625
Title
A name given to the resource
Transferred to Another Run on Railroad
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1909-04-10
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>Mountain Echo</i> 1909-04-10: page 3 column 2
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1900s
Language
A language of the resource
en
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
NEWS
DOCUMENT
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ranchos
L. C. Kirkpatrick
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/fc6a9583351e3e8df793ddf4667a9a23.pdf
ecd89f4e4b9e6ef26f1fc11171c78054
PDF Text
Text
The Castros of Soquel
By
Ronald Powell
With an introduction by
Stanley D. Stevens
The content of this article is the responsibility of the individual author.
It is the library’s intent to provide accurate information, however, it is
not possible for the library to completely verify the accuracy of all
information. If you believe that factual statements in a local history
article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the
library.
1
�THE
CASTROS
OF
SOQUEL
by R o n a I d Pow· e I I
�I have reviewed my files related to my friend Ronald Gabriel Powell ( 1931-2010). My
association with him began sometime before 1998 when he frequented the Map Room
at UCSC McHenry Library. I don't have an exact date when I realized that his interest
was in the history of Santa Cruz County, particularly the Mexican ranchos of Martina
Castro, the Rancho Soquel, and the Rancho Soquel Augmentation. His research
focused on logging-railroads and land ownership. My own interest was on land
ownership because it involves the many thousands of acres acquired by Frederick
Augustus Rihn, the primary focus of my research.
I supported Ron by making a deal with him so that he would produce copies of
relevant articles generated from newspapers on microfilm, about Rihn, while he was
finding items about his subjects. I would cover the cost of those photocopies and he
would share his discoveries.
This association led to his documentation of "The Frederick Augustus Rihn Story," as
related in his fifty-two files that he eventually donated to the Hihn-Younger Archive
at Special Collections of the University Library. Included in these volumes are many
original maps of the ranchos: historic sites, land ownership, and railroads.
I have two documents that express Ron's attitude about sharing his research. The first,
a Letter of Gift dated March 7, 1998, he specified that "the materials included in this
gift shall be identified as the Ronald Powell Collection ... , and when used and/or
copied for research purposes, reference to this source will be included as an
acknowledgement."
The second document echoes Ron's condition for the use of his research: "All my
books and photos are designed for public use and may be copied and reproduced in
any medium with the stipulation that Acknowledgment be given to the source: The
Ronald G. Powell Collection."
None of his research, in whatever form, was submitted for Copyright protection.
The Castros of Soquel, a 396-page genealogy- history of that family, bears no claim of
Copyright; a simple line states that the work was compiled "by Ronald Powell."
Acknowledgment is given to The Ronald G. Powell Collection, with enduring thanks.
Stanley D. Stevens
Santa Cruz, CA June 1, 2019
2
�Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
xv
BACKGROUND
XIX
• The Portola Expedition
• Juan Bautista de Anza "The Hard-Riding Captain"
• Juan Bautista de Anza's Second Expedition
CHAPI'ER 1
THE CASTROS A Genealogy
• Joaquin Ysidro Castro
Martina Boutilliere de Castro
The Family of Joaquin Ysidro Castro
XXI
XXII
XXII
1
3
3
4
• Jose Joaquin Castro
5
• Martina (Castro) Cota
8
• Martina (Castro) Lodge
10
CHAPI'ER 2
13
THE DEED of August 29 1 1850
• Rancho Soquel Grant
Grant for Soquel
AUGUST 2, 1834- FINAL GRANT
• THE AUGMENTATION
Martina Castro's Children
Augmentation Boundries Established by the U.S.
Surveyors Office 1858
Boundries Established by Governor Micheltorena
February 9, 1844
How the Boundries Established by Governor
Micheltorena Evolved into Today's Augmentation
• The Pre-Statehood & Gold Rush Years
NOVEMBER 1, 1846- AGREEMENT
Martina's Accident and Soundness of Mind 1847/1848
Additional Family Members Within the vicinity of
Michael & Martina
• Treachery on the Ranch
A conversation Between Martina & Thomas Fallon
Early August 1850
Article of Agreement August 28, 1850
The "DEED" August 29, 1850
Findings and Conclusions to Date
Questions that need Answers
CHAPTER 3
THE TURBULENT YEARS 1850 to 1855
• Treachery on the Ranch
The Ranch
Life on the Ranch with Michael Lodge
15
17
18
21
26
26
28
29
29
30
32
33
34
35
37
38
40
41
43
43
43
III
�Table of Contents
CHAPI'ER 3
THE TURBULENT YEARS 1850 to 1855 (Continued)
Life on the Ranch with.Louis Depeaux
MAY 8, 1852- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
The Fallon Partition Suit August 2, 1852
Agreement Between Martina, Durrell Gregory &
John Wilson October 28, 1852
Agreement between Joel Bates, Peter Tracy &
Thomas w. Wright June 16, 1853
The Fallon Partitioning Suit August 12, 1853
Deposition to Land Claims Commission by Francisco
Alviso August 14, 1853
The Fallon Partitioning Suit August 25 Thru
September 7, 1853
The John Hames Sawmill Suit September 19, 1853
The Fallon Partitioning Suit September 29 thru
October 3, 1853
The Fallon Partitioning Suit February 17, 1854
Deposition to Land Claims Commission by Henry
Cambustan March 6, 1854
Thomas & Carmel Fallon Depart for Texas Mid 1854
The John Hames Sawmill Suit Decision April 5, 1854
Deposition to Land Claims Commission by Jose
Bolcoff October 16, 1854
Deposition to Land Claims Commission by
Cornella Perez December 8, 1854
Letter from Louis Depeaux to Attorney John
Wilson December 14, 1854
An Offer to Sell Both Ranches is Made
CHAPTER 4
THE END OF AN ERA 1807 to 1890
A Decision to Sell and Move
The DEED for Rancho Sequel signed January 22, 1855
The DEED for the Sequel Augmentation signed
January 22, 1855
• A Disastrous Trip
Miguel Antonio Lodge's Story
Maria Helena Littlejohn's Story
• Martina Castro An End to a Sad Story
Dona Maria Martina Castro Died December 14, 1890
CHAPTER 5
1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
Opinion by the Board of Commissioners January 23, 1855
Opinion and Confirmation of Opinion by Board
of Commissioners April 17, 1855
Affidavit by Father John Llebaria to Board of
Commissioners May 16, 1855
Opinion & Confirmation to Accept Grant for
Shoquel June 26, 1855
41
44
47
48
52
55
56
57
57
58
58
61
61
62
62
63
64
65
65
67
69
70
70
71
71
72
73
76
77
79
80
81
84
�Table of Contents
CHAPTER 5
1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR (Continued)
Eviction Notices Served Late 1855
Robert F. Peckham
DEED- Archbishop Alemany and Father Llebaria to
John Ingoldsby September 10, 1855
AGREEMENT between Alemany, Llebaria, Ingoldsby
John Wilson & James Scarborough September 11, 1855
The John Hames Sawmill Suit Appeal Decision
September 14, 1855
CHAPTER 6
DEPOSITIONS, TESTIMONY and FALSEHOODS
Petition for Rancho Soquel by U.S. District Attorney
to U.S. District Court February 28, 1856
Petition for Augmentation by u.s. District Attorney
to U.S. District Court February 29, 1856
Petition for Augmentation by John Wilson to
U.S. District Court March 3, 1856
Petition for Rancho Soquel by John Wilson to U.S.
District Court March 5, 1856
Deposition by John Hames March 5, 1856
Deposition by Thomas Fallon March 31, 1856
Deposition by Francisco Alviso April 12, 1856
Cross Examination by U.S. District Attorney
Direct Examination by John Wilson, Attorney for
Claimant
CHAPTER 7
88
90
91
93
93
93
93
93
94
97
98
98
INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN The Suit is Filed 101
MAY 3, 1856- DEEDS
Augustas Noble
Summons & Complaint Filed for Ingoldsby vs.
Ricardo Juan June 1856
Statement by Reverand John Ingoldsby June 25, 1856
Letter from Louis Depeaux to John Wilson July 5, 1856
Deposition by Louis Depeaux July 14, 1856
The Santa Cruz Gap Turnpike November 1, 1856
Motion for Change of Venue by Robert F.
Peckham November 1, 1856
Martina Castro Depeaux is Released from the
Stockton Insane Asylum November 8, 1856
CHAPTER 8
77
86
87
88
INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN Disaster in
Contra Costa County
Deposition by Peter Tracy November 21 thru 26, 1856
Indemnification Bond November 24, 1856
Decision for Rancho Soquel by U.S. District
Attorney November 22, 1856
Stipulation for Rancho Soquel by U.S. District
Attorney January 22, 1857
103
103
105
107
108
108
112
115
115
117
119
123
124
124
�Table of Contents
CHAPTER 8
INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN Disaster in
Contra Costa County (Continued)
Order for Rancho Soquel by U.S. District Judge
January 22, 1857
State ment for Augmentation by U.S. District
Attorney February 2, 1857
Stipulation for Augmentation by U.S. District
Attorney March 20, 1857
Order for Augmentation by U.S. District Judge
March 20, 1857
Arguments Over Authenticity of Martina's DEED
Begins in Contra Costa Co. May, 1857
Arguments by John Wilson Against Validity of
Martina's DEED
Agreement between John Ingoldsby and Archbishop
Alemany September 2, 1857
Ingoldsby vs. Ricardo Juan Decision 7th District
Court Contra Costa Co. November/December 1857
CHAPTER 9
1858 BOUNDRY DISPUTES
Robert F. Peckham Prepares his Appeal
The Santa Clara Turnpike Company (The Soquel
Turnpike) March 4, 1858
The Santa Cruz Turnpike
The Soquel Turnpike
The Hinckley & Shelby Sawmill
CHAPTER 10
1859 A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
In the California Supreme Court Appeal from the 7th
District Contra Costa Co. January Term 1859 for
Ingoldsby vs. Juan et al by Robert F. Peckham
Comment
Arguments by John Wilson Against Validity
of Martina's DEED
Amended Answer o= Defendants by Robert F. Peckham
Answer to Amendmant by Plaintiff's Attorney
John Wilson
Court Ruling on Amendment
Ingoldsby vs. Juan Decision by State Supreme Court
June 1859
Comments and Summary
Adolphe F. Branda
John Ingoldsby Dies in Chicago Thomas Courtis
Appointed Administrator
117
124
124
126
126
127
128
129
130
131
133
135
136
138
145
151
153
153
153
154
155
155
157
158
162
167
�Tab l_e of Contents
CHAPTER 11
THE PARTITIONING SUITS Summons and
Complaints Filed
PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit)
February 13, 1860 SUMMONS Henry w. Peck Antonia
Peck versus Frederick A. Hihn et als
February 13, 1860 COMPLAINT Henry w. Peck Antonia
Peck versus Frederick A. Hihn et als
Patents for Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation
March 19, 1860
HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit)
August 14, 1860 SUMMONS Frederick A. Hihn versus
Henry w. Peck et als
August 14, 1860 COMPLAINT Frederick A. Hihn versus
Henry W. Peck et als
AUGUST 20, 1860- STIPULATIONS
AUGUST 21, 1860- INJUNCTION REQUESTED
AUGUST 22, 1860- INJUNCTION ISSUED
CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
CHAPTER 12
DEED- Archbishop Alemany to Thomas Courtis
September 7, 1860
DEED- Father John Llebaria to Thomas Courtis
February 28, 1861
Charles B. Younger Appointed Referee April 15, 1861
Charles B. Younger
CHAPTER 13
PARTITIONING REPORTS by CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The Lajeunesse Deeds Shackleford & Vandenberg
versus Frederick A. Hihn
The John Ingoldsby Deeds Frederick A. Hihn versus
Frederick w. Macondray
Frederick A. Hihn versus Joseph L. Majors, George
w. Evans and Charles H. Willson
Frederick A. Hihn versus James Taylor and
Benjamin F. Porter
PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit)
PARTITIONING REPORT by Charles B. Younger
August 17, 1861
HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit)
PARTITIONING REPORT by Charles B. Younger
August 22, 1861
Additional Findings by Referee Charles B. Younger
169
171
171
172
176
180
180
181
183
184
184
185
187
198
199
199
203
205
206
210
211
213
213
218
218
227
y''
�Table of Contents
CHAPTER 14
MOTIONS, REQUESTS FOR NEW T RIAIS
and the LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
229
The Deposition of Louis Depeaux of July 14, 1856
Testimony of Thomas W. Wright School Land Warrants
Peter Tracy's School Land Warrants
236
237
238
The Lajeunesse Deeds September 19, 1852 &
July 24, 1860 (Augmentation Suit)
239
CHAPTER 15
OBJECTIONS TO YOUNGER REPORT and Motions
for New Trials
Referee's Findings (To Date)
Referee's Findings
OCTOBE R 26, 1861- Joel Bates dies
CHAPTER 16
PARTITIONING REPORT for RANCHO SOQUEL
247
249
250
252
259
262
Decision by Samuel B. McKee Third District Judge
April 20, 1863
Judge McKee's Opinions of Referees Reports
Interlocutory Decrees for Rancho Soquel & Augmentation
by Third District Judge Samuel B. McKee April 22, 1863
Partition Decrees for Rancho Soquel & Augmentation
by Third District Judge Samuel B. McKee April 23, 1863
Benjamin Cahoon, Francis R. Brady and Benjamin
Cahoon Nichols
Partitioning Commission for the Augmentation
by Third District Judge Samuel B. McKee
August 17, 1863
Partitioning Commission for Rancho Soquel by
Third District Judge Samuel B. McKee
August 31, 1863
264
RANCHO SOQUEL Suit (Peck versus Hihn)
266
PARTITIONING REPORT by Charles B. Younger, David
Tuttle and Joseph Rufner December 22, 1863
CHAPTER 17
PARTITIONING REPORT for the SOQUEL
AUGMENTATION
AUGMENTATION Suit (Hihn versus Peck)
PARTITIONING REPORT by Thomas W. Wright, John W.
Towne and Godfrey M. Bockius December 23, 1863
Rancho Soquel Suit Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg
Appeal August 12, 1864
Rancho Soquel Suit Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg
Appeal August 12, 1864
Rancho Soquel Suit Frederick A. Hihn Appeal
August 12, 1864
Rancho Soquel Suit Thomas Courtis Appeal
August 15, 1864
.......v--, ---, '
263
263
264
265
266
266
273
275
275
283
283
283
284
�Table of Contents
CHAPTER 17
PARTITIONING REPORT for the SOQUEL
AUGMENTATION (Continued)
273
Soquel Augmentation Suit Frederick A. Hihn
Appeal October 4, 1864
Soquel Augmentation Suit Thomas Courtis & John
Wilson Appeal October 25, 1864
287
CHAPTER 18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
•MAY 1 1 1866 (Rancho Soquel Suit)
In the Supreme Court of the State of California
Henry w. Peck and Maria Antonia Peck his wife
versus John P.P. Vandenberg, and F.A. Hihn et als
eAUGUST 20 1 1866 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)
In the Supreme Court of the State of California
Frederick A. Hihn versus Henry Peck and Francis
R. Brady et als
•DECEMBER 17, 1866 (Rancho Soquel Suit)
In the Supreme Court of the State of California
Henry W. Peck versus Thomas Courtis et als
•DECEMBER 19, 1866 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)
In the Supreme Court of the State of California
Frederick A. Hihn versus Thomas Courtis et als
•APRIL 20, 1867 (Rancho Soquel and Augmentation Suits)
288
291
297
297
297
299
299
299
301
Benjamin F. Bayley versus Frederick A. Hihn et als
301
Antonia Peck versus Frederick A. Hihn et als
301
•SEPTEMBE R 26, 1868 (Rancho Soquel and Augmentation Suits)
301
Benjamin F. Bayley versus Frederick A. Hihn et als
301
Antonia Peck versus Frederick A. Hihn et als
301
CHAPTER 19
MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus FREDERICK
A. HIHN et als
Background
Statement of the Suit
Trial Testimony Noted by Charles B. Younger
Jose Joaquin Castro Deposition June 6, 1896
Martina Castro's Competency Summation by Charles
B. Younger July 3, 1896
Santa Cruz Land Title Company Requests Augmentation
Partitioning Decision be Recorded February 10, 1916
305
307
308
309
311
312
314
IX.
�Table of Contents
APPENDIC ES '
@BOUNDRY DESCRIPTIONS and Palo de la Yesca
The FRANC ISCAN TRAIL
FREDERICK A. H IHN
The LAND CO MMISSION 1852-1857
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
SOQUEL- AN EARLY H ISTORY
VILLA de BRANC IFORTE and MISSION SANTA CRUZ
@ An ACT Concerning Conveyances
An ACT Defining the Rights of Husband and Wife
Treaty with Mexico
Article of Agreement August 28, 1850
Deed of Martina Castro August 29, 1850
Acknowledgment by T.R. Per Lee November 28, 1850
Deed- Martina Castro to Thomas Fallon November
29, 1850
Agreement between Martina, Gregory and Wilson
October 28, 1852
Addition to Agreement May 21, 1855
Deed- Rancho Soquel (Sale) January 22, 1855
Deed- Soquel Augmentation (Sale) January 22, 1855
Deed- Llebaria/Alemany to Ingoldsby September
10, 1855
Agreement between Ingoldsby, Llebaria and
Alemany September 11, 1855
Agreement Between Ingoldsby and Alemany
September 2, 1857
Agreement Between .Frederick A. Hihn and Henry
W. Peck April 21, 1862
Deed- Henry & Antonia Peck to Frederick A. Hihn
April 21, 1862
@INTERLOCUTORY DECREE (Peck vs Hihn) April 22, 1863
INTERLOCUTORY DECREE (Hihn vs Peck) April 22, 1863
PARTITION DECREE (Peck vs Hihn) April 23, 1863
PARTITION DECREE (Hihn vs Peck) April 23, 1863
PARTITIONING COMMISSION (Hihn vs Peck) August 17, 1863
PARTITIONING COMMISSION (Peck vs Hihn) August 31, 1863
@INGOLDSBY vs RICARDO JUAN in Supreme Court
® DR. JOHN P. P. VANDENBERG
® THOMAS COURTIS APPEALS
& HIHN APPEALS
@ BRADY
vs HIHN & COURT IS vs HIHN APPEALS
BIOGRAPHIES
®
® LAND
X
CLAIMS COMMISSION Testimony
315
315
315
316
317
317
317
317
317
317
317
317
317.
317
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
318
319
319
319
319
319
�Tabl_e of Contents
The FAMILY OF MARTINA CASTRO
SUPPLEMENT
NICANOR LAJEUNESSE
MARIA LUISA JUAN
CARMEL FALLON
MARIA JOSEFA CLEMENTS
MARIA ANTONIA PECK
MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN
MIGUEL (MICHAEL) LODGE
MARIA GUADALUPE AVERON
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lawsuits, Appeals and Supreme Court Decisions
Land Claims, State Laws and Treaty with Mexico
Letters
Books
Interviews
Maps
Newspaper Articles
Miscellaneous
Grants, Deeds and Agreements
321
324
329
332
334
339
341
342
345
346
347
348
349
349
350
351
352
XI
�Intentially left blank.
XII
�Figures
XVII
5
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
RANCHO SOQUEL & SOQUEL AUGMENTATION LOCATION
THE FAMILY OF JOSE JOAQUIN CASTRO
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
THE FAMILY OF MARTINA (CASTRO) COTA
THE FAMILY OF MARTINA (CASTRO) LODGE
9
11
DISENO ACCOMPANYING MARTINA.'s PETITION
ASSIGNED THE NUMBER 596 BY THE UNITED
STATES LAND COMMISSION
DISE%o 9F SOQUEL DRAWN BY JOSE BOLCOFF
ASSIGNED NUMBER 295 ND BY THE UNITED
STATES LAND COMMISSION
RANCHOS SOQUEL, APTOS & ARROYO del
RODEO LOCATIONS
ASSUMED VILLA de BRANCIFORTE of FOUR
SQUARE LEAGUES or 27.5 SQUARE MILES
IF SURVEYED BY HENRY CAMBUSTAN 1844
SOQUEL AUGMENTATION BOUNDRIES 1844
versus 1858
15
LOCATION OF LODGE SAWMILLS
LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL LAND REQUESTED
BY MARTINA
29
39
LOCATION OF SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS, Issued, Filed,
Sold and Floated
49
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 12
FIGURE 13
FIGURE 14
FIGURE 15
FIGURE: 16
FIGURE 17
,.,,
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS, Issued, Filed,
Sold and Floated
LOCATION OF SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS ALONG
ARROYO de la BALLENA (Today Bates Creek)
EXHIBIT "A" TO FRANCISCO ALVISO DEPOSITION
August 14, 1853
FINAL OWNERSHIP PLANS OF INGOLDSBY,
LLEBARIA, ALEMANY, WILSON & SCARBOROUGH
FIGURE 18
FIGURE 19
FIGURE 20
ROUTE OF SANTA CRUZ GAP TURNPIKE
THE SOQUEL & SANTA CRUZ TURNPIKES
SKETCH ACCOMPANYING AUGUSTAS NOBLE's
LETTER dated MAY 13, 1858
FIGURE 21
SKETCH ACCOMPANYING AUGUSTAS NOBLE'S
LETTER dated JULY 24, 1858
HINCKLEY & SHELBY/SAVAGE SAWMILL
FIGURE 22
19
20
25
27
50
51
51
59
89
114
137
142
146
147
x ll 1
�Figures
FIGURE 23
FIGURE 24
FIGURE 25
FIGURE 26
FIGURE 27
XIV
PLAT of the SHOQUEL RANCHO FINALLY
CONFIRMED TO MARTINA CASTRO 1,668
3/100 ACRES
159
PLAT of the SHOQUEL AUGMENTATION RANCHO
FINALLY CONFIRMED TO MARTINA CASTRO
32,702 41/100 ACRES
LOCATION OF JOEL BATES GRAVESITE, MILL
and "BATES MILL ROAD"
RANCHO SOQUEL LOT OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT B
SOQUEL AUGMENTATION TRACT OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT A
161
255
271
277
�Introduction
TO THE READER:
This book is the culmination of over 16 years of frustrat
ions, researching and writing. What began as a simple hike into
the Forest of Nisene Marks State Park to enjoy the serenity
provided there soon evolved in researching the story of the Lorna
Prieta Lumber Company, the Grover & Company, the ever com
plicated early-day pioneer Frederick A. Hihn and an assortment
of additional personalities, each with their own story to tell.
After several frustrating years I realized that to truly
understand the history of the area I was hiking and exploring,
the story of the entire area, •••not just a small portion••••was
necessary. After realizing this and my research effort expanded,
understanding finally began. But to fully understand the story
of the area, history must be traced back to 1833 when the Mex
ican Government gave a land grant to Martina Castro.
With the publication of this book, only the "tip" of the
iceberg has been exposed, so to speak. Still to come are the
27 stories still hiding within the Soquel Augmentation, plus
the publication of the nine Appendixes that support this book.
The format of this book is not to the liking of a publisher
interested in profit, but in truth, profit from a book with
the subject covered here will never be achieved using any for
mat. Because the story presented in this book is extremely
complicated, and dispels so much accepted history of the
Soquel/Capitola and Soquel Augmentation areas, a different
approach was decided upon. It was decided not to attempt a
narrative style format, but instead present the story in a "date
sequence style" beginning with the earliest known date concern
ing Martina's grandparents, Joaquin Ysidro Castro and his wife.
It is hoped that this simplified style of presentation will be
of more assistance to future historians.
As a side note here, I decided to publish this book on a
limited scale myself for several reasons: First•••• only minimal
profit, if any, is possible from a book of this type and size;
Second••••because the story presented corrects so much of the
covered area's written history, no organization or person would
accept it on face value (in other words, much time would be
spent in answering questions and in education); and Third••••
editing and rewriting would only add an additional delay to
an already frustrating and excessively long period.
NOTE: I have in my files all of the backup and reference
material used in compiling this book•••••••
Sincerely,;?��
/Jrrwd,(
�Introduction
Maria Martina Castro y Amador was the granddaughter of Joaq
uin Ysidro Castro, the first member of this distinguished aris
tocratic family to enter AND settle in Upper California. After
Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1822 it stopped the
policy started by the King and Queen (of Spain), the giving
away of land as an award for serving the crown. By 1824 Mexico
decided to reestablish Spain's policy of giving away land,
but unlike Spain's, in which the given land returned to the
crown when the grantee died, they (Mexico) would give the land
to the qualified requester for life and beyond.
The land that Mexico began giving away was under the control
of the Missions. The land was either sold outright to secular
investors (persons not connected with the church) of given
outright to persons that later could be taxed for income. The
taking away of the lands from the missions was called the Act
of Secularization, and while it was unofficially established
in 1833, it was not until the Mexican Congress passed the law
on April 16, 1834 that the giving away of land became official.
When it became known that land was available for the asking,
the then Governor Jose Figueroa was besieged with requests for
land throughout the lands north of Lower California (Baja
California). In what would eventually become Santa Cruz County,
Martina's father Jose Joaquin Castro was the first to apply
for a grant, being given Rancho San Andres. The second to apply
was Martina's brother Rafael, being awarded Rancho Aptos. When
Martina, living with her second husband, an Irishman named
Michael Lodge in Branciforte heard of her brother's award, she
felt that she to should apply for a grant.
Neither Martina or her husband wanted, or desired a vast
amount of land, being satisfied with the land between the Soquel
River and Borregas Gulch, extending from the bay north to the
junction of the latter river and Bates Creek. This land satis
fied their wants and needs, it was more than satisfactory for
cultivating. Martina and Michael applied for the land in late
1833 and received it, called simply "Soquel" by the Mexican
authorities when it was awarded officially in early 1834.
For eight years Martina and Michael endured the problem
of having the eastern half of the Rancho Soquel made useless
by Rafael's cattle and sheep which easily crossed shallow
Borregas Gulch and invaded their lands. In late 1843 Martina
approached the Governor with her problem, requesting through
one of her son-in-law's additional land called "Yesca or Palo
de la Yesca" where they could graze their cattle and cultivate
without the worry of Rafael's animals. Martina asked for the
XVI
�RANCHO SOQ UEL & SOQUEL AUGMEN
TION LOCATION
XVII
�Introduction
additional land under her patron Saint's name, San Miguel. Her
request for land ended up with a questionable grant that would
require many of the·high ranking and notable persons in the
area, both before and after statehood was achieved, both
in and out of court,to establish the legitimacy of the grant.
The area that would end up as this questionable grant has
been known under several names over the years••••Shoquel••..
Yesca•••• Augmentation..•.Soquel Augmentation••••or later simply
as the "Augmento" ••.•and finally today as the Soquel Augmentat
ion Rancho consisting of 32,702.41 acres••••or 51.0975 square
miles.
Today the Soquel Augmentation Rancho exists only as a
reference area in old deeds and an area extending from just
above Monterey Bay to Loma Prieta in Santa Clara County on maps.
But, a little over a century and a half ago it was a major sect
ion of land located within what would become the "heart" of
Santa Cruz County that generated many, many lawsuits and counter
suits over its ownership.
When California became a state after the Treaty of Guad
alupe Hidalgo was signed February 2, 1848, officially ending
the Mexican War and shortly after Santa Cruz County was accepted
as one of the state's first counties February 18, 1850, if the
Soquel Augmentation's approximately 2,288 acres that extend
into Santa Clara County are deducted from its total area, it
contained eleven percent of the county's area.
The area that would officially become known as the Soquel
Augmentation was supposedly awarded to Martina in early 1844.
As the 1850s approached the once widowed woman was happly
married to the Irishman Michael Lodge and was the mother of
eleven children, nine daughters and two sons. In 1849 disaster
struck quickly•..•three of the children are dead, soon to be
joined by Michael. With the strong leadership of her husband
missing, now her land-hungry son-in-laws move to the forefront
soon joined by a sixteen year younger man that quickly courts
then marries Martina.
After her third marriage in late 1849 the nighmare that
began with Michael Lodge's death in the gold fields continued
right up to her death in 1890 at age 83. A nightmare that would
see her cheated by and lied to by her family including her
beloved daughters, a disastrous trip to the Hawaiian Islands
and a period in the Stockton Insane Asylum to mention only a
few of the "highlights."
This book chronicles more than the life and times of Mar
tina Castro, her three husbands, her eight children that reached
adulthood and the seven son-in-laws, it is a parade•••..no it
is a glorified pageant.•..of these personalities as they are
joined by many additional participants, all playing a part,
some small, some large, some overwhelming such as Frederick A.
Hihn, in the development and early times of the history of the
Sequel/Capitola area of Santa Cruz County.
xv l I I
�Background
To understand how Martina Castro came to own eleven percent of Santa Cruz County
and a small section in Santa Clara county, we must begin the story the moment
when Christopher Columbus returned to the Spanish court after discovering the New
World, Once the news was out it did not take long before there were conflicts bet
ween Spain and Portugal over control of the lands as they were discovered, There
fore on May 4, 1493 Pope Alexander VI issued a decree called the Partition of the
ocean in which he established the boundry between the two countries in the New
World, All of North America and the upper portion of South America was declared
a Royal possession of the Spanish crown, the personnal property of Queen Isabella
and King Ferinand and their heirs forever, All of the lands below the boundry
line belonged to Portugal,
Soon after the Pope's decree, Spain established Mexico City as the location for
their "New World" National Capitol, then a mere 50 years later ships bearing the
flag of Colonial Spain were cruising off the coast of what would later become
known as Santa Cruz County. One of these ships was captained by Juan Rodriquez
Cabrillo, a Portuguese who had previously served the King of Spain in Mexico and
Guatemala, He was leading a small squadron of ships north from Mexico to explore
the unknown coastline, In an epic voyage of discovery in 1542, Cabrillo first
sailed up the California coast to a point somewhere in what is now Sonoma County,
then on the return trip, on November 16, 1542 he anchored in what he called the
"Bajia de las Pinos" or "Pine Tree Bay," which several historians believe was
northern Monterey Bay,
Cabrillo did not come ashore because the surf was too heavy, so we have to depend
upon Sebastian vizcaino's voyage in 1602 for the first description of the Santa
Cruz County area, Sebastian had been ordered to make an exploratory voyage along
the California coast and make accurate maps, On December 16, 1602, his squadron
of three ships entered Monterey Bay, which he named in honor of Gasper de Zuniga
y Azevedo, the viceroy of New Spain and Count of Monterey, under whose authority
he was commissioned,
Sebastian Vizcaino described Monterey Bay as: "the best port that could be des
ired, for besides being sheltered from all winds it has many pines for masts and
yards, and live oak and white oaks, and water in great quantity, all near the
shore," He recommended Monterey Bay as a safe haven for the Manila Galleons
returning from the orient. During his exploration of the area, he named the
"Punta de Pinos" to the south of the bay, and "Punta Ano Nuevo" to the north,
as well as the •�io Carmelo (Carmel River) flowing into the ocean just to the
south of today's town of Monterey. Vazcaino, like all explorers before him
missed San Francisco Bay.
During his two week stay anchored in the bay, he and his crew made a number of
trips ashore, meeting there the local Indians. Vizcaino wrote of the local
Indians as follows:
"The land is well populated with Indians without number, many of whom came on
different occasions to our camp. They seem to be gentle and peaceful people;
they say with signs that there are many villages inland. The sustenance which
these Indians eat most of daily, besides fish and shellfish, is acorns and
another fruit (the buckeye?) larger than a chestnut; this is what we could
understand of them."
"There are Indians although they are distrustful of dealing with us, That is
to say that the aforesaid Indians came in peace, and from appearances are
good people, they brought us shellfish and made great efforts to bring us to
their town which they made si gn s was inland,"
Fray Antonio de la Acension, who accompanied Vizcaino, stated:
"The port is all surrounded with rancherias of affable Indians, good natives
and well-disposed, who like to give what they have, here they brought us
skins of bears and lion and deer, They use the bow and arrow and have their
form of government. They were very pleased that we should have settled in
xix:
�Background
their country, They go naked at this port."
NOTE: In the 16th and early 17th centuries Imperial Spain was developing and
conquering new lands on the basis of their ability to produce mineral
wealth. California, by 1602, was thought to have no such wealth, and was
conveniently forgotten by Spain. The Spaniards wanted to believe that the
Pacific ocean was a "Spanish Lake," between their Central and South
American colonies and their holdings in the Phillippines and to a very
great extent up to the mid-18th century, it was. But English explorers
had invaded that "Spanish" ocean as early as 1579, and by two hundred years
later the English, French, even the Dutch were sending ships to the Pacific
Coast of Asia while the Russians were establishing outposts in Alaska and
even exploring the Pacific coastline as far south as California.
To continue with vizcaino's explorations••...• when his three ships set sail for
home they were but a few days from the end of their journey. By this time, half
of his men were either dead or dying, and his enthusiasm to leave Monterey Bay
must have carried a note of urgency to his superiors. But this urgency for
Monterey Bay might have lost some of its legendary luster had they known that
Vizcaino was not the first to discover the bay. Remember Cabrillo in 1542 while
he was in search of the mythical Strait of Anian- an obsession known by the
English as the Northwest Passage- supposedly anchored in the bay, then in 1595
Sebastian Rodriquez Cermeno, a Portuguese merchant- adventurer on a mission
similar to that undertaken by Vizcaino. But Cermeno had lost his gallon at
Drakes Bay- which he had renamed San Francisco- and Spanish authorities dis
counted his reports.
When Sebastian Vizcaino landed at Monterey Bay seven years after Cermeno, he
had a personal interest in success. If he found a suitable port to serve the
trade routes of New Spain, he was promised command of a Manila Galleon as a
reward. As his three ships headed for home, until he entered Monterey Bay his
journey was a failure, Although this bay is an open arc, hardly "sheltered from
all winds," Vizcaino reported to Spanish authorities what they hoped to hear.
The viceroy of New Spain was delighted to have the harbor bear his name, and in
return he awarded Vizcaino with the promised captainship of a Manila galleon.
But shortly afterward a new viceroy was appointed- one more skeptical of Viz
caino, and he revoked the galleon. Among the men to suffer the most from the
explorer's fraudulent claims of a magnificant port at Monterey Bay was Mart
inez Palacios, Vizciano's mapmaker.....he was convicted of forgery and hanged
for his role in the misrepresentation. Despite the preceding events, rumors
of the fabled port of Monterey Bay persisted. It wasn't until 1765 that plans
began to develop in the mind of Jose de Galvez to find the port. In 1765 Galvez
became the visitador-general of New Spain, a special deputy to King Charles III.
He was a forceful, intelligent, extremely ambitious and competent man that was
also known to possess several idiosyncrasies causing many to consider him
a little bit crazy at times.
After Galvez's appointment in 1765, over the next few years, he was to take
charge of the King's ordered expulsion of the Jesuit priests from Baja California
and initiate the expansion of the colonial empire into Alta California. The
Jesuits (a Roman Catholic religious order founded by Ignatius Loyola in 1534)
were feared for their power, militancy and independence by King Charles III.
Galvez carried out the King's order only to discover the Baja missions were
decaying and nearly deserted. He turned them over to the military under Gasper
de Portola and later to the Franciscans under Father Junipero Serra....it is
these three men, Galvez, Portola and Father Serra that were to take key roles
in the development of the northwest frontier, and the eventual granting of
two areas to Martina Castro a short sixty eight years later.
It was Galvez who helped reorganize the Spanish government under Charles III in
an effort to increase its financial revenues and stop the decline of the empire
in New Spain. But the plan to push foreward into Alta California was his per
sonnal project. He believed that by consolidating the northwest region into
one governmental unit including both Californias, Spains international image
would improve (as well as prospects for his own career).
xx
He heard, and listened to words concerning the increased British and Russian
�Background
interest in the northern California coastlands and used these rumors to con
vince Spanish government officials that it was time to locate and settle the
fabled harbor at Monterey Bay. This action, he reasoned would serve as the start
of a northward military and religious thrust to set up a buffer zone for New
Spain. He also hinted that settlement of Alta California would be a good res
ource for financial revenue...•..but as it would turn out, the establishment
of the mission chain that would result from his planned push into the area,
would ultimately prove to be a financial drain on Spain until Mexico took over
power in 1822.
In 1768 Galvez obtained permission to proceed with plans for exploration and
settlement of Alta California. He first set up a supply base at San Blas on the
coast of Mexico, and sailed from there to Baja California. Here he finished his
plans for the expedition to Monterey Bay. Originally the expedition was to incl
ude several divisions, two by land and three by sea, and all were to begin from
the peninsula. Unfortunately for Galvez, the mainland approach was blocked by
rebellions in Sonora sparked by the expulsion of the Jesuits. The rebellions,
a frustrating obstacle to the visitador-general's plans, delayed the first
"push" into Alta California.
Finally all the necessary elements for the trip to Monterey Bay were assembled,
and in the winter of 1768 the division by sea, which was to proceed ahead of the
land force, consisting of three ships: the San Carlos; the San Antonio; and the
San Jose set sail for San Diego where they were to establish a way station,
then proceed to Monterey Bay. By land, the expedition was divided into two
companies and placed under Gasper de Portola, supreme commander of the whole
expedition. Father Junipero Serra, Franciscan father....•president of the Baja
missions, was assi gn ed to supervise the establishment of the mission system in
Upper California.
The PORTOLA EXPEDITION
The historic expedition to Monterey Bay did not go as smoothly as Galvez had
hoped, but by then it did not matter, as his ambitions were already ful
filled. He ultimately became Minister of the Indies, the most powerful pos
ition in New Spain. It was Gasper de Portola, an 18th century Spanish
explorer and professional soldier of noble birth that had to endure the
results of Galvez's poor planning. Not only did he have to endure disease,
insects, and an earthquake, but even had to eat barbecued mule to survive,
all on a risky 700 mile journey that took 14 months••.•••all in search of
a myth..•.•..the fabled harbor of Monterey Bay. Knowing well Vizcaino's
description of Monterey Bay as "a noble harbor..•.the best port that could
be desired," this could well be the reason that Portola and his men walked
right by it, continuing north until they discovered the coast's most mag
nificent bay....•San Francisco•....•but found it only an obstacle to their
visionary port of Monterey (a port that was much smaller and more compact
than the monsterous body of water that stretched out before their eyes).
On the trip north, when the party reached the vicinity of Monterey Bay on
October 4, 1769, Portola told his men,.•.•.•"what should be the Rio Carmelo
is only an arroyo (brook); what should be a port is only a little ensenada
(cove); what were great lakes are lagunillas (small lagoons)." His men
suggested perhaps their calculations for the port were in error, and the
legendary bay was further ahead. Later they were to reason that the great
harbor had filled with sand during the past century, therefore on to San
Francisco Bay they continued.
a
pity that Portola was a man of so few written words .....because it
It is
would be interesting to know what he really said on the way home when Mont
erey Bay was recognized. If he swore at all, he probably directed consider
able profanity toward his predecessor, merchant-explorer Sabastian Viz
caino.
After both Portola and Father Serra saw Monterey Bay for what it was, the Spanish
explorer reported to his superiors that in his opinion, if the Russians wanted
Alta California••••.••• which he doubted..••••••then they should be allowed to
xX1
�Bae kg round
have it "as a punishment for their aggressive designs." Spanish occupation of
Monterey, he said, would never prevent Russia from establishing themselves at
another point along the coast.••••••Portola continued....•.••it was impossible,
"to send aid to Monterey by sea, and still more by land, unless it was proposed
to sacrifice thousands of men and huge sume of money." In the end Portola's
statements proved to be right ....•.•the threat of the Russian settlement was
largely exaggerated.
Despite Gasper de Portola's report, Spain continued with its decision to explore
and colonize Alta California. Spain's first major entrance into the area was
the building of Mission San Diego de Alcala, referred to as the •�other of
Missions" beginning July 16, 1769. On June 3, 1770 the second of the twenty
one missions was begun, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Monterey was founded at
the site of the Monterey Presidio, but moved shortly to Carmel and named San
Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, or as it is better known today, simply as the
"Carmel Mission."
The Carmel Mission became an early point of departure for the exploration of
the San Francisco Bay area. In 1770 Pedro Fages left the mission and became the
first to explore the Santa Clara Valley; in 1772 Fages again explored the
southern and eastern reaches of San Francisco Bay. In 1774, another exploratory
party left the Carmel Mission, led by Fernando Javier Rivera y Moncada and Fray
Francisco Palou. They traveled through the Santa Clara Valley, up the eastern
side of. the peninsula (along the bay), then headed back south to Carmel along
the western side of the Santa Cruz Mountains, thus following Portola's route
of five years earlier.
And finally entering our story is Lieutenant-Colonel of the Cavalry Juan Baut
ista de Anza, bringing with him the first of the Castro family to enter Alta
California, Martina Castro's grandfather and grandmother.
JUAN BAUTISTA de ANZA "The Hard-Riding Captain"
Juan Bautista de Anza led two expeditions into California, "standing forth
in the double capacity of explorer and colony leader." His first expedition
left Tubas in Mexico for San Gabriel on January 8, 1774. In the party were
two Franciscan friars, 31 other men, 140 horses, and 65 cattle. After reach
ing San Gabriel April 10, 1774, he headed on north with six men, reaching
Monterey, then returning to San Gabriel on May 1, of the same year. It took
him another 25 days to return to Tubae, then on to Mexico City, reaching
there in July of 1774 where he reported the results of this remarkable trip.
This first expedition into Upper California made a definite contribution to
Western pathfinding. For full 600 miles he was a trail breaker. His journey
to and from Monterey covered more than 2,000 miles. To then go to Mexico
city to report his findings to the viceroy and then return to his post
involved a horseback journey of an additional 3,000 miles. The title he was
given after the trip, the "Hard-Riding Captain," surely was earned.
It is Anza's second expedition into Alto California that is of interest here.
Anza himself wrote that the decree of the viceroy under which he acted was si gn ed
November 24, 1774. In the decree he was advanced from Captain to lieutentant
colonel, and rushed homeward to raise the required force of 30 soldiers with
their families. The purpose of the exPedition was to bring settlers with their
families to Monterey where in 1770 a Presidio had been established. It was plan
ned later to establish Upper California's capitol here, which was done in 1777.
It was also planned that after reaching Monterey, portions of the party would
continue on to San Francisco where they would establish Spain's third Presidio
in the New World and also a mission to be called Mission San Francisco de Asis
or simply "Mission Delores."
JUAN BAUTISTA de ANZA's SECOND EXPEDITION
Anza left San Felipe de sinaloa, Mexico for Horcasitas, also in Mexico, with
his party in late 1775. When Horcasitas was reached he had a total of 177
persons. At the next rendezvous point, which was Tubae, Mexico, he was
joined by an additional 63 persons to now total 240. It was planned at each
x x11
�Background
of the rendezvous points to have a nunber of soldiers leave the party and
be replaced with fresh troups. The next point where this would occur was San
Grabriel, in Upper California, which was reached on schedule. Here the rot
ation of the troops occurred again. Anza reached Monterey on March 10, 1776
with a few more then the 240 he left San Gabriel with. He also had over 800
head of livestock. After resting, about 75 persons moved north under the
command of Lieutentant Moraga to settle on the sites for the San Francisco
Presidio and Mission Delores. On their return trip to Monterey they stopped
along the way to establish the site for Mission Santa Clara. The party of
75 left Monterey for this last leg of their journey June 17, 1776.
While Anza's achievements as an explorer are what he is best known for, it
is his role as "colony leader" that are just as remarkable. It is written ...
•.•. ,"With slender equipment he organized and conducted a large company of
men. women and children some 1,600 miles, from Sinaloa, Mexico to Monterey.
When it left its last rendezvous at Tubae, his colony comprised 240 persons.
On the first day out from the post a woman paid the supreme price of mother
hood. But this was the only death during the whole journey, and to offset
the loss three infants were born on the way and all reached their destinat
ion safe and sound. This is a remarkable record, never excelled.•..perhaps
never equalled..•••..in all the history of the great pioneer trel� of peoples
to the Pacific coast before, during, or after the Gold Rush. Anza's brilliant
success cannot be attributed to the ease of the journey, for it was made
amid varying conditions of drought, cold, snow and rain. The march of 1,600
miles to Monterey, in which only one human being was lost, was so difficult
that it cost the lives of nearly a hundred head of stock which died of
hardship on the way."
After Anza left California he became Governor of New Mexico for a
decade, where he won fame as diplomat, administrator and Indian
fighter. He died December 19, 1788.
xx 111
�Intentially left blank.
XXIV
�HAPTER 1
THE
CASTROS
. A GENEALOGY
1
�Intentially left blank.
2
�JOAQUIN YSIDRO CASTRO
The Castro family, according to Spanish historian
Julio de Atienza was one of the five families in
Old Castile which descended from the first Kings,
As Spanish influence spread throughout the world,
the family was in the forefront.
This book chronicles one of the many families that
form one of the oldest families in Christianity,
the Castros' of California, but detail only one
family, namely that of Maria Martina Castro and her
eight children••••••••••, •••
Martina Castro's grandfather, Joaquin Ysidro Castro
was born in 1732 in Villa de Sinaloa, Mexico. He died
December 31, 1801 and is buried in the cemetery of
Mission San Carlos. He, with his wife and eight children
were among the first Castros to come to Upper Califor
nia and settle here, They came with the second Anza
expedition, leaving Sinaloa, Mexico in 1775,
While it is recorded that he and his wife had nine
children and that they had eight with them when they
reached Monterey, several historians have the youngest
of the eight that entered Upper California with them,
born during the trip. A daughter would be born later in
Alta California,
When Joaquin joined the Anza party he was one of
eight scout soldiers recruited from the Presidio at
Tubae, Mexico. He has been described as having a shield
with seven thicknesses that could turn Indian arrows.
JOAQUIN
YSIDRO
CASTRO
1732
TO
12 31 1801
MARTINA
OUTILLIERE
de CASTRO
1733
TO
1813
PLUS
MARIA
ANTONIA
AMADOR
died
6/30/1827
JOSE
JOAQUIN
CASTRO
1770
TO
MARRIED
12/23/1791
During the exhausting trip from Mexico, while Joaq
uin was scouting and his wife taking care of the "woman
ly" affairs, their oldest daughter, Ana Josefa was
being courted by Jose Maria Soberanes. When they reached Monterey Ana married
Jose Maria Soberanes on May 29, 1776 by Father Junipero Serra,
Jose Maria Soberanes had served as a scout and guide in three expeditions into
Upper California: for Don Gasper de Portola in 1769; for Don Pedro Fagas in
1772; and for the Anza party in 1776.
Joaquin Ysidro remained a soldier in the San Francisco Company, living at the
Presidio with his family unt�l he was sent to the newly established Mission at
Santa Clara in 1777, He settled in San Jose in 1788 or 1790, He was grantee of
Rancho Buena Vista, a royal grant in the Monterey District (together) with his
son-in-law Jose Maria Soberanes,
Rancho Buena Vista was one of six Royal Spanish grants listed in the Monterey
District in January 1795. The grant was held by Joaquin Ysidro and Jose Sob
eran jointly until Joaquin's death in 1801, then when Jose died in 1803 it
reverted back to the Spanish throne.
MARTINA BOUTILLIERE de CASTRO
Martina Boutilliere was born in 1733 in France and died in Santa Cruz in 1813.
She is buried in the mission cemetery there. To quote from an article written by
Leon Rowland for the Santa Cruz Sentinel (date unknown) ••• , ••,"Legend is that she
was a Franch woman of noble blood, exiled to Spain, where she married Joaquin
Ysidro Castro, After their marriage they left for Sinaloa, Mexico, then as prev
iously discussed, came to Upper California with the Anza expedition in 1776,
As for the legend that Martina (Boutilliere) was of noble blood the Ency
clopedia Britannica afords the information that a family by the name of Bouthill
ier existed in France of which Claude Bouthillier was councillor of state under
Mary de Medici and a confidant of Richelieu. Claude's son, Leon Bouthillier, was
Count of Chavigny and Secretary of State in 1632 and again in 1651, From the mea
ger records, therefore, the story of Martina Boutillier can be built.
3
�J OAOUI N YSIDRO CASTRO
Exiled from France, she married a Spaniard, Joaquin Ysidro (or Isidro) Cas
tro, went with him to Sanaloa, Mexico by the time she was 36 years old, or ear
lie, and came to San Francisco with her husband by the time she was 44.
the FAMILY of JOAQUIN YSIDRO CASTRO
The nine (known) children of Joaquin Ysidro Castro and his wife Martina
Boutilliere de Castro are as follows:
IGNACIO CLEMENTE CASTRO was born in 1756 which makes him 20 when he came to Cal
ifornia with his parents in Anza•s 1776 expedition. He was a soldier at Monterey
from 1790 to 1793 and alcalde (Mayor) at San Jose in 1799, 1804, and 1809-10.
He was drowned at Arroyo de la Alameda on March 4, 1817.
ANA JOSEFA CASTRO was born in 1758 making her 18 when she entered Upper California.
After she married Jose Maria May 29, 1776 at Monterey, they lived at the Mission
at San Carlos, then when Mission Neustra Senora Doloris-sima de la Soledad was
founded in 1791, her husband was stationed there. As previously discussed, he was
grantee, along with his father-in-law Joaquin Ysidro of the Royal Grant of Rancho
Buena Vista.
After her husband died (he was buried September 22, 1803 in the church of Mission
San Carlos de Borromeo), Ana moved to Monterey in 1804 with four of her children.
On May 12, 1816 in the chapel of the Royal Presidio of Monterey she married Jose
Miguel Uribe, dying six years later in July of 1822. Out of Ana's two marriages
would evolve two of Alta California's more prominent families, namely the Sober
anes• and Bernal clans.
MARIA ENCARNACION CASTRO was born in 1764 making her 12 when she entered Upper
California. She married Jose Joaquin de Avila January 7, 1782 then moved to Mex
ico City with her husband (about 1800).
MARIA del CARMEN MARTINA CASTRO was born in 1766 making her 10 when she entered
Upper California, Kenneth does not record the date of her death, only that she
married Ventura Amezquita in Santa Clara in about 1814.
JOSE MARIANO CASTRO was born in 1765 making him 9 when he entered Upper California.
He married Maria Josefa Romero February 19, 1791 at Mission Santa Barbara. He was
grantee of the Royal Spanish grand Rancho de las Animas in Santa Clara County in
1802. This grant is said to be the only vice regal land grant in California.
Jose died in 1828 at age 37.
JOSE JOAQUIN CASTRO was born in 1770 making him 6 when he entered Upper Calif
ornia. Jose Joaquin was the father of the subject of this book, namely Martina
Castro. Both of their lives will be discussed in more detail shortly•••••••••
FRANCISCO MARIA CASTRO was born in 1774
Upper California. Family records say he
yary as to whether he was born in Spain
and sisters were born. He married Maria
making him 2 when he was carried into
was born in 1773, while other sources
or in Sinaloa, Mexico where his brothers
Gabriela Berryessa February 16, 1795 at
Mission Santa Clara. He died at San Pablo on November 5, 1831.
CARLOS ANTONIO CASTRO••••••one source says that he was born in Fuerte, Sonora in
1774, while other sources say he was born during the Anza expedition before it
reached Mission San Gabriel, probably in late 1775. There are also several sources
listing his death•••••• one says he died in 1845, while another says he died in
June or July of 1848.
MARIA ISABEL CASTRO was born in Upper California and was baptized November 19,
1777. She was buried at San Francisco July 3, 1779.
4
�J OSE JOAQUIN CASTRO
JOSE
JOAQUIN
CASTRO
1770
TO
MARIA
ANTONIA
AMADOR
died
6/30/1827
MARRIED
12/23/1791
I
8
CHILDREN
r
JOSE
RAFAEL
CASTRO
10/15/1803
TO
5/14/1878
I
I
PLUS
I
I
I
JUAN
JOSE
CASTRO
baptized
6/19/1805
MARIA
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
J
SIMON
COTA
birth
date
unknown
disappeared
1830
I
JOSE de
GUADALUPE
CASTRO
baptized
9/17/1811
died
8/15/1893
l
r MARRIED
1822/1823
r
JOSEPH L.
MAJORS
5/26/1804
TO
5/25/1868
I
I
MARIA de
CANDIDA
los ANGELES
CASTRO
baptized
9/12/1818
died
1903
I
!MARRIED \
1839
CASTRO
baptized
2/14/1808
died
1859
I
JOSE
JOAQUIN
CASTRO
born about
1820
JOSE
AMADO
BOLCOFF
1797
TO
1866
I MARRIED
1822
THE FAMILY OF JOSE JOAQUIN
l
CASTRO
5
�J OSE JOAQUIN CASTRO
Jose Joaquin Castro was born at the Villa de Sinaloa in Mexico in 1770. He
was a young 6 when he first stepped foot into Upper California with his parents
in Anza•s second expedition in 1776. At age 18 he enlisted in the Spanish Army
while living with his parents in San Francisco. Two years after enlisting, on
December 23, 1791 he married the daughter of his sargeant, Maria Antonia Amador
y Noriega. Maria's father, Pedro Antonio Amador first entered Upper California
with the famed Portola expedition in 1769 as a scout.
Two years after he married Maria Antonia he was transferred to the Royal Pres
idio in Monterey where he would remain until he retired after ten years of ser
vice in 1798. Jose, along with five other retired soldiers, called "invilados"
(which the non-pejorative term "Invalided out" comes from) were induced to take
up residence at the Villa de Branciforte. They were to form, what we would call
today the "Army Reserve." SEE APPENDIX "II.
By 1818 Jose Joaquin was the mayordomo of Santa Cruz, a position he would
hold for several years. On June 30, 1827 his beloved wife of 36 years, Maria Ant
onia died and was buried. Maria had given birth to a total of 15 children. Heart
broken, three years later Jose Joaquin in 1830 consoled himself by marrying 17
year old Rosalia Briones who gave him four additional children.
In 1831 at age 61 he became alcalde of Santa Cruz (the term is used inter
changeably to mean either mayor of Justice of the Peace•••••in this instance it
means mayor)•
SEE APPENDIX "II.
When the Act of Secularization became law in 1833 Jose Joaquin was the first
to apply for land in what would become Santa Cruz County. He was granted what
would become the 13,000 acre Rancho San Andres (perverted to San Andreas). It is
interesting to note that of the 22 grants given in Santa Cruz County, only one
is recorded in the County Recorder's Office. The date of the deed in November 26,
1833 and is signed by Jose Figuera, Governor of Alta California. Jose Joaquin
died in Santa Cruz at age 68 in 1838. The 19 children of Jose Joaquin Castro
are as follows1
JOSE
YGNACIO CASTRO was baptized March 1, 1793 and ouried January 10, 1811 at San
Juan Bautista.
MARIA ANTONIA DIONISIA CASTRO was baptized April 10, 1795, married Juan Jose
Feliz in 1849 at the Mission in Santa Clara •••••the date of her death is unknown.
MARIA JOSEFA CASTRO was baptized December 30, 1799 at the Mission in Santa Cruz.
She was buried in Santa Cruz February 2, 1811.
MARIA RAFAELA INOCENCIA CASTRO was baptized December 30, 1799 at the Mission in
Santa Cruz. She married Francisco Rodriquez, the son of Jose Antonio Rodriquez,
one of the five invalidos that accompanied Jose Joaquin Castro when he settled
in the Villa de Branciforte in 1798. Francisco Rodriquez was the grantee of
Rancho Arroyo del Rodeo (also known as San Vicente or Los Coyotes) in July of
1834. Maria Rafaela died in 1841.
JOSE RAFAEL ANTONIO CASTRO was born October 16, 1801 in Branciforte and was buried
in Santa Cruz February 10, 1811.
JOSE RAFAEL de JESUS CASTRO was born October 15, 1803. He married Maria de la
Soledad Cota of Santa Barbara while in the military service. The highest rank
that Rafael achieved during his ten years in the army was corporal. Rafael, was
grantee of Rancho Aptos in 1833 by Governor Jose Figueroa, then increased to its
final size of 6,680 acres in 1840 by Governor Alvarado. Rafael died in Aptos
May 14, 1878 and is buried there in the Old Cemetery. The epitaph on his monument reads •••••••..•..•..
RANCHO APTOS, Santa Cruz County, at Aptos. One square league, granted in
1833. He sold most of his rancho to Claus Spreckels in 1874. 6,686 acres,
patented to him in 1860. Rancho Aptos was bounded on one side by the larger
Rancho San Andres belonging to his father; bounded on another side by Rancho
Soquel which belonged to his sister Martina Castro. On another side it was
bounded by a range of mountains, and on the southerly side by the sea.
6
�J OSE JOAQUIN CASTRO
JUAN JOSE CASTRO was baptized June 19, 1805 at Santa Cruz. He married twice, was
the regidor (magistrate) at the Villa de Branciforte in 1833 and again in 1845.
The date of his death is unknown. Juan Jose will play an important role in
Martina's story, especially during the period that the United States Land
Commission was considering her request for patents for Rancho Soquel and the
Augmentation.
MARIA MARTINA CASTRO was baptized March 17, 1807 (the date of her birth has never
been officially established). Her story will be chronicled throughout this book.
CANDIDA CASTRO was baptized December 14, 1808 at Santa Cruz. She married Jose
Antonio Bolcoff in 1822. Candida was one of the grantees of Rancho Refugio, loc
ated to the west of Santa Cruz. It was registered as one square league to Candida
and her two sisters Maria de los Angeles and Maria'Antonia Jacinta, who reling
uished her share when she became a nun, Candida gave birth to 11 children,
Jose Bolcoff was born in
a Russian sealing vessel
his Greek Church baptism
Cruz, which would remain
(mayor) three times.
JOSE ANTONIO BOLCOFF
Kamchatka, Russia in 1797, He was
that was anchored in Monterey Bay
ratified at Mission Soledad, then
his home until his death in 1866.
a deserter from
in 1817. He had
settled in Santa
He was alcalde
On January 5, 1854, at age 57 he gave a deposition at the Arroyo del Rodeo
land grant trial, stating that he had lived in California for 36 years, and
in Santa Cruz since 1822. Jose will play an important role in Martina's
story as it unfolds••••••••••••
FRANCISCO CASTRO was baptized September 7, 1810 at Santa Cruz and is buried
there. He died January 12, 1811,
JOSE de GUADALUPE CASTRO was baptized September 17, 1811 at Santa Cruz. He was
Juez suplente in 1841 at Santa Cruz (Juez means judge in Spanish); Justice of t·he
Peace in 1851; and claimant of his father's Rancho San Andres after he died. He
died a bachelor August 15, 1893 at the home of his sister and brother-in-law
Maria de los Angeles and Joseph L. Majors. Jose de Guadalupe will play an impor
tant role in Martina's story as it unfolds, especially during the period that the
United States Land Commission was considering Martina•s request for patents for
both Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation.
MARIA ANTONIA JACINTA CASTRO was baptized January 29, 1815 at Santa Cruz. As die
cussed in Candida Castro's ?hort history, she was grantee along with her sisters
Candida and Maria de los Angeles of Rancho Refugio, but relinguished her share
when she became a nun.
JOSE IGNACIO CASTRO was born in 1817 at Santa Cruz. He married Ricarda Rodriquez.
MARIA de los ANGELES was baptized September 12, 1818 at Santa Cruz. On December
19, 1839 she married Joseph L. Majors, the same year she was grantee of Rancho
Refugio with her two sisters, Candida and Maria Antonia Jacinta. Maria de los
Angeles and Joseph Majors had a total of 19 children during their 29 years of
marriage (Joseph died May 25, 1868). After her husband's death in 1868, Maria
would live another 35 years, long enough to see the Twentieth Century entered,
dying in 1903 at age 85.
JOSEPH I.ADD MAJORS SEE APPENDIX"tf
During his thirty plus years as a resident of Santa Cruz and its surrounding
area, Joseph L. Majors would become one of its leading citizens, Because his
life is so extensive and full, only a brief, inaccurate description of his
life will be attempted here, A more detailed description of his life and
times is presented in the BIOGRAPHIES APPENDIY to this book,,.,, ••
Joseph Ladd Majors was born May 26, 1804 near Nashville, Tenn. He came
over the Santa Fe Trail with Graham, Neal and several others. He became a
Mexican citizen in 1838 or 1839, taking on the name Juan Jose Crisostomo
Mayor. He was grantee of ranchos Zayante and San Agustin.
7
�J OSE JOAQUIN C ASTRO
Rancho Zayante at Mount Herman was four league s in size, of which three
w ent to Jose Bue lna. Rancho San Agustin, east of Mount He rman was one league
in size (4,437 acres) and was patente d to Majors July 25, 1866, two ye ars
before his death in 1868.
JOSE JOAQUIN CASTRO was born about 1820, se ve n years before his mother die d. This
fiftee nth'child of Jose Joaquin and Maria Antonia was discove re d through court
te stimony given in a deposition on June 6, 1896. The deposition was on behalf
of his cousin Mary Elizabeth Peck who was attempting to be awarded by the
Court Special Letters of Administration for the dece ased Martina Castro Depeaux•s
e state. Jose lists his age as (about) 78 in the deposition, and furthe r state s
that he was living at the time in Gilroy.�
Jose Joaquin's testimony will not be pre sented here in datail except to
state that he lived on his father's Rancho San Andre s from birth for many
years after. After he married (he had two boys and two girls that were all alive
when he gave this deposition, his other children had died), he re mained on the
rancho, building a home along the side of a laguna there. He further testifie d
that he lived on Rancho San Andres until about 1882.
Based on his testimony, which is difficult to follow and establish both dates
and details of occurances because of his lack of e ducation and ability to re m
ember dates, the following is the best sequence of e vents that occurred after
his mother's death that we have to date: His father, heartbroken after his wife
died, moved to Santa Cruz, leaving the running of Rancho San Andres to his
three sons, Guadalupe, Ignacio and himself. It is because of his ide ntical
name that he has been overlooked when the compiling of both Jose Joaquin se nior
and Rancho San Andres history is researched.
"FOR CCMPLETE TEXT OF
The CHILDREN of JOSE JOAQUIN
ELIZABETH PECK' s SUIT
and ROSALIA (Rosario) BRIONES
SEE CHAPTER l 9
MARIA YGNACIA ANGELA de FULGENCIAL CASTRO
JUAN BAUTISTA CASTRO
RICARDO CASTRO
!JUAN CASTRO
MARTINA {CASTRO) COTA
only the date of her
birthdate of Maria Martina Castro is not recorded,
The
records found to
·
known
all
of
search
baptism, March 17 , 1807 • After a careful
· fu 11Y
s so pain
Record
d
teh?o
e-Sta
e•s.Pr
ifort
Branc
de
Villa
date, including the
e ars have been
y
early
na's
Marti
of
on
menti
e
translated by Star Girky, very littl
yea:s, prob�bly as a very
discovered. It is known that she spent her early ts 1.n Branciforte. Several
paren
her
with
girl
e
pampered and cared for littl
while not possessin� extreme
article s have described her as being short, and very long black hair.
had
and
ed
skinn
dark"
some,
beauty, she was "hand
an� yet in m�ny �ays complex
we can begin to piece together this simple, Simon Cota 1.n either 1822 or
ral
woman's life after her first marriage to Corpo
na and he: brot�er Rafae l as.
1823, several historians have described both Marti
both be7ng qui.ck of �e�pe�h
age;
having a strong pride of family and their herit
e
Y
It is �lso state
rned.
conce
was
osity
gener
as
but very openminded as far
d
al
the
to
ely
fierc
and
ornly
stubb
historians that both brother and sister clung
ly entrenche � throughout
Spanish traditions. These latter traits were strong of the men in th7 second
many
that
ly
fierce
the "Castro clan," entrenched so
not to understand it, eve�
generation refused to speak English and prete nded
when they did.
the Spanish aristocr�tes
While Rafael Castro possessed the rare talent among na, throughout her life
Marti
,
write
and
read
both
of this time , the ability to
nce, often she would t.nrn to
n e ver achie ve d this ability. When she n ee ded guida
8
�MARTINA (CASTRO) COTA
MARIA
SIMON
COTA
birth
date
unknown
disappeared
1830
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
FRANCISCO
LAJEUNESSE
or
YOUNG
1809
TO
DATE
Unknown
MARIA
LUISA
COTA
1826
TO
DATE
Unknown
NTCANOR
COTA
1825
TO
1890
(Approx)
9 Children
JOSEPHA
LUZ
Died
1829
MICHAEL
LODGE
1795
TO
1849
Arrives
in
onterey
1826
JEAN
RICHARD
FOURCADE
or
RICARDO
JUAN
1814
TO
1884
7 Children
MARIA del
CARMEN
JUANA
JOSEFA
ADELAY
del COTA
7/12/1827
TO
1921
THOMAS
FALLON
1818/1819
TO
1885
MARRIED
1827
SIMON
COTA
disappears
1830
9 Children
THE FAMILY OF MARTINA (CASTRO) COTA
9
�MARTI NA (CASTRO) COTA
the Church and the padres at the Mission. Ans despite being a "Casti.o," during
her entire life, she was not overly rich•••••••she had to pay taxes, find the
money to buy the necessary items to survive, all the while raising an ever grow
ing family in a wild and primitive land.
SIMON COTA y ROMERO
From what has been pieced together to date, Martina lived with her parents
in the villa in Branciforte until she met, and married Simon Cota, a
corporal in the Spanish, then Mexican Army. Because he was stationed at the
Royal Presidio in Monterey, the newly weds moved there. Simon was born
October 28, 1803 in Santa Barbara. His parents were Manual Antonio Cota and
Gertrudis Romero (de Cota). Manual and Gertrudis also had a daughter, Maria
de la Soledad Cota who would marry Martina's brother Rafael, also a corporal
in the Army, within the same time period as Martina and Simon (probably in
1823).
Before Simon's disappearance in 1830, Martina gave birth to four children.
Their first born was Nicanor (sometimes an "a'' is added to her name, but
for consistency the "a" will not be added throughout this book). Nicanor
was born in Monterey in 1825, then the next year along came Maria Luisa
(sometimes Americanized to Louisa•••••••the Spanish spelling is preffered
throughout this book).
The third child was either a son that died early, or Maria del Carmen Juana
Josefa Adelayada Cota on July 12, 1827 in MontereyC��9)••••• later she would
prefer to be called simply Carmel Lodge, using her stepfather's last name.
Simon Cota mysteriously disappeared from Monterey in March of 1830. Several
historians have him being assassinated and his body disposed of while he
was serving as Secretary of the military junta that was taking place at this
time. While his disappearance may be for this reason, there is another
theory that will be discussed shortly.
11"S
MARTI NA CASTRO) LODGE
While Martina was carrying her second child, M
Irish-born Michael
in County Cork,
Lodge arrived in Monterey. He was born in either 1
Ireland. Michael was a talented carpenter, but his first love was sailing.
According to popular legend, soon after he arrived (in 1826) he met and married
the daughter of Garcia Luz, an invalido who came to the Villa de Branciforte
to live after serving his ten years in the army. The daughter, Josefa Luz gave
him a daughter (several historians have it a son), the birth probably occurring
in 1827.
After his marriage to Josefa, Michael became a naturalized Mexican citizen,
then headed for Villa de Branciforte to live there with his wife and child. When
he arrived in about 1828 he was only the fifth "foreigner" to take up residence
in the small pueblo. Tragically in 1829 both his wife and child died of some
ailment.
There is another story of Michael's early years as told by Martina's grand
daughter Carrie Electra Lodge •••••• Carrie•s father was Miguel Lodge, Martina's
only son to grow into manhood. In 1965 Carrie was interviewed and gave us this
version of Michaels early life in Monterey and Branciforte•••••••••"Michael
arrived from Ireland a single man and attempted to live totally on the land,
but soon his love of the sea won out, he purchased a whaling ship. Soon he was
sailing out of Monterey making his living tracking down the whale.
After his boat sunk in the deep Monterey Bay, a discourged and broken man
headed inland to the San Jose area where he met, and married into the famed
Berryessa family. His wife (Carrie did not known her name) died during child-
10
�MARTI NA (CASTRO) LODGE
SIMON
COTA
disappears
1830
LAMBERT
BLAIR
CLEMENTS
7/6/1823
TO
DATE
Unknown
I
I
MARIA
JOSEFA
LOrx;E
1831/1832
TO
DATE
Unknown
'MARRIED
1850
I
I
I
MARRIED
1831 or 1833
Ia
CHILDREN
I
I
MICHAEL
LOrx;E
1795
TO
1849
Arrives
in
Monterey
1826
MICHAEL
LOrx;E
1795
TO
1849
MARIA
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
I
'MARRIED
1827
MARIA
ANTONIA
LOrx;E
1835
TO
DATE
Unknown
1
I
I
f 4 Children
I
I 14 Children
I
.
fi
I
MARIA
GUADALUPE
LQrx;E
1842
TO
1920
MARRIED
1 1854 1
l
I
MIGUEL
(Michael)
ANTONIO
LOrx;E
1838
TO
, Q-=11
MARIA
HELENA
LOrx;E
1837
TO
1/9/1904
I
!MARRIED
1852
JOSEPH
AVERON
1828
TO
DATE
Unknown
HENRY
PECK
1818
TO
9/14/1873
MARRIED
1851
Children]
19
JOSEPH
(JOSE)
LITTLEJOHN
1835
TO
12/19/1906
JOSEPHA
LUZ
Died
1829
,,
MICHAEL
LQrx;E
Dies
1849
l
Children
BORN
Between
1843
and
1847
DOLORES
ELANENIA
JOAQUIN
--...
MARTINA
MARRIES
LOUIS
DEPEAUX
10/14/1849
THE FAMILY OF MARTINA ( CASTRO) LODGE
II
�MARTI NA (CASTRO) LODGE
birth, so a heartbroken Michael headed back towards his beloved ocean. Arriving
back at the Villa de Branciforte where he met, fell in love, then married the
young widow Martina Cota in either 1831 or 1833.
After her first husband disappeared (or was murdered) in March of 1830,
Martina moved back to the Villa de Branciforte with her three daughters; then
we have Michael Lodge, either living there after bringing his wife Josefa and
child from Monterey as a heartbroken widower, or arriving in the villa from San
Jose after his wife's death during childbirth.
According to historian Kenneth Castro, Michael and Martina were married in
1833, and in his book SANTA CRUZ THE EARLY YEARS, Leon Rowland states that they
were married in 1831. According to the best records found to date, Martina's
fourth child, Maria Josefa was born during the 1831 to 1832 period. And then
there is Martina's third child, Carmel, who according to accepted history, was
fathered by Michael Lodgel••••••••••••••••••••••
Carmel Lodge will marry Thomas Fallon in 1848. Thomas was an Irishman born
in County Cork, Ireland, the same county as Michael Lodge. In his book on
the life and times of Thomas Fallon, called A CALIFORNIA CAVALIER, THE
JOURNAL OF CAPTAIN THOMAS FALLON, edited by Thomas McEnery, McEnery
quotes Thomas's description of his wife••••••"as having the full face of an
Irishwoman and the dark shades of her mother." While it is true that Mar
tina's grandmother was of French extraction, this being the only "known"
break in her Spanish heritage, was this enough to give Carmel
Martina's
dark shades and the face of an Irishwoman?
Is it possible that Simon Cota began to notice the difference between Carmel
and his first two daughters Nicanor and Luisa? Could it be that he decided
to leave the scene rather than face the discrace of Martina's (possible)
indiscretion? The answer to these questions'will never be answered, only
speculated atl
When word reached Santa Cruz that the government was preparing to give land
to those that qualified under their rules and regulations, and after learning
that her brother Rafael Castro had applied, as well as her father for grants,
Martina and Michael, now married, decided to do likewise. On September 7, 1833
Michael Lodge petitioned the then Governor Jose Figueroa for the land known as
"Soquel."
12
�CHAPTER 2
THE
DEED
OF
August 29, 1850
13
�Intentially left blank.
14
�RANCHO SOQUEL GRANT
SEPTEMBER 7 1 1833
Michael Lodge, living in Branciforte with Martina, petitions
Governor Figueroa for the land called Sanjon of the River
Soque 1 .••••••••
• "I" am married to a native of this $oil
• "I" have two (2) children and two (2) step children
• "I" want to cultivate the land and build a home
Alcalde (Mayor) Jose Antonio Robles adds to the petition•••••
"The intrusted party can cultivate the land and put up a
house."
SEPTEMBER 8, 1833
Alcalde Jose Robles of Branciforte gives Michael and Martina
permission to move onto the requested land.
NOVEMBER 16 1 1833
Martina Castro (Lodge) petitions the Governor for land between
the River Soquel and the Sanjon de las Borregas•••••••one mile
and a half in breath and two in length.
lf//fl/1
I
II I I
'
I I I
I
I I
I I,
Q
(
I
DISENO Accompanying Martina's petition assigned the
number 596 by the United States Land Commission
I
I
15
�RANCHO SOQUEL GRANT
NOVE:MBER 16, 1833 (Continued)- Martina's Petition
• "I" am a resident of Branciforte and a daughter of invalid
Joaquin Castro, one of the founders of the town.
• "I" am married to the Irishman Michael Lodge.
• "I" am the owner of some cattle and yoke of oxen.
• My husband has been granted permission by Alcalde Jose Robles
to move onto the land.
• "I" want the land for my cattle, to sow, and to build a
house, and to supply the wants of my family.
NOVE:MBER 16, 1833
Governor Figueroa sends Martina's petition to Alcalde Jose
Robles and the town's agriculturalist asking••••••.••
• Does she have the necessary requirements to be attended to
in her request?
• Does the land meet the requirements expressed in the Law of
August 18, 1824?
• Is the land capable of being irrigated? Is it temporary
or poor for Agriculture?
• Does the land belong to a private individual, corporation,
or otherwise?
The Governor states at the end••••••••"I will send your
answers to the Mission Fathers so that he may oppose what
he may think proper."
NOVE:MBER 19, 1833
Agriculturalist Jose Maria Salasan of Branciforte answered
the Governor•••••••••"Martina has all the necessary req
uirements listed in her petition
BUT
the area is occupied by residents of Branciforte and they plan
to eventually cultivate the land and graze cattle there."
The letter is also signed by Alcalde Jose Robles and Fray
Antonio Real, who states that the Mission has no claim to
the land.
NOVE:MBER 22 1 1833
In a letter signed by the Governor Figueroa, he states that
"having received of the municiple authority of Branciforte
and of the minister of the Mission that your request is within
the laws and requlations governing such a request for land,
that the area known as SOQUEL, from the RIVER of the same
16
�RANCHO SOQUEL GRANT
NOVEMBER 22, 1833 (Continued)
name and the SANJON de las BORREGAS is under your legal
ownership."
The Governor continues•••••"But, if any portion of the land
is declared to be under the ownership of the Mission, you
shall pay to the Canan a fair price."
NOVEMBER 23 1 1833
Martina appears in person in the Governor's Secretary's
office and she states "that the conditions so stated in the
Governor's letter is acceptable and signs, making her mark."
NOVEMBER 23 2 1833
GRANT for SOQUEL
SEEAPPENDIXT
• The land known as SOQUEL, bounded by the Soquel River and
the Sanjon de los Borregas is owned by Martina Castro.
• That the town of Branciforte shall have, if it so chooses
use of its pastures, water, firewood and lumber to pay the
rent to the town if its boundries are within, or belong to
the town.
• The Grant is subject to the approval or disapproval of the
Excellent Terrortial Assembly and the Supreme Government.
• Neither Martina Castro or her heirs can divide or cultivate
the land, mortgage or convey it to a corporation body, such
as a school, church, etc., for perpetual ownership.
• The land may be fenced without interfering with crossings,
roads or to any person who has legal claim to any portion
of the land.
• The land can be cuitivated, but within a year at most she
shall build a house and it shall be inhabited.
NOTE: The first house that Michael and Martina built was
small and temporary. Their permanent home had three (3)
rooms and measured 50 feet across the front and 30 feet
deep. They also built an ox-powered flour mill and enclosed
the ranch house property with a fence totaling about 140
acres. They also planted two fields, built corrals for the
horses, grazed their cattle and sheep on the lands
open fields. These facilities did not "appear overnight,"
but were built over a period of time.
• After ownership is confirmed Martina Castro shall petition
the proper Judge for juridical possession, who shall order
that the boundries be marked.
• At the limits of her land marks some fruit trees or wild
trees shall be put.
17
�RANCHO SOQUEL GRANT
GRANT for SOQUEL
(Continued)
• Martina Castro's land consists of two miles longitude by
half a league (1.3 miles) latitude.
• "If" she goes against any of the above conditions she shall
lose her right to the land.
Signed by Governor Jose Figueroa and his
Secretary Agustin v. Zamorano
MAY 10 1 1834
The Committee of Colonization decrees that the place called
SOQUEL be granted to Martina Castro.
MAY 17 1 1834
The Committee of Colonization orders Martina Castro to return
the Grant to the Governor for "proper purposes."
AUGUST 2 1 1834- FINAL GRANT
SEEAPPENDIXT
The final Grant is decreed to Martina Castro with all res
trictions removed except the tax obligation that she must pay
to the Town of Branciforte.
AUGUST 13 and 14. 1834
SEEAPPENDIXT
Justice of the Peace Jose Bolcoff for the Town of Branciforte
established the boundries of SOQUEL. To assist him, Bolcoff
appoints Rafael Robles, the son of Alcalde (the Mayor) Jose
Robles and Juan Jose Castro (Martina's brother).
NOTE: Jose Bolcoff is married to Martina's sister Candida
On August 13 Jose Bolcoff notified Martina that he was about
to begin the official survey of her rancho. She put her mark
on the necessary papers, then on the 14th, at two O'Clock in
the afternoon Bolcoff ordered that the measuring of the
rancho's northside boundry begin.
The final act of the day was Martina, before Jose Bolcoff,
Rafael Robles, Miguel Ramirez, Juan Jose Castro and Joaquin
Castro walking on her land, pulling up grass, throwing away
handfuls of earth, breaking off branches of trees, throwing
stones to the four winds, and performing other ceremonies
and acts of possession.
18
�RANCHO SOQUEL GRANT
'V
DISENO of SOQUEL drawn by JOSE BOLCOFF assigned
number 295 ND by the United States Land Commission.
19
�RANCHO SOQUEL GRANT
0
Lo
2.o
MtL'E$
tJC.i-40
�tof'QVE L
I
I
1 Martina's Ranch
21st Sawmill location
3 2nd Sawmill location
4 Cabrillo College Campus
RANCHOS SOQUEL, APTOS &
ARROYO del RODEO LOCATIONS
20
�THE AUGMENTATION
MARTINA CASTRO'S CHILDREN
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nicanor Cota is born in 1825
Maria Luisa Cota is born in 1826
Carmel Cota (Lodge) is born in 1827
Maria Josefa Lodge is born in either 1831 or 1832
Maria Antonia Lodge is born in 1835
Maria Helena Lodge is born in 1837
Miguel Antonio Lodge is born in 1838
Nicanor marries Francisco Lajeunesse in 1839
Maria Luisa marries Ricardo Juan in 1842
Maria Guadalupe Lodge is born in 1842
Dolores Lodge, Elijenia Lodge and Joaquin Lodge are born
between 1843 and 1847
NOTE: Life on the Ranch is difficult, but enjoyable; planting,
harvesting, and taking their excess crops by their boat down
to Monterey occurs yearly. The ranch facilities, along with
the family continues to grow and expand.
OCTOBER 26, 1843
SEEAPPENOIX'l"
Martina Castro sends a letter to Governor Micheltorena com
plaining that her brother's cattle and sheep are allowed to
"run free" therefore she cannot cultivate the eastern Half
of her Rancho.
NOTE: Her brother is Rafael Castro, grantee of Rancho Aptos
which borders her Rancho along the Sanjon de los Borregas.
Rafael's rancho, which is four times the size of Martina's,
also has many more sheep and cattle under his ownership than
Martina. Under Mexican law, it was not the responsibility of
the owner of the animals to keep them on his or her land,
but it was the responsibility of the person being infringed
upon to keep the animals off his or her property.
Martina continues in her letter••••• that she has complained
to the Judges for the last eight (8) years with no solution
rendered to solve her problem.
At the end of the letter the Governor adds the following
note: "Let the (my) Secretary report to me on this subject."
NOTE: When the United States took control of California on
February 8, 1848, William Hartnell (who was assigned to
straighten out the Archives at Monterey) noticed that
this letter was missing from the Archives!
DECEMBER 2, 1843
The Governor's Secretary Manual Jimeno reports to the Gov
ernor that the Branciforte residents have not used SOQUEL
�THE AUG:MENTATION
DECEMBER 2, 1843 (Continued)
land, and that Martina has not cultivated the eastern half
because of her stated problem.
The Secretary concludes by stating that he sees no way to
conveniently relieve her of her troubles.
JANUARY 7, 1844
Governor Micheltorena adds the following note to his Sec
retary's letter dated December 2, 1843 •••••••"Let the local
Judge administer justice as partitioned for."
JANUARY 7 1 1844
SEE SUPPU:MENT- MARIA LUISA JUAN
Governor Micheltorena receives a letter from Ricardo Juan,
married to Maria Luisa••••••••••••
• Please give (her) a new title, even if it be under the
condition of neither transferring or settling, but not for
the benefit of all on the subject of pasture and woods, as
stated in the first Grant.
• The above conditions are what has caused (her) great
expense and many problems.
• Please add to her present title a new title "THE MOUNTAIN
RIIX:;E" immediate to the ranch that actually is known as
PALO de la YESCA, that is now unoccupied.
NOTE:
l:.8l.Q means "stick" or "wood".•••••in this usage it means
stick.
YESCA means "tinder," "touchwood" or "punk" that is used
as tinder•••••••in this usage it means punk.
Therefore, "Palo de la Yesca" means "Punk Stick," dead wood
from the oak tree that is used to start a larger fire.
JANUARY 11. 1844
Governor Micheltorena instructs his Secretary Manual Jimeno
to••••••.••••inform me after taking the necessary information.
JANUARY 11, 1844
Secretary Manual Jimeno sends Ricardo Juan's petition to
Francisco Alviso, the second man to hold the title of Alcalde
of Branciforte, instructing him to report back to him on the
subject.
22
�THE AUGMENTATION
JANUARY 23 2 1844
Alcalde Francisco Alviso answers Manual Jimeno as follows:
"The land solicited cannot be granted with the conditions
stated in the letter because it is distant about a league
and a few varas••••••••••••
NOTE: A league equals 2.625 miles, a vara is 2 feet 9 inches.
"and besides in the mountains (several) settlers employ
themselves in the working of timber for the support of their
families and I believe it cannot be granted. This is all I
can inform (you) upon this subject."
NOTE: When the United States took control of California on
February 8, 1848, William Hartnell (who was assigned to
straighten out the Archives at Monterey) noticed that
Francisco Alviso's answer to the Governor's Secretary,
Manual Jimeno was missing from the Archive's files.
1844 (EARLY)
On March 14, 1848 Francisco Alviso made the following dep
osition concerning the period following his letter dated
January 23, 1844 in the office of William Blackburn, Alcalde
of Santa Cruz.•••••••••••••••••
"Concerning Martina's request in the Mountain de la Yesca,
bordering on the Laguna del Sarjento la Chuchita, I was
acting Alcalde of Branciforte. That as the first Alcalde
Jose Robles and several others, all residents of the town,
reported that the requested land could not be granted."
"Afterwards, in early 1844 being in Monterey and the office
of Manual Jimeno who was well acquainted with the requested
land, I became convinced that the information given to me
was erroneous and therefore I went with Martina Castro
to the Governor and there committed that my first objections
were now changed to acceptance (the two "cannots" are now
can be granted).
NOTE: Remember this deposition made before Judge Blackburn.
FEBRUARY 8, 1844
In a letter, the Governor's Secretary Manual Jimeno writes
(to the Governor)••••••••••••••••
"Title to Martina Castro was subject to conditions that were
common in other titles; that the grantee pay taxes if the
23
�THE AUGMENTATION
FEBRUARY 8, 1844 (Continued)
land belonged, or was claimed by the Town of Branciforte."
"Because the town is (now) planned to consist of four (4)
square leagues (a league equals 2.625 miles) ••••••therefore
you (the Governor) should commission two persons to survey
the town's new boundries which will establish which grantees
(of Ranchos) should continue to pay taxes."
FEBRUARY 1 1844
Governor Micheltorena assigns Enrique (Henry) Cambustan as his
Surveyor General with instructions to survey new boundries
for the Town of Branciforte. He is to measure and mark an
area of four square leagues, one league in the four direct
ions using the mission as the focal point.
The Governor also instructs Cambustan to survey the new land
that is to be added to Martina Castro's original grant,
should the Judge give the juricical possession (to her).
Before the United States Land Commission, Henry Cambustan,
on March 1, 1854 testified as follows: "I did not comply with
the last order of the Governor because the survey of
Branciforte was time consuming and the rivers were high and
there were no boats for crossing them, and as the order
specified no particular time for its execution, I deferred
it. Also the roads were almost impassible."
NOTE: Remember Henry Cambustan•s testimony, especially
the part concerning his inability to measure the land that
Martina and Michael wanted to replace the unused half of
their Rancho Soquel (the eastern half).
FEBRUARY 9 1 1844
In a letter to Martina Castro (Lodge), the Governor Mich
eltorena states•••••••••
"Henry Cambustan has (or well) measure the new boundries of
the Villa de Branciforte, which will (or will) remove your
burden to have to pay to the town taxes."
Next, the Governor, in an added note, instructs his Sec
retary Manual Jimeno as follows •••••••••••
"Allow the interested party (Martina Castro) to be put in
possession of all the extent that she selects from the•••••••
RIDGE de la YESCA up to the LAGUNA del SARJENTO y la
CHUCHITA including la LOMA PRIETA."
�The A UGMENTATION
agues or
o f Four s quar e Le��:::-�-�
s urveye d bY Henry Carn bus tan 1844
••••Ind'icates Pr esent Day Sant a Cr u z City Boun dry
.
- - - -Ind·icates Rancho Ref u gio
c. anada del R.incon & San
.
es
ri
bound
;>
rn
e
t
s
ine e1a
Augus t,5
0
'/2.
..
o
� -•-.
\
M•LE
FEBRUARY 9, 1844 ( Continued)
.
' eres ted party remed ••••••••••"The int
Th. e . Governor _continu
�ining eng aging a 1 1 witho ut the condit'ions of th'i s ti· t l e wh,ich
•
i s returned with
th'is writ'ing for hi's s afety • "
This
.
1 etter to Mart'ina C a stro wa s signed by
both the Governor and his Secret ary Manual
' eno.
Jim
25
�AUGMENTATJ;QN BOUNDRIES ESTARI,ISHEV
RY THE n,s I STJRVEYQRS QFFTCE
1858
southwest corner of the Augmentation lies at the junction of Bates and Soquel
1 The
creeks (the point lies directly to the east of Joel Bates grave site in the
Soquel Cemetery in Soquel),
From the junction of Bates and Soquel Creeks the boundry heads north following
2the
twists and turns of Soquel Creek to a point (on the creek) that lies just
south of Hinckley Creek, The spot is called "STAKE AT THE SPOT OF THE PALA DE LA
YESCA or PINK TREE" and is further identified as having two oak trees and a mad
rone tree there,
This point lies just to the southeast of a small body of water called "Laguna
3del
Sargento (or Sarjento)" located one mile down Mountain Charley Road after
leaving the Summit Road,
• Donald Clark, in his book SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PLACE NAMES, "thinks" that the
laguna was named after Sergeant Pedro Amador, who was ordered by the Gover
nor de Borica to improve the Franciscan Trail between Santa Cruz and the
Mission at Santa Clara. SEE APPENDIX "I(.
This boundry point lies on Loma Prieta, which means "dark slope" or "dark side of
a hill," The peak, located in Santa Clara County nine miles southeast of Lexing
ton Reservoir, is the highest in the entire Santa Cruz Mountains at 3,791 feet in
elevation,
From Loma Prieta, the east side boundry of the Augmentation heads south until an
area called "Chuchita" located on "Bean Hill" is reached at the upper end of
Ryder Road,
4
5
t::'rhis corner lies in the middle of Freedom Blvd, just to the west of Hames Road.
Vrhe point is called the "Cuatro Legues," which Donald Clark "felt" was so named
because it is approximately four (4) leagues (or 10 1/2 miles) from Mission
Santa Cruz,
BOUNDRIES ESTABLISHE�
BY
GOVERNOR MICHELTORENA
FEBRUARY 9, 1844
The "RIDGE DE LA YESCA" (or Palo de la Yesca) was the small rise of hills along
A the
south side of Bates Creek heading east (northeast) from Sequel Creek,
• As previously discussed, Palo de la Yesca (translated to mean "Punk Stick")
were dead branches taken from the oak tree used to start a fire,
This boundry point was the previously discussed Laguna del Sarjento, which later
B for
the convenience of the surveyors, was moved slightly to the southeast,
T�is point �as eit�er Mount Thayer or Umunhum, both are located within the nine
. between Lexington Reservoir and Loma
C Prieta,
mile long high series of peaks that lie
This range of peaks, the highest in all of the Santa Cruz Mountains, is
D
called the "Sierra Azul" which means Blue Jagged Mountain Range,
• This area of the former Augmentation, in several court and Land Commission
documents is referred to as both "Loma Prieta" and "Sierra Azul de la Loma
Prieta,"
At this early date Loma Prieta was called "CHUCHITA," a word that has been
traced to a colloquy or slang word meaning "a hideout" or "a place to hide,"
point lies in Borregas Gulch along a direct southwest line extended from
E This
Chuchita (today Loma Prieta), During its journey heading southwest it travels
down the approximate center of China Ridge which is today totally confined
within the Forest of Nisene Marks State Park, At the point where it is met by
a line extended directly east from the junction of Bates and Soquel creeks,
this point where they meet establishes the northeast corner of Rancho Soquel
within the confines of Borregas Gulch,
26
�/
/
t ,, \/
!
.....
_/
·
�
.,,,,
(-'-�c-,,;�::..�
SOQUEL AUQmNTATION
IES ESTABLISHED
B
OUNDR
✓
1
FEB, & DEC. 1858
...--�
0 -k v
7'1'_
,.,. \�y,
..- r; '."�,-.
-�.:,:,
··· r·✓-_,,,,lt_
v----•AREA ESTABLISHED
-.�
··/ -. .
�
�..... 2/9/1844 BY GOVERNOR MICH_.·-··-�
/'
� ELTCEENA THAT MARTINA
:
st,_.,_
:
"COULD "SELECT" HER PALO
/ .n·· .·
..._-...
/
.. -<...._ •./.-·
' de la YE SCA (GRAZING)
/.
.,/ \<_ .
.
1,.0 "" 1P
,i
.rry
'--
lj/
__ :)---!
......_
)
'
.)•••
·.. ....,..._r,-./'I
..-••
- •
- a!.,',�,
·. ••i.•\
w
1
'LANg. FR,c;:
N
'2
1
�� ► ¥1
f:
lt
"-
Ml'l,.'E�
�
'
�
s /
\·�····
..·
•�.
, >.
r,
��:
r:.·:,;-�,.�r
.- l �-y�'C"',
.
�.
-<
...
-..(···�£1.. /......_.__
\
I-A u ,,
•:
cP.-
...___
\
i:t
-.;:
....
I
'--....
�-- ·•.. I J
�
�
J
-..i� ·•
\�
\
•
•·i
. Ni
,._
)C
l
��\
·/J (
\
)
:
'--
c.-44,_Y.--1_
�(
, -s- <>
c-
I ;:
V
· .Ir.J ···::
·•
.r:.. /
I:
.
�!. c.f�--
�\,. .\
D " i_.>..�
..-..,,
'-</
..--.:-K �,;.. ·• c.r,,::;,:;••·
"5" �
·.. -.;;..r:
·• v
."
)
'�
�
lie
y
�ci� •••• .
� • • "'
·. ...... ...
•p
-<
q
�\ 4J)�.v \
Y_\1:1<
!
·.v\,�-/.»'1' ·. ·:
i- ., ►,," . .' l--/--.
t?'
,...
�:
--.;� \\\-� :
Ill·
·. /
lr�
;-:
l?,o c-
I
·-�
--,
' I
=
:
···'l �._ .·'--}..
· �:
\
cti.,;.'f."-J
....,.
./·i�--:1t�
l
·-J...O ,
I
t:
1� ,. __ --· ___ .,,,··=(
··
r
f,t· -.
�\
�-en-.. ··
- . .(·•.•
I I
\ "\ ·
,..
:
1-:r .. )
? \..! •-� t, �\i, ··. ·._ ........\ _.r,
;- .. -�.
...,
v
:)
<
.
�� ·.
(\-:-�
_fv'-., ·.."&. /
o
, ./ '
:..,,J.-··'
.
...
�
_o :·
_.,
� (�
-.1.1
if/...<
....-::,
,,''!;-��--�\
?P-�C,
·'
,....J--....
t.,\ .
"
4,, ·
�-:
Q) ,
y
.
1·
·. •
rr�1. l . � l�
1,;..
I
,I
�)
�- --t,-, .· \
w
"t
e,_fl
\
. -·
/
,.I'··
/
r·
· ·>··
\.
�./
��1
·..
: ·--
•. \
,.
•
!
"1,.- · ·{ _:.!c
C/
/
·.
.
- "- :
.. .
/
of:·
.,
':
"�
.Ll
. • V'\J�
-· '
5
- '<''�7" ..,...•
\ ·.. \. ,"(•.���
��,..
I
t ei. , r .·/' -..
� f
::I
\:
:>i
-: .... J
,
dj
7'•
=
'
. ..
I
) , ...
·.(,.·
·. i.
.
��\ / �)
f����
J)..1/' 't-: _: �u:
,._.
.•
I_
1,,�:
...,__,
"
.
::( .... ,, ....").
J.'4
·••
i � P-(�
.
/
�
"·
1-l'
'C
��(· I/'i_.
�"- I .
/
\
.,'(.
Y
�
.........s·. .
.ic ··., •'•.•
·w.
(���
•.•
·.
•
..
./ .J�
\
SOQUEL AU�TATION BOUNDRIES
1844 versus 1858
27
�HOW THE BOUNDRIES ESTABLISHED
BY GOVERNOR MICHELTORENA
EVOLVED INTO TODAY'S AUGMENTATION
When the Governemt Surveyors arrived in 1858, they were approached by the per
sons that had settled along the west side of Soquel Creek within the vicinity of
today's Soquel Cemetery, When these land owners had purchased their land, they
were under the assumption that the land was public land, Under pressure from these
owners, the surveyors moved "PALO DE LA YESCA" up Soquel Creek until the contested
land was not included within the Soquel Augmentation's boundries,
The PINK TREE,,,,,,The Pink Tree is a misspelling of PUNK TREE, When Martina's
brother Jose Joaquin testified before the Land Commission in 1855, he test
ified in Spanish, which was then translated into English, He discussed the
term "Palo de la Yesca," He stated that YESCA (sometimes misspelled as YESKA)
was dead wood taken from the oak tree, and that YESCA meant "PUNK,"
In the translation, the word PUNK appears to be the word PINK, Probably the
non Spanish speaking Americans at that time had a difficult time accepting
that there was a "PUNK TREE," It was easier to accept that the tree had a
pink cast to it, such as the madrone,
Because the Laguna del Sarjento was a point referenced in every deed written
to date, this small body of water remained as the Augmentation's northwest corner
marker point,
But "Loma Prieta" (today's Mount Thayer or Umunhum) with their surrounding
mountainous terrain was another matter, Because of the area's remotness and few
attractions for those claiming land in the Augmentation, it was decided not to
include it in the area's acreage, Instead, the boundry line from the Laguna del
Sarjento would head along a straight line southeast until Chuchita (Loma Prieta
today) was reached, But this solution created a problem, because shortly before,
this highest peak in all the Santa Cruz Mountains was named in honor of the Super
intendent of the U.S. Coast Survey Department (from 1843 to 1867), Benjamin
Franklin's grandson Alexander D, Bache,
If the name of the peak were to remain "Mount Bache," then there would not
be a "Loma Prieta" boundry point to match deed descriptions, Therefore Alexander
D, Bache's name was sacrificed, and the peak formerly called "Chuchita" then
"Mount Bache," was now LOMA PRIETA.
Now that Chuchita was called Loma Prieta, there was no point along the Aug
mentation's boundry called CHUCHITA, a reference point also used in every deed
written to date, and used in Martina's deed dated August 29, 1850, And there was
another problem that had to be addressed, namely the land lost along the area's
west and north sides, To regain this lost acreage, the east side boundry was
moved until it headed directly south to include the entire Valencia Creek drain
age basin, To solve their dilemma of loosing "Chuchita," they simply moved this
reference point down to the small hilly area soon to be called "Bean Hill" at the
end of Ryder Road,
After the surveyors completed their survey and it was accepted, Governor
Micheltorena's original description of the area that Martina Castro Lodge could
select her additional land from was applicable for both areas, It will be rem
embered that the Governor's words were: "Allow the interested party to be put in
possession of all the extent that she selects from the RIDGE de la YESCA up to
the LAGUNA del SARJENTO y la CHUCHITA including la LOMA PRIETA,"
Every deed written to date (1858) used the above words one way or another,
and every one of these deeds agreed with either, or both of the areas!
28
�'fhe PRE-STATEHOOD & GOLD RUSH YEARS
1843
SEE SUPPLEMENT- CARMEL FALLON
According to Thomas McEnery in his book CALIFORNIA CAVALIER,
the JOURNAL of CAPTAIN THOMAS FALLON, Thomas Fallon arrived
in the area with Captain John Fremont and Kit Carson.
Again, according to Thomas McEnery, after a chance meeting,
Martina's husband Michael Lodge invites Thomas Fallon to
Christmas dinner at their home on Rancho Soquel (the Ranch).
NOVEMBER 11 1846 - AGREEMENT
Michael Lodge offers John Hames $5,000 (today $66,400) to
build a sawmill for him on the Soquel River. The facility is
to include the sawmill (probably water operated), a drying
and storage yard, a millpond and facilities for the mill
workers to live in.
After the mill is complete Hames is to operate the facility.
Before Hames and his partner John Daubenbiss can begin prod
ucing lumber, the two partners join with Captain John Fremont
and march off to fight the Mexican Government forces.
Needing someone to run the mill, Michael Lodge hires Henry
Hill. Henry would remain in the employment of the Lodges'
for a number of years, from about 1840 to 1850, then he will
sue Martina for unpaid back wages beginning in 1850.
DECEMBER 1847
A storm wipes out his sawmill, therefore Michael Lodge hires
a new arrival in the area, Adna Hecox to rebuild the damaged
facilities.
N
<D 1ST
MILL
@2ND MILL
LOCATION OF LODGE SAWMILLS
29
�The PRE-STATEHOOD & GOLD RUSH YEARS
According to Bancroft in his Volume XIX of the BANCROFT WORKS,
Louis Depeaux arrives in Monterey. Little is known of this
small in stature Frenchman, but in 1850 he lists his birth
place as New York and birthdate as 1823 making him 16 years
younger than Martina. In the 1850 census he listed his
occupation as sailor••••••••actually he was a deserter from
the United States Navy when he arrived in Monterey
MARTINA's ACCIDENT and
SOUNDNESS of MIND
1847/1848
FOR CCMPLETE TEXT OF
ELIZABETH PECK' s SUIT
SEE CHAPI'ER 19
On June 6, 1896 Martina's youngest brother Jose Joaquin Castro
testified in the matter of the Estate of Martina Castro Depeaux
deceased•••••••Petition for Special Letters of Administration
by Elizabeth Peck. Jose testified as to his sisters sanity in a
given petition as follows: ••••••••••••••••••
• Before Martina and Michael went to the gold fields, Martina
fell from a fence and she was unconscious for one to two
hours.
• When Jose was asked what her state of mind was before and
after the fall, he stated••••••••••before the fall she.was
frequently out of her mind when talking to others. After
the fall she was sick of mind (in her head).
Her head was sore; she was out of her head; she would talk
about anything that came along out of her mouth.
She would talk about spirits, about the sun, moon and
witches.
She was always talking of things that were not natural.
• When Jose was asked how long she continued in this state of
mind, he answered••••••••The first and second husband it
was the same•••••••it was the same after the third husband,
she was the same from the first down to the third husband.
• When Jose was asked what her state of mind was after the
third husband (Louis Depeaux) •••••••••Jose answered she was
bad, always! .tl.Q11;_: For a complete discussion of Jose's test
imony refer to CHAPI'ER 19•••••..
JANUARY 26, 1848
Gold is discovered at Sutter•s Mill.
FEBRUARY 2, 1848
SEE APPENDIX 1t
The TREATY of PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS, AND SETTLEMENT with
Mexico is signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo.
30
�The PRE-STATEHOOD & GOLD RUSH YEARS
FEBRUARY 16, 1848- AGREEMENT
When the discovery of gold reaches Sequel, both Martina and
Michael are "hit" with gold fever•••••••••••••wanting to head
off for the Sierra Nevada foothills, they:
• Ever since he had built the sawmill on Sequel Creek for
Michael Lodge, John Hames had been pressuring him for
payment of the $5,000 ($66,400). On the above date, Michael
entered into an agreement with Hames in which he passed on
title to all of his cattle and sheep, plus he gave all of
the mill's output profit to Hames as long as he and Martina
were in the gold fields.
• The second problem facing them was the potato crop worth
$20,000 ($280,000) that was ready for harvesting. They made
arrangements for another person to handle the crop, leaving
them ready to head off for the gold fields.
MARCH 7, 1848
Sometime prior to this date, William Hartnell, the man assig
ned by the United States to straighten out the Archives in
Monterey, notices that Martina Castro's original petition
dated October 26, 1843 to Governor Micheltorena and Francisco
Alviso's first answer to the Governor's Secretary dated
January 23, 1844 are missing from the files.
William Hartnell requests that copies be delivered, and on
the above date traced copies are delivered by Ricardo Juan.
Hartnell notices that the cannots in Francisco Alviso's
answer to the Governor's Secretary have been crudely changed
to si•s (yes, or can be granted).
MARCH 14, 1848
William Hartnell requests that Francisco Alviso give test
imony before William Blackburn, Alcalde of Santa Cruz concern
ing the contents of his original letter, and the audience
that he and Martina Castro had with the Governor after the
letter was written. The deposition is taken on the above date.
1848 (Mid part of the year)
After a proper courtship period, Thomas Fallon marries Carmel
(Cota) Lodge••••••••••••
• With the marriage vows completed, Michael and Martina head
for the "fabously" rich Carson Hill Gold Strike in Cal
averas County along the Stanislaus River.
31
�The PRE-STATEHOOD & GOLD RUSH YEARS
• After they have established a country store and entered into
a freighting business with a Balo Reed, they send notice to
Henry Hill to bring the children still living at home to
them, which Henry does••••••••••••
Life along the Stanislaus River is difficult, with several
encounters with the marauding Indians nearly ending their
life there. There is also the problem of cleanleness, which
results in the death of their three youngest children.
ADDITIONAL FAMILY MEMBERS WITHIN
the VICINITY of MICHAEL & MARTINA
SEE SUPPLEMENT- MARIA LUISA JUAN
There were several family members that were in the vicinity
of Michael and Martina's store and freighting business
along the Stanislaus River in Calaveras County.
There were the Ricardo Juan brothers that were working the
same river, but farther up into the Sierra Nevada where
they made their "rich" gold find••••••••and•••••••••••••••
according to Robert F. Peckham, he came across Thomas
Fallon.............. .
1849 (Early to mid part of the year)
After the death of their three youngest children, a panicky
Michael Lodge sends Martina home with the remaining children.
Two weeks after arriving back in Soquel, Martina receives word
from an Indian runner that Michael is dead•••••••••••••
NOTE: How Michael died is a mystery to this day. There are
many rumors as to how it occurred. Several family members
felt that it was at the hands of their freighting partner,
Balo Reed, a man that Michael fought with over not receiving
his fair share of the profits.
Michael is buried in the same graveyard that their three
children rest in. Later during the twentieth century when
construction of the New Melones Dam begins on the Stanislaus
River, all bodies in the graveyard are moved to make way
for dam construction. Today Michael rests in a common grave
with his three young children.
1849 (Fall)
After returning from the gold fields, Thomas Fallon's cur
iousity concerning Martina's two claims to land and his
wife's portion of the two areas causes him to hire Judge Ord
as his attorney and head down to the Archives in Monterey to
inspect the two grants and associated documents.
32
�The PRE-STATEHOOD & GOLD RUSH YEARS
1849 (Fall- Continued)
Accompanied with Judge Ord, the two meet with William Hartnell,
and after inspecting the available documents, Thomas Fallon
realizes that only his mother-in-law's grant to the small
Rancho Soquel is valid. Both Judge Ord and William Hartnell
agree that the Augmentation grant is a fraud and is invalid.
The only question concerning the additional land that both
Martina and Michael wanted to replace the eastern half of
Ran cho Soquel with, was where was the land located, and how
many acreas did it contain?
At this time, there is also a question that can be asked•••••
Was Louis Depeaux living on the ranch and sharing Martina's
sexual favors? This question is asked because of the follow
ing court case•••••••.••
SEPTEMBER 15, 1849
The very first case brought before the Third District Superior
Court was a suit against Louis Depeaux. The plaintiff was
a Ennis Lodge. It seems the Ennis was "squatting" on Rancho
Soquel, building a home there without receiving permission
from Martina. After repeated warnings, Louis Depeaux des
troyed the home, for which he was taken to court by Ennis.
Louis won the case, but had to pay the court costs and
slight damages to Ennis Lodge.
Also within this period, Agent William Carey Jones arrives in
Monterey to begin his research into both Spanish and Mexican
Land Grants, preparing for the legal battles that were yet
to come••••••••••
OCTOBER 14, 1849
On this date, down in Mission San Juan Bautista, 26 year old
Louis Depeaux marries 42 year old Martina Castro Lodge.
• Later they would have a child that dies after birth. This
was Martina's known 13th child.
TREACHERY on the RANCH
FEBRUARY 5, 1850
California is admitted to the Union.
FEBRUARY 18 1 1850
Branciforte County is admitted as one of the first 27 counties.
33
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
APRIL 5, 1850
Branciforte County changed to Santa Cruz County.
APRIL 16, 1850
SEE APPEND IX
-a-
The ACT concerning conveyances is passed by the State Legislat
ure to protect the rights of the Mexican woman when her land
is sold.
APRIL 17, 1850
SEEAPPEN01x·a-
This ACT concerning the rights of a husband and wife, the
wife as a married woman concerning property ownership is
passed by the State Legislature.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN
MARTINA & THOMAS FALLON
EARLY AUGUST 1850
According to testimony given by Thomas Fallon during the two
Frederick A. Hihn backed partitioning suits, one for Rancho
Soquel and the second for the Augmentation, in early August
of 1850, a chance meeting occurred between Thomas Fallon and
a worried, and troubled Martina Castro Depeaux.
Martina expresses her desire to keep her children at home on
the ranch•••••••she is upset that they are not living close
to her, both before and after marriage.
She is upset by the pressure being put on her by the four son
in-laws Francisco Lajeunesse (Francisco Young), Ricardo Juan
(Jean Richard Fourcade), Thomas Fallon, and Lambert B. Clem
ents to divide her lands among her heirs.
Now that California is a state, there are taxes to pay, a
burden that had been lifted from her by the Mexican Gov
ernor in early 1844.
Squatters and trespassers must now be fought through the
courts, which means paying attorney fees and usually a long
drawn-out battle before they are evicted. Before California
became part of the Union, she could complain to the Gov
ernor and he would dispatch quick justice, usually in her
favor.
Concerning her desire to keep her children close to her, to
this Thomas Fallon answers that it is only right that she
should want this•••••the loss of two husbands•••••••three
children up in the gold fields•••••••••the death of her
father. Martina then states that she wants to give to each
of her children, seven daughters and one son a portion of
the ranch for them to live on•••••••••••••••••••••
34
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
1850 (Early August)
Beside the previously discussed conversation with Thomas
Fallon in which many of her frustrations and worries were
stated, there were several additional problems that were
affecting her thinking at the time••••••••••
She could not read or write in either English or Spanish,
making it difficult for her to deal with the "Gringo," who
were increasing in number daily. It also upset her that her
daughters were also either marrying, or were being courted
by the dreaded Gringo•••••••••
In an interview in 1965 Martina's grandaughter Carrie Lodge
stated that during this period she (Martina) was entering
that dreaded portion of a woman's life, she was entering
menopause. And then there is the testimony of her brother,
Jose Joaquin concerning her sanity from early life through
her three marriages.
And finally, there is the matter of her third marriage to a
much younger man, Louis Depeaux. When they married, she was
forty two and had given birth twelve times. He being sixteen
years younger, according to Carrie Lodge's interview and
statements made by several other historians and following
events (the soon to occur marriage of three of her daughters),
his interest was more in the daughters then in Martina.
According to later testimony made during the partitioning
suits, there was much unrest within the Depeaux household,
unrest probably caused by Louis's interest in the daughters,
driving them from the home and into marriage. Also according
to testimony later, Louis was unpopular with the neighbors,
either being taken to court, or being threatened with a
law suit.
Martina, being a very religious woman found her solice in the
Church, but even here there was problems•••••.•••.•
ARTICLE of AGREEMENT
AUGUST 28, 18 50
SEE AP PEN o IX
·a-
After his friendly discussion with Martina, Thomas Fallon
goes to the newest son-in-law Lambert B. Clements (he had
recently married Martina's fourth oldest daughter Maria
Josefa) and asks him to write the Article of Agreement
stating Martina's wishes concerning her children and the
responsibilities she wants from her son-in-laws.
SEE SUPPU:MENT- MARIA JOSEFA CU:MENTS
• The Article of Agreement states that each of her children
are to be given an equal portion of the Rancho now in her
possession ••••••••not an equal portion of the entire ranch,
but an area for a homesite only.
35
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
· ARTICLE of AGREEMENT
AUGUST 28, 1850
• In the document her homesite is described, consisting of
about 219 acres which cannot be settled on by the children.
• The children are given permission to build a home and
include all necessary additional improvements.
• Martina binds herself not to molest the children and son-in
laws, giving them the same priviledges that she enjoys in
owning the rancho.
• Martina also binds herself not to sell or otherwise
dispose of any part of the ranch they choose to live on.
• The four son-in-laws (Francisco Lajeunesse, Ricardo Juan,
Thomas Fallon and Lambert B. Clements) agree to protect
and defend the ranch against all invaders and squatters.
Over a period of a few days, the Article of Agreement is
signed, with Martina's husband Louis Depeaux signing as a
witness, each of the son-in-laws signing (Francisco Laj
eunesse using the alias Young signs with his mark) and
finally Martina puts her mark on the paper.
AFTER THE FINAL SIGNATURE IS PUT ON THE ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT,
THOMAS FALLON TAKES IT, STATING THAT IT IS NOT A LEGAL
PAPER, THAT IT WOULD NOT HOLD UP IN COURT. HE STATES THAT
HE WILL HAVE A LAWYER LIVING ON THE RANCHO, DURRELL S.
GREGORY, CHANGE IT INTO LEGAL FORMAT, A DEED.
ACCORDING TO LOUIS DEPEAUX, LATER TESTIFYING IN A DEPOSIT
ION, HE SAID "FINE, AS LONG AS THE SECOND PAPER AGREES
WITH THE JUST SIGNED ONE. 11
THE ORIGINAL ARTICU: of AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY LOUIS DEPEAUX,
MARTINA AND THE FOUR SON-IN-LAWS DISAPPEARS, NEVER TO
SURFACE AGAIN. OVER THE YEARS TESTIMONY IS GIVEN THAT IT
IS IN THE HANDS OF SEVERAL PERSONS, BUT IT NEVER SHOWS UP
DURING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING COURT SUITS.
DURING COURT TESTIMONY, IT WOULD BE ALLUDED TO, AND IN A
DEPOSITION MADE IN 1856, LOUIS DEPEAUX WOULD QUOTE IT ALMOST
WORD-FOR-WORD, BUT THE ARTICLE WOULD REMAIN LOST UNTIL••.••
ONE DAY, IN THE MIDDLE OF 1993, STANLEY STEVENS, HEAD OF THE
MAP ROOM AT THE UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA AT SANTA CRUZ WAS
RESEARCHING THROUGH LEON ROWLAND'S FILES IN THE SPECIAL
COLLECTIONS ROOM AT THE UNIVERSITY CONCERNING MARTINA'S
FATHER JOSE JOAQUIN AND HIS LAND GRANT, RANCHO SAN ANDRES.
IN ONE OF THE BOXES STAN CAME ACROSS A DOCUMENT THAT
PUZZLED HIM BECAUSE IT CONCERNED MARTINA AND HER FAMILY. IT
WAS A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE of AGREEMENT, WHICH
VERIFIES BOTH THE PRECEEDING AND FOLLOWING••••••.•.••
36
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
. The
"DEED"
SEE APPENDIX
·e-
AUGUST 29, 1850
On the evening of August 29, 1850 there is a knock on the
door of Martina's home in Soquel. When the door is opened,
there stands Peter Tracy, County Recorder, Clerk of the
Superior Court and County Auditor, and local Judge T.R.
Per Lee.
PETER TRACY was born in County Cork, Ireland in 1816, the
same county that Thomas Fallon and Michael Lodge were born
in. To quote Leon Rowland.o•o•"if it were not for this
man's death on August 7, 1857, he would undoubtly have
become one of Santa Cruz County• s wealthy men."
At this time we must remember that both Thomas Fallon and
Peter Tracy are Irishmen, and at this time nationalities
tended to "stick together," much as they do to this day.
When the two men entered the room, sitting on the couch was
Martina and her husband with his arm around her. Martina
was not feeling well and Louis was comforting her. Also
present was Martina's son Miguel Antonio and the youngest
daughter Guadalupe.
Peter Tracy handed a seven page document to Martina for her
signature (the Article of Agreement was only two pages
long).
• The deed states that it is between Martina Castro, her
married and unmarried children and her son-in-laws.
• The deed states: That she was given a grant on November 23,
1833 with certain restrictions that have since been rel
eased.
• It further states that she requested of the Governor that
he remove the limitations and restrictions and in addition
requested a new title for another tract of land on mountain
which was granted to her and family.
This additional land extended as far as the Laguna del
Sarjento and la Chuchita including the Loma Prieta without
any conditions or limitations.
• Each of her children is to have l/9th of both ranches (she
retaining the other l/9th). The childrens share is to
extend from the Pacific Ocean to the Laguna del Sarjento
and the Chuchitas.
NOTE: The above description of the childrens share of the
two ranches excluded the triangular shaped area that exten
ded from the Laguna del Sarjento, to the Loma Prieta, then
down to the Chuchita (today Loma Prieta).
This exclusion is an important point to remember!
37
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
The "DEED"
AUGUST 29, 18 50
• The deed also describes her ranch area, which later would
be established to consist of 219 acres.
• The deed ends with the establishing the rights of her
children, similiar to those stated in the Article of
Agreement.
When the deed is presented to her by Peter Tracy, she refuses
to sign it because it was written in English, and not properly
translated (testimony by Louis Depeaux}. Peter Tracy then
stated that this document was the same as the paper signed
the day before, the Article of Agreement (again based on
Louis Depeaux•s testimony}. Peter then stated that he had
not had the time to translate the deed.
Eventually Martina's mark was put on the deed. It was put
there with Peter Tracy's help (he would later testify that
he held the top of the pen while she made her "X").
OR
As Louis Depeaux would later testify, when Martina refused to
sign the deed, out of his frustration, he grabbed the pen and
made her mark himself.
After Martina's mark is put on the deed at this time (suppos
edly), Peter Tracy acknowledges both Martina and Louis Depeaux
in his capacity as Clerk of the Court (see the ACT of April 16,
1850 which establishes who may, and who may not acknowledge
a deed when it involves a woman selling part, or all, of her
property}.
On the back of one of the seven pages of the deed, Louis
Depeaux (supposedly}.writes "I have read the foregoing and
fully agree with the conveyance therein made by my wife."
Louis then signs this short addition.
FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS to DATE
So far in the story we have established that:
• Martina and Michael Lodge did not want, or request the
32,000 plus acres that comprise today's Augmentation!
• That the grant supposedly giving her this land never
existed, which will later be confirmed by the United States
Land Commission.
• That Martina and Michael Lodge only wanted enough land to
replace the eastern half of their Rancho Soquel, the half
that Martina's brother Rafael Castro's cattle and sheep
35
�!
)
\/· ··
.
.)
"':-;. --��o·-.S
�
_>.yr·"
/
. . .-...._. ,,,{
,
•.a•••
•
°l\
0
··•··�
�
'r-f':".-'1
W
t 'r�•
2:
\. . �• • ••
�
,:_:•�•
--··-�•e!.1',
C�:,...
--.Q,c.
<t �Un....L--,
\ ..·•. l
\ ·••• ·1
•
\
\
_,,>\l
t>'�
./1�
� ��'
"'1�,�4
r·:,,;�
,t.. . ___-:,�/
\
· ..::"I("
/' .·
./ � ·
��:
/
.,./ \(_
:.
.·
·)- .)
,�\ ·.
\ ..
\ ..
.... -:SOQUEL AUGmNTATION
� / BOUNDRIES ESTABLISHED
FEB. & DEC. 1858
------AREA ESTABLISHED
\' '2/9/1844 BY GOVERNOR MICHTHAT MARTINA
:
� ELTORENA
v
COULD
"SELECT" HER PALO
)___ .··
�� 1a YESCA (GRAZING)
1-·· ··/,_, •. , ,
� ' LAND FRCM
:.
·
0
'/z.
"2.
"-o"'�
�,
.
.e
.
':
\
_)
.
◄
r·
/
""-
.'I
I,�
�
'- .c. 'O
\( � , �... ... .···•,•c-�i��
· c. ·-&�---··. ·•
· .·.
I.
'---. · I •
- --?"'" �. ..
�
.
. _,
----._
�
l>.
·yv. ''-<]
_.,
<>
'f.�1
)
\
.p ..,�
'Y
,
.::...)
·· i
7r
/ :. ! /
r-•·
--�--' : /
I
'-}.�
'
•"'l �...·· ..
'-
)
1
Ml\,.E�
\
� .
-�
"i.4"·';���
..
··vfJ .
;·
·-
1 1..#f
•,
•
1 ..
:'•
LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL LAND REQUESTED BY MARTINA
39
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS to DATE
(Continued)
invaded during the eight years after Martina received her
"Soquel" grant.
• That Thomas Fallon, with the help from Lambert B. Clements,
and possibly Francisco Lajeunesse and Ricardo Juan, and
certainly from Peter Tracy "created" the Soquel Augmentat
ion Rancho in the deed dated August 29, 1850 without the
knowledge of Martina. What part Louis Depeaux played in
this fraud we can only speculate at, but he would later
testify that "one or more" of the son-in-laws told him
that the deed was a fraud from the very beginning.
• That the Article of Agreement reflected Martina's true
desires, namely to give to each of her eight children a
section of her land on which to build a homesite, and
when the Article was signed she believed that she was in
possession of her small Rancho Soquel and about 1,120
acres within the vicinity of today's Soquel Cemetery.
• That the Deed dated August 29, 1850 was a fraudulent paper
and would be so decreed by the 7th District Court in Contra
Costa County in 1858.
QUESTIONS THAT NE ED ANSWERS
• How did the fraudulent Augmentation with its 32,702 acres
become a legitimate grant?
• What happens to Martina as she becomes aware of the fraud
ulent activities of both her son-in-laws and her beloved
children plus a number of trusted persons, noteably her
third husband Louis Depeaux?
• How did the attorn�y Robert F. Peckham get the courts to
accept Martina's fraudulent deed as being legitimate, which in turn made two legitimate deeds with the
Catholic Church declared as fraudulent?
40
�CHAPTER 3
THE
TURBULENT
YEARS
1850
TO
1855
41
�Intentially left blank.
42
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
As the end of 1850 ap·proached Louis Depeaux and Martina rec
eived a tax bill from the State for the amount of $300 ($4,200
today). The bill was for their small Rancho Soquel and the
improvements that had been added over the years.
The RANCH
When Michael and Martina built their final homesite, they
chose a plateau that overlooked the beach to the south and
the Soquel River to the west. In back of the plateau there
was a ravine (Noble Gulch) where there was a year-round
water supply from a spring. The spring was plentiful enough
to provide both their home and garden with water. Their
home was a three room adobe house that had a depth of
thirty-feet and measured fifty feet across the front. The
largest of the three rooms was the middle one which had a
large fireplace and board floor. It served as the general
living and reception room. The beams that supported the
roof were rough and covered with horsehide tanned with the
hair left on. The house and garden was surrounded by a
fence of redwood pickets driven into the ground. Nearby
they built an ox-powered flour mill. When they moved onto
the land and began building these, and many additional
facilities, they were what is thought to be the first
permanent buildings within the Capitola/Soquel area. As
mentioned in the earlier discussion of the Article of
Agreement and the Deed, the Lodges' Ranch would consist of
219 acres when later surveyed.
LIFE on the RANCH with Michael Lodge
Before Michael and Martina headed off for the Sierra Nev
ada and the Gold Fields, life on the Rancho was difficult in this isolated wilderness, providing challenges
daily that had to be either met head-on, or left behind.
While Martina was noted for being a very bad business woman,
she more than made up for it by installing into her child
ren the necessary traits to survive in this harsh and
rugged world.
What was life on the ranch like before Michael's death?
For Michael it was a constant battle with the elements just
to survive and turn the land into a profit-making enter
prise. There were the many large cedwoods that had to be
cut down and their stumps removed before planting could
follow; farmland that needed constant tending to keep out
Mother Nature's wilderness and wild animals; then there
were the farm animals that were so necessary, the cattle
that was their main source of income, the sheep, pigs,
chickens and horses.
And for the woman, what was life like? There was the cook
ing that had to be done daily in crude outdoor ovens; the
bread and other delicacies that had to be made. The prep-
43
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
LIFE oh the RANCH with Michael Lodge
(Continued)
aration of food had to be carefully planned because there
were no local stores to run to when an item was needed, not
even a general purpose store in Santa Cruz. One had to go
all the way down to Monterey to do the shopping.
To wash the clothes there was only the water in the Soquel
River and the rocks that lined its shore to pound the
dirt out of the clothes. Because of the constant danger
from Indians and bandits, the girls had to be capable of
riding and shooting like a man, a feat that Martina and her
daughters, for the most part, accomplished. Martina was a
hard task-master, teaching her daughters the necessary
chores that they would have to perform as a wife later.
And what was Michael doing while Martina and the girls were
performing their chores, always in pairs if they had to
go any distance from the home because of the dangers?
Michael could be in the forest cutting down a redwood, hunt
ing for their next meal or stripping the tan oaks of their
bark and tying it into bundles for shipment to the local
tannery••••••• or•••••••he could be tending the fields,
watching over the cattle and sheep, which they were now
grazing within the vicinity of today's Soquel Cemetery, the
area referred to as "Palo de la Yesca" or simply "Yesca."
Michael could also be found performing has favorite pastime,
carpentry work. Then there was their small boat, used to
ship their surplus fruits and vegetables down to Monterey
in•••••••they, like many others in the area shipped product
down to the Presido and the town of Monterey because of the
many foggy days they had to endure there, which greatly
restricted the growing season.
Before California joined the Union, there were no taxes to
pay, but still Michael had to produce a profit in order to
maintain the staff of servants necessary to help him man
age the ranch. Many times this effort to pay the bills and
help took a strange and difficult course. Michael, being a
sailor in his early years, hated to ride a horse, preferr
ing to walk. More than once the local Indians would raid
the ranch, leaving the cattle and other animals untouched,
taking only the horses. Being a necessary animal to have,
in order to restock, Michael would walk to Monterey, build
several wagons and sell them there, then walk back home
with the money in his pocket.
LIFE on the RANCH with Louis Depeaux
Little is written of what life on the ranch was like after
Michael Lodge's death in 1849 and Martina's marriage to the
younger by 16 years, little Frenchman Louis Depeaux on Oct
ober 14, 1849. With little written evidence, we are left
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
LIFE on the RANCH with Louis Depeaux
(Continued)
to guess and speculate, but there are several clues avail
able to guide us towards a partial understanding.
Before Michael's death up in the Gold Fields, Nicanor Cota,
Martina's oldest daughter married the French-Canadian trapp
er Francisco Lajeunesse in 1839; in 1842 her second oldest
daughter, Maria Luisa Cota married the Frenchman Jean Rich
ard Fourcade, better known as Ricardo Juan; then just
before they (Martina and Michael} left for the Gold Fields,
in 1848 Carmel (Cota) Lodge married the Irishman Thomas
Fallon. Shortly after Michael's death and her "strange"
marriage to Louis Depeaux, in 1850 her fourth daughter
Josefa married Lambert B. Clements who had been living on
the ranch for several years. These four marriages were
troublesome to Martina, mainly because they were to the
"dreaded gringo," non to a man of either Mexican or Spanish
descent.
After Louis Depeaux (supposedly} moved in with Martina
before marrying her, Josefa suddenly moved out and married,
then next to leave before marriage was both Antonia and
Helena, Antonia to marry Henry Peck in 1851 and Helena the
next year to Joseph Littlejohn (in 1852).
According to later court testimony, Louis was a disliked
man that few would trust, taken to court several times. Also
according to testimony, there were rumors of conflict within
the Depeaux household, consisting after the marriage
of Martina, himself, and the young daughter Guadalupe and
the son Miguel. All in all, life on the ranch after
Michael's death was far from the enjoyable environment
provided by Michael Lodge.
The tax bill presented to Martina and Louis Depeaux is due
(probably} by the end of the year. Because they do not have the
money at the time, they approach Thomas Fallon, with Thomas
agreeing to loan them the money, but only with certain condit
ions attached. Judge T.R. Per Lee is approached and he draws up
a deed for both Martina and Louis Depeaux to sign,
NOVEMBER 28, 1850 SEE APPENDIX ·sIn Judge T.R. Per Lee's office, he acknowledges both Martina
and Louis's signatures on the deed signed in Martina's home
on th� night of August 29, 1850 (it will be remembered that
only Peter Tracy acknowledged the deed that night}.
NOVEMBER 29, 1850
SEE APPENDIX 'B"
Again in Judge T.R. Per Lee's office, both Martina and Louis
Depeaux affix their signatures, Louis signs, Martina signs
with a "X" to a prepared deed in which Thomas Fallon loans
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
NOVEMBER 29, 1850 (Continued)
the two grantees $300 ($4,200) with the following as collat
eral•••••••••••Martina•s entire homesite (219 acres) in the
lower ranch•••••••Martina•s l/9th claim to land in the upper
ranch (the Augmentation) below a line drawn from the Laguna
del Sarjente to the Chuchita (today the Loma Prieta), plus
all of Martina's claim to land above the latter line (the
traingular shaped area with the Laguna del Sarjento, the
Chuchita and Loma Prieta [today Mount Thayer] as its corners).
Payment of the entire $300 is due in six (6) months with a
penalty of 10 percent per month of the balance due
each month the balance is deliquent.
It is more than probable, that because the deed just signed
was written in English and read to Martina, that at this time
she was still ignorant of the "fraudulent" claim that was
created by her son-in-laws in the deed signed August 29,
1850.
DECEMBER 1850
During the month of December Joseph Sadoc Alemany arrived in
San Francisco ready to assume his assigned position as Bishop
for both Lower (Baja) and Upper California. His "headquarters"
were to be in Monterey. Because California was now part of the
United States, Lower California resented being controlled
by a bishop stationed in Upper California. After much infight
ing within the Catholic Church, Lower California was removed
from Alemany•s control, then shortly after, Upper California
was divided into three Sees: Southern California headquart
ered in Los Angeles; Central California working out of Mont
erey; and Northern California, including Nevada and the
Montana-Utah areas headquartered in San Francisco. Joseph
Sadoc Alemany assume·d his new position as Archbishop of the
new San Francisco See on July 29, 1853,
JANUARY 1851
Father John Francis Llebaria arrives from the east and is
soon assigned by Bishop Alemany to work up in the Yuba River
area inspecting the Catholic Church facilities there. On
May 9, 1852 Bishop Alemany appointed him his Vicar General,
making him second in command to himself in all of the North
ern California area. Llebaria would retain this position after
Alemany became Archbishop in July of 1853. During the 1852 to
1853 period, and into 1854 he wa_s assigned to the church in
Santa Cruz, an important point to remember.
MID 1851
Mountain Charley arrives on the Summit, settling there. Also
to arrive shortly is the Schultheis family, settling at the
corner of today's Summit Road and Old Santa Cruz Highway.
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
MAY 12, 1851 SEE SUPPU:MENT-· MARIA ANTONIA PECK
Maria Antonia Lodge, Martina's fifth daughter marries Henry
Peck.
MAY 27, 1851
The $300 that Thomas Fallon loaned Martina and Louis Depeaux
is due in full. The unpaid balance, of which Thomas claims
he has not received any portion of to date, begins at a pen
alty rate of ten percent per month on the unpaid balance.
JANUARY 1852
SEE APPENDIX ·II.
The United States Land Commission convenes in San Francisco
to determine ownership of Land Grants awarded by the prev
ious Spanish and Mexican governments. Even though the comm
ission convened in January, they would not hand down their
first decision until August.
FEBRUARY 5, 1852- Lease
SEE APPENDIX
T
Martina leases the entire lower ranch to Gervis Hammond for a
period of five (5) years. This was a logging agreement for
which Gervis agreed to pay Martina $1,500 ($21,000) the first
year and $2,500 ($35,000) for each of the next four (4) years.
This agreement, which was in disagreement with the terms
stated in both the Article of Agreement and the Deed of Aug
ust 29, 1850, in which Martina agreed not to sell or other
wise dispose of any part of the ranch that her children
choose to live on, ends when Gervis Hammond dies in 1854.
FEBRUARY 1852
Martina receives a Summons from the U.S. Land Commission for
Rancho Soquel. She and Louis Depeaux hire Durrell s. Gregory
to handle their case before the commission.
MARCH 1852
Sometime during the month Louis Depeaux deserts Martina, leav
ing her to face the land commission on her own.
MARCH 30, 1852- DEED
On this date Josefa and her husband Lambert B. Clements sell
Josefa's l/9th claim to land in both ranches to Pruitt Sin
clair (St. Clair) and his partner Jones Hoy. This is the
first deed based on Martina's 1850 deed. Josefa and her
husband sell the two claims for $2,000 ($28,000).
APRIL 19, 1852
Durrell Gregory answers the Land Commission on behalf of
Martina's claim for Rancho Soquel in San Francisco.
MAY 8, 1852 - SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
SEE APPENDIX ·II.
On this date, by Act of Congress, the State of California
47
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
MAY 8, 1852 (Continued)
SEE APPENDIX�
was granted 500,000 acres of Public Land that was to be sold
in order to support its new school system. Called SCHOOL LAND
WARRANTS, the warrants could be sold to the public on Public
Domain Land only. The law, established by Congress denied
the sale of warrant land within both Spanish and Mexican
land grants. Under State law, School Lands, including the
right to make selections, could be purchased for as little
as $1.25 per acre ($17.50 today). The total amount of land
sold to an individual could not exceed one square mile, or
640 acres.
While it was against the law to purchase land within a
land grant, because of the unsettled boundry lines between
Public Domain and land grants, many warrants ended up
within a grant. Sometimes this was done through ignorance,
sometimes by error, sometimes on purpose by the grantee.
When it was discovered that a warrant was issued for land
within a land grant, the grantee was assigned an equal
amount of land elsewhere on Public Land. This was called
"floating a warrant."
MID 1852 SEE SUPPLEMENT- MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN
Maria Helena Lodge marries Joseph (Jose} David Littlejohn.
JUNE 28, 1852- SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
Peter Tracy, County Recorder purchases School Land Warrant
No. 228 totaling 160 acres. The land lies on the headwaters
of Bates Creek then called Arroyo de la Ballena (Stream of
the Whale).
The FALLON PARTITION SUIT
August 2, 1852
Thomas Fallon, Pruitt Sinclair and Jones Hoy and Carmel
Fallon have a Summons and Complaint served on Martina,
Francisco and Nicanor Lajeunesse, Ricardo and Maria Luisa
Juan, Henry and Maria Antonia Peck, Jose and Helena Little
john and Martina's unmarried daughter, Guadalupe and her
son Miguel. Purpose of the suit is to force Martina into
partitioning her two ranches; Rancho Soquel and the supposed
grant that extended to and beyond today's Loma Prieta.
Martina hires Durrell s. Gregory to represent her in the suit
against the four plaintiffs.
AUGUST 3, 1852- SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
Gervis Hammond, Montgomery B. Shackleford and County Surveyor
Thomas w. Wright purchases School Land Warrant No. 90 total
ing 160 acres. The land lies on the upper headwaters of Bates
Creek then called Arroyo de la Ballena (Stream of the Whale).
48
�SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
LOCATION of SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
�SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
6/28/1852
SCHOOL LAND
WARRANT
#228 (160 Acres)
issued to
PETER TRACY
12/28/1852
SCiiC;Ct. :..;,.....;:,
WA.�Ri\J'."T
•228 il60 Acres)
!iled by
P!:'!'!:R TRACY
8/3/1852
SCHOOL LAND
WARRANT
#90 (160 Acres)
issued & filed by
GE:RVIS HA.'lMOND
M. B. SHACKLEFORD
THCMAS W. WRIGHT
12/ll/lE54
SCHOO:. LJ..'ID
10,RRAS:'
•90 (:60 Acces)
so;..d bv
�. 3. S:iACXlZFOR:J
to
PE;:.'.R '!'RACY
WARRANTS
#228 (160 Acres)
owned by
2/18/1859
SCHOO:. !.)_\;D
WARR,,ST
:90 (160 Acres)
ovned :y
"!loated"
""!loated"
2/12/1859
SCHOOL LAND
PE'l;'R 11lACY
8/3/1852
SCHOOL LAND
WARRANT
#37 (320 Acres)
issued to
.__CRAVE:-J P. HESTER
4/28/1853
scr.ooL �,a;
W;\RR.;.'-:-:'
#37 (32� Acres)
!iled t-v
CRA'/�'.'1 P. r!EST::R
PETI:R TRACY
5/1/1860
!..AND
WARRA.'-TS
PETER TRACY
SCSOOL
{Estate)
to
JOEL B,\T"..S
242 Acre�
11/19/1852
SCHOOL LAND
WARRANTS
#327 (160 Acres)
#329 (160 Acres)
issued to
PETER TRACY
12/20/1852
SC�OOL L;.�'l'D
WAR.RA.\:75
#327 (160 Ac=es)
#329 (160 Ac=es)
!"iled bv
P£'!=:R TRACY
2/12/1859
SCl-:!COL L��D
WARRA.'ns
•327 (160 Acres)
,,329 (160 Acres)
owned !:>y
PETER TRACY
"!loated"
5/5/1860
SCHOOL LJ..�D
W>.RRA.\ITS
F-':"ER ':'RACY
(Est.at.e}
to
Al."GL-S7 AS l/CBU:
242 A.c:e!>
5/5/1860
SCHOOL LAND
W>.RR.\.-..:':'S
:i=��R "!"�ACY
(Est.a:.e)
to
JOE� r. S�ARXS
JOEL aA'!"ES
10/20/185,
SCHOOL LA.'ID
WARRANT
#37 (320 Acres)
ovned bv
CRAVEN P. ESSTER
"'!loated"
242 Ac=es
2/23/1861
PE� �ACY
(Estat:e)
ASA W. RAWSO� &
FRA.\;C!S K:T":"R:�
(At-:.or;1eys)
to
C!'iRIST:A.� �Iil.L,
( '3ac.es sa•.im.:..11 1n
Tan.""r.ery Jule:".)
5/5/1860
SCP.COL LAND
WARRA.\lTS
PETER ".'RACY
(Estac.e)
to
fRA.'lCS R. BRADY
BENJAMI� C. SICHOLS
242 Ac=es
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS ISSUED, FILED, SOLD and FLOATED
50
�SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
\
',\..
11/27/1852
SCHOOL L\.\JD
WARRA.'\'TS
�353 (160 Acres)
;; 3 54 ( 160 Acres)
#108 (320 Acres)
issued to
THCMAS FALLON
...J ...
/
/
12/20/1852
SCHCOL LAXD
WARRA.\/7'5
#353 (160 Acres)
,;354 (160 Acres)
#108 (320 Acres)
filed by
'n!OIAS FALLON
6/16/1853
SCHOOL UNO
WARR�S
1'353 (160 Acres)
#354 (160 Acres)
,;108 (320 A=es)
Lea:se for logging
?ETER TRACY
THCJ-IAS ••, WRIGHT
to
Wl!.SON R. HERR!CK
Gc:ORGE K. GLUYA.S
JC!:L SA'rES
2/4/1853
SOiOOL LAND
WARRAN'l'S
,;353 (160 A=es)
+35� (160 A=es)
+108 (320 A=es)
sold bv
niCJ-IAS FALLON
to
Pf:TER TRACY &
THOIAS W. WRIGHT
2/1/1855
ll /30/1854
SCHOOL LA.>;D
WARRA.'IT
SCHOOL LA.'ID
WARRA.'ITS
�108 (320 Acres)
Part interest
sold bv
1'£'!'<'..R TRACY
to
HENRY F.
P.>..'lSONS
2/12/1859
SCHOOL LAND
WARRA.'iT
#108 (320 Acres)
owned jointly by
PETER TRACY &
HESRY F.
PARSONS
#353 (160 Acres)
�354 (160 Acres)
sold bv
PETF.R TRACY
to
'll!OIAS FALLON
9/10/1855
SC:-!OOL L)_\ID
WAP..RA.\1':'S.
#353 (160 Acres)
#354 (160 Acres)
sold bv
THOIAS FALLON
to
HE�Y P!:Cl<
2/18/1859
SCHOt'L LA.'1D
WARRA.\'TS
#353 ( :60 Acres)
#354 (160 Acres)
owned by
l!ENRY PECK
'"floated"
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
ISSUED, FILED, SOLD
and FLOATED
..
\
LOCATION OF SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
ALONG ARROYO de la BALLENA
(TODAY BATES CREEK)
51
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
AUGUST 31 1852- SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
Craven P. Hester purchases School Land Warrant No. 37 totaling
320 acres. The land lies on the headwaters of Amaya Gulch,
then an unnamed gulch. Craven Hester, according to Donald
Clark was a spare man, quiet, affordable and pleasant. He rep
laced Judge H. Watson after Watson resigned from the District
Court. After Hester's school warrant was judged to be located
within a land grant it was floated to another location. In
1859 Craven Hester would purchase l/24th of the Augmentation
from Augustas Noble in order to retain ownership of the
land he had earlier purchased and developed as School Warrant
land.
SEPTEMBER 10, 1852- DEED
For a total of $6,000 ($84,000) Maria Luisa and her husband
Ricardo Juan sold all of Luisa's claim to land in both the
lower and upper ranches to Montgomery B. Shackleford. They
accepted a down payment of $1,000 ($14,000).
SEPTEMBER 10, 18 52- DEED
In this deed Montgomery B. Shackleford mortgages the lands
back to the Juans, agreeing to pay the Juans' two payments,
the first of $1,000 ($14,000) and the last for $4,000
($56,000). The dates that the two payments are due is not
mentioned in the deed. For reasons not specified during the
later partitioning suits, these two deeds were never men
tioned or considered as being valid.
SEPTEMBER 19 1 1852- QUIT CLAIM DEED
In this quit claim deed Nicanor and her husband Francisco Laj
eunesse sold to Thomas w. Wright, Peter Tracy and Montgomery B.
Shackleford, for $224 ($3,136) the area that lie north of Ran
cho Soquel between the Soquel River and Borregas Gulch. The
approximately 1,000 plus acres extended to the junction of
Grover Gulch and Bates Creek (to the end of Prescott Road).
The three qrantees considered the area government land sep
arating the two ranches claimed by Martina Castro.
AGREEMENT Between MARTINA' SEE APPENDIX ·s
DURRELL GREGORY & JOHN WILSON
October 28, 1852
Attorney John Wilson, with officses in San Fran cisco is hired
by Martina to assist Durrell s. Gregory before the Land comm
ission for the Augmentation grant (the Slnt1lnons has not been
issued by the commission yet). John is related to Martina
through his marriage to Maria Ramona de la Luz Carrillo y
�opez ••••they are cousins through Michael Lodge's first marr
iage to Josepha Luz who died in 1829. John came to California
in 1849 as an Indian Agent, then served as an agent for the
United States Navy in San Francis co. After he resi gned this
position, he be came a practicing attorney, specialyzing in
Mexican land claim cases.
52
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
AGREEME-NT Between MARTINA,
DURRELL GREGORY & JOHN WII.SON
October 28, 1852
-(Continued)
On the above date Martina met with attorneys Durrell Gregory
and John Wilson and entered into the following agreement:
• It is stated that her husband, Louis Depeaux has deserted
her and she has no idea if he will ever return. In leaving
her, he has left her to manage her property by herself.
• Because her two titles must be confirmed before the Land
Commission she needs legal help•••••••••
a!l9.
because she is being sued by John Hames and I. Belden &
Company she needs legal help •••••••••••••••
and
because she expects other suits she needs legal help.
• Because she is having difficulties in settling with tenants
and others she needs legal help.
• Because some of her children have by fraud and unfair deal
ing "pretended� to have obtained from her a conveyance of
part of the rancho which pretended conveyance she is desir
ious to have set aside by suit in court., she needs legal
he 1 p••••• ••••• •••
and
because she desires to have brought immediately and to rec
over rents and profits and damages of them for taking
possession and occupying portions of the rancho under this
fraudulent deed she needs legal help.
• She also wishes to bring suit against John Hames for rents
and profits and damages for unlawfully occupying a portion
of the rancho and for cutting timber thereon.
Actually the suit against Martina concerning the
$5,000 ($66,400) that her deceased husband had prom
ised to pay John Hames November 1, 1846 to build a
sawmill for him on Soquel Creek had not begun yet.
• In the agreement Martina agrees to give to the two attorneys
one half of whatever they are able to recover on her behalf.
It is also agreed that Durrell Gregory's portion will be
reduced by whatever amount that he gains on behalf of his
soon to be client John Hames against Martina.
53
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
NOVEMBER 19, 1852- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
Peter Tracy, County Recorder purchases School Land Warrants
Nos. 327 and 329, each totaling 160 acres. Peter's land is
located within the vicinity of Bates Creek and Grover Gulch.
NOVEMBER 27, 1852 - SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
Thomas Fallon purchases School Land Warrants Nos. 353 and 354
totaling 160 acres each, and warrant No. 108 for 320 acres.
The three warrants are located within the area that Thomas w.
Wright, Peter Tracy and Montgomery B. Shackleford purchased
from Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse SEPTEMBER 19, 1852. All
six persons involved in the transactions considered the area
from Rancho Sequel north to the end of today's Prescott Road
and between the Sequel River to Borregas Gulch governement
land. Thomas Fallon paid a total of $1,370 ($19,180).
It should be mentioned here that the area purchased by the
four men was the same area that Martina and Michael Lodge
wanted to replace the eastern half of Rancho Sequel with.
DECEMBER 20, 1852- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
Peter Tracy files officially for School Land Warrants Nos.
327, 329 and 228, while Thomas Fallon files for Nos. 353, 354
and 108.
FEBRUARY 4, 1853- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
Thomas Fallon sells his three School Land Warrants totaling
one square mile (640 acres) to County Recorder Peter Tracy
and County Surveyor Thomas w. Wright.
FEBRUARY 6, 1853
On behalf of Martina Castro Depeaux, both Durrell Gregory
and John Wilson file a petition for the land now known as
"Shoquel" or the Augmentation, shortened to "Augmento. Rancho
Sequel is referred to by the Land Commission as simply
"Sequel."
In this petition, it is stated that••••••"because Martina
Castro found it entirely inadequate to support her family on
just the original grant, she asked for an additional grant
lying at and adjoining on the back of the others, from the
sea shore extending from the ridge to which her other grant
extended called "PALO de la YESCA," up to the LAGUNA del
SARJENTO" and "la CHUCHITA" including "la LOMA PRIETA" which
place was called "PABLO de la YESCA" of which land she has
taken possession of before she so petitioned for the grazing
of her stock and of the cutting of wood, etc., and has ever
since been in possession and has cultivated parts thereof."
The petition ends with••••••that after due proper inquires
were made of Governor Michelorena, that on January 7, 1844
he made a grant of the above mentioned boundries. Because she
has lost the original grant given to her, she therefore is
providing a copy from the archives in Monterey."
54
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
FEBRUARY 131 1853- DEED
Maria Antonia and her husband Henry Peck, for $200 ($2,800)
sell all of Antonia's claim to land in the upper ranch (1/9th)
to Montgomery B. Shackleford••••••for reasons never stated
during the later partitioning suit, this deed is never dis
cussed or considered as being valid.
MARCH 1853 (This is an approximate date)
When the Reverand John Ingoldsby arrived on the scene from
Chicago is not known, but from church records and court test
imony, it was sometime during the late 1852 or early 1853
period.
Records that the Catholic Church possess of this man seem to
indicate that after he arrived in San Francisco he served
directly under Father John Llebaria. Ingoldsby was a man of
many talents, one of which was an ability to raise money for
the church, and another which was his understanding of deeds
and agreements, especially deeds relating to Mexican Land
Grants.
This man will play an ever increasing role in Martina's story,
a role that will make him, along with the Archbishop Alemany
and Father Llebaria appear as villians. But this "false"
appearance will be corrected as the story continues••••••••.
APRIL 28, 1853- SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
School Land Warrant No. 37 for 320 acres is filed by Craven
P. Hester. Shortly it will be floated to another area on
Public Land.
AGREEMENT Between JOEL BATES,
PETER TRACY & THOMAS W. WRIGHT
June 16, 1853
SEE APPENDIX
·r
Joel Bates was born in 1802 in New Jersey. He died October
21, 1861 and is buried today in the Soquel Cemetery directly
opposite where Bates Creek merges with Soquel Creek. Joel is
credited with building the first steam powered sawmill within
the confines of the Soquel Augmentation. He built the mill
just to the south of where today's Grover Gulch and Bates Creek
merge, just to the west of the latter creek.
On the above date County Recorder Peter Tracy and County
Surveyor Thomas w. Wright signed, sealed and delivered to Joel
Bates, Wilson K. Herrick and George K. Gluyas (these latter two
men are partners of Joel's) a lease in which the three partners
are given the priviledge of lumbering, milling and grazing on
School Land Warrants Nos. 353 and 354 for a term of two years,
and thereafter from year to year for ten years, at the option
of said Bates and his partners.
After Joel built his above mentioned sawmill, he would log
only to the south of the mill.
55
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
MID 1853
Based on the following letter, it can be assumed that Louis
Depeaux returned home to Martina early in 1853. Where he went,
and why he left will probably never be known.
After Louis returns, he probably sat Martina down and explain
ed the advantages to her that were created in the deed that
she felt was an afront to her, that instead of owning only her
219 acre homesite in Rancho Soquel and the additional land
it held less the eight homesites she wanted to give to her
children, she would be the owner of the homesite, plus many
acres in the area above it. All that had to be accomplished
was to have set aside Thomas and Carmel's Partitioning Suit.
JULY 22, 1853- LETTER (Louis Depeaux to John Wilson)
On the above date Louis Depeaux writes to their attorney John
Wilson in San Francisco ••••••."! will leave from Alviso with
my wife and daughter with our witness Francisco Alviso, and
we will be ready to testify before the Land Commission by
Wednesday." Louis continues •••••• "! have been talking with
the U.S. Surveyor and Durrell Gregory, and they both think
that it would be a good idea to have the (upper) Rancho
surveyed. If it would be of any use, please get the order
from the Surveyor General so that I can bring it down with
me and have it done immediately."
JULY 25, 1853- DEED
In this deed, for $4,000 ($56,000) Jones Hoy sells 1/2 of
1/9th (or 1/18th undivided part) in Rancho Soquel to Joseph
L. Majors. Hoy accepts a down payment of $500 ($7,000).
JULY 25, 1853- DEED
In this deed Joseph L. Majors mortgages the 1/18th undivided
part he had just purchased from Jones Hoy, agreeing to pay
Hoy the balance of $3,500 ($49,000) owed at some unspecified
time.
MID 1853
Lyman Burrell arrives on the Summit, settling just to the west
of today's Loma Prieta Avenue and north of the Summit Road.
AUGUST 1, 1853 - DEED
For a total of $800 ($11,200) Carmel and her husband Thomas
Fallon sell Carmel's l/9th claim to land in Rancho Soquel to
Joshua Parrish. After purchasing the undivided l/9th part,
he would build his home there and cultivate the land within
the vicinity of today's Capitola Avenue and Soquel Drive.
The FALLON PARTITIONING SUIT
August 12, 1853
After a year of inactivity in his suit against Martina, Thomas
56
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
The FALLON PARTITIONING SUIT
A·ugust 12, 1853
(Continued)
Fallon along with co-plaintiffs Jones Hoy and Pruitt Sinclair,
with their new attorney Robert F. Peckham, present a second
complaint, which states that the $300 ($4,200) that Martina
and Louis Depeaux borrowed November 29, 1850 to pay the due
taxes was still unpaid.
With this new complaint added to the original attempt by
the plaintiffs to force Martina to partition her two ranches,
Louis Depeaux is now officially listed as a defendant. Plus,
Thomas Fallon and his wife Carmel are now claiming ownership
of Martina's hornesite in Rancho Soquel, her l/9th claim to
land in the upper ranch below the line drawn from the Laguna
del Sarjento to the Chuchita (today Lorna Prieta), and all
of the triangular shaped land above this line.
DEPOSITION to LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION
by FRANCISCO ALVISO
August 14, 1853
Because of the importance of Francisco's deposition, its
text will be surnrnerized here••••••he made his statement to the
commission on August 4, 1853 in San Francisco•••••••he test
ified that in 1843 and 1844 he was acalde (mayor) of Bran
ciforte, and in the latter year a petition from Martina Castro
to Governor Micheltorena was refereed to him for his comment.
He stated that the land in the petition was called "Pablo de
la Yesca," an augmentation to the rancho which she had before.
Francisco continued that he made two reports, the first
rejecting her petition because "evil" persons were against
it, and because he had just come into the area and knew little
of it, and he believed them (the "evil" persons headed by Jose
Robles). Francisco continued••••••shortly after, when he was
better acquainted with the area and the land that Martina was
requesting, he changed his mind. Francisco was then asked if
he knew if the land that Martina was requesting was known to
him as "Rancho San Miguel?" He answered no. Francisco Alviso
also submitted with his deposition the following Exhibit,
which was labled "A."
The FALLON PARTITIONING SUIT
August 25 THRU September 7, 1853
On August 25, 1853 Peter Tracy, Clerk of the Recorder's
Office and also Clerk for the Superior Court, testified that
Thomas Fallon had earlier filed a complaint that Louis Depeaux
had not paid his debt to him for $300 ($4 i 200) made on Nov
ember 29, 1850, and that both Martina and Louis Depeaux had
given as collateral for the loan all of the land that Martina
had retained ownership to in her deed dated August 29, 1850.
57
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
The FALLON PARTITIONING SUIT
August 25 THRU September 7 1 1853
(Continued)
After the original complaint was refiled (dated August 2,
1852), the sheriff issued warrants to: Durrell Gregory, Martina's
attorney; to Martina herself; and to Louis Depeaux. On September
7, 1853 Durrell Gregory, now also a defendant in Thomas Fallon's
attempt to acquire ownership of Martina's claimed land in both
ranches, entered three answers to Fallon's complaint.
All three of Gregory's answers are poorly written and
almost impossible to read, but it seems that Gregory is claim
ing that the loan of $300 ($4,200) and the mortgage of Martina's
l/9th claim in both ranches (that Thomas Fallon claims) are not
related••••••••the court adjourns after the three answers are
given.
The JOHN HAMES SAWMILL SUIT
September 19, 1853
On the above date John Hames filed a complaint against
Martina in which he stated•••••••that on or about November 1,
1846 he entered into an agreement with Martina's then husband,
Michael Lodge, in which he agreed to build a sawmill, a stor
age yard, millpond dam, and other supporting facilities for
which he would be paid $5,000 ($66,400). He completed the mill
and it began to produce lumber, but he was never paid by Michael
Lodge.
It is interesting to note that Durrell Gregory is John
Hames attorney in this suit while serving Martina against
the plaintiffs in the Fallon partitioning suit. Martina's
attorney in this suit (as defendan� is Robert F. Peckham,
while he is now Thomas Fallon's attorney in his partition
ing suit against Martina. It should also be mentioned that
Durrell Gregory is representing Martina for Rancho Soquel
before the Land Claims Commission in San Francisco, as well
as being her co-attorney with John Wilson before the
commission for the Augmentation.
And, it cannot be forgotten, that Durrell Gregory was the
attorney that Thomas Fallon had author the deed of August
29, 18501 •••••••••••••
The FALLON PARTITIONING SUIT
September 29, THRU October 3, 1853
Robert F. Peckham, the attorney for Thomas Fallon writes
his partner to urgently search for the promissory note in which
Thomas loaned Louis Depeaux and Martina the $300 on November
2 7, 1850.
The next day in court the new lawyers for Martina and Louis
55
�/P� /a-nAJ�
/
J/�
ivi_
o/-v)/1.f"hc:4/
a�t>-o!
-U
z;
o()�tJ��
No. 343 ND
Santa Cruz County
"Shoquel"
Martina Castro, Claimant
,iz41Jd a_''
t: th .cy1tz1�
��a.1�
1
EXHIBIT "A" to FRANCISCO ALVISO DEPOSITION
August 14, 1853
59
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
The FALLON PARTITIONING SUIT
September 29 1 THRU October 3, 1853
(Continued)
and their former attorney Durrell Gregory, who is now one of
the defendants, answer the complaint filed earlier by Robert F.
Peckham. They state that the loan of $300 was payed back in
full, that the mortgage claim of Thomas Fallon is no longer
valid, and that Thomas and his wife Carmel owe Martina the sum
of $2,000 ($28,000) for room and board and other expenses over
a period of time.
It is further stated that the $300 loan was between Louis
Depeaux and Thomas Fallon, and because the two land grants
were given to Martina before she married Louis, he (Louis)
has no legal claim to any portion of them.
Thomas Fallon's attorney Robert F. Peckham, on October 3rd
makes several motions, of which the most pertainent is that Martina was
libel for the $300 loan. If Martina was ruled not
libel, then her shares of the two ranches would not be an issue
anymore.
OCTOBER 31 1 1853- DEED
For a total of $500 ($7,000) Martina and Louis Depeaux sell,
in a deed Martina's l/13th portion of her deceased father's
Rancho San Andreas that she inherited to a Jane Smith.
DECEMBER 30, 1853
Louis Depeaux writes John Wilson complaining that they have
not heard for some time anything about their claims before
the Land Commission. Louis concludes that Durrell Gregory
was assisting him in the sale of some cattle and as soon as
they are sold he will be able to pay him at least $500
($7,000) in about 10 days.
DECEMBER 30, 1853- DE�D
In this deed Montgomery B. Shackleford makes the last pay
ment due to Maria Luisa and Ricardo Juan of $4,000 ($56,000)
as stated in the deed dated September 10, 1852. For reasons
not stated during the later partitioning suits, this deed
was never considered as a valid paper.
JANUARY 21, 1854- DEED
In this deed, for a total of $3,300 ($46,000) Nicanor and
Francisco Lajeunesse (Young) sell Nicanor's l/9th claim to
land in Rancho Soquel to Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg. The doc
tor would build a house on the ranch, add several additional
facilities, then move to Santa Cruz after leasing the Soquel
properties.
This deed, and a following identical one, dated January 31,
60
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
JANUARY 21, 1854 (Continued)
1854 would be declared void because they were not properly
notarized when signed by Nicanor. The doctor would appeal
this decision to the State's Supreme Court where the lower
court's decision was upheld. These two deeds would involve
Frederick A. Hihn in one of the most contested "battles"
during the following partitioning suits.
The FALLON PARTITIONING SUIT
February 17, 1854
Attorney Robert F. Peckham demands on behalf of his client
Thomas Fallon that Martina provide proof that Thomas and Carmel
owe her $2,000 ($28,000), then claims that they do not owe
this surn•••••••••••this is the last entry in the Thomas Fallon,
Carmel Fallon, Pruitt Sinclair and Jones Hoy suit against
Martina, Louis Depeaux and Durrell Gregory.
DEPOSITION to LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION
by HENRY CAMBUSTAN
March 6, 1854
In a deposition, given to the Land Commission on March 1,
1854, Henry Cambustan stated that in late 1843 he was appointed
acting Surveyor General by the Governor of Upper California,
Manual Micheltorena. As discussed in Chapter 2, the Governor
instructed him to survey new boundries for the Villa de Bran
ciforte, then survey the additional land that Martina Castro
had requested in late 1843, early 1844.
Henry stated in the deposition that because the surveying
of Branciforte was so time consuming, and the weather prevented
him from reaching Soquel, he put off surveying Martina's land
until another day, which never arrived.
MARCH 7, 1854- DEED
In this deed, dated March 7, 1854 Martina by placing her "X"
on it, and her husband Louis Depeaux signing, they give Henry
Cambustan 1/4 of all of Martina's claim to land in both
ranches, for services rendered, for one peso paid in hand!
Remember this deed because it will surface later in our story.
During the upcoming partitioning suits this paper was not
accepted as legal because Martina's acknowledgment was not
properly notarized by either a Notary Public or a member of
the court.
MID 1854 SEE SUPPLEMENT- MARIA GUADALUPE AVE RON
In either April or May of 1854, twelve, going on thirteen
year old Maria Guadalupe Lodge married Joseph Averon, age
27. Joseph, he would also go by the name of Jose, was a
Frenchman that had served as a cook on Commodore Sloat•s
61
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
MID 1854 (Continued)·
flagship. In an interview given by Carrie Electra Lodge,
daughter of Miguel Lodge, Martina's son, Carrie stated that
the young Guadalupe married "to get away from the stepfather."
THOMAS & CARMEL FALLON
DEPART FOR TEXAS
SEE SUPPLEMENT- CARMEL FALLON
MID 1854
When Thomas Fallon and his wife Carmel, along with Pruitt
Sinclair and Jones Hoy withdrew their partitioning suit, this
ended Thomas's attempt to acquire through the $300 ($4,200) loan
all of Martina's land in both ranches. Thomas McEnery, in his
inaccurate book, CALIFORNIA CAVALIER the JOURNAL of CAPTAIN
THOMAS FALLON, both Thomas and Carmel, but Carmel especially,
wanted to "get away" from all the family bickering, and as
stated in the book, Thomas said "to get away from the wrath of
the old lady," According to Thomas, his "heart" had always been
in Texas, so they plan to move there. According to McEnery,
Thomas Fallon began selling his lands throughout the county,
but retaining his wife's l/9th claim in the Augmentation,
which from all indications would not be accepted by the Land
Commission as a legitimate grant. On August 1, 1853 they sold
Carmel's l/9th claim in Rancho Sequel to Joshua Parrish.
When their affairs were settled, they set sail for Texas,
reaching New Orleans in early 1854. Shortly after their arrival
their three children die of either cholera or typhoid. Heart
broken they return to the San Jose-Sequel area (and are rec
eived warmly by Martina?). Thomas McEnery in his book has them
leaving about October of 1853, possibly in April of 1854. The
latter date seems the more probable based on Carrie Lodge's
interview in which she states that the Fallons left after the
end of the Fallon Partitioning Suit, which was February 17,
1854 .....••.. , ••.•••.
The JOHN HAMES SAWMILL SUIT DECISION
April 5, 1854
Because so much incorrect information has been given over
the years as to why the Third District Court decided in favor
of Martina in this suit, the main points of the decision ren
dered by the court are presented here:
• By Mexican laws, all property acquired during marriage was
common property, and the wife could neither be bound as
security for her husband, nor liable as a joint contractor,
except where it was shown that the contract was advantageous
to the wife.
• To establish that a contract is advantageous to the wife,
62
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
The JOHN HA.MES SAWMILL SUIT DECISION
April S, 1854
(Continued)
means, that it accurued to the benefit of her separate
estate.
• Under the rule of the Mexican law, where the wife is the
survivor of the husband, she is liable for one-half of the
community debts; but to affix this liability it must be
shown that a fruitless effort has been made to obtain pay
ment through an administration of the community assets, or
that there is no common property and that the community is
insolvent.
The Court's decision was that the record did not disclose
any benefit to the defendant Martina arising from the contract
entered into on November 1, 1846. But it was agreed that she is
liable, being the survivor of her husband for one-half of the
community debts. To fix this liability it must be shown that a
fruitless effort had been made to obtain payment through admin
istration of the community assets, or that there is no common
property, and that the community (property) is insolvent. Until
this is done, the defendant cannot be made to answer personally
for any part of the debt.
John Hames and his attorney Durrell Gregory begin prep
aring for their appeal to the State Supreme Court.
MAY 8, 1854
While the preceeding events were occurring down in Santa Cruz,
Charles McKiernan on the above date was about to involve
himself with a grizzly bear near the Summit area, loosing
part of his skull in the encounter. This event would at the
time, and until his death in San Jose in 1892, give him the
colorful name "Mountain Charley." His envolvement in Martina's
story will be discussed beginning iQ lat� 1S55,
DEPOSITION to LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION
by JOSE BOLCOFF
October 16, 1854
On the above date Jose Bolcoff testified to the Land Comm
ission in a deposition. When asked if the documents for Rancho
Soquel "Soquel" presented as evidence by Martina's attorney were
authentic and contained the proper rubies (of the persons
signing), he answered yes. When asked "was he familiar with the
rancho in question" he answered yes, and that the diseno ent
ered as evidence was a correst presentation of it.
Bolcoff continued•••••that Martina had lived on the ranch
63
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
DEPOSITION to LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION
by JOSE BOLCOFF
October 16, 1854
(Continued)
since 1833, and is still doing so. He stated that when he
measured and marked the boundries in 1834 a redwood stake was
driven on the north by the hills and on the south by the sea.
He continued that he used a 137.5 foot long cord to measure all
around the ranch's boundries, and because the boundries were
(mostly) natural and distinct, no other markers were placed on,
or in the ground.
NOVEMBER 30 1 1854- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
Thomas w. Wright sells his half interest in School Land Warr
ants Nos. 353, 354 and 108, totaling one square mile, or 640
acres to Peter Tracy. The two, in partnership with Montgomery
B. Shackleford purchased the general area containing the warr
ants from Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse SEPTEMBER 19, 1852,
then on FEBRUARY 4, 1853 Thomas w. Wright and Peter Tracy pur
chased the three warrants from Thomas Fallon.
After Thomas w. Wright sold his half interest in the warrants
to Peter Tracy, Tracy sells warrants Nos. 353 and 354, total
ing 160 acres each, back to Thomas Fallon, retaining owner
ship of warrant No. 108 (320 acres).
DEPOSITION to LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION
by CORNELIO PEREZ
December 8, 1854
When Santa Cruz County became official February 16, 1850,
the old Mexican post of juez de campo (inspector of brands and
arbiter of title to roving livestock) was given to Jose de la
Cruz Rodriquez, then in 1851 the post was given to Juan Gon
zales and Cornelio Perez. In his deposition to the Land Comm
ission he stated that he was familiar with the rancho, that
.Martina had occupied it before it was granted, building on the
land a large adobe home, she grazed both cattle and sheep and
raised horses. She also built a sawmill on the premises.
When Cornelio was asked how he knew that a grant had been
given to Martina, he answered that a Francisco Girein (or
Gerien) had some stock on the place and he refused to move,
then I saw an order from Governor Figueroa ordering him to move
his stock because the land belonged to Martina Castro.
DECEMBER 111 1854- SCHOOL LAND 'WARRANT
Montgomery B. Shackleford sellshis School Land Warrant No. 90
totaling 160 acres to Peter Tracy. Warrant No. 90 is located
on the headwaters of Bates Creek, then called Arroyo de la
Ballena (stream of the Whale).
64
�TREACHERY on the RANCH
LETTER ·from LOUIS DEPEAUX
to ATTORNEY JOHN WILSON
December 14, 1854
This revealing letter from Louis Depeaux to the attorney
that was responsible in getting the United States Land Claims
Commission to accept the Soquel Augmentation as an official,
legal grant was never mailed. In the letter Louis Depeaux rem
oves John Wilson as their attorney, stating that he refuses to
pay for services not rendered. Louis makes other statements in
the letter which are not necessary to repeat here.
From the contents of the letter (which cannot be quoted in
its entirety) it is obvious that Louis Depeaux had been made
aware that the Land Claims Commission was prepared to accept
the "Soquel" (Rancho Soquel) as a legitimate grant, but the
attempt to have Shoquel" (the Augmentation) accepted had
failed. Dismissing John Wilson is an act fraught with frustrat
ion that obviously would not solve the situation. Out of his
frustration and disappointment Louis decided that it would be
better to get what he could out of the present situation, rather
than continue to fight it.
11
AN OFFER TO SELL BOTH RANCHES IS MADE
While we can only speculate on who contacted who concer
ning the sale of the two ranches, the most obvious answer
is that Louis Depeaux, with Martina's blessing, let it be
known that they were interested in selling both ranches.
Because of the situation that existed, that only the lower
ranch (Rancho Soquel) was a legitimate grant, selling both
ranches would be difficult. Based on the actual events as
they occurred, Louis Depeaux approached the Catholic Church,
either in the person of Father Llebaria, or the Reverand
John Ingoldsby and offered to sell the two ranches.
65
�Intentially left blank.
66
�CHAPTER 4
THE END OF
AN ERA
1807 TO 1890
G7
�Intentially left blank.
68
�A DECISION TO SELL AND MOVE
Since April of 1854 Martina had been talking of going to
Mexico, leaving behind troubles that had been brought on, for
the most part, by her beloved family. The move had been delayed
by the several lawsuits that she and her husband had been
involved in, plus waiting for the Land Commission's decision
concerning her two grants. But with the Fallon Partitioning
Suit dropped and the Hames sawmill suit settled in her favor,
talks again resumed about the move (to Mexico). When word was
received that the Land Commission was about to accept only the
"Soquel" grant (Rancho Soquel), this settled the matter, they
would move.
When it was finally decided, that to leave behind their
troubles, this meant selling the lower ranch including the
homesite, this decision was made.
Contact with the Catholic Church priests Father John
Llebaria and Reverand John Ingoldsby occurred. Who made the
first contact, whether it was an offer to buy or sell makes
little difference to the story. What is of importance is that
it is understood that one, or both of the priests offered to
buy and the Depeauxs' agreed to sell. The priest(s) agreed to
pay $2,000 ($28,000) for the lower rancho and Martina's home
site, and even though the grant "request" for the Augmentation
was about to be declared a fraudulent claim, for the right to
claim its ownership, they (the priests) agreed to pay $500
($7,000). After the final terms were agreed upon, the Reverand
John Ingoldsby was sent down to the Recorder's Office in Santa
Cruz to study the records on file relating to Rancho Sequel.
In later testimony Henry F. Parsons stated: "During the
1854/1855 period I was Deputy County Recorder and I knew the
Reverand John Ingoldsby very well••••••(when Henry testified
the reverand had died). The reverand was in the recorder's
office frequently about two to three weeks previous to January
22, 1855. During his visits he examined many times the records
relating to the Soquel Rancho, paying particular attention to
the deed of August 29, 1850 and to the acknowledgment made by
Judge T.R. Per Lee on the 28th of N ovember, 1850. He spoke
frequently of the informality of the acknowledgments (made by
Peter Tracy) for both Martina and Louis Depeaux signatures.
About a week before January 22, 1855 Ingoldsby was absent from
Santa Cruz and my impression was that he went to San Francisco."
According to later testimony by Martina's son Miguel Lodge
"when it was finally decided by mother that she was going to
Mexico, furniture was sold to the "Bishop." Miguel does not
clarify who the bishop was, but I doubt that it was Archbishop
Joseph Alemany. A more likely candidate would be the arch
bishop's Vicar General Father John Llebaria.
After John Ingoldsby completed his studies of the papers
filed in Santa Cruz pertaining to Rancho Soquel, two simple
deeds were written for Martina and Louis to sign, one for
G9
�A DECISION TO SELL AND MOVE
(Continued)
Rancho Soquel and the other for the Augmentation. When the deeds
were ready for signatures and the witnesses notified of the
signing date, Louis and Martina left for San Francisco. They
left Miguel behind in Soquel with a guardian to wait word to
come to the city and be ready to leave for Mexico•••••• remember
that Miguel was now the last of Martina's children to live at
home, that 12 year old Maria Guadalupe had just married Joseph
Averon.
Louis and Martina arrived in San Francisco within the first
week of January 1855 (probably staying with Candida and her hus
band Jose Bolcoff), then on January 22, 1855 in the County of
San Francisco Recorder's Office they met with Father John
Llebaria, the Reverand John Ingoldsby and witness Jose Bolcoff.
Representing the State of California and the County of San
Francisco, ready to sign, were Charles Delany and c. Morgan, and
to properly acknowledge the signatures of both Martina and
Louis Depeaux, Notary Public George T. Knox.
The DEED for RANCHO SOQUEL SEE APPENDIX·�
signed JANUARY 22, 1855
For the sum of $2,000 ($28,000) Martina Castro Depeaux and
her husband Louis Depeaux sell Rancho Soquel to Father John
Llebaria and the Reverand John Ingoldsby (as joint tenants).
The deed does not described the ranchos boundries, only the
boundries of the 219 acres that make up her homesite. Also
not mentioned are Martina's deed dated August 29, 1850, her
eight heirs, Martina's l/9th ownership, only that the
balance, after her homesite is deducted, is included in the
sale.
Witnessing the signing is Jose Bolcoff (but he does not
sign), Charles Delany and c. Morgan for the State of Calif
ornia and the County of San Francisco (they both sign).
After the deed is signed the proper, and legal acknow
ledgments are notarized by Notary Public George T. Knox.
The DEED for the SOQUEL AUG:MENTATION SEEAPPENorx·�
signed JANUARY 22, 1855
For the sum of $500 ($7,000) Martina Castro Depeaux and
her husband Louis Depeaux sell the Soquel Augmentation to
the Archbishop Joseph Alemany and Father John Llebaria (as
joint tenants). Again the boundries are not described, or
Martina's deed, her eight heirs, Martina's l/9th ownership
below the line drawn from the Laguna del Sarjento to the
Chuchita (today Loma Prieta), or the triangular area above
the latter line that includes the Loma Prieta (today Mount
Thayer).
Witnessing the signing are the identical persons discussed
above.
70
�A DISASTROUS TRIP
NOTE: The following events are based on a combination of
testimony given by Miguel Lodge (he preferred to be called
Michael••••or••••Mike), Martina's only son to grow into
manhood and his daughter, Carrie Electra Lodge. Carrie was
interviewed by several persons in 1965.
The father's testimony was made during Mary Elizabeth Peck's
court attempt to become the administrator of her deceased
grandmother's estate during the 1895 to 1898 period.
Miguel's testimony, which was crucial to his neice's attempt
to acquire back ownership of the two grants (Rancho Soquel
and the Augmentation plus l/13th of Martina's inheritance of
Rancho San Andres) for the children must be carefully
analyzed for truth and omissions, while Carrie's story
must also be, at times taken as being "second and third
hand" stories which many times do not reflect the actual
event as it happened.
FOR CCMPLETE TEXT OF
ELIZABETH PECK'S SUIT
MIGUEL ANTONIO LODGE'S STORY SEE CHAPTER 19
NOTE: Miguel's story of what occurred both immediately
before and after he, Martina and stepfather Louis Depeaux
left on their trip, changed from Mexico to the Sandwich
Islands by Martina, must be read with the understanding that
he was testifying on behalf of his neice, Mary Elizabeth
Peck, who was attempting to prove that the trip took place
after the two deeds selling both grants to the Catholic
Church priests were signed. If Mary Elizabeth Peck
could establish that the trip occurred before the deeds
were signed (in early 1854 rather than 1855) then his
mother was incompetent, thereby voiding the two deeds.
When Martina and Louis left for San Francisco, planning to
board a ship there that would take them to Mexico, they left
me behind with guardians (I was not living at home with mother
for the past year or so). I was instructed to wait two weeks,
then join them in San Francisco, which I did. We spent another
two weeks there preparing for the trip, which mother had changed
from Mexico to the Sandwich Islands (today the Hawaiian Islands).
When I arrived I found mother still unstable, as unstable as
she was at home. She claimed that the captain of the ship we
were to sail on was a pirate ship and they wanted to kill her.
At this point in his story Miguel describes his mother as
being short and weighing about 200 pounds. She did not
obey instructions, or come when called. The name of the
boat that took them to the Islands escaped him, but the
name of the Captain was Warner. He also remembered that
the fare was $50 ($664).
When they (we) arrived in the Sandwich Islands we stayed
at two locations, two months at the first location, then three
months on the Hilman Ranch. When we arrived at the first loc-
71
�A DISASTROUS TRIP
ation, my mother was· "beginning to feel unsteady, she was
hitting at things and used language that I could not under
stand." When we arrived at the Hilman Ranch she began to see
witches, then suddenly she would be calm for a while. While
we stayed at the Hilman Ranch the natives would visit her and
they liked her (very much). It was here, at the Hilman Ranch
that we sold the furniture that we had brought with us.
Probably Martina's mental condition was pushing Louis
Depeaux's "tolerance" to the limit of indurance, because
according to Miguel, he lost his temper and "beat" her.
Miguel states•••••••• this prompted me to jump Louis and
beat him, which prompted Louis to send both me and mother
back to San Francisco. On the return trip, for a short period
I failed to keep my eye on mother, when suddenly there was a
cry "woman overboard." The ship was stopped and she was brought
aboard. After we finally arrived in San Francisco we remained
there about two weeks, resting when suddenly unannounced
we had a surprise visitor•••••••••••in one interview Miguel
stated••••••••"he came to her (John Ingoldsby) and made her
sign a paper"•••••••••and in a second interview•••••••• "after
we got to San Francisco, Father Ingoldsby gave her a paper and
made her sign it••••••••she was out of her mind completely. She
saw witches, witches all the time when I saw her•••••••she had
a club to whip the devil or spirits."
The paper that Miguel said that John Ingoldsby gave, or
forced her to sign may have existed, but no additional
paper was ever presented as evidence that Martina signed
other than her deed of August 29, 1850, the acknowledgment
with T.R. Per Lee on November 28, 1850 and the two deeds
selling her two grants to the Catholic priests. This was
obviously a ploy on Miguel's part to prove that Martina
was forced to sign the two deeds after returning from the
Islands?
Miguel continues••••••••••after mother signed the paper for
ced on her by John Ingoldsby, we headed for home. When we
reached Redwood City, I decided to stop off there for a while,
sending mother on home•••••••••this does not sound right, if
Miguel was a loving son, and his mother was in the state that
he claims, he would not allow her to travel on home by herself!
FOR CCMPLETE TEXT OF
MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN's STORY ELIZABETH PECK's SUIT
SEE CHAPTER 1 9
After Miguel Lodge testified, several of Martina's daught
ers followed, with the testimony of Maria Helena's the most
pertinent •••••••••I was married in 1852, Guadalupe in 1854. My
mother left for the Islands as soon as Maria Guadalupe was
married to Joseph Averon. I saw my mother after the wedding,
and she would say one thing and then say another thing. She
told my husband to be at one place and then for him to be at
72
�A DISASTROUS TRIP
MARIA HELE.NA LITTLEJOHN's STORY
(Continued)
another. I was here in Santa Cruz when my mpther went to the
Islands, she went there in 1854.
After my mother returned from the Islands, I saw her first
at my house, she was out of her mind, pounding the roof. She
said she was pounding the bad devils. I could see nothing but
the roof and the boards. Next she went to Luisa Juan's house,
then to Antonia Peck's, then she came back here, then she went
to Mrs. Joseph L. Majors (Majors was married to Maria de los
Angeles, Martina's sister), then she went to San Francisco. I
next saw her in the asylum.
Representing the defendants, which were all the property
owners in both Rancho Soquel and the Soquel Augmentation
for Mary Elizabeth Peck's attempt to be named the admin
istrator of her grandmother's former estate was Charles B.
Younger. He asked several of the children of Martina if
there was any truth to the rumor that Martina was working
as a servant in a home in San Francisco after she dis
appeared, to which the answer each time was no.
MARTINA CASTRO
AN END TO A SAD STORY
How Martina ended up in the Stockton Insane Asylum about
the first part of January, 1856 remains a mystery to this day.
As Carrie Lodge stated, she may have appeared at the church or
Mission Delores in San Francisco seeking a missing suitcase or
piece of luggage, and no one recognized her. If she was in the
state of mind that Miguel and Helena Littlejohn testified to,
then it is easy to see that the priests would not know what to
do, or how to react other than notify the proper authorities.
If Martina was in such a state of mind that she was unable to
communicate either her name or where she lived to the authorit
ies, then the only course for them to follow would be to send
her to the nearest medical facility, which was up in Stockton.
When she reached the facility, she could have been in such a
state of mind that the only answer was to put her in the fac
ility that was also a part of the State Hospital facility there,
the Stockton Insane Asylum•••••••••••••
Even at this early date, it was necessary to have both a
doctor's analysis and a court order to put a person in an
insane asylum•••••••but•••••••if a person were to be delivered
to the State Hospital facility and they were judged to be
insane and there was no positive identification or way at
that time of identifying that person, then it was possible
to admit the person into the facility's insane section.
How ever it occurred, the event did occur, probably near
73
�MARTINA CASTRO
.AN END TO A SAD STORY
the first day of January, 1856. How she got from Soquel to San
Francisco remains a mystery•••••••was she brought there by
one of her family? ••••••••by the Catholic Church? •••••••••or
did she get on either a train or stage coach on her own and
reach San Francisco (this I doubt)?
After the Stockton Insane Asylum carefully examined their
records, it was not possible to determine when Martina Castro
was admitted to the facility. All that is certain is the date
she was released, November 8, 1856, and the admitting doctor's
statement••••••• "Mexican, about 35 years old, simple dementia,
history unknown••••••••••
According to an old Webster dictionary, DEMENTIA is def
ined as: madness; insanity; out of one's mind; deterioation
or loss of the power of coherent thought; mania; insanity.
On November 8, 1856, according to the Stockton Insane Asylum
records, this is the date that Martina Castro was released. The
most popular story of how she was discovered as being a patient
in the facility is included in the Carrie Electra Lodge inter
view••••••••••to quote Carrie•••••••••••••"and the way they
knew where grandma was, was through Thomas Fallon, and it was
just the good Lord that made it so that Fallon found out she
was there. I think he was mayor of San Jose at the time•••••••
(Thomas was elected the city's mayor March 29, 1859),•••••so
he was going out on the street and a man saw him, and he
says, "say, Fallon, do you know where your mother-in-law is?"
And he says, "well, I suppose she's down home with the folks."
"Well," he says, "she isn't. I went up to see my son who's in
the same place that she's in, in the state hospital in Stock
ton, and I saw your mother-in-law there." So Fallon got in
touch with the family here and they sent Maria Helena Little
john, and she was high (pregnant) already•••••••••
We now depart from Carrie Lodge's story and quote Maria
Helena Littlejohn and Maria Luisa Juan concerning the
"rescue" of Martina from the Stockton Insane Asylum••••••••
MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOH •••••• o "I next saw her in the
asylum••••••••from the asylum at Stockton I had to tell a lie
to find her. She was off her mind entirely. When I found my
mother she was off her mind, she was (out of her) head. My
mother said that there was a man who had hit her over the head
with a cane.
HELENA continues••••••I asked my mother to come away with
me and my husband and I told them that we would bring her to
my home. Her condition was just the same until her death. When
I found my mother she was not working as a servant for anyone."
MARIA LUISA JUAN••••••••"When I saw my mother at Stockton,
she had on a skirt, no shoes, no stockings and a shawl over her
head and face•••••••••••••••••
74
�MARTINA CASTRO
AN END TO A SAD STORY
We will now continue with the Carrie Lodge interview bec
ause it is the only description found to date of Martina's life
after she was released from the Stockton Insane Asylum•••••••••
Carrie Lodge stated that Helena Littlejohn was pregnant
when she went up to the asylum to rescue Martina•••••to
quote Carrie•••••••"but they had a spring wagon, and it
took them three months to go and come. She said she stopped
there, and grandma knew her daughter right away. She said
"Helena, take me home." It was all in Spanish, you know. And
the sisters, they didn't want to let her go, and grandma
says, "look, they took all my clothes away." She just had
little shoes on and a long chemise.
The interviewer stated "oh no" to the latter statement, to
which Carrie answered•••••••yes, they didn't want her to
run away, and that's the way they do sometimes.
Well, so they told my aunt that they wouldn't let her have
her. So Helena says••••••"I'm going to sit right here until
I take my mother home." And she did. And she didn't have to
wait long. They gave grandma her clothes and she came home.
But just think of the misery that grandma went through.
Enough to make anybody lose their mind. Next the inter
viewer asked••••••.••did she regain her mind later or not?
Carrie answered•.••••••••well, to a certain extent. But
there was something in grandma that you didn't try to find
out anything at all. You respected her and let her have her
peace and quiet. If she talked to you, you talked. But
grandma never really recovered good, see.
And one lady, who lived on the place where grandma's old
house was told me about the time that grandma came to visit
her. Papa's first wife took grandma to see the lady. Papa's
wife had her first little baby with her and she took grandma
to see her old home, and grandma thought that she was coming
to her own house. You see her mind wasn't thinking clearly,
so they had to be very careful then, with grandma.
They had her in a little four-room cabin (that the Averons'
once lived in). Grandma liked pears, and there were five
or six trees there, so she liked it there. Actually the
house that grandma lived in was what the Averons• left
standing when they moved up the hill. It had a good-sized
kitchen, a front room, a porch in front, and a bedroom.
Grandma's daughter Josefa lived close by and took care of
her personnal needs and saw that she was comfortable. Aunt
Josefa did the work and Aunt Guadalupe (Averon) paid for
the groceries and what she had to for sickness and every
thing.
75
�MARTINA CASTRO
AN END TO A SAD STORY
Toward the end of her life grandma got erysipelas, an acute
infectious disease of the skin or mucous membranes char
acterized by local inflammation and fever. Grandma didn't
get up again after Guadalupe brought her up to the big
house, and there she just lingered, never recovering full,
so it was a blessing that grandma died. She had too much
trouble, more in her life than happens to two or three
people,
DONA MARIA MARTINA CASTRO DIED
December 14, 1890
7G
�HAPTER 5
1855
A
TROUBLESOME
YEAR
77
�Intentially left blank.
78
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
OPINION by the
BOARD of COMMISSIONERS
January 23, 1855
This is a claim for a tract of land situated in the present
County of Santa Cruz, two miles in length by a league in width,
a little more or less as explained by the sketch attached to
the Expediente.
The EXPEDIENTE consists of the original petition, informe
and a copy of the grant, if given, that were all filed in
the archives. The original copy of the grant was delivered
to the grantee.
The INFORME was the reply from the official that the
Governor had directed to examine the land that the grantee
had requested in his or her petition.
This Opinion by the Land Commission continues by listing
and quoting from the documents that lead up to the Governor
giving Martina Castro the land called "Soquel." The Opinion
concludes by stating••••••"the validity of the claim is fully
proved and a decree of confirmation will be entered.
signed by George Fisher, Secretary
JANUARY 291 1855- DEEDS & SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
On SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 Thomas w. Wright, Peter Tracy and Mont
gomery B. Shackleford purchased approximately 1,000 acres
from Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse. The land was located
between Rancho Soquel north to where Grover Gulch and Bates
Creek merge (at the end of today's Prescott Road).
On NOVEMBER 27, 1852 Thomas Fallon purchased three School
Land Warrants (Nos. 353, 354 and 108) totaling 640 acres
within the above described area.
On February 4, 1853 Thomas Fallon sold his three warrants to
Thomas w. Wright and Peter Tracy, then on NOVEMBER 30, 1854
Thomas w. Wright sold his half interest in the three warrants
to Peter Tracy. After the sale, Peter Tracy sold warrants
Nos. 353 and 354 totaling 160 acres each back to Thomas Fallon.
Of the three men that purchased the original 1,000 acres from
Nicanor and her husband, only Montgomery B. Shackleford sett
led in the area, building a home, fencing it in, constructing
a dam on Bates Creek and planted crops, all within the far
southwest corner where Bates Creek merges with the Soquel
River.
On JANUARY 29, 1855, Montgomery B. Shackleford sold l/3rd
of l/9th, or 1,211 acres of the entire Augmentation (total
acreage and boundries will be established later by the u.s.
Government surveyors) to George Kirby for $1,000 ($14,000).
After purchasing the 1/27th part of the area, Kirby added
many additions, such as an orchard, a nursery, plus increase
the area devoted to crops.
79
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
FEBRUARY 1 1 1855- SCHOOL !AND WARRANT
Peter Tracy sells an interest in School Land Warrant No. 108
to Henry F. Parsons, the deputy county recorder (Peter Tracy
was his boss) for $641 ($8,974).
FEBRUARY 1855 (EARLY)
After the two deeds were signed January 22, 1855 in San Fran
cisco in which Martina Castro and her husband Louis Depeaux
sold Martina's two claims, one for Rancho Soquel and the other
for the Augmentation to Archbishop Joseph Alemany, Father John
Llebaria and the Reverand John Ingoldsby, Father Llebaria
hired attorney John Wilson to handle the legal affairs for
the three. Both parties knew that the Land Claims Commission
ers were about to accept Rancho Soquel as a legitimate grant
and turn down the Augmentation, Wilson's task was to find a
way to convince the Land Commissioners to reverse their
imminent decision concerning the latter area.
OPINION and CONFIRMATION of
OPINION by BOARD of COMMISSIONERS
April 17, 1855
Concerning Martina Castro's request for a patent for the
land known as Shoquel" (the Soquel Augmentation), the Board of
Commissioners for the Land Claims Commission gave the follow
ing opinion••••••••••
11
The claimant in this case offered in evidence a traced
copy of an Expediente, and what purports to be a traced
copy of a grant in persuance of said Expediente, also a
subsequent Expediente for a grant of an extension of the
former grant, together with traced copies of what purports
to be a portion of the intermediate proceedings therein,
and a traced copy of what purports to be a grant, all in
persuance of the las t Expediente.
But no proof whatever is offered to establish the exis
tence of the originals, or that what purports to be copies
are copies of the originals.
We are of the opinion that the proofs in the case are
insufficient to entitle the claimant to a confirmation, a
decree therefore will be granted rejecting the same.
On the same date that the Board of Commissioners rejected
Martina's request for a patent for Shoquel," they also issued
their CONFIRMATION of their rejection. They stated, that being
satisfied that their rejection was correct, and because the land
requested was in the Southern District of California, it was
ordered that both transcripts of the proceedings and de9isions
11
80
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
OPINION and CONFIRMATION of
OPINION by BOARD of COMMISSIONERS
April 17, 1855
(Continued)
shall be filed with the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.
Because it was declared that "Shoquel" was located in the
Southern District of California, this also place d usoquel"
(Rancho Soquel) there to, therefore their confirmation of
this grant was also sent south, but not to the United States
District Court, but to the Attorney General of the United
States who would challenge the findings of the Land Commission.
The above decisions "doomed" Martina's request for the
"Shoquel" grant patent, and also put the confirmation of "Soquel"
in jeopardy•••••••••••••••
MAY 15, 1855
John Wilson, representing Father John Llebaria moves that the
Land Claims Commissioners set aside their decree of rejection
and accept new evidence that will be presented in the follow
ing affidavit and so set aside their rejection once a rehear
ing begins.
AFFIDAVIT by FATHER JOHN LLEBARIA
to BOARD of COMMISSIONERS
May 16, 1855
This affidavit begins••••••••"I, John Francis Llebaria,
state that since about the month of January last, I have the
entire control of management of the case for the claimant
(Martina Castro), and then I applied some time in the month of
February, 1855 to John Wilson, one of the attorneys who had
charge of the case (the other attorney is Durrell s. Gregory)
before the Board to know what testimony is further wanting to
prove the case, so as the same could be confirmed, and the (now)
lands of the grant of this (person) want to know of the Comm
ission what is necessary to have confirmed the Augmentation to
him, to prove the boundries, the occupation and also the gen
uineness of the papers of the grant."
"I, John Francis Llebaria, have sent to Santa Cruz where
the land lies and engaged Juan Jose Castro and Guadalupe Castro
(both brothers of Martina), who live adjacent to the land
claimed, who had seen the original grant, and who know all
about the occupation and boundries of the land claimed. They
(both) promised further to be in the city of San Francisco about
the 1st of April, 1855., •••• and •••••••• about that day this
81
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
AFFIDAVIT by FATHER JOHN LLEBARIA
to BOARD of COMMISSIONERS
May 16, 1855
(Continued)
affiant is informed and believes the information to be true
that Juan Jose Castro became sick and was unable to attend
before this board, on the claim. But the same Juan Jose Castro
is here now and is prepared to give testimony."
"This affiant has also been informed, and believes, the
same to be true, that the same Guadalupe Castro was wholly
unable to attend at the above named time because of private
business which he cannot leave, but he is here now. This is the
earliest that this affiant has been able to procure their
attendance, and they are both prepared to show the validity of
the claim and therefore this affiant prays that the (case)
therefore be opened and a new hearing upon this case (begin)."
MAY 16, 1855
On the above date three depositions were presented to the
Board of Commissioners. First was a joint deposition signed
by Juan Jose and Guadalupe Castro in which they state that
the foregoing affidavit by Father Llebaria was read to them
and so far as the facts are there stated which relate to.them
they are true, and they failed to appear for the reasons as
stated by Father Llebaria o
In the second deposition signed by Guadalupe, when he was
asked if he was acquainted with the tract of land known as
the Augmentation to the "Rancho de Soquel," he answered yes
and des cribed the boundries as previously presented in
CHAPTERS 2 and 3 and therefore they will not be repeated
here.................
When Guadalupe was asked if he recognized the signatures of
Ricardo Juan, Francisco Alviso, Secretary Manual Jimeno and
Governor Manual Micheltorena he said yes and that they were
all genuine.
And finally, when Guadalupe was asked if he ever saw any paper
in the possession of his sister purporting to be a grant to
the Augmentation he answered yes, that about the year 1844 he
saw the grant for the Augmentation and also the earlier grant
for Rancho Soquel. He finished by stating that what he saw
earlier were the identical papers which he observed in the
office of the u.s. Surveyor General.
82
�185 5 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
MAY 16, 1855 (Continued).
The third deposition was that of Juan Jose Castro, presented
and read to the commission, was as follows (it did not vary
from his brother's read earlier, but his description of the
Augmentation, as described by the Governor in his letter to
Martina and the defination of Yesca warrants repeating
here) : •••••••••••
"I am acquainted with the Augmentation to the Rancho de Soquel
and I also know the boundries of the same, which are as foll
ows•••••••• on one side there is the "Palo de la Yesca" so
called from an oak tree that formerly stood there from which
punk was obtained••••••••••on the other side the Laguna del
Sarjento••••••••••on the other side the Loma Prieta de la
Sierra Azul (which Loma is the highest point of the range of
Sierra Azul [which would today be Mt. Thayer]), and on the
other side a place called "la Chuchita" and on the last side
it adjoins the lands of Rafael Castro•••••••••• and on the
side towards the sea it (borders) the original Rancho de
Soquel•••••.••• and on the side of the Palo de la Yesca it
adjoins the lands of the Pueblo of Santa Cruz, or Branciforte."
When Juan Jose was asked if the "Augmento" had been occupied,
and if so, by whom and state the type of occupancy•• o • • Juan
answered•••••• the Augmento has been occupied by Martina Castro
who owned the Rancho de Sequel, of which she grazed and
pasturial her stock on the said Augmento from the date of the
grant, and I consider both lands to be one and the same that
she claimed."
MAY 16, 1855
In a separate deposition, the former Surveyor General under
Governor Micheltorena in 1843/1844, Henry Cambustan, when
asked if he had examined the original papers now on file in
the U.S. Surveyor General's Office pertaining to the grant to
Martina Castro for the Rancho de Sequel and the Augmentation
to be the same, and if yes are you acquainted with the sig
natures to be the same and state your means of knowledge and
are they or not genuine•••••••••••••Henry answered••••••• I am
acquainted with the signatures of the Governor Micheltorena,
Ricardo Juan and secretary Manual Jimeno, having seen them
write and sign their names often•••••••••yes, I believe that
all the signatures are genuine.
NOTE: It well be remembered that in late 1843 (or early 1844)
Governor Micheltorena appointed Henry his Surveyor General,
then assigned him the task of surveying the four square
leagues that were to enclose the township of Branciforte. He
was also instructed to survey and mark Martina Castro's
additional requested grazing land when the first task was
completed. In his earlier testimony before the commission
he stated that he did not follow the Governor's instructions
83
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
MAY 161 1855 (Continued)
regarding Martina's land because of weather difficulties, he
could not find a boat to cross the flooding creeks between
Branciforte and Soquel ••••••••••remember••••••••••that
Henry gave the preceeding testimony in a deposition taken
on March 1, 1854 and read to the commission on March 6,
1854 ••••••••then on March 7, 1854 Martina and her husband
Louis Depeaux sold to Henry for the sum of one peso for
services rendered 1/4 of all of Martina's lands claimed
through her fraululent deed of August 29, 1850!
The quickly written deed just discussed will surface again
in San Francisco on February 5, 1858•••••••remember it. This
deed will be declared void by the Superior Court during both
of Frederick A. Hihn's partitioning suits because it was
not acknowledged properly when Martina put her "X" on it.
MAY 21, 1855
On the above date Archbishop Josephs. Alemany had an addition
added to the Agreement between Martina Castro Depeaux,
Durrells. Gregory and John Wilson••••••••"We, the undersigned
having purchased of Martina Castro Depeaux and her husband
their interest in the within mentioned tract of land do
hereby recognize, ratify and agree to be bounded by the within
contract (entered into between the three) and we will when
required to do so by the latter two make to them a deed for
their portion (1/4 each) of said land when they perform
their part of the agreement as above stated and at your req
uest and in the same manner as if requested by you Martina
Castro Depeaux and her husband •••••••the agreement between
Martina Castro, Durrells. Gregory and John Wilson was signed
October 28, 1852•••••.•••
signed by Josephs. Alemany by (Cl) of San Francisco
JUNE 26, 1855
In a statement made before the land commission, John Wilson
states that it is admitted as a matter of fact that the lands
claimed by Martina Castro are situated north of the 37th
latitude and therefore they are both in the Northern District
of California.
OPINION & CONFIRMATION
to ACCEPT GRANT for SHOQUEL
June 26, 1855
Because of the importance of this opinion as made by the
United States Land Claims Commission, and not wanting to
"loose" any of its "tone," it is repeated here in its
entirety•.••••••••
"The claimant in this case has offered in evidence in supp-
84
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
art of her claim a traced copy of an Expediente dated the 16th
day of November, 1833 addressed to Governor Figueroa for a
grant of the place in question, of which Figueroa gave a prov
incial grant on the 22nd day of November, 1833. On the 17th
day of May, 1834 the proceedings received the approval of the
Departmentmental Assembly. Once on the same day Governor Fig
ueroa replied to the petition a final title. On the 7th day of
January 1844 the petitioner presented another Expediente for an
extension of the grant. So as to include an adjoining ridge
called "Palo de la Yesca," of which in February following
Governor Micheltorena gave a grant to the extension asked for.
The documents establishing the foregoing facts are on file once
proven to be genuine."
"The petitioner has also proven that she uses in possession
of the place and being therein at the time of the grant in
possession, and that she has continued to live on the place
ever since•••••••• we think also that the boundries are so well
settled by the proof that there well be no diffuculty in loc
ating the same we think this is a valid (grant) and a decree
of confirmation will accordingly be entered. The request is
CONFIRMED •••••••• filed June 26, 1855.
JUNE 26 1 1855
On the same date as the above Opinion was presented, the
commissioners issued their Confirmation of the Opinion, and
that the land was situated in the County of Santa Cruz, it is
called "Shoquel" with an addition, a ridge called "Palo de la
Yesca" to be located agreeable to the calls and grants, and
the map accompanying the Experiente on file (the map crudly
drawn by Francisco Alviso and submitted with his deposition
• ..•.....• as presented in CHAPTER 3 of this book.
It was further stated by the commissioners that Shoquel was
situated in the Northern District of California, and the two
transcripts of the proceedings and decisions in this case be
filed with the United States District Court for the Northern
District Court for the Northern District of California and
the other be transmitted to the Attorney General of the
United States.
AUGUST 11 1 1855- DEED
On this date Maria Luisa and her husband Ricardo Juan, Maria
Josefa and her husband Lambert B. Clements, Maria Guadalupe
and her husband Joseph Averon, Joseph L. Majors and Pruitt
Sinclair deed to attorney Durrell s. Gregory l/3rd of their
claim·to land in both ranches. The award of land is to repay
Durrell for representing their interests before the Southern
California Land Claims Commission, which as later would prove
was not necessary.
When the deed was signed by the grantors, Durrell Gregory
considered himself the owner of 4/27ths (or 8/54ths undivided
85
�1855 A TROUBLESO:ME YEAR
parts of both Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation)••••• l/3rd
of !/9th, or !/27th from each of the Juans, Clements and
Averons and a combined !/3rd of !/9th from Majors and Sin
clair.
Later, during the Frederick A. Hihn partitioning suits,
Charles B. Younger will rule that only Pruitt Sinclair passed
on title to land to Gregory and that land, totaling only
l/54th was located only in the Augmentation. Therefore, when
Gregory entered into a deed with Benjamin F. Porter, both
assumed that 8/54ths of both ranches were sold. Shortly after
when Benjamin F. Porter sold l/54th of the Augmentation to
James Taylor, Porter assumed that he still owned 7/54ths
undivided parts. Much to Porter's chagrin, he will find out
that he had sold his entire claim to Taylor, and all that he
could claim was the five acres he purchased from the Juans in
Rancho Soquel that contained the Juan Tannery facility.
SEPTEMBER 10 1 1855- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
On November 30, 1854 Thomas Fallon purchased back from Peter
Tracy School Land Warrants Nos. 353 and 354 each totaling 160
acres (leaving with Peter ownership of warrant Noo 108 tot
aling 320 acres). On the above date Thomas sold warrants No£.
353 and 354 for $1,000 ($14,000) to his friend and brother-in
law Henry Peck (see CHAPTER 3). When it was established that these two warrants were located within the.
Augmentation along Bates Creek, on February 12, 1859 they were
"floated" down to the Watsonville area, to an area along the
west bank of the creek running through Canada de los Osos
rancho.
EVICTION NOTICES SERVED
LATE 1855
As stated by Father John Llebaria in his Affidavit to the
Land Commissioners May 16, 1855 that he had hired attorney John
Wilson, seeking legal advice concerning the Augmentation, John
Wilson responded by first advising his client to present his
Affidavit to the commission, then after confirmation was forth
coming, begin serving eviction notices to everyone living on,
or claiming ownership within Rancho Soquel, and either living
or lpgging within the Augmentation.
The eviction notices were made out, and now a person was
needed to serve them, a person that would provide both author
ity and the presence to intimate those being served. The Rev
erand John Ingoldsby recommended that his cousin, Charles
McKi�rnan, now called by some "Mountain Charley" because of his
May�, 1854 encounter with a grizzly bear serve the papers.
�harley began visiting each person living on Rancho Soquel
and discussed with them the terms that the new owners, Father
86
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
Llebaria and the Reverand. John Ingoldsby had established, If
t�ey refus�d �o abide by the new rules, then they were served
with an eviction notice. The new rules were: those that ref
u�ed to pay rent, purchase their land, or after refusing to do
either of the preceeding, they would be served a notice to leave
the land.
Because there were few living within the Augmentation, the
_
notices were mostly concerned with logging restrictions. And
who were the persons that were visited by Charley and had the
"proper" paper served on them? •••••••
Luisa and Ricardo Juan
Joseph L • Majors
Helena and Joseph Littlejohn
Pruitt Sinclair
Guadalupe and Joseph Averon
Jones Hoy
Antonia and Henry Pe ck
Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg
Nicanor and Francisco LajJoel Bates
eunesse
George w. Kirby
Joshua Parrish
Frederick A. Hihn
M ontgomery B• Shackleford
Henry F . Parsons
Peter Tracy
Craven P• Hester
Thomas w. Wright
Carmel and Thomas Fallon
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
Rather than accept the notices to evict the premises or buy
the land (or pay rent), several of the now considered tres
passers and or squatters consulted an attorney, while several
"banded" together and hired Robert F. Peckham to represent
them••••••••and now the legal battle that would last for the
next 14 plus years was about to begin.
ROBERT F. PECKHAM
Robert F. Peckham, a self taught man was born in Charleston,
Rhode Island January 30, 1827. Here is truly one of Santa
Cruz County's little known unsung early-day celebrities.
What little is written about this man does not begin to
tell of his activities concerning Martina Castro's two land
grants, beginning in 1853 when he represented Martina
against the John Hames sawmill suit while at the same time
representing Thomas Fallon in his partitioning suit against
her.
To this point in the story he has been hired to defend
Martina's heirs and several others, all living on Martina's
two grants that have banded together to fight the eviction
notices being served by Mountain Charley on behalf of the
Catholic priests.
We will leave Robert's story here, chronicling his next
fourteen years in the county as this story unfolds, ending
with the following observation••••••••all persons owning
land today within the south-central portion of Santa Cruz
County, from Monterey Bay to Loma Prieta (in Santa Clara
County) are indebted to this man•••••• Robert F. Peckham!
87
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
SEE APPENDIX
DEED ARCHBISHOP ALEMANY and
FATHER LLEBARIA to JOHN INGOLDSBY
September 10, 1855
·a-
It soon became apparent to the three Catholic priests and
their attorney that the present ownership of the two la�ds
being invested among the three was both cumbersome and in
the long run costly. Because of the "banding together" <?f
many that were living on the two ranches and were refusing
to buy, sell, or pay rent, it was obvious that a lawsuit
would soon be necessary. With three owners John Wilson told
the three that any lawsuit brought forth would be difficult,
therefore it was agreed that there should be only one owner,
and that he should be the Reverand John Ingoldsby. This
would make it both less costly to conduct a lawsuit and
evict the uncooperative persons living on the ranches.
Therefore on the above date the following deed was entered
into between the three priests•••••••••••••••••••
For one dollar ($1991- $14) paid in hand Archbishop Joseph
Alemany passed on title to John Ingoldsby to his half of the
Soquel Augmentation, while Father John Francis Llebaria passed
on the other half of the upper area and his half of Rancho
Soquel. Thus with the two signatures of the grantors, John
Ingoldsby is now the owner of both Rancho Soquel and the Aug
mentation.
s.
NOTE: There is an interesting aspect to this deed••••bec
ause it was so difficult to read, it was rewritten for
clarity and refiled February 5, 1866. The rewritting was
at the request of the State Supreme Court which was rev
iewing at the time several appeals concerning Frederick A.
Hihn's partitioning suits. The original deed was filed
September 14, 1855.
AGREEMENT between ALEMANY, LLEBARIA, SEE
INGOLDSBY, JOHN WILSON & JAMES SCARBOROUGH
September 11, 1855
APPENDIX
·e
This Agreement was necessary to protect the interests of the
two priests that had sold the day before their entire int
erest in both of Martina's grants to the Reverand John
Ingoldsby, to guarantee the fees for the two attorneys they
had hired, and for the three priests to begin to acquire
a profit from their purchase.
This Agreement is long and complicated, and only through
later court testimony and court decisions has its true
meaning been clarified. For these reasons it will not be
quoted directly here, only what was actually agreed upon
between the five parties based on court testimony.
88
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
After he has obtained legal ownership of both of Martina
Castro's two land grants and all persons presently living on
them have been successfully removed, John Ingoldsby agrees to
deed back two-thirds (2/3rds) of his final ownership to the
Archbishop Joseph Alemany and Father Llebaria.
Because legal services are needed to achieve their goals,
John Wilson and James Scarborough will be hired. To pay their
fees each attorney is given 1/4 of Rancho Sequel and the Aug
mentation. It is further agreed among the five that one-quarter
of each ranch will be sold when buyers can be found, and that
the sales will come from the attorneys ownership, thereby
reducing their ownership to 1/8th of each ranch.
NOTE: According to later court testimony (presented during
the two Frederick A. Hihn initiated partitioning suits),
final ownership based on this Agreement is presented in the
following figure••••••••••••
OWNERSHIP
BEFORE
DEED
INGOLDSBY
OWNERSHIP OWNERSHIP
AFTER
WITH
DEED
AGREEMENT
RANCHO SOQUEL
FINAL
OWNERSHIP
1/2
ALL
1/2
1/2
1/6
0
0
1/6
0
0
0
0
0
1/4
1/6
0
0
1/4
1/8
0
0
0
1/4
1/2
0
1/6
0
1/2
1/6
0
0
0
1/6
JAMES
SCARBOROUGH
0
1/4
1/8
0
0
1/4
1/8
tLAND SOLD
0
0
0
1/4
LLEBARIA
IALEMAI\TY
JOHN WILSON
JAMES
SCARBOROUGH
LAND SOLD
INGOLDSBY
t:LLEBARIA
lALEMANY
JOHN WILSON
0
1/2
ATT�MF.N'T':?>,.TH N
ALL
1/8
FINAL OWNERSHIP PLANS OF INGOLDSBY,
LLEBARIA, ALEMANY, WILSON and SCARBOROUGH
NOTE: If there ever was a question how John Wilson became
involved and a claimer to land in the two ranches a review
of the Agreement with Martina Castro dated October 28, 1852
and the addition to it by Alemany on May 21, 1855 well help
answer the question••••••••
89
�1855 A TROUBLESOME YEAR
The JOHN HA:MES SAWMILL SUIT
APPEAL DEC ISION
September 14, 1855
It well be remembered that the Third District Superior Court
handed down its decision in favor of Martina Castro on April 5,
1854. Immediately Hames through his attorney Durrell s. Gregory
appealed to the State Supreme Court which, on the above date
upheld the lower court's decision in ordering a nonsuit based
on the rules under the Mexican system of jurisprudence.
90
�CHAPTER 6
DEPOSITIONS,
TESTIMONY
AND
FALSEHOODS
9r
�Intentially left blank.
92
�DEPOSITIONS, TESTIMONY
and FAISEHOODS
PETITION for RANCHO SOQUEL
by U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
�
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
February 28, 1856
The United States District Attorney, on the above date
petitioned the Northern District of California U.S. District
Court requesting a review of the Board of Land Commissioners
decision to accept Martina Castro's petition for a patent for
Rancho Sequel. In his petition, the District Attorney claims
that the claim was invalid and requests that the court rev
erse the decision and declare it invalid.
PETITION for AUGMENTATION
by U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TO
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
February 29, 1856
This petition to the u.s. District Court by the U.S. Dist
rict Attorney is worded almost identical with his petition for
Rancho Sequel dated the day before
PETITION for AUGMENTATION
by JOHN WIISON
TO
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
March 3, 1856
Attorney John Wilson, in the name of Martina Castro, in his
petition to the u.s. District Court asks that her petition for
a grant for the Augmentation be accepted, and the land is within
the court's jurisdiction.
PETITION for RANCHO SOQUEL
by JOHN WIISON
TO
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
March 5, 1856
This petition by attorney John Wilson, in the name of Mar
tina Castro, is identical to his petition for the Augmentation
dated March 3, 1856.
DEPOSITION by JOHN HAMES
March 5, 1856
On the above date John Hames testified for the
u.s.
District
93
�DEPOSITIONS, TESTIMONY
c!l,nd FALSEHOODS
DEPOSITION by JOHN HAMES
March 5, 1856
(Continued)
Attorney by stating that he knew Martina Castro and had a talk
with her in 1845 or 1846 about her request for grazing land
and that she told him that she had put in a petition £or what
she called the "YESCA" now known by the name "AUGMENT." She
gave it no other name than "YESCA." She also told me that she
was unable to obtain the grant owing to the people living in
the town of Branciforte and the alcalde of the town.
When he was asked if he ever had a conversation with the
alcalde Francisco Alviso about a report he made in this case,
he answered•••••• "in the spring of 1848 I went to him and asked
him if he had been to Monterey and agreed that this tract of
land could be granted to Martina Castro. He said no, and I
asked him if he could testify to that, and he said yes. He went
with me before Justice William Blackburn in the spring of 1848
at Santa Cruz. He was sworn and he stated on oath that he had
never agreed that the "YESCA" could be granted.
NOTE: When considering whether or not John Hames was
telling the truth, a slanted version of the truth, or was out
and out lying, it must be remembered that his appeal to
the State Supreme Court concerning his sawmill suit
against Martina had just been turned down!
DEPOSITION FOR U.S. DISTRICT
ATTORNEY by THOMAS FALLON
March 31, 1856
1st Question by U.S. Attorney: What is your name, age and place of residence?
Answer: Thomas Fallon, I am 33 years of age, and I reside at San Jose.
2nd Question by U.S. Attorney: Are you acquainted with Martina Castro the claimant of the place called "la Yesca?"
Answer I I am, but it is better known by the name "Augmento."
3rd Question by U.S. Attorney: To what is it, the Augmento?
Answer: To the Soquel Ranch.
4th Question by U.S. Attorney: How long have you known the claimant Martina
Castro?
Answer: For about ten years.
5th Question by U.S. Attorney: Have you in any wise been connected in interest
with this tract of land, and if so how and when?
Answer: Yes, I was interested in it, first in 1848 on account of marrying one
of the daughters of Martina Castro, and afterwards in 1852 by deed from
Martina Castro to one ninth of the whole tract.
6th Question by U.S. Attorney: Have you ever taken any steps in connection with
the prosecution of the claim of Martina Castro to the ranch?
Answer: In the fall of 1849 I went, and saw Mr, Hartnell, who was then the
translator for the (U.S.) Government. On account of being interested I
�DEPOSITIONS. TESTIMONY
and FAl.SEHOODS
DEPOSITiON by THOMAS FALLON
March 5, 1856
(Continued)
applied to him for copies of all papers relating to this ranch that were
then in the archives at Monterey.
He gave me the copies of a petition from Martina Castro to Manual Mich
eltorena for this .ranch called the "YESCA." Also a copy of the report from
the alcalde of Santa Cruz, named Francisco Alviso, and also a copy of a
paper si gned by Manual Jimeno (the Governor's Secretery). These were all
the documents in the archives which he said related to the property and
certified to this fact and also to the correctness of the translation.
I noticed where there was a note written in the margin of the originals
in the archives stating the words no to se, (which changed the intent of
Alviso•s informe dated January 23, 1844 from.••• the land cannot be granted
to it can be granted), and in the copy that Hartnell gave me of the report
of the alcalde it read, no and I asked Hartnell why it was so and he
observed to me that it was right that it should be so for it was changed,
I was a little angry with him at the time for I was interested and I fin
ally asked him what he thought about the matter, and he told me there was
no title there was nothing that I could base a title upon except the paper
with Jimeno's name upon it and that he did not consider it worth anything.
John Wilson, counsel for the claimant objected to all that is said in
relation to what was said by the witness to Hartnell and all that Hart
nell did or said as being improper testimony.
7th Question by U,S, Attorney: Are the papers which you saw in the archives at
Monterey on the occasion to which you refer the original title papers which
hve been filed before the Board of the Land Commission in this case?
Answer: I believe they are, in fact I am almost positive of it, because in 1852
I examined with my attorney Judge Ord the same documents, referred to and
he pronounced them as absolutely of no account.
8th Question by U.S. Attorney: Where were those papers when you examined them
with Judge Ord?
Answer: I think it was in Palmer Cook Company's building on Kearny Street (in
San Francisco).
9th Question by U.S. Attorney: How come they to be there?
Answer: I cannot tell,
10th Question by U.S. Attorney: In whose possession were they?
Answer: I do not know. Judge Ord informed me before we went in that he would
apply to the Law Agent to see them,
John Wilson makes a similar objection to the above question and answer
as made earlier,
11th Question by U.S. Attorney: Have you ever seen those papers since?
Answer: No, I think not.
12th Question by U.S. Attorney: How come you go to this place when you last saw
the papers?
Answer: I wished to engage Judge Ord to prosecute this claim before the Law
Commission.
John Wilson objects to the above question as being irrelevant.
13th Question by u.s. Attorney: Why did you go to the place on Kearny Street
now than to any other place to see these papers?
95
�DEPOSITIONS, TESTIMONY
and FALSEHOODS
DEPOSITION by THOMAS FALLON
March 5 1 1856
(Continued)
Answer1 Judge Ord informed me that this was the place where the archives were
kept.
John Wilson objects that the answer is improper evidence.
14th Question by U.S. Attorney: What time was this?
Answer: Some time late in the summer of 1852.
15th Question by U.S. Attorney: Did you ever take any further steps in connect
ion with those papers and if so, what?
Answer: After that, I never took any steps towards a confirmation as I looked
upon it as hopeless.
John Wilson objected to the answer as being improper,
16th Question by U.S. Attorney: Did you ever take any other steps in regard to
this claim between the time that you had the conversation with Hartnell at
Monterey, and the time that you went with Judge Ord to see the papers on
Kearny Street?
John Wilson objects to the question as being irrelevant.
Answer: I did; from the time I spoke to Hartnell until 1852, I did all I could
towards the confirmation, by inquiring and trying to find out evidence in
favor of the claim: I spoke to Manual Jimeno himself upon the subject, and
I showed him the copies of all the papers that Hartnell had given me••••••
I explained the contents of the papers to Jimeno, and asked him if he knew
anything more about it. He said that was all he knew about it.
John Wilson objects to thr answer as being improper evidence.
17th Question by U.S. Attorney: Of what did these papers that you explained to
Jimeno purport to be copies?
Answer: They were copies of all the papers relating to the ranch of la Yesca
which Hartnell gave me, There was a petition from Martina Castro to Manual
Micheltorena asking for the ranch; a report from the alcalde of Santa Cruz
Francisco Alviso saying it cannot be granted; a paper signed by Jimeno
himself, these were about all the papers.
John Wilson objected to the answer because it was improper testimony.
18th Question by U.S. Attorney: Do you know positively whether these were all
the papers which you explained to Jimeno or not?
Answer: These were all the papers that I could find relating to the ranch.
19th Question by U.S. Attorney: What were the dates respectively on these
papers if any?
Answer: I think all the papers were dated in 1844, but I can't be positive.
20th Question by U.S. Attorney: What were the contents of the petition of
Martina Castro which you saw in the archives in Monterey?
John Wilson objected to the question as being improper.
Answer: Jn the first place it complained about her brother's cattle on her
ranch and afterwords asking for the "Sierra la Yesca" but I do not think
the quantity of land was mentioned, nor the boundries,
21st Que�tion b¥ U.S. Attorney: Di? you not �fter_the abandonment of the pros
ecution claim by yourself and in connection with others procure and cause
to be created some School Land Warrants upon the tract of land?
Answer1 After I gave up all hopes of getting it through the Commission, by the
96
�D EPOSITIONS, TESTIMONY
apd FAI.SEHOODS
DEPOSITION by THOMAS FALLON
March 51 1856
(Continued)
advice of my attorney I considered it government land and I had 640 acres
of School Land Warrants located upon it. I have now got no interest in it.
NOTE: Thomas Fallon filed his partitioning suit August 2, 1852 and dropped
the suit February 17, 1854. The first School Land Warrant was issued to
Peter Tracy June 28, 1852, while Fallon's were issued November 27, 1852.
22nd Question by U.S. Attorney: How have you ceased to have an interest in
said tract?
Answer: I sold my (wife's) interest in the lower Soquel Ranch and I afterwards
sold out my interest in the School Land Warrants, and when I sold the
warrants the parties wanted me to add in (daily?) interest, which I might
have in the Ranch of the de Yesca, and I did so, although neither of us
considered it worth anything.
23rd Question by U.S. Attorney: To whom did you sell said interest, and when?
Answer: I sold the School Land Warrants in 1853 to Thomas w. Wright and Peter
Tracy, and I afterwards got back one half into my own hands and then I sold
them to Henry w. Peck in 1855, so that now I have no interest. I gave quit
claims in every instance.
NOTE: Thomas Fallon failed to mention his wife's l/9th claim in the
Augmentol
DEPOSITION FOR U.S. DISTRICT
ATTORNEY by FRANCISCO ALVISO
April 12, 1856
It well be remembered that on January 11, 1844 the Gov
ernor's secretary Manual Jimeno sent Ricardo Juan's petition
to Francisco Alviso, then alcalde of Branciforte with inst
ructions to report back to him. On January 23, 1844 Francisco
reported back in a letter in which he stated that Martina Castro
should not be granted the land that she was requesting. It is
this letter that disappeared from the archive files in Monterey,
and when Willaim Hartnell, assigned by the United States to
straighten out the archive files after California became a
state, noticed this fact. He asked for a copy of the letter,
and when it was brought to him by Ricardo Juan, it had been
crudely changed, the cannots were changed to si•s (yes).
On March 14, 1848 Francisco Alviso appeared before William
Blackburn, alcalde of Santa Cruz and gave a deposition con
cerning his first letter, then his change of mind after he had
learned more about Martina's request for additional land. He
stated that he took Martina directly to the Governor and stated
that he had changed his mind, that the land was available for
granting•.•••••that the "evil" persons at Branciforte that were
against the giving of additional land to Martina were incorrect.
On August 14, 1853 Francisco Alviso stated all of the pre
ceeding in a deposition to the Land Claim Commissioners, which
is aptly presented in this text and should be
97
�DEPOSITIONS, TESTIMONY
and FALSEHOODS
DEPOSITION by FRANCISCO ALVISO
April 12, 1856
(Continued)
reviewed for understanding before reading Francisco's latest
deposition made on behalf of the United States District Attorney•••••••••••••
Francisco Alviso began his deposition by stating his name, his age at 63, and
that he lived at Little Panola in Contra Costa County. He next stated that he
had never had any conversation with John Hames in regard to the Augmentation,
and he further stated that he did not even know the man.
When he was asked that if he had ever made an oath before Squire Blackburn of
Judge Blackburn about the grant in question, he stated••••••that he had never
made any oath concerning the Augmentation before that judge.
When he was asked if he was ever alcalde of Santa Cruz he answered yes, and
after some thought, said it was under Governor Micheltorena and it was about
1846. Asked if he was ever called upon by the Governor as to whether the Aug
mentation grant should be made to Martina Castro, he answered•••••••••the
governor did call upon me for such information, and I made one. The first rep
ort upon the representation of persons living in the neighborhood of the land,
who were hostile to the grant and I reported adversly to the grant at that
time. But, afterwards finding the land was vacant and no good reason existing
against maKing the grant (and subsequently some two or three months,) on the
application of Martina Castro I reported a second time and then in favor of
the grant.
CROSS EXAMINATION by U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
When Francisco Alviso was asked if he recollected the date of the grant report,
he answered that he did not. When he was asked what he did with that grant rep
ort, he answered that he sent it to the governor, and that he had no idea what
he did with it. Alviso also stated that he had never seen that report since
sending it to the governor. Next, he was asked what he did with the second
report, answering that he sent it also to the governor. He also stated that he
had never seen this second report after sending it to the governor.
When asked by the District Attorney if he had ever altered by erasure or other
wise any of the words in the first report, Alviso answered that he had not, in
either the first or second one. When asked if in the spring of 1848 before
alcalde William Blackburn and John Hames and others did he not state in
substance that you had reported that the Augmentation could be granted••••••
he answered that he had never made any such statement at the time or to the
parties named in the question.
And finally, when he was asked by the District Attorney whether he was inter
ested either directly or indirectly in the event of the confirmation of the
claim before the court, Alviso answered••••• "! have no interest in the event
of the confirmation of this claim."
DIRECT EXAMINATION by JOHN WILSON, ATTORNEY for CLAIMANT
When Francisco Alviso was asked if he was ever sworn before Judge Blackburn on
any occassion, he answered that he was sworn once in relation to a suit con
cerning some timber. When he was asked whether this Augmentation grant was ever
made to Martina Castro, he answered "I know that it was made." When next asked
by the District Attorney how he knew the grant was made, he answered••••••"she
told me her title had been confirmed! When asked•••••••did you ever see this
grant by the District Attorney, he answered•••• "! never did."
98
�DEPOSITIONS, TESTIMONY
and FALSEHOODS
Francisco Alviso's testimony ended testimony concerning the
United States District Attorney's attempt to have the U.S.
District Court overturn the Land Claims Commission's acceptance
of Martina Castro's petition for a patent for the Soquel Aug
mentation. Who lied? Who was telling the truth? For those that
lied, we can ask why? It is obvious that there was much more
to the attempt to have the Augmentation grant accepted and a
patent issued. We will now leave this portion of the story and
let the District Attorney file his paper work with the court.
99
�Intentially left blank.
100
�HAPTER 7
INGOLDSBY
RI CARDO
VERSUS
JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
IOI
�Intentially left blank.
102
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
As expenses began to compound for the three priests••••••the
cost of ejecting the trespassers and squatters from their Rancho
Sequel and Augmentation; the effort before both the Land Claims
Commission and in the U.S. District Court; and the cost of
preparing for the upcoming suit to prove that Martina Castro's
deed of August 29, 1850 was fraudulent••••• and•••••••••••••••
Because the purchasing of Martina Castro's two land grants
was not supported by the Catholic Church, the church could not
be approached for financial assistance. Therefore the three
priests decided that the time had arrived to complete the terms
agreed to by their two attorneys, John Wilson and James Scar
borough, namely to sell one half of the percentage of land
given to them, and they, the priests keeping the money.
Ever since the deed between the three priests was signed,
on September 10, 1855 and the Agreement the next day involving
the two attorneys, they had been searching for buyers willing
to pay at least $2,000 ($28,000) for l/12th of the two ranches.
When three buyers were found, they entered into the following
deeds with them•••••••••••••••
MAY 3, 1856- DEEDS
On the above date six deeds were entered into between the
Reverand John Ingoldsby, John Wilson and James Scarborough
(as grantors) and William Otis Andrews, Benjamin P. Green and
Augustas Noble (as grantees). Little is known of the first
two grantees except that they listed their place of resid
ence as San Francisco, but the latter man will shortly become
one of Santa Cruz County's leading citizens.
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
Augustas was born in Baltimore, Maryland December 28, 1823.
At an early age he learned the trade as a cooper, the maker
of barrels, then when the news of the gold strike reached
the east coast, like so many, he decided to head west.
Arriving in San Francisco July 19, 1849, he headed straight
for the gold fields, finding little fortune and less luck
at making a living. Discourged, he returned home, married,
then decided to try his luck in California once again.
Heading west with his wife, he arrived in San Francisco,
then divided his time between the city by the bay and Sac
ramento.
In San Francisco he met the attorneys John Wilson and James
Scarborough and the Reverand John Ingoldsby and Father Lleb
aria. His friendship with the four men became more than a
casual friendship according to several letters found. On
103
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FIIBD
May the 3rd, 1856 he entered into the two affore mentioned
deeds, then moved down to Santa Cruz County, settling within
the Soquel area, becoming the "eyes and ears" for John Wil
son and John Ingoldsby, reporting to them by both letter
and direct contact of the events as they occurred in Santa
Cruz County pertaining to their interests.
As previously discussed, on May 3, 1856 six deeds were entered
into. In the first three, as grantor, the Reverand John Ingold
sby stated that each grantee: WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS; BENJAMIN P.
GREEN; and AUGUSTAS NOBIE is paying him $2,000 ($28,000) for
1/12th undivided part of Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation.
In the second set of deeds, as grantors, John Wilson and James
Scarborough each pass title to the affore mentioned grantees
1/24th undivided part of their ownership in each rancho.
EXAMPIB: From John Wilson 1/24th of Rancho Soquel plus from
James Scarborough an additional 1/24th of the ranch will
equal 1/12th. If three deeds are written giving this amount
of land to each of the grantees, then 3/12ths of the rancho
have been sold, or 1/4 of its acreage. As for the two attor
neys, when they each sold 1/24th three times, 3/24ths
equals l/8th, which reduces the 1/4 they were given in the
Agreement dated September 11, 1855 by half, leaving each
attorney owning 1/8th undivided parts of the rancho. Repeat
this for the Augmentation's acreage and a total of 1/4 of
it was so 1 d a 1 so.••• . •• ••••
When the six deeds were entered into, the areas purchased by
each grantee was not stated. It was to be determined at a
later date. In other words, the grantees purchased only a
claim to land within an area that the boundries had not been
established for. This chore would be accomplished later•••••••
MAY 5, 1856- DEEDS
It did not take Benjamin P. Green long to find a buyer for
parts of his l/12th claim to land within both Rancho Soquel
and the Augmentation. On the above date he entered into three
deeds, selling a percentage of each rancho. In the first deed
h� sold to Adolphe F. Branda for $1,500 ($21,000) 1/lOth of
his l/12th undivided claim in both ranches. Branda listed
his place of residence as San Francisco.
In the second deed Green sold, for $500 ($7,000) 1/4 of his
1/12th claim to land in both ranches to Mary E.J. Slade of
San Francisco.
And in the final deed, for $500 ($7,000) he sold to Charles
Plum of Santa Cruz County 1/lOth of his l/12th claim to land
in both ranches.
104
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
MAY 13, 1856- DEED
In a fourth deed, Benjamin P. Green sold to Henry W. Law
rence of San Francisco for $300 ($4,200) 3/20ths of his 1/12th
undivided parts in both ranches. After this sale, Benjamin P.
Green retained ownership to 4/lOths of his l/12th claim to
land in each ranch•••••••••••
MAY 29 1 1856- DEED
On the 5th of May, 1856 the court ordered the sheriff to
auction off to the highest bidder Pruitt Sinclair's l/54th
undivided claim to land in both Rancho Soquel and the Aug
mentation for a debt of $674 ($9,436) that he owed to a
Charles P. Stevenson. The high bidder was Frederick A. Hihn,
with a bid of $450 ($6,300).
When Frederick A. Hihn filed his deed with the sheriff, due to
an error in the county recorder's office, only the l/54th
undivided part of Rancho Soquel was valid. Later Hihn would
contest the court's decision, but he would loose his appeal,
leaving him with the only recourse to sue the county clerk,
which would prove futile.
This deed is notable because it is the first transaction that
Frederick A. Hihn entered into concerning either Rancho Soq
uel or the Augmentation, the first of many more to come.
SUMMONS & COMPLAINT FILED
for INGOLDSBY vs. RICARDO JUAN
June 1856
After being served notices to either leave their land within
either, or both, of Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation, sev
eral of the persons claiming ownership through Martina
Castro's deed of August 29, 1850 banded together and hired
Robert F. Peckham as their attorney to fight the notices.
Robert F. Peckham contended that based on the terms stated
in her August 29, 1850 deed, in Rancho Soquel she owned only
the 214 (sometimes it is stated as containing 219 acres)
acres that made up her homesite and ranch and 1/9th of the
Soquel Augmentation. Therefore, based on the clearly def
ined ownership stated in the deed, this was all the land
that she possessed when she and her husband Louis Depeaux
entered into the two deeds with the Catholic priests on
January 22, 1855 in San Francisco.
A copy of the Summons and Complaint are not available in
the files of today's Seventh District Superior Court (at this
early time it was the Third District Superior Court headquart
ered in Oakland and consisted of Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa
105
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
SUMMONS & COMPLAINT FILED
for INGOLDSBY vs. RICARDO JUAN
June 1856
(Continued)
Cruz, San Mateo and San Francisco counties). But the purpose of
the suit was to accomplish the eviction of all persons that
refused to vacate or purchase (or pay rent) for the land that
they claimed ownership of through Martina Castro's deed of
August 29, 1850 and to prove that the affore mentioned deed
was a fraudulent generated paper. Therefore, if the latter could
be proven, then Martina and Louis Depeaux, on January 22,
1855 did sell the entire acreage of both ranches to the three
Catholic Priests.
The plaintiff for the suit was the Reverand John Ingoldsby,
and his attorneys were John Wilson and James Scarborough. While
the official title of the suit is "INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO
JUAN et als," Ricardo Juan's name is used only because it was
the first name listed on both the Summons and Complaint.
Because a copy of the Summons is not available, the list
of defendants has to be guessed at. While not all persons are
included in the following list, it is probably close to the
full list of names at this time •••••••••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
Luisa and Ricardo Juan
Helena and Joseph Littlejohn
Guadalupe and Joseph Averon
Antonia and Henry Peck
Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse
Joshua Parrish
Montgomery B. Shackleford
Peter Tracy
Thomas w. Wright
Durrell s. Gregory
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Joseph L • Majors
Pruitt Sinclair
Jones Hoy
Dr • John P.P. Vandenberg
Joel Bates
George w. Kirby
Frederick A. Hihn
Henry F. Parsons
Craven P. Hester
Carmel and Thomas Fallon
The main witness for the plaintiff John Ingoldsby was Louis
Depeaux, Martina Castro's third husband, and he was willing and
ready to testify except for one small matter that had to be
solved••••••he was being held prisoner on board the United
States warship Decatur anchored at the Mare Island Navy Yard.
The ship, having just returned from a tour of duty in and
around the Sandwich Islands (today the Hawaiian Islands), was
at Mare Island being refurbished. Louis, because he was a des
erter from the United States Navy sometime before he arrived
at Monterey in 1847, was being held in the ship's brig.
While Louis's navy records are filed away somewhere in
106
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
the multitude of records on file in the National Archives,
after several requests to Washington D.C., it is obvious
that they will probably never be found. This is due to the
fact that his records are filed with the first ship's log
that he sailed with, and until we know the ship's name,
his records are lost in the system.
When and where Louis Depeaux was arrested is a mystery.
After reading the warship Decatur's log for the period the
ship was touring the area around the Sandwich Islands, a
period that coincides with the period that Louis and Mar
tina were in the Islands, there is no mention of the event.
Because the Captain of the Decatur would not release Louis
due to his earlier desertion, and his testimony was critical
for his suit, John Wilson decided that his testimony would have
to be made in a deposition, not the best way to proceed as the
final results will attest to. The deposition had to be made
before the ship sailed out of port, which was scheduled to occur
soon.
There was another problem facing John Wilson, because either
the Archbishop Joseph Alemany or Father Llebaria (probably the
archbishop) had assigned John Ingoldsby to perform his church
activities along the northern foothills of the Sierra Nevada,
and was refusing to allow him to leave his post. Therefore,
Wilson decided that Ingoldsby should make a notarized statement
that would introduce Louis Depeaux's deposition and its impor
tance to the court when read. Therefore, on June 25, 1856
John Ingoldsby met with Notary Public Robert c. Rodgers, who
took and notarized the following statement••••••••••
STATEMENT by REVERAND JOHN INGOLDSBY
June 25, 1856
SEE APPENDIX
·r
I, John Ingoldsby, the plaintiff in the cause before the
court, say that one Louis Depeaux is informed and believes
in the issues, and this affiant also says that he expects
to prove that his testimony is material in this case.
Louis Depeaux states that he is an enlisted sailor on board
of the United States vessel of war Decatur, now in the bay
of San Francisco, he does not reside in the county of Santa
Cruz, where this cause is now pending, and will not, he
believes, be present when the cause shall be tried, and in
fact, he believes he will continue to be absent when his
testimony is required, and therefore he desires to take
his deposition, to be read in the above case, on the trial
thereof.
JO 7
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FilED
JUNE 28, 1856
A copy of the Reverand John Ingoldsby's statement is delivered
to Robert F. Peckham by Sheriff O.K. Stampley. Peckham is also
notified that John Wilson has requested a change of venue,
from Santa Cruz to San Francisco, and on July 14, 1856 a dep
osition will be made by Louis Depeaux in the latter city.
1.ETTER from LOUIS DEPEAUX to JOHN WILSON
July 5, 1856
I wish to drop a few lines informing you that through your
influence the Captain told me that he would write to the sec
retary of the Navy for my discharge. I also wish you to write
me a note requesting me to be down by the 14th to attend to our
business for I am ashamed to go to him and ask permission with
out having something to show as regards the truth. Please state
it is very important and I will show it to him when I ask his
permission.
I wish you would write to the keeper of the Lunatic Asylum
at Stockton to see if my wife has my papers up there for if she
has she may have some of great importance. One in particular
(the Article of Agreement signed August 28, 1850) which is an
obligation in our behalf with the heirs. Write as soon and
oblige your friend and servant.
P.s. If anyone speaks to you about my testimony don't say
that you intend to put much faith on it but let me (alone)
and I will make a case for you to tell all I can (ever)
that the entire deed to the children was a fraud and one of
them told me that it was their intention to commit a fraud
when they drew it up. I have thought it all over since I
saw you last.
signed by Louis Depeaux
DEPOSITION by LOUIS DEPEAUX
July 14, 1856
S EE APPEN D I X .F
Take notice, that on the 14th day of July, 1856, between
the hours of eight o'clock A.M. and five o'clock P.M. on said
day, at the office of Robert c. Rodgers, Esq., Notary Public,
in the city of San Francisco and State of California, being
No. 100, on Merchant Street, of said city, I will proceed to
take the deposition of Louis Depeaux, to be read in evidence
in the (Ingoldsby versus Ricardo Juan cause), the taking, if
not completed on the above named day, the same will be con
tinued from day to day, between the same hours, and at the same
place till it is completed, when and where you may attend.
!OB
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT rs FIIBD
DEPOSITION by LOUIS DEPEAUX
July 14, 1856
(Continued)
signed by John Wilson and James Scar
borough for John Ingoldsby
Personally served on Robert F. Peckham, by delivering to
him personally a true copy of the within notice, June 28th,
1856.
On the above date, in the office of Robert C. Rodgers, were
Notary Public Orrin Bailey, John Wilson and James Scarborough,
both attorneys for the plaintiff John Ingoldsby, and represent
ing the defendants, Robert F. Peckham. Also present naturally,
was Louis Depeaux with the necessary Navy Police to guarantee
his return to the Decatur. After the witness Louis Depeaux was
duly sworn, deposes and says••••••• my name is Louis Depeaux,
a resident of the city of San Francisco, in California.
Question by John Wilson: Do you know the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, to
this suit?
Answer: I do know all except one or two of the defendants.
Question by John Wilson: The defendants have set up in their answer in the
above case, a deed from Martina Castro to some of the defendants, dated
August 29, 1850; do you know anything about the execution of that instrum
ent? And if you do, state all you know about it.
Answer: I do know that there was a paper or deed drawn up by the heirs of
Martina Castro, about the latter part of August, 1850, which was supposed
to convey the privilege of occupancy of the place, which she, Martina
Castro, si gned; and before the paper was put on record, Thomas Fallon came
to me and said he wished to have it changed to another form, which I con
sented to him to do, if the other should be a conveyance of the same mean
ing and purport of the first. He had a paper drawn up afterwards; (I read
a part of it sometime afterwards, at Santa Cruz, and found it was not of
the same purport as the first,)
He (Thomas Fallon) sent the paper by Peter Tracy, who was the County Clerk,
who requested me to si gn it; my wife declined si gn ing it, as it was
written in English, and not properly translated, and said Tracy declined
to translate it for her, but assured her it was the same as the first
paper (the Article of Agreement); his excuse was that he had not time to
translate it; at last I took the pen myself, and asked her if she was
willing to si gn ; she said she was, provided it was the same as the first
paper, and I si gned it for her, because she cannot write; she did not
touch the pen, or make any mark on the paper; the paper was then taken
away to be recorded at the Mission, without giving us an opportunity of
knowing the contents. I did not si gn it myself at the time, not thinking
it was necessary to be si gn ed by me at all; I had the original paper in
my possession from the time it was executed in August of 1850, to the year
1855 1 and then sent it by my wife_from Honolulu to San Francisco, I have
examined all my papers since, and cannot find that one; this paper which
is (on file) now exhibited (marked "A"), I believe to be a copy of the
109
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
DEPOSITION by LOUIS DEPEAUX
July 14 1 1856
(Continued)
first document (the Article of Agreement) alluded to; I never had a copy
of the second document (the deed) in my possession.
About six or eight weeks after sign ing for my wife, the second document (the
deed) was presented to me in the Clerk's Office at the Mission, by Peter
Tracy the Clerk, who requested me to sign it1 I signed it, under the belief
that it was the same as the (Article of Agreement) alluded to; at the time
of my sign ing in the Clerk's Office, there were present Peter Tracy, Thomas
Fallon, and I think Robert King.
Robert King, born in London, England, was known to have been a resident
of Santa Cruz since 1834. He was either elected or appointed the town's
first constable in the 1850-51 period. By his wife the former Estefana
Juarez, he had four children. He died sometime shortly before 1860.
To continue with Louis Depeaux's deposition•••••when l signed for my wife
the Article of Agreement, Peter Tracy, my wife and two of the children,
Miguel and Maria Guadalupe Lodge were present. The only way we found out
the second instrument (the deed) conveyed away any more than the Article
of Agreement, was through Antonia Lodge, the wife of Henry Peck; she came
home to her mother's (place), and asked her mother what she had been
doing? Her mother asked why she asked that? She said that (Thomas) Fallon
had told her (probably Thomas told Henry and Henry told his wife), that
they all had an equal right in the ranch, and that he said she (Martina)
had given a paper, giving the right to them. Martina then asked me if it
was so? I told her I believed the second paper to be the same as the first.
She told me to go and examine it. I neglected doing so, and do not know to
this day the entire substance of that paper (the deed).
Question by John Wilson: State whether you know of any agreement, on the part
of Martina Castro's children or their husbands, binding themselves to do
or perform certain things if she would give them the first agreement? And
if you do, state what it is.
Answer: The husbands of the children then married, agreed to assist in paying
taxes, defending in law suits, and to keep off squatters; they were Thomas
Fallon; Lambert B. Clements; Ricardo Juan; and Francisco Lajeunesse (Young).
The latter son-in-law did not si gn the Article of Agreement, but agreed
to do so (Francisco Lajeunesse could neither read or write, si gn ing all
documents with his mark). The others did si gn it, in my presence; the first
year they paid no taxes; I had to borrow the money of Thomas Fallon (the
mortgage deed si gned 11/29/1850); for which I paid interest, and paid the
taxes myself; they did not, any of them, assist against squatters, but
I believe Fallon laid a (School) Land Warrant••••or••••• quit claim on,
and squatted himself; they did nothing towards complying with the agree
ment, except pay their taxes, after the first year, but were an incum
brance in the lawsuit which was then pending, and they were to assist in.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: Did you sign for Martina Castro, at her request
and in her presence?
Answer: I did si gn it by her consent, provided, as she said, it was the same
as the first paper; Peter Tracy said to her, "How, in the name of God, do
you suppose your husband would deceive you?" I said, "here goes," and
signed it; we both supposed, at the time, it was the same as the first;
the name was written with ink made of gunpowder and vinegar, and had a
yellow cast; I was the husband of Martina Castro at that time, and am yet.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: In whose handwriting was the paper, above
spoken of by you? (The Article of Agreement)
r 10
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
DEPOSITION by LOUIS DEPEAUX
July 14, 1856
(Continued)
Answer: It was in the writing of Lambert B. Clements
Question by Robert F. Peckham: Was the first paper read by you?
Answer: Yes, and myself and Martina were present when it was drawn up.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: How long was it from that time until the time
that Thomas Fallon came and told you he wanted it changed to another form?
Answer: Some three or four days,
Question by Robert F, Peckham: Did he or did he not explain to you, the alter
ations which he wished to make?
Answer: He did not tell me of any material alterations, but said he wanted it
to conform to the law; I told him it must contain the same substance as
the other.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: Where were you when Peter Tracy came and req
uested you to si gn the document (the deed)?
Answer: At my own house; he did not request me to sign it; he wanted my wife
to si gn it.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: Have you seen your wife since your return from
Honolulu?
Answer: I have not,
Question by Robert F. Peckham: What had you or your wife, to your knowledge,
(at the time of the conveyance of her unterest in the property in con
troversy to the plaintiff John Ingoldsby and Francis Llebaria) told
them in relation to the existance of the deed above spoken of by you,
from Martina Castro to her children?
Answer: We told them that a paper was existing whereby the children claimed
the right of occupancy of equal shares of the ranch; and we also told them,
they said they had another paper, whereby they (the children) had a right
to the property, but that we denied the existence of any such paper; that
we had never intended to make any such conveyance, or paper.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: Did you or did you not tell them that the
children of Martina had a paper (the second one spoken of,,,,the deed,)
under which they claimed to own eight-tenths of the property?
Answer: I told them there was such a paper in existance, by which the children
1.nte,1ded to claim eight-tenths of the ranch, but we denied that it was
legally executed.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: Is the paper the second paper spoken of in
your testimony?
Answer: I believe it is, but cannot say positively, as I never read it; I
told these persons, plaintiffs and Francis Llebaria, very much the same as
I have sworn in my testimony now taken.
Also entered into the record accompanying Louis Depeaux's
deposition was his EXHIBIT "A", which was his rememberance of
the Article of Agreement signed August 28, 1850. Louis was able
to quote the agreement almost word-for-word, which is remarkable
based on his admission that he had not seen it since it was
signed. The agreement will not be repeated here, as it was
III
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
aptly discussed in CHAPTER 2 and quoted in its entirety in the
APPENDIX to this book. SEE APPENDIX -aSEPTEMBER 5, 1856- DEED
Back on January 21, 1854 Nicanor and her husband Francisco
Lajeunesse sold Nicanor's 1/9th claim to Rancho Soquel to a
Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg for $3,300 ($46,000). On September
5, 1856 the doctor, in a quit claim deed, sold one half of
his l/9th claim (1/18th) to Frederick A. Hihn for $1,850
($25,900). When Hihn entered into this deed with the doctor
neither granter or grantee were aware that the first deed
with the Lajeunesses' was illegal because it was not acknow
ledged properly ••••••••••••
SEPTEMBER 29, 1856- DEED
On this date William Otis Andrews of San Francisco sold 3/lOths
of his l/12�h claim in both ranches to Adolphe F. Branda for
$1,000 ($14,000). With this purchase, Branda now owned 4/lOths
of l/12th in both ranches (remember he purchased 1/lOth of
l/12th from Benjamin P. Green on May 5, 1856), which translates
to l/30th undivided parts••••••••remember these two trans
actions because the future of the Soquel/Capitola/Aptos areas
along with a majority of the Soquel Augmentation depend on
them.
The SANTA CRUZ GAP TURNPIKE
November 1, 1856
On the above date the Santa Cruz Gap Joint Stock Company
was formed by shareholders from both Santa Cruz and Santa Clara
counties. A total of $20,000 ($280,000) worth of stock was
issued and purchased. The company stated that it intended to
build and maintain a road over the mountains for which passage
would cost a toll. Actually, when the stock was issued and
purchased, the portion of the turnpike from San Jose to the
top of the Summit near the point where today's Highway 17
crosses from one county to the other (at Patchen Pass) was
complete and operating. The portion of the road from the top
of the Summit to Soquel was still in the planning stage.
BACKGROUND
After California became a state, while the need for a
stagecoach route between San Jose and Santa Cruz had been
needed for years, it was not until the Santa Clara County
Supervisors authorized a turnpike road to be built between
the two affore mentioned locations that the dream of many
began to become a reality. When the supervisors authorized
the turnpike to be built on March 12, 1853, they failed to
make provisions for the operation of a toll road in order
to finance it. As the pressure to build such a route
112
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
The SANTA CRUZ GAP TURNPIKE
November 1 1 1856
(Continued)
BACKGROUND
increased, the supervisors changed the statute that allowed
construction of a toll road that could be owned and oper
ated by a private company.
NOTE: Both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties would
adopt the same rules pertaining to toll roads. The
builder could operate the road and collect tolls for
the first 20 years of operation, then the road would
revert to the county and become a "County Road."
As discussed in APPENDIX A- the FRANCISCAN TRAIL, �he
first route established between Santa Cruz (from the miss
ion) to San Jose (to the Mission Santa Clara) was the famed
Franciscan Trail, a rough and difficult route to follow
until the Governor Diego de Borica in 1795 ordered it
improved so that the Villa de Branciforte could more easily
be supplied from Santa Clara Valley. After the trail was
"improved", while both settlers and supplies were "more
easily" transported over the route, it was still a difficult
and dangerous trail to use.
When Charles McKiernan (Mountain Charley) reached the
Summit and settled near the Laguna del Sarjento in mid 1851,
he almost immediately took a dislike to the portion of
the Franciscan Trail that followed for the most part today's
Old Santa Cruz Highway and/or Highway 17 from the Summit
down to the eastern end of Lexington Reservoiro Charley,
from today's Highway 17 extended his bypass road west
following the Summit Road until Redwood Estates in Moody
Gulch was reached,· then continued down the north side of
the gulch until Los Gatos Creek was reached.
The route just discussed, from Los Gatos Creek up through
Moody Gulch and Redwood Estates would be the route used
by both the Schultheis• and Burrell families to reach the
Summit before heading east to settle there (along today's
Summit Road) •
As previously discussed, the first portion of the Santa
Cruz Gap Turnpike to open was the section from San Jose to the
Summit. According to an article in the ALTA CALIFORNIAN dated
December 22, 1860, this portion was first used May 5, 1856. The
article described the road as having a moderate grade that
allowed horses to trot the seven miles to the Summit. The road
from Los Gatos Creek was cut into the side of steep hills and
was so narrow and crooked that turnouts were provided to allow
wagons to pass••••••••many accidents still occurred resulting
in the loss of both horses and wagons.
fl 3
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
The SANTA CRUZ GAP TURNPIKE
November 1 1 1856
(Continued)
When it was decided
to build the turnpike,
surveyors were chosen from
both counties to plan the
road's route. From Santa
Clara County Sheriff John M.
Murphy; L.B. Healy; and W.M.
Hoy were selected. The three
selected from Santa Cruz
County were: Henry Rice; Geo
rge Evans; and Henry Peck.
0
4
�
'2.
M1�5
)-.)
Wt£
s
Henry Rice was a judge, a
North Carolinan who had
crossed the plains with an
ox team in 1852. He will
"play" an important role in
this turnpike planning and in
the next one planned, called the
Soquel Turnpike.
Little is known of George Evans,
but his selection would interest
him in the potential value of the
Augmentation••••••• but the choice of
Henry Peck as a surveyor is curious
to say the least••••••it could be that
he was chosen to represent the Castro
family interests in the road.
Although a tremendous sum of money was
spent building and maintaining the turn
pike, the road was always in danger of
being washed out, especially the portion
from the Summit to Soquel. This latter
section, for the top of the ridge
within the vicinity of today's Burrell
Fire Station along Highland Way, down
through Spanish Ranch, while difficult,
it was not the problem area. The road
reached the east branch of Soquel Creek
within the vicinity of this creek and
Amaya Gulch .•• �•• the section between the
junction of the latter two creeks and
Hinckley Creek, this was the difficult
portion to travel. Within the short
distance between the two points, there
were at least 24 crossing of Soquel
r I4
I
r- - -
ROUTE OF SANTA CRUZ
GAP TURNPIKE
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FILED
The SANTA CRUZ GAP TURNPIKE
November 1, 1856
(Continued)
Creek without the benefit of a single bridge. This section was
extremely dangerous, especially for a wagon as later newspaper
articles will attest. It is probably this latter section that
"doomed" this turnpike from Sequel to the top of the Surrunit
area. After the Sequel Turnpike was completed in 1858, this
latter portion was mostly abandoned by the public, used only
by the curious and adventureous and by those living along its
route.
It is interesting to note here, that while the eastern
half of this turnpike (the portion from the Surrunit down
through Spanish Ranch and along the east branch of Sequel
Creek until Hinckley Creek was reached) was abandoned
early because of its difficulty, the first mail delivered
by stagecoach over the mountains used this route.
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
by ROBERT F. PECKHAM
November 1, 1856
While the Santa Cruz Gap Joint Stock Company was issuing its
first stock, in San Francisco Robert F. Peckham, on behalf of
his clients in the Ingoldsby versus Ricardo Juan suit was asking
for a change of venue. He was requesting that the next session
be held in the Seventh District Superior Court in Contra Costa
County (in Martinez). He wanted the change because of his desire
to enter into the case's testimony another version of what
occurred in Martina Castro's home the night the infamous deed
was signed August 29, 1850. The witness that was to testify
was Peter Tracy, the County Recorder, and when he testified,
Peckham wanted the original copy of the deed sitting there in
front of Peter. The change of venue from the Third District
Court to Contra Costa County was necessary because that was
where the original deed was stored!
MARTINA CASTRO DEPEAUX IS RELEASED
FROM THE STOCKTON INSANE ASYLUM
November 8, 1856
According to official records, this was the official rel
ease of Martina Castro from the insane asylum in Stockton. The
several available stories of how the event came about were
discussed in CHAPTER 4 The END of an ERA, therefore not
repeated here. Of course there is the question, how did the
children down in Soquel find out she was in the facility.
Through Thomas Fallon's story as told by Carrie Lodge? I doubt
Fallon's story••••••••a more logical answer lies through
115
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
The SUIT IS FII..ED
Robert F. Peckham. From his letter written July 5, 1856 to John
Wilson, Louis Depeaux knew that Martina was in the "Lunatic
Asylum" at Stockton, a fact that surely was discussed when
Louis made his deposition on the 14th of July in San Francisco.
r 16
�HAPTER 8
INGOLDSBY
VERSUS
RI CARDO
JUAN
DISASTER IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
tI7
�Intentially left blank.
118
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPOSITION by PETER TRACY
November 21 through 26, 1856
SEE APPENDIX "F
Before Peter Tracy's testimony began, Robert F. Peckham
testified as follows: ••••••••"I know that the paper referred
to (as being marked "AB") in this deposition of Peter Tracy, is
the same deed dated August 29, 1850, herein in evidence, from
Martina Castro to her children. At the time this deposition was
taken, Peter Tracy had the deed before him, and it was marked
"AB", and attached to his deposition in his presense, and filed
therewith in Court."
"Since the commencement of this suit, I sent to an attorney
in Contra Costa Gounty, where it was filed, to get permission
of the District ourt for the withdrawl of said deed from the
files of the court, and in answer thereto he sent me the deed.
The plaintiff and the same defendants then offered the deposit
ion of Peter Tracy in the words and figures following"•••••••••
State of California, County of Contra Costa, Seventh Dist
rict Court. Venue changed from Third District Court, Santa
Cruz County. John Ingoldsby versus Ricardo Juan et al.
It is hereby stipulated that the annexed deposition of
Juan Jose Castro et al, on the part of the plaintiff,
and Peter Tracy et al, on the part of defendants, taken by
us before J.C. Wilson, County Clerk of the County of Santa
Cruz, on the 21st, 22nd, 24th, 25th, and 26th days of
November, 1856, shall be read in evidence upon the trial
of this cause, subject to the same exceptions as if taken
upon affidavits, and noted and certified by the Clerk in
due form of law.
signed by Robert F. Peckham and his associate
Coult for the defendants
signed by John Wilson and James Scarborough for
the plaintiff
Question by Robert F, Peckham: How old are you? Where do you reside, and how
long have you resided there?
Answer: I am in my fortieth year; reside in Santa Cruz; I have resided there
since August, 1849.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: What public positions have you held in the
County?
Answer: (I) have been County Clerk a fraction less than six years.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: Were you present during the taking of the dep
osition of Thomas W, Wright this morning?
Answers Yes, during a portion of the time,
1l9
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPOSITION by PETER TRACY
November 21 through 26 1 1856
(Continued)
uestion b Robert F, Peckham: Look at this document (the original of Martina's
deed, dated August 9, 850) and say whether your name as it appears there
as a subscribing witness to the si gnature of Martina Castro, is your gen
uine si gnature?
Answer: That is my sign ature.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: Look upon the (deed) and say whether you rec
ognize any si gn ature upon that document as being your sign ature, and if so,
where is it upon the document?
Answers I find my si gnature twice on page four and three times on page five.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: What was the object of your first si gnature on
page four?
Answer: As a witness to Martina's signature.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: Examine that document and state whether or not
you reco gnize the handwriting in which the name Martina Castro appears upon
the fourth page, accompanied by a cross, and if so, whose is it?
Answers It is my handwriting and Martina Castro's cross,
Question by Robert F, Peckham: State when and where that instrument was exec
uted, and all the circumstances attending its execution.
Answer: This document was executed in the old adobe house on the lower Sequel
Ranch in Santa Cruz County, on the 29th day of August, 1850, Louis Depeaux
and Judge Per Lee were present; and I think that Maria Guadalupe (Lodge)
was present; Judge Per Lee and I went down at the request of Mr, Thomas
Fallon, to get the signature and acknowledgment to this instrument of
Martina Castro.
When we arrived at the house we found Martina Castro a little unwell; she
was sitting on the sofa and Louis Depeaux at the side of her with his arm
around her neck; I read this instrument (in my hands) to her in Spanish;
she appeared to be aware of the meaning of the document before I trans
lated it to her, In the course of the translation, when we came to the words
heirs and assi gn s• she remarked• "I have got no heirs; I want my children
just to take their share of the ranch and pay their chare of the taxes and
fight the squatters." She made an objection subsequently which is written
on the bottom of the fourth page in my handwriting, and signed by me at her
request and for her.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: State what means your seal and si gn ature on the
5th page?
Answerc After Martina Castro had signed the deed, I wrote out the acknowledg
ment, and I then thought, though very little acquainted with law at that
time, that the husband's signature should be on the deed, and I made a note
under the acknowledgment, on the fifth page, and which Louis Depeaux si gned,
after he had read the deed himself; I then took his acknowledgment.
Question by Robert F, Peckham: When and where did that sign ing by Louis Depeaux,
take place?
Answer: At the same place and at the same time that Martina Castro si gned, to
wit, the 29th of August, 1850,
Question by Robert F, Peckham: What means the two seals opposite your si gnatures
on the fifth page?
Answer: I placed them there as seals, I had just come from Mexico, and it was
the custom there.
120
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPOSITION by PETER TRACY
November 21 through 26, 1856
(Continued)
Question by Robert F, Peckham: You state that the cross on the fourth page
annexed to your signature of Martina Castro, was her cross; are you sure
that it was not made by Louis Depeaux?
Answer: I am positive, because I made the cross myself, and she held the top
of the pen.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: State whether you ever owned any interest
in the Augmentation Ranch, and if so, from whom you obtained it, and when
you obtained it, and the extent of that interest,
Answers I had and have an interest in the Augmento; I acquired 1/2 of l/9th from
Thomas Fallon, and l/3rd of l/9th from Francisco Lajeunesse (Young) and his
wife; he is sometimes called Francisco Young; he is best known as if his
name was Elisha Moss; I have four School Land Warrants located between the
two ranches, as I think,
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: State the description of you School Land
Warrants location, as it regards the lines of the two ranches, and state,
if you know, the line which divides the two ranches.
Answer: I know the line which divides the two ranches; I know a tract of land
which is between them.
Question b John Wilson for laintiff: State the difference it well be to you
if the plaintiff Ingoldsby recovers in this suit, or if the defendants
recover.
Answer: I can't say exactly; I never saw the complaint, and do not know what
they claim.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: If the plaintiff Ingoldsby should rec
over the Ranch of Soquel and the Augmentation as one tract of land, what
would you lose?
Answer: I suppose I would lose my interest in the Augmentation, as before
stated, and would have to "float" my land warrants.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: What are the lands considered worth, upon
which you have located·your land warrants,
Answer: They are valued by the assessor at two dollars (1991- $28) per acre; if
I had a patent for the land, and a complete title, I think it would be
worth $25 (1991- $350) per acre.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: How many acres have you located there?
Answer1 I have now 640 acres.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: If the defendants should recover in this
action, would you not consider your title good?
Answers I should not consider my title good under the Land Warrants, until I got
a patent for them.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: Would you not consider it, that your
interest would be advanced in the School Land property, and also in the
other interest in the Augmentation, by the success of the defendants in
this suit?
Answer: If they got the land as the plaintiff claims it, joined together, it
would be to my advantage that they should win the suit; but, as I said
before stated, I believe those warrants are located on public land lying
between the two ranches,
121
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPOSITION by PETER TRACY
November 21 through 26 1 1856
(Continued)
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: Have you any agreement or understanding
with any of the defendants in this suit, whereby it is understood or agreed,
between you and them, or any of them, that if they recover in this suit they
are not to claim the land that you have located by school warrants?
Answer: I have not; none of them would dare make such a proposition to me to
affect my testimony, even if they felt so inclined.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: Are you a party to this suit?
Answer: I don't know that I am; I never had any papers served on me.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: Suppose the plaintiff Ingoldsby succeeds in this
action and gets a judgement against the defendants, would not he still be
compelled to bring his action against you to determine your rights?
Answer: Certainly.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: Then the only interest you have in this controv
ersy is in having the question of law decided favorably to your interest,
with a view to any action which may hereafter be brought against you to
determine your rights?
Answer: My interests are altogether included in the questions of law and in the
boundries of the two ranches, excepting the interest in the Augmentation.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: Suppose the boundries should be established as
they claim it in this action, would you not have a right to contest that
those were the true boundries, in an action brought against you?
Answer: I should contest it.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: The you would not consider your rights bound by
the judgment in this action, any further than the questions of law, which
may arise on this trial, may be determined against in an action to be brought
against you?
Answer: I would not.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: Have you possession of any part of the
lands of the Augmentation, or on which you have located School Warrants?
Answers I think I have possession of the land on which I have located School
Warrants, by virtue of the location, and also by a portion of it being
leased to Lewis Herrick and (Joel) Bates, and upon which they have erected
a steam sawmill.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: What is Mr. Bates' name?
Answer: Joel Bates.
Question by John Wilson for plaintiff: Is not now Joel Bates a party to this
suit?
Answer: I don't know.
Question by Robert F. Peckham: State whether you have or have not been indemnif
ied against any liability that you might be made or become made to Joel
Bates, Willson Herrick, and George K. Gluyas, or either of them, upon any
covenants in your lease to them for quiet enjoymant and possession?
Answer: Yes, sir; I have an indemnification bond, of which the following is a
copy.
122
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER ·IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPOSITION by PETER TRACY
November 21 through 26, 1856
(Continued)
NOTE: On June 16, 1853 an agreement was signed between Joel
Bates, Peter Tracy and Thomas w. Wright, in which the latter
two men gave Joel and his partners Wilson K. Herrick and
George K. Gluyas a lease in which the three were given the
priviledge of lumbering, milling and grazing on School Land
Warrants Nos. 353 and 354 for a term of two years, and
thereafter from year to year for ten years, at the option
of said Bates and his partners. The two affore mentioned
School Warrants were first claimed by Thomas Fallon, then
sold to Peter Tracy and Thomas W. Wright.
The following Indemnification Bond concerns the above
agreement signed June 16, 1853, •.••••••••
INDEMNIFICATION BOND
November 24, 1856
Whereas, Peter Tracy, of the County of Santa Cruz, together
with Thomas w. Wright, signed, sealed and delivered to Joel
Bates, Wilson K. Herrick and George K. Gluyas, on the 16th
of June, 1853, a certain indenture of lease by which they
leased to said Joel Bates etc. the privilege of lumbering,
milling and grazing on the land on which state School Land
Warrants Nos. 353 and 354 for a total of 320 acres, and No.
108 for 320 acres, for the term of two years, and therefore
from year to year for ten years, at the option of said Joel
Bates etc.
Now therefore, we the undersigned, undertake and promise to
save harmless and indemnify the said Peter Tracy, (but not
his assigns), against all manner of actions which may be
brought against him in any manner whatever, upon convenant
in said indenture, either expressed or implied, for the
quiet enjoyment or possession of said Joel Bates etc., or
either of them, or by any of their assigns, to the demised
premises during the tern or existence of said indentures
or lease.
Given under out hands and seals at the County of Santa
Cruz, on the 24th day of November, 1856.
Signed by Henry W. Peck and F.H. Wilson and
witnessed by Lambert B. Clements
NOTE: After the Indemnification Bond was signed by Henry
Peck and F.H. Wilson, Peter Tracy was asked by J.C. Willson,
the Clerk of the Court if it was sufficient to protect him
123
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INDEMNIFICATION BOND
November 24, 1856
(Continued)
against any liability that he may incur upon said lease?
Peter Tracy answered•••••••• "I look upon it as sufficient."
DECISION for RANCHO SOQUEL
by U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
November 22, 1856
On the above date William Blanding, the United States Dist
rict Attorney for Northern California wrote to the Attorney
General's Office handling California Land Claims and stated
that he will not appeal or prosecute the confirmation of the
grant to Martina Castro for the land called Soquel.
STIPULATION for RANCHO SOQUEL
by U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
January 22, 1857
On the above date the United States District Attorney agreed
that the appeal taken from the decision of the Land Commission
to accept Martina Castro's request for a grant for Soquel by the
U.S. District Attorney will not be contested and is withdrawn.
ORDER for RANCHO SOQUEL
by U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
January 22, 1857
On the above date the United States District Judge Hoffman
stated•••••••• that because the Attorney General has given not
ice that no appeal will be further prosecuted, it is ordered,
adjudged and decreed that the appeal pending in the court be
dismissed and that the claimant have leave to proceed under the
decree of the Land Commission heretofore rendered in her
favor, as under final decree.
STATEMENT for AUGMENTATION
by U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
February 2, 1857
On the above date the United States District Attorney
stated that the claim of Martina Castro, confirmed by the Land
Commission will not be prosecuted. The statement is made to
the United States Attorney General's office.
FEBRUARY 10 2 1857- LETTER
In this letter to John Wilson, Augustas Noble comments that
the heirs "are pretty quiet," and that he has not been able
124
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FEBRUARY 10, 1857 (Continued)
to communicate with "young" Miguel Lodge (Mike is 19) because
he now lives with the Pecks who keep a sharp eye on him••••••
Augustas continues •••••..in regard to (the) Depeaux character,
the Padre showed me a long list of names who I understand
would believe him under oath. If his evidence is sustained
I don't see but that we are all right.
NOTE: The padre had to have been Father Llebaria, because
the Reverand John Ingoldsby was working up in the Sierra
Nevada foothills••••••••••
Augustas ends his letter stating••••••should anything occur
which would help our case I will communicate. Remember me to
the Padre.
FEB RUARY 12 , 1857- LETTER
I remain yours truly
Augustas Noble
In this letter from Robert F. Peckham, the attorney for the
defendants in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit to John
Wilson, attorney for the plaintiff, Peckham's penmanship
leaves much to be desired•••••••but in spite of his poor
handwriting, much of the intent of the letter is not lost•••••
Peckham writes•••••••Your note of the 6th has been received
and I am not aware that the Depeaux deposition has never
been received by the clerk in this case of Ingoldsby.
And I think the record has not yet been trans switched to
the clerk at Contra Costa.
Our Peter Tracy deposition has not yet arrived and cannot
possibly do so by our course of time before the steamer (the
Decatur with Louis Depeaux on board) sails before the 15th
of March (1857)•••••••of course neither of us can know
whether it has arrived before the time of the meeting of the
court.
NOTE: Peter Tracy will die August 7, 1857
The next paragraph is difficult to read word for word, but
Peckham appears to say. ••••••••"I will allow your Depeaux
deposition if you allow my Peter Tracy deposition, which you
object to•••••••••••it seems that we both have incompetent
witnesses••••••••but my incompetent witness's testimony
seems to contradict your (incompetent) witness (Louis Depeaux).
The next paragraph is also difficult to read word for word,
but Peckham appears to say••••••that the long trip to Contra
Costa, at that time of the year "imprudent" because of the
"character" of Peter Tracy, but the personal trust put in
me by my clients come first.
125
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FEBRUARY 12, 1857 (Continued)
Peckham ends the letter with the words••••that he feels that
neither of them have a case of merit, but "we can doubtless
be able to make a trial of this case." And finally Peckham
asks Wilson if he is willing to accept the suggestions he
made in the letter, and if so, drop him a line•••••
Yours with respect
Robert F. Peckham
NOTE: It would appear from the above letter that neither
attorney thought much of their two main witnesses, or that
there was much of a case••••••• yet.
MARCH 17 1 1857
According to Robert F. Peckham, this is the date that the
United States warship Decatur was scheduled to sail out of
San Francisco Bay with Louis Depeaux on board. This is not
the last that will be heard from Louis, he will reappear
for his final known appearance shortly••••••••••
STIPULATION for AUGMENTATION
by U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
March 20, 1857
On the above date, the United States District Attorney,
in a stipulation to the u.s. Attorney General's office, agreed
that the appeal taken from the decision of the Land Commission
to accept Martina Castro's request for a grant for the land
known as "Shoquel" will not be contested further and is with
drawn.
ORDER for AUGMENTATION
by U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
March 20, 1857
In this final order, the United States District Judge
Hoffman states, that because the Attorney General has given
notice that no appeal will be further prosecuted, it is ordered,
adjudged and decreed that the appeal pending in the Court
be dismissed and that the claimant have leave to proceed under
the decree of the Land Commission hereto afore rendered in
her favor, as under final decree.
APRIL
4. 1857- LETTER
In this letter, from John Ingoldsby to John Wilson•••••Ingold
by was working out of Weaverville in Trinity County••••• the
first subject that is discussed concerns the necessary sur
vey of "their" lands by, and for the Land Claims Commission,
126
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
APRIL 4, 1857 (Continued)
which, as Ingoldsby states, will result in a patent when com
pleted.
The second subject concerns his not being able to leave the
Sierra before the 15th of May because he cannot leave without
the permission of Archbishop Alemany, but if "you" have any
question concerning your responsibilities, see Father
Llebaria, who in turn can take the problem to the Archbishop.
And finally, Ingoldsby returns to the subject of the survey,
by stating that there should be no problem with the line
from the Laguna del Sarjento to Loma Prieta (today Mount
Thayer) and thence to the Chuchita (today Loma Prieta).
Ingoldsby states that he has written to his cousin Charley
(Charles McKiernan better known as Mountain Charley) asking
him to assist in any way he can with the surveyors. He states
that••••••••there should be no obstruction to running the
lines in his (cousin's) neighborhood.
My respects to your family, and to Judge
Scarborough••••••respectively
John Ingoldsby
APRIL 16, 1857- LETTER
Ingoldsby, again writing John Wilson from Weaverville, states
that his (Wilson's) letter of the 9th was received, but his
arrival in San Francisco depends entirely on the actions of
Father Llebaria and his Grace the most Reverance Archbishop
Alemany. If they take no action he cannot make it down until
early next month•••••••••please remember me to the Judge
Scarborough and to your son
I remain yours respectively, John
Ingoldsby
ARGUMENTS OVER AUTHENTICITY OF
MARTINA'S DEED BEGINS IN CONTRA COSTA CO.
May, 1857
After Peter Tracy's deposition was completed and Louis Dep
eaux's received by the 7th District Court in Contra Costa County,
the trial over the validity of Martina Castro's deed dated
August 29, 1850 began. Along with the two depositions, witnesses
were called to testify. John Wilson, on behalf of the plaintiff
in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit, John Ingoldsby,
besides arguing whether or not the deed was acquired under
false pretenses and represented Martina's wishes and wants,
he also argued that the deed was invalid for a number of addit
ional reasons, as follows••••••••••••••••
127
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ARGUMENTS BY JOHN WILSON
AGAINST VALIDITY OF MARTINA's DEED
• Because the same is not the joint deed of conveyance of
Martina Castro and Louis Depeaux as husband and wife, so as
to transfer the right of Martina in the property named in
the same.
• That Martina Castro and Louis Depeaux were at the pretended
date and execution of the signing of the deed husband and
wife and did not join in the execution.
• That the deed on its face only purports to be the deed of
Martina Castro the wife of Louis Depeaux, and not the joint
deed of her and her husband Louis Depeaux.
• That the pretended consent endorsed on the back of the same
by Louis Depeaux the husband of the said Martina is not
under seal, has no date to it, contained no words of con
veyance, and is without consideration and is utterly void.
• That the pretended signatures of Martina Castro is not
proved: and that for this it cannot be given in evidence
unless her signature is proved.
• That Martina Castro whose signature (it is pretended) is
signed to the deed being a married woman when the same was
executed and delivered, therefore her execution thereof
cannot be proved in any other manner than that pointed out
by the statutes of conveyances and those defining the rights
of husband and wife.
• That it appears upon the face of the paper now offered in
evidence that the same is not the deed of Martina Castro
because there is evidence on the paper itself that she did
not assent to all the provisions therein set forth.
• That there is no acknowledgment of the paper offered before
any proper officer authorized to take acknowledgments
of married woman.
• That the pretended acknowledgment endorsed on the paper
offered are not in due form.
• That the pretended acknowledgment before Peter Tracy is
not endorsed or annexed to the pretended deed and it is not
shown he used the seal of the court.
• Because the said pretended deed was obtained from Martina
Castro by fraud and fraudulent misrepresentations of facts.
NOTE: It is this last point that is of most importance and
will be the main subject of contention between John Wilson
and Robert F. Peckham.
12 8
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
JULY 24 1 1857- LETTER
Mountain Charley writes John Wilson that he had served the
summons on Guadalupe Castro (Martina's brother) ••••••the
summons was for the trial now in progress in Contra Costa
County.
AUGUST 7 1 1857
County Recorder Peter Tracy died in Santa Cruz on this date.
AGREEMENT between JOHN INGOLDSBY SEE APPENDIX ·s
and ARCHBISHOP ALEMANY
September 2, 1857
This agreement between John Ingoldsby and Archbishop Alemany
is identical with the agreement entered into on September 11,
1855 between the two and including Father Llebaria. The only
difference between the two agreements is the elimination of
the name of Father Llebaria•••••••the terms of the agreement
between Ingoldsby and Llebaria are identical, leaving Llebaria
with his identical share after the terms of the first agreement
have been satisfied.
Because John Ingoldsby is still working up in the Sierra
Nevada, Charles McKiernan (Mountain Charley his cousin) signs
for him acting as his attorney.
NOTE: It is interesting to note that the first agreement
between the three priests signed September 11, 1855 is
still not recorded, but this latest endeavor is recorded
immediately after it is signed. Therefore the first agree
ment is not a legal paper between the three priests and
their two attorneys, while this latest one between the
two participants is.
OCTOBER 20 1 1857- SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
School Land Warrants No. 37 for 320 acres purchased by Craven
P.Hester April 28, 1853 are floated to another location in the
county because they are found to be located within the Soquel
Augmentation, now a legitimate Mexican Land Grant.
NOVEMBER 1, 1857- LETTER
In his letter to John Wilson, Charles McKiernan states that
he is assisting the surveyors in establishing the boundries
of the Augmentation while collecting the rent money from the
defendants in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit, all
now considered squattors or trespassers.
Charley states that he was trying to get them to pay the rent
before the next planting, stating that there was a lot of
money involved. Charley closed his letter by asking Wilson
for his help when he comes down to Santa Cruz during one of
his visits•••••••he needs help in collecting the rents
because not all of the tenants are cooperating.
129
�INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
DISASTER IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INGOLDSBY vs. RICARDO JUAN DECISION
7th DISTRICT COURT CONTRA COSTA CO.
November/December 1857
During the November December period the 7th District Court
rendered their decision concerning the validity of Martina
Castro's deed dated August 29, 1850. The court declared it to
be a fraudulent paper, a paper that did not reflect Martina's
true wishes or desires. It was also decreed that it was
acquired by false pretenses. With this decision, when Martina
and her husband Louis Depeaux signed the two deeds with the
three priests on January 22, 1855 they passed title to the
entire acreage of both ranches, Rancho Soquel and the Soquel
Augmentation.
This decision by the court also meant that Martina's heirs
were now trespassers on their mother's lands along with those
that they had entered into deeds with selling all, or a por
tion of their l/9th claim to land. Now the Reverand John Ingold
sby was the legitimate owner of both ranches and free to evict
everyone that refused to agree to his terms if they wanted to
remain on his land.
After the court made their decision, Robert Fo Peckham
approached his clients and asked whether or not they wanted
him to carry the suit to the State Supreme Court. After dis
cussing the alternatives, it was agreed that he should con
tinue the suit and they agreed to pay him his initial fee of
$1,000 ($14,000).
130
�HAPTER 9
1858
BOUNDRY
DISPUTES
13 r
�Intentially left blank.
132
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
RO.BERT F. PECKHAM
PREPARES HIS APPEAL
The following assumption is based on several letters written
to John Wilson: Because of the overwhelming judgement by the
Seventh District Court in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN
suit that Martina Castro's deed dated August 29, 1850 was
fraudulent, Robert F. Peckham approached the State's Supreme
Court justices. He solicited their unofficial opinion of
his planned appeal approach.
His concern for later success was based on the earlier pres
ented damning "proof" that the deed was indeed fraudulent
and the obvious "lack of character" of his main witness
Peter Tracy. With a favorable opinion by the high court
justices, Robert F. Peckham continued planning his appeal.
With this activity by Peckham now underway, we continue•••••
JANUARY 1, 1858- DEED of SALE
During the 1853/1854 period, one of the Ricardo Juans, supposed
ly the husband of Maria Luisa Cota built a small tannery next
to the creek that today is called Porter Gulch, then called
Tannery Gulch after Juan's facility. The tannery was located
just to the north of today's Soquel Drive within the confines
of Cabrillo College.
On the above date Ricardo and Luisa Juan sold the tannery and
the five acres it occupied to Benjamin F. Porter for $600
($8,400). The facility was sold which included the main
buildings, their supporting facilities such as the smaller
buildings, vats, flumes, aqueducts, three dwelling houses,
out-houses, a barn, hen houses, machinery and some fruit
trees. The entire facility was enclosed with a fence.
JANUARY 2 • 1858- LETTER
In his letter to John Wilson, Charles "Mountain Charley"
McKiernan wrote that the surveyors were on the job with inst
ructions to run the Augmentation's southwest boundry from
the northwest corner of Rancho Soquel (where Bates Creek joins
Sequel Creek) ••••••• actually Charley stated the point was
at the southwest corner ••••••to the Laguna del Sarjento.
Charley continues that he will assist them in their job. He
also states that a judge wants to sell his interest in the
two ranches, but he has been instructed by Father John
(Llebaria) that under no conditions is he to sign a deed
until the lawsuit "is finally settled."
He ends his letter with "I have nothing more worth speaking
about. I hope to hear from you soon as I want to write to
Father John (Ingoldsby).
signed by Charles McKiernan
133
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
JANUARY 8 2 1858- DEED
In this deed Frederick A. Hihn agrees to pay Helena and Joseph
Littlejohn $2,000 ($28,000) for 1/3rd of Helena's 1/9th claim
to land in both ranches (the amount of land is for l/27th
undivided parts)
Frederick A. Hihn also agrees to pay thP. court expenses for
the Littlejohns in the upcoming court suits, whether they win
or loose their claim. Hihn will claim his 1/27th undivided
parts only if they win and retain their claim to land in both
ranches.
This deed is interesting from another standpoint, because it
is the first deed written to date that describes the Augmentat
ions west side boundry extending from the northwest corner of
Rancho Soquel along a straight line until it joins Rancho San
Augustine in Scotts Valley. From the latter rancho the boundry
continues on northwest until Laguna del Sarjento is reached.
In the deed the size of the Augmentation is set at 70,000
acres, far more than the 32, 702 acres that the area will end
up at.
JANUARY 1 7, 1858- LETTER
In this letter to John Wilson, Charles "Mountain Charley"
McKiernan asks whether or not "she" (Martina) is making an
appeal in Father John's (Ingoldsby) case, and when will the
trial come on••••••• he wants to know because•••••••• I want to
write to Father John (still working in the Sierra Nevada)
and let him know all I can about it.
C harley continues; concerning those that have entered into
deeds, that only Frederick A. Hihn and Dr. John P.P. Vanden
berg have cooperated. He next talks about the new Soquel
Turnpike••••• the "road across the mountains,"•••••••they have
let the contracts to build it to the county line and it will
be finished by the first of April. Actually, Charley is
discussing the portion of the turnpike in Santa Clara County,
not the portion in Santa Cruz County•••••• that portion of
the route is being planned and a company will be formed soon.
FEBRUARY 5, 1858 - LETTER
In this letter Augustas Noble writes John Wilson that the
survey of Rancho Soquel is complete and the surveyors includ
ded all the land the grant called for••••••••the east side
boundry is Rafael Castro's Rancho Aptos along Borregas Gulch
which "gives us a fine stick of land there which has been in
possession of squatters for six years who have been calling
the land "government land."
Augustas continues "I am glad to report that we are to have
a new road to Santa Clara up the Soquel River and I expect to
start tomorrow with a party to lay it out. It is to run from
13�
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
just north of Holcombs and include Hester's Ranch. When com
plete the road will add to the value of OUR property as well
as be a great advantage to the traveling public.
Augustas continues that attorney Robert F. Peckham has just
returned from the State's Supreme Court and that the court
assured him that the heirs "deed" would be prounounced good.
He ends the letter by stating that Mountain Charley was here
yesterday and went to see the surveyors and they should have
the job on the Augmento, but I hope they will not fail in the
matter.
Give my best wishes to Mr. Courtes and Iren.e,
Yours truly, Augustas Noble
FEBRUARY 5, 1858 - DEED
On this date sitting before a Notary Public in San Francisco
is Louis Depeaux. Being notarized is the deed entered into
March 7, 1854 between Martina Castro and Louis as grantors
and Enrique (Henry) Cambustan, the grantee. It will be rem
embered that Martina and Louis gave to Henry for services
rendered 1/4 of all the land that Martina retained ownership
of in both of her ranches. For the land Henry paid one peso.
When Martina signed the deed she signed with an "X", while
Louis signed with his signature. On the above date Louis was
having his signature notarized. Because Martina's "X" was
not properly notarized when she signed, this deed will be
declared void later during the Frederick A. Hihn partitioning
suits.
NOTE: If Louis Depeaux did indeed sail out of San Francisco
Bay as a prisoner on board the warship Decatur March 17,
1857, then it is obvious that John Wilson was successful
in helping Louis receive his discharge rather than serve
additional time in prison.
The SANTA CLARA TURNPIKE COMPANY
(The SOQUEL TURNPIKE)
March 4, 1858
BACKGROUND
After the Santa Cruz Joint Stock Company's Santa Cruz Gap
Turnpike was complete there was a strong desire to estab
lish a more useable route between San Jose and Monterey
Bay. Actually the turnpike was only half completed, the
portion in Santa Clara County up along Los Gatos Creek
to Moody Gulch where it left the creek and headed up
through the gulch to reach the top of the ridge. Once
the top was reached, it continued east until Mountain
Charley's homesite was reached along the west side of
the Laguna del Sarjento. The continuation of the route
135
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
The SANTA CLARA TURNPIKE COMPANY
(The SOQUEL TURNPIKE)
March 4, 1858
(Continued)
BACKGROUND
after it crossed the Gap (today called Patchen Pass), it
continued along the top of the ridge until the area within
the vicinity of today's Burrell Fire Station is reached on
Highland Way. From here the route headed down through
Spanish Ranch until Soquel Creek was reached within the vic
inity of Amaya Gulch, then on down the former creek until
-Soquel was reached. Actually the portion of the turnpike
from the vicinity of today's Burrell Fire Station was more
of a narrow trail, useable by stagecoach but with great
trouble and danger until the vicinity of Hinckley Creek
was reached.
In late 1857, influenced by the forces that were backing
the Catholic priests, headed by their attorneys and in
Santa Cruz County Augustas Noble and Mountain Charley and
Elihu Anthony a merchant and postmaster that was soon to
enter into partnership with Frederick A. Hihn, who on
behalf of the county moved that a committee of five be
assigned to investigate a new route across the montains.
Superior Judge Henry Rice, to represent the county, named
Elihu Anthony; Samuel A. Bartlett (a resident of Soquel but
later to be a furniture dealer and banker in Santa Cruz);
Nathaniel Holcomb (a farmer and lumberman in the Soquel
area since 1850); and John Hames (lumberman and land owner
throughout the county). The fifth man was Frederick A. Hihn
who had yet to achieve the power that he would command until
his death in 1913. In spite of his having just arrived in
the county, his business knowledge, which had allowed him
to survive the hard times of the early 1850s, was becoming
obvious to all concerned.
After the committee had settled on the route that the new
turnpike would follow, on March 4, 1858 the "Santa Clara
Turnpike Company" was formed and announced in a published
notice of intention to form a joint stock company. The new
company added five new members to the committee, namely:
J.F.J. Bennett; John Daubenbiss; George Parsons; A.W. Raw
son; and F. Kitteridge.
The SANTA CRUZ TURNPIKE
When the city of Santa Cruz learned of Soquel's plan to
build a road from their town up to the top of the summit and
then on down into Santa Clara County, they decided not to be
outdone. They quickly planned a route of their own, entering
into a contract for $6,000 ($84,000) with Charles McKiernan
f3G
�/
0
450Q\lEL DRIV
The SOQUEL & SANTA CRUZ TURNPIKES
1 37
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
The SANTA CRUZ
TURNPIKE
And Hiram Scott to build a turnpike toll road from Hiram's home
in Scotts Valley to the top of the ridge within the vicinity of
Mountain Charley's home along the west side of the Laguna del
Sarjento. From Hiram's home the road headed up today's Graham
Grade, following for the most part today's Scotts Valley and
Glenwood drives, then Mountain Charley Road until the Summit
Road was reached. When the top of the Summit was reached their
route now followed westward the Santa Cruz Gap Turnpike until
Moody Gulch was reached, then turned to head down through the
gulch until Los Gatos Creek was reached.
It wasn't long before it was realized that using the route
of the Santa Cruz Gap Turnpike was a mistake and they looked
around for an easier route to reach Los Gatos Creek. Their
"correction" began where today's Mountain Charley Road reaches
the Summit Road. Instead of heading west, they went east,
crossing the Gap at today's Patchen Pass, then followed
Mountain Charley Road along the east side of Highway 17 until
they reached the Soquel Turnpike (at today's junction of
Mountain Charley Road and the Old Santa Cruz Highway a mile
below the Summit Road).
The SOQUEL TURNPIKE
Because Frederick A. Hihn's name has been associated with
the planning and building of the Soquel Turnpike, it has been
assumed that he was the motivating force behind its construct
ion, acquiring by any means necessary land for the road until
it entered today's Augmentation. Far from the truth, while
Hihn was involved with establishing the road, its main backing
came, as previously discussed from the Catholic priests and
their backers. As for the acquisition of land for the road,
from Soquel until it left Santa Cruz County it would remain
within the boundries of both the Augmentation and Rancho Soquel
as the boundries were understood to exist at the time.
NOTE: Because the turnpike was entirely on land that was now
legally owned by the Reverand John Ingoldsby, from its beg
inning on today's Soquel Drive until it reached the top of
the Summit (at today's Summit Road), there was no reason to
"acquire" land for it to pass through. During this period,
only the portion of the road that would eventually lie
outside of the Augmentation's boundry as the United States
Surveyors continually moved the PALO de la YESCA farther, yet
still farther up Soquel Creek away from its original loc
ation at the junction of Bates and Soquel creeks would be
contested (as several of the following letters to John Wilson
will attest to).
13 8
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
The SOQUEL TURNPIKE
(Continued)
To keep the turnpike comple tely within the bo undries of
ranches, they began on the County Road to Watsonville
(today Soq uel Drive), headed north along Main Stree t followed
by Che rryvale Avenue, crossed Soquel C reek to its west side
s taying along this side until Hinckley Creek was approached.
J ust to the north of Hinckley the road continued up the
narrow ridge betwee n Hester C reek ( to the east) a nd the Wes t
B ranch of Soq uel Creek ••• o•••today's Soquel San Jose Road for
the most part is to the turnpike's east down closer to Hester
C reek.
the two
Wi thin the vicinity of today's S tetson and Soq uel San Jose
turnpike is iden tical with the latter road until
Morrell Cutoff is reached. In order to keep the. turnpike within
the A ugme ntation a nd Sa nta C ru z County, the latte r road was
followed until the top of the ridge at Taylor Gulch had to be
reached. Now tha t the top of the ridge was reached, today's
Summit Road route was followed west for a mile and a half,
then a turn north again and today's Old Santa Cruz Highway
carried the turnpike dow n towards Los Gatos C reek.
roads the
Wha t the roads we re called depended upon which county's
map you used. Sa nta Clara County called the toll road to the
junction of the two turnpikes (where the Old Santa Cruz Highway
and Mountain Cha rley Road mee t) the SANTA CRUZ TURNPIKE, and the
road that headed off to San ta C ruz, the SANTA CRUZ ROAD, a nd
the road to Soq uel, the SOQUEL ROAD.
Santa Cruz Co unty called the two ro utes simply the SANTA
CRUZ TURNPIKE and the SOQUEL TURNPIKE. After twe nty yea rs of
collecting the tolls, the Santa C ruz Turnpike reverted to
Co unty control and became know n as the McKIERNAN TOLL ROAD,
today the MOUNTAIN CHARLEY ROAD.
Because the Soq uel Turnpike was not maintained un til 1869
Santa Cruz Turnpike, while no t the preferred route, was
the main rou te used with Mountai n Charley collecting the tolls.
As the Soquel Tu rnpike was maintained and improved, it even
tually became the ro ute preferred, main ly because of its easie r
grades and because of the many resorts and recreation a reas
along its route.
the
NOTE: While constructio n of the two roads were begun
within two weeks of each othe r (work on the Soq uel T urnpike
began first), they were completed almost simultaneously.
The Soquel T urnpike because of its longer distance cost
twice what the Santa C ruz T urnpike cost••• a • • the county paid
Mountain Charley and Hi ram Scott $6,000 ($84,000), while
the othe r road cost $12,000 ($168,000).
139
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
MARCH 20, 1858- LETTER
In his letter to John Wilson, Augustas Noble states that (we)
agreed not to get an injunction against the squatters on the
Soquel Augmentation while the survey is in progress.
NOTE: The persons that they considered squatters were prob
ably George w. Kirby; Francis R. Brady and Benjamin C.
Nichols; Joel Bates; Lyman Burrell; James Taylor; Peter
Tracy's estate; and Henry F. Parsons.
Augustas continues••••••I think we can make an argument with
the squatters on the Soquel Rancho to leave in the fall and
(we can) also prevent them from cutting timber and wood
providing you can get the survey of the ranch affirmed by the
Surveyor General.
After the survey is official you can then direct Mountain
Charley to meet with myself and the heirs, so that we may
give authority to someone of the party to make arguments,
collect rents•••••••••at present outside parties take advant
age of the matter and the lawsuit between us to stick on the
ranch••••••••it is better for us to join together and save
what we can.
NOTE: It is obvious from the "tone" of the letter that they
were wanting a leader, someone of authority in Soquel to
evict the squatters and trespassers and collect rents. And
who did they select? That question is answered in the next
letter........ ...... .
APRIL 25 1 1858- LETTER
In this letter written by Frederick A. Hihn and cosigned by
Charles McKiernan, Hihn states••••••all parties interested
in the Soquel Ranch have agreed to join to eject the squatters
if necessary and Augustas Noble and Joshua Parrish are going
to try to make arrangements with the squatters by which they
either pay rents or agree to leave the land the present year.
Let us know if that will suit you and if you will sign a
lease to them (or advise to sign).
Enclosed we send you a petition to the Surveyor General to
have the Aptos Rancho surveyed. Rafael Castro is willing at
present to call the Borregas Gulch his western boundry and
we think it best to have this matter settled now before he
changes his mind again•••••••••••rnore on this subject will be
forth corning.
We are all very anxious to have the survey of the Soquel Ran
cho and the Augrnento completed, which will enable us to better
sustain injunction or ejection suits if they are needed.
NOTE: From his letter, and being elected to lead the
persons down in Santa Cruz County concerned with ownership
140
�1858-BOUNDRY
DISPUTES
APRIL 25, 1858 (Continued)
in both ranches, Frederick A. Hihn's siding with the Rever
and John Ingoldsby and his attorney John Wilson is inter
esting to say the least, because to this point he is claiming
ownership to 9/54ths undivided parts in Rancho Soquel and
3/54ths of the Augmentation (of which only portions of his
claimed ownership are legal unbeknownst to him at the time).
It would seem that Hihn was playing both ends of the "game"
that was presently in process, of which who would win and
who would loose was dependent on the appeal that Robert F.
Peckham was preparing for the State's Supreme Court.
MAY 1858 (EARLY)
Sometime in the month of May the Soquel Turnpike was completed
and ready for travelers. Even though opened to traffic, it
still would require a great amount of work before it would
compete successfully with the Santa Cruz Turnpike.
MAY 13 1 1858- LETTER
In his letter to John Wilson, Augustas Noble states that the
surveyors have finished the survey of the Augmento Ranch. We
tried to get them to adjust the first or lower line of the
northwest boundry•••••viz •••••beginning at the northwest
corner of the Soquel Ranch as you well see in the plot (map)
that I have enclosed••••••••but they say that the case must
be argued before the Surveyor General who will decided which
is proper.
In the plot you will see the two lines they have run, we want
the lower line adapted taking in Holcombs.
The tract of land around Holcomb's was known as the PALO de la
YESKA RANCH just as the tract between the Soquel River and
Borregas Gulch was known as the Soquel Ranch "or tract" and
it was the PALO YESKA RANCH or tract of land that the old
woman asked for in her (request).
Near Holcomb's house a field stood with a PALO YESKA or PUNK
TREE, and near it were several trees and away was the river
where they have formed the upper line in the plot stood another
and perhaps forty more between them, but the old woman asked
for the PALO YESKA RANCHO tract, because it was the only
vacant pasture land adjoining her ranch.
Now Rafael Castro is in the city, (if) I could find him
here I would try to get his affidavit••••••••r understand he
will sign what I have stated, and if he comes back in
(reasonable time) I will get his affidavit and send it to
you.
Rafael is in the city most of the time lately, attending to
his lawsuit and I understand he is dissatisfied with the
survey of his ranch. Bolcoff will say the same, if I can find
I� I
�1858-BOUNDRY DI SPUTES
MAY 13 1 1858 (Con
tinued)
any others I will
try and get their
affidavates and
send them to you next
week. Should they
adopt the other line
we shall lose one third
the value of the Augmento Ranch.
We now have a road over
the mountains, and another �
from Santa Cruzo Give my
regards to Mr. Courtes and
\
I am yours truly ••••••
signed by Augustas Noble
MAY 23 1 1858- LETTER
l
�\�
�
In his letter to John Wilson,
Charles McKiernan states•••••••.
received your note on Thursday
last requesting me to see Noble
and Henry Peck about having the
lines of the ranch where they ought
to be. The line has been run I bel
ieve right at first.
I have been with the surveyors when
they ran the first line commencing
at the northwest corner of the Soq
uel Ranch and running a direct line
to the lagoon.
After the line was run Holcomb got
a drunkin Spaniard to swear
that the Palo de Yeska
was the corner of the
ranch a mile and a half
up the river from the corner of
the Soquel Ranch. He got them to
run a line from there to the lag
oon.
B�
SKETCH ACCOMPANYING
AUGUSTAS NOBLE' s
LETTER dated 5/13/1858
I had a talk with Augustas Noble
and Henry Peck and Frederick A. Hihn. Peck said the surveyors
told him that both lines run would be sent to the Surveyor
General and it would be for him to say which was the right
one. Like ways they said whatever proof we might offer would
have to be before the Surveyor General. Also Peck has told me
that Rafael Castro has run his line (his west boundry) and
142
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
MAY 231 1858 (Continued)
taking a third of the Soquel Ranch.
NOTE: What Charley was attempting to say
that Rafael Castro was claiming that his
at the mouth of Borregas Gulch (which it
there it did not follow the route of the
instead headed directly north, following
line.
in his letter was
west boundry began
did), but from
gulch north, but
along a straight
If this disputed line was accepted, then the Porters'
tannery (along Tannery Creek- today Porter Gulch) would
be within Rafael's Rancho Aptos land.
Charley continues in his letter•••••••••I expect we will have
to prove our boundries. I expect you will have to get Jose
Bolcoff. He may know of some others which will prove to them
(the proper east boundry of Rancho Soquel). If you think that
he had better comedown I will send you an order for this•••••
•••••••the rest of Charley's letter is unreadable, making
little or no sense•••••••
MAY 24 1 1858- DEED
In this deed attorney (or Judge?) James Scarborough sells to
Cyrus Coe of San Francisco for $3,000 ($42,000) his remaining
l/8th claim to land in both ranches. With this sale, James
Scarborough releases himself of any claim to land in both
ranches. John Wilson still has his l/8th undivided part
claim to land in both ranches under his ownership
MAY 25 1 1858- LETTER
In this letter to John Wilson, Augustas Noble begins••••••in
answer to your earlier question•••••••Jose Bolcoff, who put
Martina in possession of the Augmento, he has given the
information to the heirs and they had it surveyed by Thomas
w. Wright whose deposition we can have if necessary.
To answer your second question••••••••the old lady is living
with Ricardo Juan and is said to be as "sound" in mind as
she has been for several years according to a friend that has
known her for some three years.
As for your third question••••••••••I met with Charley in
Santa Cruz with Frederick A. Hihn and we discussed the lower
Augmento boundry line, and when Bolcoff arrives, with his
assistance we may be able to work out the problem with Raf
ael Castro in establishing it. There is no doubt that the
lower line is correct.
MAY 26 1 1858- DEED
In this deed, Cyrus Coe, who had just purchased l/8th undiv
ided parts of both ranches from James Scarborough, sells
2/3rds of his l/8th claim in both ranches to an attorney
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
MAY 26, 1858 (ContiBued)
Thomas Courtis for $2,000 ($28,000). Also stated in the deed
was an option that allowed Courtis to purchase the remaining
1/3rd of Coe•s l/8th at a later date.
NOTE: Due to the loss of so many records during the 1906
Earthquake and following fires, I have not been able to find
anything written concerning this man. What little is
known we must depend on available court testimony and rec
orded deeds and agreements. We know that he was an attorney
living in San Francisco, and he was a good, personnel
friend of both John Wilson and James Scarborough. He also
had more than a passing friendship with Augustas Noble,
and the three envolved priests, the Archbishop Joseph
Alemany, Father John Llebaria and the Reverand John Ingold
sby.
Thomas Courtis first enters Martina Castro's story in 1857,
being referenced in letters from the Soquel area to John
Wilson, then again enters, this time in the above dis
cussed deed. He will continually reenter our story, step
by step becoming the central figure in the attempt by the
Catholic priests to acquire complete and total ownership
and control of Martina's two ranches•••••••••••••
MAY 26 1 1858- DEED
If deeds and court records are scrutinized, Joseph L. Majors
name appears many times, mostly due to his financial woes.
Many times he was before the court, facing charges on non
payment of a debt. Because of an unpaid debt prior to the
above date the court ordered what they thought was his
1/18th claim to land in both ranches, and his additional
properties within Ranchos Refugio and San Augustine be auct
ioned off to the highest bidder. With a bid of $1,250 ($17,500)
Charles H. Willson of Marin County acquired the three proper
ties. Of the original bid, $300 was for the 1/18th undivided
parts in Martina's former ranches. When Willson signed the
Sheriff's deed on the above date, he assumed incorrectly that
he had purchased 1/18th parts in both Rancho Soquel and in
the Augmentation ••••this deed will be discussed again shortly.
JUNE 11 1858- DEED of SALE
On this date the final papers are signed transferring owner
ship of the tannery on Tannery Gulch from the Ricardo Juans•
to Benjamin F. Porter.
JUNE 9 1 1858- DEED
In this deed, Benjamin P. Green of San Francisco (one of the
three that entered into deeds with John Ingoldsby and his
attorneys John Wilson and James Scarborough on May 3, 1856
in which he purchased l/12th individed parts of both ranches),
sold 3/lOths of his 1/12th claim in both ranches to William
14�
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
Ireland, also of San Francisco. William paid Green a total of
$900 ($12,600). After this sale, Benjamin P. Green still
owned a total of 1/lOth of his original l/12th claim in both
ranches.
JUNE 19, 1858- DEED
In this deed, Augustas Noble, owner of 1/12th undivided parts
of both ranches sells 1/2 of his 1/12th claim to land in the
Augmentation (a claim for 1/24th undivided part) to Roger
Gibson Hinckley and his son-in-law John Lafayette Shelby.
The two partners paid Augustas a total of $750 ($10,500).
The HINCKLEY & SHELBY SAWMILL
Because Roger Hinckley and John Shelby built a waterpowered
sawmill along Soquel Creek just to the northeast of Hinckley
Creek history has their profession listed as "loggers."
Actually the two were much more interested in raising
cattle and cultivating the land. When they entered into the
deed with Augustas Noble they decided to settle within the
vicinity of Hinckley Creek (unnamed at this time) and
Soquel Creek. They chose the area because of the flat, open
land that lie along the west side of Soquel Creek, south
of Sugarloaf Mountain••••••• much of the area today is
occupied by the Olive Springs Quarry Company's way-in stat
ion••••••••and the many, large redwoods that were growing
around the clear areas.
Shortly after the deed is signed the two partners are
busily constructing a water-powered sawmill next to Soquel
Creek. To supply the mill's necessary water with sufficient
force to operate the saws, the two went far up the side of
the ridge along the south side of what would soon be called
Hinckley Creek and tapped the water available from Spignet
Creek's north branch (the creek was unnamed at this time).
They brought the water down the side of the gulch in a flume,
then ran the water into what is called a mill race. This
latter device would continually narrow, forcing the water
to accelerate at an ever faster velocity, at a speed that
would move the water-powered saws in the mill when the
water reached there.
When the mill race reached Hinckley Creek, the turn to
reach the mill down along Soquel Creek was too sharp,
therefore they dug a tunnel through the narrow ridge
between the two creeks (today the ridge is called Santa
Rosalia Ridge•••••••for a period "Hogsback Ridge). The
tunnel is still there to this day, waiting to be crawled
through.
Besides the mill building, flume and mill race, the fac
ilities included the necessary support buildings for the
mill, such as a cookhouse, bunkhouse and several out
houses. When all facilities were complete, they looked
145
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
JUJ\JE 19, 1858 (Continued)
The HINCKLEY & SHELBY SAWMILL
(Continued)
for a buyer, soon to find him in the person of Richard Savage••••••••••••••
JULY 3 2 1858- DEED
Joseph L. Majors found himself once again in court being faced
with another order to auction off property to pay for an
unpaid debt. The court ordered that his undivided 1/18th
claim to land in both Rancho Sequel and the Augmentation be
sold. In the ensuing auction the high bidder at $175 ($2,450)
was Frederick A. Hihn•••••••••later, during the partitioning
suits brought on by Hihn, Charles B. Younger would decree that
the 1/18th undivided parts sold by Majors to Charles H.
Willson on May 26, 1858 and the l/18th sold to Hihn were the
same claims••••••• and •••••••••• that originally Jones Hoy had
a claim only for land in Rancho Soquel when he entered into
the deed July 25, 1853 ••••••••• we will leave this latest sale
here with both men believing that they have a l/18th claim to
land in both ranches••••••••••••
JULY 2 4 , 1858- IB TTER
��-6,...,..0
':, ?-\.,
�
No R_,__� 1 ____
In this letter to John Wilson
Augustas Noble writes••••Jose
Bolcoff has been here. Gone up
the Soquel, and shown are
what he says are the boundries
of the Augmentation. He knows
nothing about the Palo Yeska,
but shows a pine tree back of
Holcomb's home which has to be a
boundry (marker), from there
the line runs to and took
in Beans place.
If this is so, it would be
better to have a new survey
providing there is no danger of
the squatters raising a mess and
carrying back our case to the
u.s. District Court.
If we can get the Surveyor Gen
eral to adopt the lower line,
viz, commencing at the northwest
corner of Soquel Ranch as it
is already surveyed and run
in a direct line to the Laguna
ll!G
SKETCH ACCOMPANYING
AUGUSTAS NOBLE' s
LETTER DATED 7/24/1858
�'
..
\
HINCKIBY & SHE_LBY/SAVAGE SAWMILL
l
14 7
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
JULY 24, 1858 (Continued)
Sarjento, according to the enclosed plot we should be as well
off as to have a new survey. You well see on the map there are
two lines on the northwest boundry. We want the lower one
adopted, this will be about as well for us to have a new
survey.
But in case a new survey is done Bolcoff better
the surveyors unless the Surveyor General gives
instructions which they cannot depart from when
here before they appeared to have none and were
misled by any squatter they met in the hills.
come
them
they
able
down with
positive
were
to be
P.S. I shall be in the city in two or three weeks and will
then show you what we should lose or where we gain by a
new survey.
AUGUST 7, 1858- DEED
Augustas Noble, for $750 ($10,500) sells his remaining claim
in the Augmentation, 1/2 of his original l/12th or l/24th, to
Judge Craven P. Hester. This purchase of land by Hester was
necessary to replace the 320 acres of School Land Warrant land
that he had purchased from the government earlier and now was
"floated" to another location because it was discovered to be
within a Mexican land grant. The earlier warrant land was
located within the vicinity of Skyland Ridge and included
today's Redwood Lodge settlement, on which he had built a
homesite with several additional buildings. With this pur
chase Hester was able to keep his homesite and make addit
ional improvements.
AUGUST 14, 1858- INGOLDSBY versus WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS
When William Otis Andrews signed the deed May 3, 1856 with
the Reverand John Ingoldsby in which he agreed to pay him
$2,000 ($28,000) for l/12th undivided parts in both ranches,
he made a down payment, and signed a note for the balance.
On July 22, 1858 in a suit against William Otis Andrews,
Ingoldsby was awarded a total of $916 ($12,824), and on the
above date began his efforts to collect the money•••••••more
on this subject will be discussed shortly.
AUGUST 26, 1858- LETTER
In this letter to John Wilson, Augustas Noble states•••••I
should have answered your letter before this, but we have
been expecting to see those surveyors, while we have got
tired of waiting. On Saturday we had a meeting, viz Hihn,
Joshua Parrish, Henry Peck and myself, and drew up a petition
to the Surveyor General, which has been forwarded to you to
present to him. We think that you had better get the survey
of the Soquel Ranch adopted as soon as possible for the
following reasons••••••••••••••••••
148
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
AUGUST 26, 1858 (Continued)
Rafael Castro owns the adjoining ranch on the east of us
called Aptos Ranch. Now he says that his western boundry
calls for a line running due north from the mouth of Borregas
Gulch instead of following the route of the gulch. If he
should get it it would take a third of the Soquel Ranch, and
though he professes to be trying to get his ranch surveyed.
Still I am afraid he may be trying to spring some trick upon
us. I wish you would look at his grant and see what his
boundries are, and let me know as soon as possible.
If the surveyors come down, we think you had better send
Bolcoff. Henry Peck is afraid that Carlison (the head
surveyor) will not speak positively enough, but we can get
old Rafael Castro to say that••••••the PALO de la YESKA near
Holcomb's home, and I think we can find others who will say
the same.
Sometime we will send to San Juan to get those surveyors back
here, but Wallis, their headman has gone to Sonora and the
others were scattered all over the state. It would be all the
better if we could have new surveyors sent down, we would try
to have the survey finished in a (confused) state manner, and
rush them as much under our control as possible.
The new road (the Soquel Turnpike) will pass through territory
in dispute and we would like to have the land added to the
Augmento so that the "squatters" along the road can be ejected
as soon as possible.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1858- LETTER
In his letter to John Wilson, Augustas Noble tells John that
Juan Jose Castro, Martina's brother, was here and said the
Palo Yesca was where the surveyors put it, just below the
junction of Hinckley and Soquel creeks, so that his deposition
will not help us at allo He wanted $60 ($840) to go and
show it.
Thomas W. Wright will give his affadavit in regard to the Loma
Prieta (today Mount Thayer), but it will not help us any as
he says if we take in all the hill (of Mount Thayer) we
should be three miles from where the mines are at work, this
is confirmed by those that live there.
NOTE: The mines that Augustas mentions were most likely the
Quicksilver Mines located about three miles north of
Mount Thayer in Santa Clara County. Today the closed mines
are part of the Alamden Quicksilver County Park.
This brief mention of the mines gives us only a small
insight into the extent that Ingoldsby and John Wilson were
attempting to expand the boundries of the illegitimate Aug
mentation grant• earlier undefined boundries.
149
�1858-BOUNDRY DISPUTES
SEPTEMBER 28 2 1858- DEED
In this deed Judge Craven P. Hester sold 1/2 of the 1/2 of
Augustas Noble's l/12th (1/24th undivided part), or l/48th
of the Augmentation to his good friend Benjamin Farley of
Santa Clara County for $375 ($5,250), half of what he paid
Augustas Noble August 7, 1858.
Hester had earlier established a homesite on the former
School Warrant Land near today's Redwood Estates settlement,
and now Benjamin Farley joined him. The two would, besides the
homes, add other improvements, such as orchards and vineyards.
Because of the close friendship of the two, and Hester's
legal background, in the upcoming partitioning suits the
latter man would represent both himself and his friend Farley.
150
�CHAPTER 10
1859
A YEAR
FOR
DECISIONS
rs 1
�Intentially left blank.
152
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
JANUARY 28 1 1859-
SHERIF_F's DEED
Because Adolphe F, Branda was deliguent in his taxes for the
year 1858, the tax collector's office for Santa Cruz County
combined his two purchases, totaling l/30th of both Rancho
Soquel and the Augmentation, then ordered that they be auct
ioned off to the highest bidder, which on the above date was
Frederick A, Hihn, Hihn received a Sheriff's deed for the prop
erties,
SEE
APPENDlx·cr
IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
APPEAL FROM THE 7th DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA CO,
JANUARY TERM 1859 for INGOLDSBY vs, JUAN et al
by ROBERT F, PECKHAM
This is an action of ejectment (an action to secure or recover possession of
real property by the true owner) for Rancho Soquel.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court, but will probably be better
understood by setting forth the amended answer of the defendants represented by
Robert F. Peckham and Gregory Yale, The plaintiff (John Ingoldsby) is represented
by John Wilson.
COMMENT
Robert F, Peckham's appeal is for Rancho Soquel only, which involves the val
idity of Martina Castro's deed of August 29, 1850 and the deed signed by her
and Louis Depeaux with John Ingoldsby and Father Lohn Llebaria on January 22,
1855, Also involved is the deed dated September 10, 1855, in which the three
priests, namely John Ingoldsby, Father Llebaria and the Archbishop Joseph
Alemany make Ingoldsby the sole owner of Rancho Soquel (and the Augmentation
which is not part of this appeal),
The reason that Robert F. Peckham based his appeal only on Rancho Soquel, and
excluded the Augmentation, is that his amended answer was based mostly on the
amount of money the three priests paid to Martina as compared to the amount
of money that Martina and her children had invested over the years in Rancho
Soquel, Also, removing the Augmentation from his appeal removed the fraudul�
ent portion of the deed, the creation of the false grant by the Mexican Gov
ernment to Martina Castro,
ARGUMENTS BY JOHN WILSON
AGAINST VALIDITY OF MARTINA'S DEED
• Because the same is not the joint deed of conveyance of
Martina Castro and Louis Depeaux as husband and wife, so as
to transfer the right of Martina in the property named in
the same.
• That Martina Castro and Louis Depeaux were at the pretended
date and execution of the signing of the deed husband and
wife and did not join in the execution,
• That the deed on its face only purports to be the deed of
Martina Castro the wife of Louis Depeaux, and not the joint
deed of her and her husband Louis Depeaux.
• That the pretended consent endorsed on the back of the same
by Louis Depeaux the husband of the said Martina is not
153
�1859-A
YEAR FOR DECISIONS
ARGUMENTS BY JOHN WILSON
AGAINST VALIDITY OF MARTINA's DEED
(Continued)
under seal, has no date to it, contained no words of con
veyance, and is without consideration and is utterly void.
• That the pretended signatures of Martina Castro is not
proved: and that for this it cannot be given in evidence
unless her signature is proved.
• That Martina Castro whose signature (it is pretended) is
signed to the deed being a married woman when the same was
executed and delivered, therefore her execution thereof
cannot be proved in any other manner than that pointed out
by the statutes of conveyance and those defining the rights
of husband and wife.
• That it appears upon the face of the paper now offered in
evidence that the same is not the deed of Martina Castro
because there is evidence on the paper itself that she did
not assent to all the provisions therein set forth.
• That there is no acknowledgment of the paper offered before
any proper officer authorized to take acknowledgments of
married woman.
• That the pretended acknowledgment endorsed on the paper
offered are not in due form.
• That the pretended acknowledgment before Peter Tracy is
not endorsed or annexed to the pretended deed and it is not
shown he used the seal of the court.
• Because the said pretended deed was obtained from Martina
Castro by fraud and fraudulent misrepresentations of facts.
AMENDED ANSWER of DEFENDANTS
by ROBERT F. PECKHAM
That all the right, title or interest which Martina Castro
ever had in any part of the demanded premises, was held by her
before her marriage with Louis Depeaux, in 1849, and before the
adoption of the constitution of this State, and, that the prop
erty was her separate property.
That she, in August of 1850, with the knowledge, consent
and concurrance of her husband, made a deed, for a valuable con
sideration, purporting to convey to her children 8/9ths of
Rancho Soquel, which conveyed an equitable title, and converted
her into a trustee for their use and benefit.
That all the rights which the children took under that deed,
had, by several conveyances had settled with the defendants.
That the children entered into possession of the property
with the consent of Martina Castro and her husband, Louis Depeaux.
154
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
AMENDED ANSWER of DEFENDANTS
by ROBERT F. PECKHAM
(Continued)
And that they and the defendants had made improvements to
the amount of $18,700 ($261,800), which were now on the premises.
That the plaintiff John Ingoldsby and his co-tenant and
grantor subsequently purchased the premises, with reference to
her deed to her children, and with full and actual notice
thereof (in the deposition of Louis Depeaux), and that the price
paid by them of $2,000 ($28,000) was about l/9th part of the
premises, which she, in her deed, reserved to herself.
And that they (Ingoldsby and Llebaria) purchased with full
and actual notice of the rights of the defendants, of their
possession and of the value of their improvements.
And the defendants deny any interference with Martina or
the plaintiff (Ingoldsby), in the enjoyment of the remaining
1/9th part of the land sought to be recovered.
ANSWER to AMENDMENT by PLAINTIFF's
ATTORNEY JOHN WILSON
John Wilson, on behalf of his client John Ingoldsby moved to
strike out the amended answer upon the following grounds:
• Because the amendment is irrelevant
• Because the amendment sets up a sham (false) defense.
COURT RULING ON AMENDMENT
The court ruled that the amendment should be stricken out,
unless the defendants should elect to rely on such amendment to
the exclusion of the original answer.
The defendants refusing so to elect, the amendament was
stricken out, and the defendants excepted.
NOTE: While it is not obvious to the layman, what Robert F.
Peckham had achieved was the removal of the 7th District
Court's decision that Martina Castro's deed was obtained by
fraud and fraudulent misrepresentations of facts. This meant
that only the ten arguments preceeding the last one would
be considered by the high court. Against these points Robert
F. Peckham could argue, and argue successfully, establish
ing new rulings concerning the ACTS of April 16 and 17,
1850 when a woman's deed is involved that occurred before
California became a state or the Acts were written.
FEBRUARY 12, 1859- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
School Land Warrants Nos. 228, 327, 329 and 108, all claimed
155
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
FEBRUARY 12, 1859 (Continued)
by the estate of the deceased Peter Tracy (except for the
portion of No. 108 which was sold to Henry F. Parsons) are
"floated" to another location because they are now located
within a Mexican land grant, the Sequel Augmentation.
FEBRUARY 18 1 1859- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
School Land Warrants Nos. 353 and 354, sold to Henry Peck by
Thomas Fallon, and warrant No. 90 claimed by the estate of
Peter Tracy are all "floated" to another location on govern
ment land.
APRIL 13 2 1859- DEED
When Lyman Burrell settled along the Summit and built his
homesite during the 1853/1854 period, he considered the area
to be Public Domain, land open to the public for homesteading.
To his chagrin, when his homesite and cultivated land was
discovered by the U.S. Surveyors in 1858, he was served with
an eviction notice, probably by Charles "Mountain Charley"
McKiernan on behalf of John Ingoldsby and John Wilson. A
panicked Lyman Burrell quickly entered into a deed on the
above date with Antonia and Henry Peck. At the time Henry
was working with the Ingoldsby/Wilson forces because all con
sidered that the Catholic priest owned both of Martina's
ranches.
When he signed the deed, Lyman agreed to pay the Pecks $1,500
($21,000) for l/3rd of Antonia's l/9th, or l/27th of the Aug
mentation. Because he did not have the full amount of money
on hand, he gave Henry $1,000 ($14,000) and a note for the
balance of $500. There was no due date on the note when the
deed was signed.
APRIL 19, 1859- LETTER
In this letter from Frederick A. Hihn to John Wilson, Hihn
states•••••••I have seen several of the owners of the Soquel
Rancho and they seem to think favorable of securing your
services in the survey of the Augmento. There is a meeting
scheduled for next Saturday and I would like to know on what
terms that you would be willing to attend to the "alteration"
of the survey (of the Augmento), in other words, what would
you charge us? There are additional parties that will prob
ably join us in this matter. These additional persons are
several that claim title through the three deeds that Ingold
sby, John Wilson and James Scarborough entered into (with
Augustas Noble, Benjamin P. Green and William Otis Andrews).
APRIL 21, 1859- DEED
To review the situation between the Reverand John Ingoldsby
and William Otis Andrews••••• the latter man still owes John
156
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
APRIL 21, 1859 (Continued)
Ingoldsby a total of $ 916 ($12,824) from the deed of May 3,
1856. On July 22, 1858 Ingoldsby went to court and on August
14, 1858 he received his judgment against Andrews, and began
his attempts to recover the balance due him.
Before John Ingoldsby could serve William Otis Andrews with
court papers, he died. Therefore the court ordered, based on
the percentage of the balance due Ingoldsby, that the same
percentage of his original 1/12th claim to land in both ran
ches be sold at public auction.
On the above date, at the auction George K. Porter was high
bidder with a bid of $740 ($10,360), acquiring 7 /270th
undivided parts in both ranches. The Sheriff's deed was
signed by the San Francisco Sheriff.
APRIL 26, 1859- LETTER
In his letter to John Wilson, Frederick A, Hihn thanked
Wilson for accepting the offer of his supporters down here
in Sequel to handle the legal responsibility for the new
survey of the Augmento. I have made Henry Peck, George K.
Porter (the newest owner of land) Ricardo Juan, Joseph
Averon, all claimants to the Augmentation acquainted with
your offer and all accepted. You will please to inform me
when it will be convenient for you to come down so as we
can have time to get the witnesses ready
APRIL 2 9, 1859- DEED
Luisa and Ricardo Juan sell 1/3rd of Luisa's l/9th claim (a
total of 1/27th undivided part ) to land in both ranches to
Frederick A, Hihn for $1,100 ($15,400), of which Hihn pays
$375 ($5,250) directly to the Juans and the balance he agrees
to pay to three men that Ricardo is in debt to, Frederick A,
Hihn promises to pay the men $375 ($5,250) on NOVEMBER 1,
1859 and $350 ($4,900) on NOVEMBER 1, 1860,
INGOLDSBY vs. JUAN DECISION by STATE SUPREME COURT
JUNE 1859
SEE APPEN01x·cr
When Robert F, Peckham, by clever manipulation had removed from the high court's
consideration that Martina Castro's deed was obtained by fraud and fraudulent
misrepresentations of facts, arguments over the other ten complaints by John
Wilson against the validity of Martina's deed began, with John Wilson arguing
for and Robert F. Peckham arguing against. After considering all arguments,
Justice Baldwin, on the points considered, declared Martina's deed valid.
JUSTICE BALDWIN STATED: "We have avoided the expression of any opinion upon many
_
questions presented by the record, and have assumed some positions more for
the purpose of argement than with a view to decide them, the real question
passed upon being the validity of the deed from Martina Castro and Louis Depeaux."
"We expressly leave open the question whether a grant, made in the usual form
157
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
INGOLDSBY vs, JUAN DECISION by STATE SUPREME COURT
JUNE 1859
and with the usual cond�tions, by the Mexican authorities, to a married per
son, creates a separate estate or common property, The court erred in striking
out the answer setting this defense,"
"The error in excluding this defense, founded on this deed, is sufficient to
reverse the judgment below, and probably, deciees the entire controversy."
"Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings, in pursuance of
this opinion."
JUNE 3 • 1859 - LETTER
In his letter to John Wilson, Frederick A. Hihn discusses how
the backers mentioned in the previous letter intended to pay
him his fee, and how anxious he is to have the Augmento
resurveyed because the "squatters" are making serious inroads
into the timber•••••••Hihn is discussing the logginq of
Joel Bates along Bates Creek and the sawmill completed by
Roger Hinckley and his son-in-law John Shelby that was
waiting for a buyer to operate.
JUNE 4, 1859
On the two Plats, one for the SHOQUEL RANCHO (Rancho Sequel)
and the other for the SHOQUEL AUGMENTATION RANCHO (the Sequel
Augmentation), J.W. Mandenlly, the Surveyor General for the
United States wrote identical statements••••••"the field
notes of the "Shoquel Rancho" •••••• or the "Shoquel Augmen
tation Rancho"•••••and from which this Plat has been made
out, have been examined and approved and are on file in this
Office.
U.S. Surveyor Generals Office
San Francisco California
June 4th 1859
With the signing of the two Plats, finally put to rest were
the attempts by John Ingoldsby and his attorney John Wilson
to have added along the west side of the Augmentation an
additional 7,000 plus acres. Also when the Plat for Rancho
Sequel was signed, this ended Rafael Castro's attempt to
increase his Rancho Aptos along the west side of Borregas
Gulch.
COMMENTS and SUMMARY
After the State Supreme Court reversed the judgment that
Martina Castro's deed was illegal and did not state her true
wishes concerning her heirs both the Reverand John Ingoldsby
and Father John Francis Llebaria vanished from the local scene,
almost what seemed to persons, to be overnight. Rumors began
158
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
SHOQVEL
AU,HE"tvTATIOt..J
RAtvc.HO
��
�
�
"=>HOQUE'\..
PLAT of the SHOQUEL RANCHO
finally confirmed to
MARTINA CASTRO 1,668 3/100 Acres
1 inch = 2,000 feet
COMMENTS and SUMMARY
(Continued)
to circulate as they well when a prominate priest abruptly
leaves the scene. Rumors such as••••••• they were defrocked and
excommunicated. But concerning the disappearance of these two
priests, this was not what occurred. If they had been defrocked
and excommunicated they could never serve the Catholic Church
in any capacity, and later Father Llebaria was traced to Mexico
where he was active as a padre there, while the Reverand John
Ingoldsby, never a healthy, robust man turned up back in
Chicago performing in a parish there.
Following, based on recorded deeds and court testimony, is
what probably occurred•••••••••with both the State Supreme
Court's decision and the final Plats being signed by the
Surveyor General establishing the boundries of the Augmentation
15 9
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
COMMENTS and SUMMARY
(Continued)
not as both John Ingoldsby and his attorney John Wilson had
fought so hard for, but establishing them for the convenience
of the persons living along the west side of Sequel Creek
from the point where Bates Creek merges north to the vicinity
of Hinckley Creek, Archbishop Joseph Alemany, fearing the
bad publicity that was sure to begin, decided that the easiest
"out" for the church was to remove from the scene the two main
culperts. Already under pressure from his critics (and there
were many), Alemany cancelled the two priests license to
function as a Catholic priest in his See, this action is called
the "Removal of Facilities."
Next, the Archbishop gave the two an Exeat, which is a doc
ument that gave them leave from the Diocese, stating the reason
for their leaving. Without an Exeat, the two priests could not
perform duties for the church in any diocese or See, anywhere.
In this way the Archbishop Alemany removed the two from the
scene, punishing them within church laws, all with as little
acknowledgment of the church's part (and his own part) in the
whole affair as possible.
If the Archbishop Alemany had defrocked and excommunicated
the two priests, this would have admitted their guilt, as well
as his own, the guilt of the Catholic Church, and in turn he
would have had to answer to the church's hierarchy and explain
the poor judgment he had demostrated in allowing the two
priests to perform their church duties in his See, something
that Alemany chose not to do because he was "under fire" so
to speak on several subjects at the time. He simply did not
want to give his critics additional "ammunition" to use against
him.
Shortly after he arrived in Chicago John Ingoldsby died.
The exact date is unknown, but in later court testimony it is
stated he died shortly before January 1, 1860.
The disappearing from the local scene of the two priests
was not the only noticeable change. There was the rather abrupt
change in alliances that existed between the persons claiming
ownership of Martina's ranches through John Ingoldsby and his
attorneys and the heirs of Martina and their grantees. This
change of alliance was especially noticeable in Frederick A.
Hihn.
Up to the Supreme Court's reversal of the lower court's
decision, Frederick A. Hihn considered John Ingoldsby's cause
just, as did Robert F. Peckham••••••later in court testimony
Peckham would admit that not only at the time he was fighting
John Wilson, but even when he was testifying, he felt that
Ingoldsby was the owner of both ranches legitimately. Because
he felt that Ingoldsby's cause was just Hihn backed his effort
160
�1858-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
LOT ajc,_ l7 /
T�5RtW
I ._,OICAiE"S
...-/ RA.VIIJ["
:S,
LOT t-Jo.37
1C,SRtC
o.3,7
L01 �
,,osR1t"
PLAT of the SHOQUEL AUGMENTATION RANCHO
finally confirmed to
MARTINA CASTRO 32 1 702 41/100 Acres
1/2 inch = 3,880 feet
IGI
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
COMMENTS and SUMMARY
(Continued)
planning (probably) to achieve his goals through Ingoldsby
rather than through Martina's heirs.
Now with the Supreme Court changing his present course,
Hihn never caught without alternate plans, decided that now was
the time to establish ownership claims within both ranches,
both for himself and for the other legal claimants. Establishing
legal ownership would greatly simplify his acquiring additional
land, especially from Martina's financially troubled heirs.
Hihn decided that ownership claims could be established
only through court suits because of the confusion created
through the sales by John Ingoldsby and his attorneys and the
Martina heirs as grantors, then their grantees becoming sellors.
Wanting Robert F. Peckham as his attorney in the two suits,
which from the beginning Hihn felt was necessary because both
the Land Commission and the courts treated each of the grants
as a separate area, he approached Peckham. Robert F. Peckham
agreed to be the attorney for the plaintiffs in the two suits,
stating his initial fee would be $1,500 ($21,000) for each
suit.
With the acceptance of Robert F. Peckham as attorney for
the two suits, Hihn wanted someone to be the plaintiff for
the suit to establish ownership claims in Rancho Soquel. With
someone else being the plaintiff for the smaller ranch, this
would allow him to concentrate on the larger area, the Aug
mentation. Hihn didn't have to look far for his plaintiff, he
looked no farther than Henry Peck, a man that he found easy to
control and manipulate. Hihn approached Henry, asking him to
be the plaintiff for his Rancho Soquel suit, and Henry agreed
to so serve. He also agreed to pay half of Robert F. Peckham's
initial fee. With both Peckham and Henry Peck on his side,
Hihn began planning the next move, the issuing of a Summons
and Complaint for each suit••••o•o•oo••
ADOLPHE F. BRANDA
On May S, 1856 Branda purchased from Benjamin P. Green
1/lOth of Green's 1/12th undivided claim to land in both
of Martina's ranches••••
then on September 29, 1856 he
purchased from William Otis Andrews 3/lOths of his l/12th
claim to land in both ranches•••••••the two transactions
totalling 4/lOths of 1/12th, or l/30th of Rancho Soquel and
l/30th of the Augmentation.
0 • •
For the tax year of 1858 Adolphe F. Branda did not pay his
taxes which resulted in the following action by the County
of Santa Cruz tax collector•••••••••••
IG2
�1859 -A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
JUNE 28, 1859- TAX COLLECTORS DEED
To review•••on JANUARY 28, 1859 Frederick A. Hihn bid on the
1/30th undivided parts that Adolphe F. Branda claimed ownership
of in both Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation, and as high bid
der he was given a Sheriff's deed.••Branda's two claims were
being auctioned because he was deliquent in paying the due
taxes for the year 1858. On the above date Frederick A. Hihn
was given a tax collectors deed for Branda's 1/30th claim.
JULY 181 1859- PROBATE COURT DEED
While the above proceedings were transpiring down in Santa Cruz
County, Adolphe F. Branda died without leaving a will. In San
Francisco County the Probate Court ordered that his two
claims to land in the ranches down in Santa Cruz County be
sold to the highest bidder at an auction. With a high bid
of $1,500 ($21,000), Frederick W. Macondray was now the owner
of the 1/30th undivided parts according to the San Francisco
Probate Court.
NOTE: Do not forget these two transactions, because the fate
of the Soquel/Capitola/Aptos areas depend on who retains
ownership of Adolphe F. Branda's former l/30th claim to land
in both Rancho Soquel and in the Soquel Augmentation••••••
especially in the latter area ••••••••••••••
AUGUST 13, 1859- DEED
For a discussion of this deed's origin see the AUGUST 11, 1855
entry in Chapter 5. As discussed in Chapter 5 Durrell Gregory
considered himself the owner of 8/54th undivided parts of
both Rancho Soquel and in the Augmentation after he entered
into the deed with several of Martina's heirs, Joseph L.
Majors and Pruitt Sinclair.
In this deed Benjamin F. Porter, for $1,000 ($14,000) purchased
from Durrell s. Gregory his 8/54ths in both ranches. Later,
during the two partitioning suits planned by Frederick A.
Hihn, it would be decreed that only Pruitt Sinclair had land
to sell when he jointly entered into the deed with Durrell
Gregory, and his right was 1/54th in Rancho Soquel only. But
to this point Benjamin F. Porter considered himself the owner
of 8/54ths in both ranches plus the five acre tannery in
Rancho Soquel he had recently purchased from the Juans.
AUGUST 17 1 1859- DEED
In this deed just turned 21 Miguel Lodge, Martina's son, and
his brother-in-law Ricardo Juan enter into a deed with Henry
Cambustan in which they give to Henry 1/4 of both Rancho
Soquel and the Augmentation for "services" rendered. This
deed is nearly identical to the deed signed by Martina and
Louis Depeaux with Henry March 7, 1854, then in early 1858
Louis is in San Francisco having his signature notarized.
r 63
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
AUGUST 17, 1859 (Continued)
The earlier deed signed by Martina and Louis Depeaux will not
be discussed here, it was aptly covered in Chapters 2 and 3.
But the supposed reason for this latest deed will•••••it is
obvious that Henry is (probably) threatening to tell the truth
about his actions in early 1844••••••that he did survey the
"Palo de la Yesca" addition that Louis and Martina wanted added
to their Rancho Soquel••••••and if he were to tell the truth
even at this late date, the Augmentation grant could still be
rejected.
AUGUST 26 1 1859- DEED
On this date Frederick A. Hihn sold to Frederick W. Macondray
of San Francisco 45.8 acres, more or less, in Rancho Soquel
for $1,500 ($21,000). Because his deed dated June 28, 1859 by
the Santa Cruz County tax collector was signed twenty days
before the Probate Court Court's deed was signed and presented
to Frederick w. Macondray July 28, 1859 in San Francisco, Hihn
considered, and correctly, that his deed took precedence. While
Hihn was correct in his assumption, he did own the l/30th un
divided part in both ranches, in this deed he mistakenly des
cribed the land being sold as lying within the boundries of the
combined Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation. In other words,
while he correctlly stated that the 45.8 acres lie within the
Soquel Township, when he combined the two ranches description,
this was a mistake that he would pay for later•..this deed
affecting the entire Soquel/Capitola/Aptos areas will again be
discussed ••••••shortly!
AUGUST 29 1 1859- DEED
W hen Miguel Lodge turned 21 he was living with Antonia and
Henry Peck. If an article that appeared in the Santa Cruz
Sentinal is to be believed that quoted a speech made by
Frederick A. Hihn at the 25th anniversary of the founding
of Camp Capitola on June 18, 1895, then Henry Peck tricked
Miguel into selling him for $500 ($7,000) his l/9th claim to
land in both ranches. The article is quoted in its entirety
in the SUPPLEMENT, the life and times of Maria Antonia Peck.
The article will not be repeated here•••••••••only to comment
that when Miguel signed the deed Henry became the owner of
a l/9th claim to land in both ranches.
SEPTEMBER 14 1 1859- DEED
In early 1858 a small company operated by the brothers Wes
ley and William Burnett, calling the company the "Wesley
Burnett & Company" purchased land along the west side of
Soquel Creek within the vicinity of the old Mountain School.
They built a small sawmill, complete with millpond and other
supporting facilities, keeping all facilities along the west
side of the creek.
On the above date Antonia and Henry Peck sold l/54th undivided
164
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
SEPTEMBER
14 1 1859 (Continued)
part of the Augmentation to the brothers for $750 ($10,500).
When the land was sold, Henry Peck was representing John
Ingoldsby and John Wilson.
SEPTEMBER 29 1 1859- DEED
John Harnes and Pruitt Sinclair jointly claimed that they
still owned 3/54th undivided parts of the Augmentation. For
debts that the two owed jointly, a total of $925 ($12,950),
the court ordered that their claim in the Augmentation be
combined with properties in downtown Santa Cruz and along
Corralitos Creek and auctioned to the highest bidder, which
was Frederick A, Hihn with a bid of $1,425 ($19,950), During
the partitioning suit for the Augmentation, this Sheriff's
deed was declared void due to improper execution of the deed
by the Sheriff,
OCTOBER 13, 1859- LETTER
In his letter to John Wilson, Judge Craven P. Hester writes:
Since I saw you last Judge Hoffman has decided the boundry
question, and from the decision, if objections are-made to
the survey, the District Court will entertain objections and
establish the boundry.
NOTE: Judge Hoffman was the u.s. District Judge that had
presided during the UoS. District Attorney's appeal against
granting Martina's request for the Augmentation.
Hester continued••, •• I desire to know what you have done in
the Augrnento to date, perhaps you should file the survey and
make the necessary objections to the boundry if you think it
should be contested, that the proper testimony may be heard
and the boundry finally established so that a patent may be
issued. Please let me know what you intend to do, the parties
interested desire the matter closed as soon as possible.
OCTOBER 19 1 1859- DEEDS
Two deeds on the above date were signed. In the first one
Wesley Burnett & Company sold to partners Francis R. Brady
and Benjamin Cahoon Nichols the land they owned along the west
side of Soquel Creek, between the creek and old Mountain
School. Included within the sale was the sawmill and its
supporting facilities. The sale price was $4,000 ($56,000).
In the second deed Wesley Burnett & Company sold to the two
partners their l/54th undivided claim to land in the Aug
mentation for $750 ($10,500). The l/54th claim in the Aug
mentation was located opposite the land sold along the
west side of Soquel Creek.
165
�1859 -A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
NOVEMBER 14 1 1859 - AGREEMENT
To review the Roger Hinckley and John Shelby purchase of
1/24th undivided part of the Augmentation from Augustas
Noble on June 19, 1858•••••••••When the two purchased the
l/24th claim to land in the Augmentation they settled within
the vicinity of where Hinckley Creek (unnamed at this time)
joins Soquel Creek. They were attracted to the area because
it met their requirements for cultivating and raising cattle,
plus there were many large redwoods nearby.
Needing money to cultivate the land and purchase cattle, they
decided to build a water-powered sawmill along the east side
of Soquel Creek just to the north of Hinckley Creek, supplying
the mill with water from the south side of Hinckley Creek.
When the mill and its supporting facilities were completed,
they began looking for a buyer, adding to the deal 1/4 of
their l/24th undivided claim to land (this would leave the
two partners l/32nd and the buyer of the mill l/96th of the
Augmentation).
On the above date Roger Hinckley and his son-in-law John
Shelby entered into an agreement with Richard Savage in which
Richard agreed to pay the two $1,800 ($25,200} for
the mill, the supporting facilities and tne l/96th claim.
NOVEMBER 21 1 1859- DEED
Before Antonia and Henry Peck signed their deed with Joel
Bates, Henry Peck signed a release to the lease that grantors
Peter Tracy and Thomas w. Wright signed with Joel Bates
June 16, 1853. The lease signed earlier allowed Joel to log
and cultivate on School Land Warrants No. 353 and 354 along
Bates Creek. After the lease was signed Joel built a steam
powered sawmill, the first such facility within the confines
of the Augmentation, along the west side of Bates Creek just
to the south of where the creek is joined by Grover Gulch's
creek (at the end of today 0 s Prescott Road).
After the release was signed, Henry and Antonia entered into
a deed in which he purchased a total of l/27th undivided part
of the Augmentationo Joel chose the land that lie to the north
of his mill along the west side of Grover Gulch.
DECEMBER 10 2 1859- DEED
In this deed Roger Hinckley and John Shelby sold their water
powered sawmill, millpond, flume and mill race and the mill's
supporting buildings, plus 1/4 of their l/24th claim to land
in the Augmentation, the sale totaling l/96th undivided part,
all for $1,800 ($25,200) to Richard Savage. Richard agreed to
make monthly payments for the land and facilities.
166
�1859-A YEAR FOR DECISIONS
JOHN INGOLDSBY DIES IN CHICAGO
THOMAS COURTIS APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR
When Robert F. Peckham's appeal to the State Supreme Court
was accepted and the lower court's decision that Martina's deed
was fraudulent was overturned, this decision did not put to rest
the charges brought on by the Reverand John Ingoldsby through
his attorney John Wilson. The most damaging charge, that the
deed (the pretended deed) was obtained from Martina Castro by
fraud and fraudulent misrepresentations of facts still had not
been reviewed by the upper court. This part of the charges
put before the lower court and accepted as legitimate will sur
face again, twice in fact, once each in each of Frederick A.
Hihn's partitioning suits.
When John Ingoldsby died after returning to Chicago, per
forming in a parish there for a short period, Thomas Courtis
is appointed the administrator of John's estate. Courtis now
claims all of the lands that John Ingoldsby owned in Santa Cruz
County, which consisted mostly of Martina Castro's two grants.
As our story continues, Thomas Courtis, step by step becomes
the central figure in the Catholic priests attempt to acquire
ownership of Martina's ranches, while at the same time a new
adversary is emerging down in Soquel in the person of Frederick
A. Hihn with the assistance of Robert F. Peckham.
167
�Intentially left blank.
168
�CHAPTER 11
THE
PART IT ION ING
SUITS
SUMMONS
and
COMPLAINTS
FILED
169
�Intentially left blank.
110
170
�The PARTITIONING SUITS
SUMMONS and COMPLAINTS FII.ED
JANUARY 20 1 1860- DEED
BACKGROUND .•••••In the early 1850s James Taylor settled along
the narrow ridge that separates the east branch of Soquel
and Los Gatos creeks••••••at this early date the latter
creek was known as "James Creek"••••••••building a homesite
within the vicinity of today's Loma Prieta School along the
Summit Road. James claim to fame, brief as it was, came about
through Charles McKiernan and his encounter with a grizzly
bear on May 8, 1854. James was with Charley on the day the
bear attacked Charles and was instrumental in saving his
life.
On the above date James Taylor, for $500 ($7,000) purchased
a l/54th undivided claim to land in the Augmentation from
Benjamin F. Porter. When the deed was signed Porter thought
that he was the owner of 8/54ths of both ranches through his
earlier deed with D urrell s. Gregory on August 13, 1859.
Later Porter would find out that the l/54th part he sold to
James Taylor was the extent of his claim to land in both
ranches except for the five acre tannery he purchased from
the Juans' in Rancho Soquel on January 1, 1858.
Besides his homesite, James Taylor added a number of fruit
trees and several additional facilities to his land, but never
fully exploiting his entire claim.
PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit)
February 13, 186 0
SUMMONS
Henr y W. Peck
Antonia Peck
versus
F re derick A. H ih n et. a Is.
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
The People of the State of California, Greeting to
JOSEPH AVERON
GUADALUPE AVERON
JOSE DAVID LITTLEJOHN
HELENA LITTLEJOHN
RICARDO FOURCADE JUAN
LUISA JUAN
FRANCISCO YOUNG (Alias
FRANCISCO LAJEUNESSE)
NICANOR YOUNG
THOMAS FALLON
CARMEN FALLON
JOSHUA PARRISH
DR. JOHN P,P, VANDENBERG
PRUITT SINCLAIR
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
GEORGE K, PORTER
BENJAMIN F, PORTER
GEORGE H, KIRBY
CHARLES H, WILLSON
WILLIAM IRELAND
FREDERICK W, MACONDRAY
J,S,REED
WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS
(deceased)
MIGUEL LODGE
CHARLES PLUM
THOMAS COURTIS (in his own
right)
THOMAS COURTIS (as adminis
trator for BENJAMIN P.
GREEN)
171
�PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit)
February 13, 1860
SUMMONS
Henr y W. Peck
Antonia Peck
versus
Frederick A. Hihn et. als.
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
You are hereby required to appear in an action brought against you by the
above named plaintiffs in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of
the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Cruz, and to answer the
complaint filed herein•••••••a copy which accompanies this Summons ••••••• within
ten days, (exclusive of the day of service,) after the service on you of this
Summons, if served in the county (of Santa Cruz); or, if served out of this
county, but within this Judicial District, within twenty days; or, if served out
of said District, then within forty (40) days ••••••••• or judgment by default
will be taken against you according to the prayer of said complaint.
The said action is brought to procure a division of the following described
lands and tenements, situated in the State of California, County of Santa Cruz,
and known there as the Rancho Soque1 •••••••bounded on the southwest by the Bay
of Monterey ••••••••on the northwest by the Sequel River••••••••on the southeast
by the Borregas Gulch•••••••and on the northwest by the Upper Soquel Ranch,
containing about 2,800 acres, more or less.
And you are hereby notified that if you fail to appear and answer the said
complaint as the above required, the said plaintiffs will apply to the Court
for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the Third Judicial
District, of the State of California, in and for the
said County of Santa Cruz, this 13th day of February in
the year of our Lord One Thousand, Eight Hundred and
Sixty.
'Signed by D.J. Hasmal, Clerk
PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soguel Suit)
February 13, 1860
COMPLAINT
Henr y W. Peck
Antonia Peck
versus
F re d e r i c k A. H i h n e t . a I s .
JOSEPH AVERON
GUADALUPE AVERON
JOSE DAVID LITTLEJOHN
172
DR. JOHN P.P. VANDEN
BERG
PRUITT SINCLAIR
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS
(deceased)
CHARLES W. PLUM
�PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Sequel Suit)
February 13, 1860
COMPLAINT
Henr y W. Peck
Antonia Peck
versus
F re d erick A. H ih n et . a Is .
HELENA LITILEJOHN
RICARDO FOURCADE JUAN
LUISA JUAN
FRANCISCO YOUNG (Alias
FRANCISCO LAJEUNESSE)
NICANOR YOUNG
THOMAS FALLON
CARMEN FALLON
JOSHUA PARRISH
*
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
GEORGE K. PORTER
BENJAMIN F. PORTER
GEORGE H. KIRBY
CHARLES H. WILLSON
WILLIAM IRELAND
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY
J.s REED
MIGUEL LODGE
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
THOMAS COURTIS (in his own
right)
THOMAS COURTIS (as adminis
trator for BENJAMIN P.
GREEN)
*
*
MARY E.J. SLADE
HENRY LAWRENCE
In October of 1860 (the exact date is not recorded, an amended complaint
was served on the above defendants and plaintiffs, adding Mary E.J. Slade
and Henry Lawrence, both of San Francisco, to the complaint.
The plaintiffs, Henry w. Peck and Maria Antonia Peck, his wife, residents
of the County of Santa Cruz, complain of Frederick A. Hihn; Joseph Averon and
Maria Guadalupe Averon, his wife; Jose David Littlejohn and Maria Helena Little
john, his wife; Ricardo Fourcade Juan, and Maria Luisa Juan, his wife; Joshua
Parrish; Miguel Antonio Lodge; Benjamin F. Porter; Francisco Young (alias
Francisco Lajeunesse) and Nicanor Young, his wife; Pruitt Sinclair; Augustas
Noble; George K. Porter; and George H. Kirby•••••••••••••all residents of the
County of Santa Cruz••••••••••••••and Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg; J.s. Reed;
Thomas Fallon, and Carmen Fallon, his wife••••••••••••all residents of the
County of Santa Clara •••••••••••••and Charles H. Willson; William Ireland;
Frederick W. Macondray; Thomas Courtis (in his own right); and Thomas Courtis
(as administrator of Benjamin P. Green, William Otis Andrews and John Ingoldsby)
••••••••••••all of the County of San Francisco•••••••••••••all defendants, and
show to the Court that they the said plaintiffs and said defendants are seized
of in fee simple •••••••• a term that means, to wit: the absolute ownership with
unrestricted rights or disposition•••••••••••••and hold together and undivided,
a certain tract of land situated in the County of Santa Cruz, and State of
California, known as the Rancho Soquel••••••••••.•• bounded on the southwest by
the Bay of Monterey••••••••••on the northwest by the Sequel River•••••••••on the
southeast by the Borregas Gulch••••••••••••••and on the northwest by the Upper
Sequel Ranch, so called, containing about 2,800 acres, more or less, being the
same as surveyed under instructions from the United States Surveyor General
for California, as the land called Sequel, confirmed to Martina Castro of which
tract of land as described, it belongs as follows•••••••••• •••••
�: The acreage figure of 2,800, used in both the Summons
and Complaint when Rancho Sequel's area is stated••••••••••
this figure corifused me for a long time. It wasn't solved
until I realized what area Martina Castro and her husband
Michael Lodge wanted to replace the eastern half of their
rancho with because Rafael Castro's cattle and sheep were
173
�PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit)
February 13, 1860
COMPLAINT
Henry W. Peck
Antonia Peck
versu s
F rederick A. Hihn et. als.
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
invading the eastP.rn half making cultivation there imposs
ible. It will be remembered that in late 1843 Martina req
uested the Governor for relief from her problem, then in a
following letter Ricardo Juan asked the Governor to give
her the land that lie to the north called PALO YESCA or PALO
de la YESCA (which was the low ridge of hills that lined
the south side of Bates Creek, northeast from where the
creek joins Soquel Creek).
Based on Court and Land Commission testimony, Martina and
Michael wanted the land that lie north of the small rancho,
from the junction of Bates and Soquel creeks up to the
junction of the latter creek with Grover Gulch. This area
consists of approximately 1,200 acres (actually slightly
less) and curiously contains Thomas Fallon's School Land
Warrants Nos. 108, 353 and 354 totaling one square mile.
Frederick A. Hihn and his two plaintiffs did not make the
rancho's acreage 1,132 acres larger than the government
surveyed total of 1,668 acres,(adding the area that lie just
to the south of Joel Bates sawmill at the end of Prescott
Road� out of ignorance. It was done because Hihn wanted his
acreage percentage increased and he was willing to have the
1,132 acres removed from the Augmentation. And actually,(the
2,800 acres� this was the proper acreage that should have
been awardea to Martina Castro if the Catholic priests had
not been successful in convincing the United States Gov
ernment to change their rejection of the Augmentation
grant,
PLAINTIFFS
HENRY WINEGAR FECK (360/3240)
MARIA ANTONIA PECK (360/32.:JO)
DEFENDANTS
FREDERICK A, HIHN ( 708/3240)
JOSHUA PARRISH (360/3240)
MARIA GUADALUPE AVERON ( 360/3240)
AUGUSTAS NOBLE (120/3240)
MARIA LUISA JUAN (240/3240)
GEORGE K, PORTER (39/3240)
MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN (240/3240)
WILLIAM IRELAND (93/3240)
DR. JOHN P.P. VANDENBERG (360/3240)
I 7 c:q
�PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit)
February 13, 1860
COMPLAINT
-
Henry W. Peck
Antonia Peck
versus
F re d erick A. H ih n e t . a I s.
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
NOTE: After answering the question of where the additional
1,132 acres came from, the next question that needed solving
was how did they arrive at the dencrninator 3,240. The answer
was not arrived at until by accident I multiplied 270 by
12, which equals 3,240. It will be remembered tha� George K.
Porter was the owner of 7/270ths of the Augmentation and
Rancho Soquel, and Augustas Noble was the owner of 1/12th
undivided parts in both ranches. It should also be noted
that 3,240 is divisible by l/9th, 1/27th and l/54th••••••
It is also stated that the following defendants claim to have some interest
in common with the plaintiffs, the nature and extent of which is unknown to the
plaintiffs; and whereof, they the said defendants, and each and every of them
deny partition to be made though often requested by plaintiffs, through said
lands and tenements as so situated as to be susceptible of such partition among
all the respective owners thereof, without injury to any of them.
MIGUEL ANTONIO LODGE
BENJAMIN F, PORTER
NICANOR YOUNG
FRANCISCO YOUNG (Alias
FRANCISCO LAJEUNESSE)
PRUITT SINCLAIR
CHARLES PLUM
J,S. REED
CHARLES H. WILLSON
GEORGE H, KIRBY
FREDERICK W, l'!ACONDRAY
'IHOMAS FALLON
CARMEN FALLON
WILLIAM OTIS ANDHEWS
(deceased)
THOf-!AS COURTIS ( in his own
right)
THOl'!AS COURTIS (as adminis
trator for BENJAMIN P.
GREEN and JOHN INGOLDSBY)
* l'!ARY E,J, SLADE
• HENHY LAWRENCE
Said plaintiffs, therefore, in order that they may justly apportion them
selves in severalty of the respective portions of said lands and tenements
belonging to them, and that each of said defendants may severally apportion
themselves of their respective shares, pray this Honorable Court, that a
summons may be issued to each and every of the said defendants, commanding them
to appear and answer this bill of complaint, and that the rights of each and
every of these parties, plaintiffs and defendants may be ascertained and det
ermined by the judgment and decree of this court, and that partition of said
lands and tenement8, may there be made, under the direction of and by Referees
appointed by this court, amor� the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, accord
ing as they are respectively entitled, and that the shares of the plaintiffs
may be assigned and set off to them jointly, and that the costs may be apport
ioned amonq the parties, and for whatever other and further relief may be legal,
equitable and just.
And they will ever pray, etc,
signed by Robert F. Peckham, attorney
for the Plaintiffs
175
�The PARTITIONING SUITS
SUMMONS and COMPLAINTS FILED
NOTE: The first·session for those claiming ownership in
Rancho Soquel, the beginning of a troubled and difficult
period that will last seven years, was called to order by
Superior Court Judge Samuel B. McKee in the Third District
Court in Santa Cruz on February 25, 1860. Following is a
sequence of events compiled for the participants both within
and without the courtroom during this period. It will not
be until August that many additional defendants will join
the above defendants when Frederick A. Hihn's partitioning
suit's Summons and Complaint would be served for the Aug
mentation.
The attorneys for the two plaintiffs, both fronting for
Frederick A. Hihn and his interests in this first suit that
would become known as THE PECK versus HIHN et als SUIT was
Robert F. Peckham. Representing the defendants were many
attorneys, with the most notable being: John Wilson, James
Scarborough and Thomas Courtis, representing both them
selves and the grantees of John Ingoldsby; Durrell s.
Gregory, and after the Augmentation suit begins Judge
Craven P. Hester.
During the trials, several times opposing attorneys will
complain of Robert F. Peckham's obvious "conflict of
interest," but the court will never act on the complaints.
The charges were brought on by Peckham representing the
plaintiffs Henry and Antonia Peck while also representing
defendant Frederick A. Hihn and the defendants in the
INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN SUIT, which consisted mostly
of Martina Castro's daughters and their husbands. Many times
on the same day Robert F. Peckham would represent the plain
tiffs while answering or opposing one of the defendants,
then later represent that same defendant in the same cap
acity.
FEBRUARY 25, 1860 (Rancho SoqueJ suit)- The first document filed in the Peck
versus Hihn suit was the deed signed by Frederic)•: A. Ilihn August 26, 1859 in
which lie sold Frederick W, Mac-:mdray 45,8 acres in Rancho Soqucl. The acreage
Wus to come from the 4/lOths of the 1/12th undivided parts he (Hihn) had bid
on June 28, 1859 that were formally owned by Adolphe Branda.
PATENTS for RANCHO SOQUEL and the AUGMENTATION
MARCH 19, 1860
And finally the event that many wanted and a few wanted to
delay occurred, the President of the United States James Buch
anan personally signed the two patents that officially gave
Rancho Soquel and the Soquel Augmentation Rancho to Martina
Castro. And what did this auspicious event mean to Martina, a
woman that entered the Stockton Insane Asylum a short four
years earlier then released a year later in such a condition
that she was never called to testify on behalf of either the
17G
�The PARTITIONING SUITS
SUMMONS and COMPLAINTS FILED
Catholic priests or her own children. It is doubtful based on
Carrie Lodge's 1965 interview that she was told of the patents.
It is doubtful that she was capable of even understanding what
the above event meant.
APRIL 2, 1860 (Rancho Soguel suit)- FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY•••• In his answer
to the Complaint Frederick claims to own 23/600th undivided parts of the rancho.
He also denies that he has refused to make partition of the area, and that he
is not informed to sufficiently judge whether the plaintiffs or any of the def-
endants have legitimate claim to land there.
APRIL 7, 1860 (Rancho Soquel suit)- DR. JOHN P.P. VANDENBERG ••••The correct
spelling of the doctor's name is "Van Den Dergh•••••••The doctor declares that
he is owner in fee simple of I/9th part of the rancho. He further states that
he is now and for the last six years has occupied a portion of his rightful
claim while making the following improvements•••••••houses and fences valued
at $2,500 ($35,000), all of which are permanent and cannot be removed except
at grec1t cost••••••••it is interesting to note that there is no mention of the
deed with Frederick A. Hihn in which the doctor, on September 5, 1856 sold
Hihn 1/2 of his I/9th claim in Rancho Soquel.
MAY 1 and 5 1 1860- SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS SALE
When Peter Tracy passed away August 7, 1857 he owned a total
of 968 acres in the Augmentation, all illegal School Land
Warrants. On the above date, before they were "floated" to
other locations on Public Land, the Probate Court ordered
his acreage divided into four equal sections, each consisting
of 242 acres and sold to the highest bidders. The successful
bidders were as follows:
• JOEL BATES with a bid of $360 ($5,040)
• FRANCIS R. BRADY & BENJAMIN C. NICHOLS with a bid of $350
($4,900)
• AUGUSTAS NOBLE with a bid of $359 ($5,026)
• JOHN P. STEARNS and JOEL BATES with a bid of $375 ($5,250)
Even though it was known by the bidders that the warrants
were located within a Mexican Land Grant, they bid on the
land, then continued to claim the acreage within the Aug
mentation during the upcoming partitioning suit.
JUNE 4, 1860- DEED
On the above date William Ireland sold to Ausustas Noble the
3/lOths of the l/12th undivided parts in both ranches he had
earlier purchased from Benjamin P. Green. Noble paid William
$900 ($12,600).
JULY 24, 1860- DEED
On April 29, 1859 Maria Luisa and her husband Ricardo Juan
sold l/3rd of her l/9th claim to land in both ranches to
Frederick A. Hihn, with Hihn agreeing to pay them $1,000
$14,000) ••••••••$375 when the deed was signed and the bal
ance for debts that the two had accumulated. In this deed
J77
�The PARTITIONING SUITS
�UMMONS and COMPLAINTS FILE�
Hihn reaffirmed his intention to make his last payment of
$350 ($4,900) to the last debtor on NO�!EliBER 1, 1860,
JULY 24 1 1860- DEED
On January 8, 1858 the Littlejohns, Helena and Joseph sold
to Frederick A. Hihn 1/3rd of Helena's 1/9th claim to land in
both ranches with Hihn agreeing to pay their court costs,
win or loose, in the Ingoldsby versus Ricardo Juan suit
while paying them $2,000 ($28,000) when the deed was signed.
In this second deed with Hihn, the Littlejohns sold Helena's
remaining 2/27ths claim to land in the Augmentation for
$10,000 ($140,000). This deed, like the first deed included
a clause that Hihn would pay their court costs, win or
lose, this time for the upcoming partitioning suit (for the
Augmentation).
JULY 24, 1860- DEED
In this deed Nicanor Lajeunesse sold, for $500 ($7,000) her
1/9th claim to land in both ranches to Frederick A. Hihn.
The next day her husband, Francisco was paid $50 ($700) in
gold by Hihn for signing the deed. This transaction plus the
two deeds signed earlier in which the two sold her entire
claim in both Rancho Soquel and in the Augmentation plus
the part that Hihn played in Nicanor•s divorce in process
while this latest deed was being signed will not be further
discussed here. The earlier deeds, this latest one plus
Nicanor' s divorce are discussed fully in the SUPPLE:MENT, in
the Nicanor Lajeunesse story and in CHAPTER 14.
JULY 24 1 1860- DEED
After Nicanor Lajeunesse and her husband signed the deed in
which Nicanor•s l/9th claim to land in both ranches passed on
to Frederick A. Hihn, for $250 ($3,500) Hihn sold 1/2 of
the 1/9th claim in the Augmentation to his friend and now
partner, Henry w. Peck. The purpose of this sale is never
discussed for the record, put one doesn't have to look any
farther then the sale being a simple "payoff" to Henry for
agreeing to be the plaintiff in the Soquel Rancho partition
ing suit and agreeing to pay half of Robert F. Peckham's
initial fee of $1,500 ($21,000).
lULY 25, 1860 (Rancho Soguel suit)- CHARLES H, WILI.SON,,,,Charles answers the
Complaint by stating that he owns 1/18th undivided parts of both ranches
through his deed with Joseph L, Majors on May 26, 1858,
JULY 27 1 1860 (Rancho Soquel suit)- BENJAMIN F, and GEORGE I<. POR'l'ER,,,,
In a single answer to the Complaint, the cousins state that the plaintiffs
and some of the defendants are seized of in fee, but to what extent they do not
know, BEN,,AHIN F, PORTER claims ownership of the five acres on which a certain
tannery, vats and buildings for the manufacture of leather are located just
to the north of the County Road (today Soquel Drive), GEORGE K, PORTER claims
178
�The PARTITIONING SUITS
SUMMONS and COMPLAINTS FILED
ownership of 7/lOths of l/3rd part of l/9th (a total of 7/270th undivided
parts) through his Sheriff's deed under an execution against the property of
Wil�iam Otis Andrews on April 21, 1858, The two cousins, now partners, jointly
claim that they have made valuable improvements since the tannery was pur
chased including adding houses and fences for their own use to the value of
$5,000 ($70,000) and are permanent and cannot be removed except at great cost
and loss.
JULY 271 1860 (Rancho Soguel suit)- JOSHUA PARRISH,, ••Joshua, in his answer to
the complaint states that he is the owner of l/9th undivided part of the ranch
through his deed with Carmel and Thomas Fallon on August 1, 1853. He continues
that he is now, and has been for the last seven years in occupancy of a por
tion of his claimed land, and while in such occupancy he has made valuable
improvements, to wit: an orchard, houses, barns and fences, for his own use
to the value of $2,000 ($28,000) which are permanent and cannot be removed
except at great cost and loss.
Joshua Parrish continues his answer by asking that the court in considering
his ownership claim, that the value of his land, quality and quanity relatively
considered, that his improvements not be considered as part of the value of his
claim.
JULY 31 1 1860 (Rancho Soguel suit)- HENRY and ANTONIA PECK answer CHARLES H.
WILLSON•••• The two plaintiffs deny that Charles H. Willson is the owner of the
l/18th he claims, and that he has no claim to the same percentage in the
Augmentation, or to any claim whatsoever.
AUGUST 4 1 1860 (Rancho Soquel suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN.,,.Frederick begins his
answer to the complaint by stating that it is not true that defendants Dr. John
P.P. Vandenberg or Charles H, Willson are entitled to have any share or inter
est in the lands described in the complaint.
Hihn continues that he is seized in fee simple, and is .in the possession of
and entitled to have in severalty 8/27ths of the Rancho Soquel and is ready
to verify his claims
AUGUST 4 1 1860 (Rancho Soguel suit)- HENRY and ANTONIA PECK answer BENJAMIN F,
and GEORGE K. PORTER,,,,The two plaintiffs deny that the Porter cousins are
the owner of or entitled to have any land in the rancho including the five
acre tannery sold to Benjamin by Luisa and Ricardo Juan,
AUGUST 101 11360 (Rancho Soquel suit)- HENRY and ANTONIA PECK through their
attorney ROBERT F, PECKHAM ask that several persons, namely 'l'homas Courtis,
Mary E.J, Slade and Henry Lawrence be added to the complaint and that a
summons be served them,
AUGUST 14 1 1860 (Rancho Soquel suit)- CHARLES H. WJLLSON,,,.The attorneys for
Willson, John Reynolds and Uavid Clarke file a deposition for their client
stating that all mutters to date depending in the above entitled cause on
the part of Charles H. Willson are withdrawn. After the deposition is pres
ented they are joined by the attorneys for Frederick w. Macondray and Augustas
Noble and agree that the plaintiffs may apply to the court at the next term to
be held in the present month of August to amend the complaint. They also agree
that the cause before the court be continued for the term, and until the next
December term.
179
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit)
August 14, 1860
SUMMONS
Frederick A. Hi hn
versus
H en r y W. Pe c k e t . a I s .
PLAIN'I.:FF
DEFENDANTS
The People of the State of California, Greeting to
ANTONIA PECK
JOSE LITTIEJOHN
HEIENA LITTLEJOHN
RICARDO FOURCADE JUAN
LUISA JUAN
JOSEPH AVERON
GUADALUPE AVERON
FREDERICK C. HIHN
CHRISTIAN MILLER
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
JOHN L. SHELBY
ROGER G. HINCKLEY
GEORGE K. PORTER
CYRUS COE
RICHARD SAVAGE
BENJAMIN FARIEY
GEORGE W. KIRBY
HENRY F. PARSONS
FRANCIS R. BRADY
BENJAMIN C. NICHOLS
JOEL BATES
JOHN P. STE ARNS
FRANCIS M. KITTRIDGE
ASA W. RAWSON
LYMAN JOHN BURRELL
H.B. HOLMES
BENJAMIN F. PORTER
HENRY CAMBUSTAN
JOAQUIN BOLEDO
JOHN WILSON
JOSEPH S. ALEMANY
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY
CRAVEN P. HESTER
JAMES TAYLOR
THOMAS FALLON
CARMEL FALLON
CHARLES H. WILLSON
* THOMAS COURTIS (in
his own right)
* THOMAS COURTIS (as
administrator for
Benjamin P. Green)
* WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS
* MARY E.J. SLADE
* HENRY LAWRENCE
* On October the 3rd of 1860 an amended summons and complaint were served
on the above defendants and plaintiff, adding the above persons, all of
San Francisco.
You are hereby required to appear in the action brought against you by the
above named plaintiff in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of
the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Cruz, and to answer the
complaint files herein, (a copy which accompanies this summons,) within ten
days, (exclusive of the day of service,) after the service on you of this
summons, if served in the county; or, if served out of this county, but within
this Judicial District, within twenty days; or, if served out of said District,
then within forty days•••••••or judgement by default will be taken against you
according to the prayer of said complaint.
The said action is brought to procure a sale, and a division of the proceeds
among the respective owners thereof, of the following described lands and ten
ements, situate in the State of California, County of Santa Cruz, and County of
Santa Clara, and known there as the Augmentation of the Soquel Ranch, bounded
by a line commencing at the northwest corner of the Soquel Ranch, and running
up the Soquel River to the place known as Palo de la Yeska; thence to the Laguna
Sarjento; thence to, and including the Loma Prieta; thence to the Chuchitas;
thence to the Cuatro Leguas; thence to the northwest corner of Aptos Ranch;
thence to the northeast corner of the Soquel Ranch, and from thence to the place
of beginning, containing thirty-two thousand seven hundred and two acres, more
or less; and in the mean time, to procure an injunction against the defendants
Francis R. Brady, Benjamin C. Nichols, Richard Savage and Joel Bates, to pre
vent them from cutting timber and committing waste on said premises.
180
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit)
August 14, 1860
SUMMONS
Frederick A. Hi hn
PLAINTIFF
versus
Hen r y W. Pec k e t . a I s .
DEFENDANTS
A nd you are hereby notified that if you fail to appear and answer the said
complaint as above required, the said plaintiff will apply to the court for
the relief demanded in the complaint.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the Third
Judicial District, of the State of California, in
and for the said County of Santa Cruz, this 14th
day of August, in the year of our Lord One Thousand,
Eight Hundred and Sixty.
Signed by D.J, Hasmal, Clerk
HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit)
August 14, 1860
COMPLAINT
Frederick A. Hi hn
PLAINTIFF
Hen r y W. p ec k e t . a I s .
DEFENDANTS
versus
The following defendants live in Santa Cruz County•••••••••
ANTONIA PECK
JOSE LITTLEJOHN
HELENA LITTLEJOHN
RICARDO FOURCADE JUAN
LUISA JUAN
JOSEPH AVERON
GUADALUPE AVERON
FREDERICK C, HIHN
CHRISTIAN MILLER
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
JOHN L. SHELBY
ROGER G. HINCKLEY
GEORGE K. PORTER
CYRUS COE
RICHARD SAVAGE
BENJAMIN FARLEY
GEORGE W. KIRBY
HENRY F, PARSONS
FRANCIS R. BRADY
BENJAMIN C. NICHOLS
JOEL BATES
JOHN P, STEARNS
FRANCIS M. KITTRIDGE
ASA W. RAWSON
LYMAN JOHN BURRELL
H,B. HOLMES
BENJAMIN F. PORTER
The following defendants live in Monterey County.,, •••••••
JOAQUIN BOLEDO
HENRY CAMBUSTAN
The following defendants live in San Francisco County•••••••••
JOHN WILSON
FREDERICK W, MACONDRAY
'JOSEPH S. ALEMANY
* WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS
* HENRY LAWRENCE
* MARY E.J. SLADE
*
THOMAS COURTIS (as
administrator for
BENJAMIN P, GREEN)
* THOMAS COURTIS (in
his own right
I 81
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit)
August 14, 1860
COMPLAINT
Frederick A. Hi hn
versus
H en r y W. Pe c k e t . a I s .
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS
*On October the 3rd of 1860 an amended summons and complaint were served
on all defendants and plaintiff, adding the above indicated persons, all
of San Francisco.
The following defendants live in Santa Clara County•••••••
CRAVEN P, HESTER
THOMAS FALLON
CARMEN FALLON
JAMES TAYLOR
The following defendant lives in Marin County••••••••••
CHARLES H. WILLSON
The above named plaintiff complains of the above named defendants, and
shows to the Court that he, the plaintiff, and the said defendants, together
with divers persons unknown to the plaintiff, are in possession of, and hold
together and undivided, the following described lands and tenements, situated
in the State of California, County of Santa Cruz and County of Santa Clara,
known as the Augmentation to the Soquel Ranch, bounded by a line commencing
at the northwest corner of the Soquel Ranch, so called, and running up the
Soquel River to a place known as Palo de la Yeska; thence to the Laguna Sar
jenta; thence to, and including the Loma Prieta; thence to the Chuchitas; thence
to the Cuatro Leguas; thence to the northwest corner of the Aptos Ranch; thence
to the northeast corner of the Soquel Ranch and from thence to the place of
beginning, containing thirty-two thousand seven hundred and two acres, more or
less,
And plaintiff further shows, that the said lands and tenements above des
cribed, it belongs to him to have thirteen fifty-fourth (13/54ths) parts thereof
in fee and in severalty; and that as to the remaining forty-one fifty fourth
(41/54ths) parts thereof, the plaintiff is unable to state or to inform the
court who is the owner thereof, or entitled to have the same, the owner, or
owners thereof, being unknown to plaintiff,
Plaintiff further shows, that of the lands and tenements above described,
the defendants above named, and each and every one of them, claim to have some
title, claim, or interest in common with the plaintiff; but the nature, extent,
and validity of which claims, plaintiff has no knowledge, and cannot inform
this Honorable Court.
Plaintiff further avers, and shows to the court, that said land is so sit
ueated, the the same cannot be divided and the respective shares set off, and
assigned to the respective owners thereof, without injury in a great degree to
the several parties in interest,
Plaintiff further shows, that said land is covered with a large, extensive
and valuable growth of redwood timber, and that the chief value of said land is
in its timber trees, and the cutting and waste of said timber trees is destruct
ive to the chief and principal value of said estate.
Plaintiff further shows, that the defendants, Francis R. Brady, Benjamin c.
Nichols, Richard Savage and Joel Bates, are now, and for a long time have been,
engaging in cutting down, wasting and destroying the timber trees �rowing on
18 2
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit)
August 14, 1860
COMPLAINT
Frederick A. H ihn
versus
H e n r y W. Pec k e t . a I s .
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS
the land above described, and by so doing, are wasting and destroying the value
of the said estate; and that said defendants above named, if unrestricted, will
continue to cut said timber and destroy said premises, and by so doing commit
great and irreparable injury to plaintiff and interest in said estate.
Wherefore Plaintiff prays, that each and every one of the defendants, may
be summoned before the court to answer this Bill of Complaint, and show this
court the respective interest which .each of them have in the land and tenements
above described; and that a summons may be addressed to, and served by public
ation, on the persons who have, or claim any interest in said lands and tenem
ents, and the ownership and responsibility in said lands and tenements, may be
ascertained by this court; and that a sale of said lands and tenements be had
under the direction of this court, and the proceeds thereof divided among the
several parties in interest they shall be found entitled by the judgement of
this court; and in the meantime, that said defendants Francis R, Brady, Ben
jamin C, Nichols, Richard Savage and Joel Bates, may be enjoined from cutting
and wasting the timber growing and standing on said premises; and for such
further and other relief as may be according to law, equity and good conscien r e.
Signed by Robert F, Peckham, Attorney for the
plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn
AUGU3T 20, 1860 (Rancho Soquel suit)- AUGU3TAS NOBLE,,,,In his answer to the
compluint, Augustas claims ownPrship of 201/3,240ths of the contested land.
NOTE: Augustas purchaset.l 1/12th of the ranch on May 3, 1856 then another 3/lOths
of 1/12th on June 4, 1860,, •••••••••••
Augustas Noble continued his answer to the complaint by stating that since May
of 1856 he has been residing on a portion of the rancho without objection of
those claiming joint interest and ownership, and that he has made permanent and
substantial and valuable lmprovements, consisting of a dwelling home, outhouses,
etc., totalling about $10,000 ($140,000),
AUGUST 20 1 1860- STIPULATIONS
On the above date Frederick A. Hihn agreed in two stipulations,
the first with Francis R. Brady and his partner Benjamin c.
Nichols, and the second with Richard Savage. Hihn stated in
the two papers, that even though he was about to apply for an
injunction against each from cutting timber and committing
waste within the Augmentation, he will not make such applicat
ion if each of the defendants will agree to cease all
cutting and creating waste for the next eight months from
the above date. The three defendants agree to stop their
logging efforts for the next eight months.
183
�The PARTITIONING SUITS
SUMMONS and COMPLAINTS FILED
AUGUST 21 1 1860- INJUNCTION R�QUESTED
On the above date Frederick A. Hihn applied to the Third
District Court for an injunction against Joel Bates to stop
his cutting of the standing timber in the Augmentation except
such as is needed for the use of the land. The court issued
the injunction as requested the next day.
AUGUST 22 1 1860- INJUNCTION I SSUED
The Third District Court issues the injunction requested by
Frederick A. Hihn against Joel Bates. Now Joel must stop his
logging from the land within the vicinity of Bates Creek and
Grover Gulch. Joel now joins Francis R. Brady and partner
Benjamin c. Cahoon, and Richard Savage in shutting down their
sawmills.
184
�CHAPTER 12
CHAOS
IN THE
COURTROOM
185
�Intentially left blank.
186
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
The first session for·the persons claiming ownership in the
Augmentation was called to order by Superior Court Judge Samuel
B. McKee in the Third District Court in Santa Cruz on September
6, 1860. Now, not only would the two partitioning suits be run
concurrently, but they would be conducted in the same courtroom,
before the same judge, and on many days testimony would be
taken on the same day in both suits. Not only would testimony
be taken in the same courtroom before the same judge with the
same attorney serving the plaintiffs in both suits, but many of
the attorneys for the defendants, serving clients in both
suits, were also forced to testify for both suits on the same,
or very next day•••••••and then there is the obvious "conflict
of interest" charges brought against Robert F. Peckham dis
cussed in CHAPTER 11.
SEPTEMBER 6, 1860 (Augmentation suit)- JOEL BATES answers Frederick A. Hihn's
complaint by first denying that Hihn is the owner of l3/54ths of the Augmentat
ion, instead he is the owner of no more than l/27th part of the premises.
Joel also denies that the Augmentation cannot be divided among the proper
owners, and he further denies that the area's chief value is its timber trees.
He also denies that his cutting of trees has caused irreparable injury to the
plaintiff and to his other cotenants, or has been destructive to the chief and
principal value of the whole area. Instead, Joel contends that his cutting of
the timber on his lands has actually increased their value by allowing roads
to be built through the cut-over land.
Joel Bates continues••••••that he is the owner of l/27th part of the Augmentat
ion which is less than his �otal lands which consist of School Land Warrants.
He concludes that he has erected at great cost and expense permanent improve
ments at the mouth of (Grover Gulch) along the west side of Bates Creek that
total about $10,000 ($140,000), consisting of a dwelling house, a steam saw
mill, a barn, fencing and other improvements, and that they all can be set
apart from the lands of the plaintiff and other defendants.
DEED-ARCHBISHOP ALEMANY to THOMAS COURTIS
. September 7, 1860
SEE AP PEN o Ix ·art would appear from this de�d that the archbishop was des
irous to have his partipication in the attempt to acquire owner
ship of Martina Castro's tw o ranches removed from public
scrutiny. In this deed, for the sum of $250 ($3,500) he sold to
attorney Thomas Courtis all of his claim to land in both ranches
which, after the agreement entered into by the three priests with
attorneys John Wilson and James Scarborough on September 11,
1855 was satisfied, would total l/6th of the total lands not
sold to others. When this deed was signed, Courtis now added to
his claim of ownership, which included the 2/3rds of 1/8th
purchased from Cyrus Coe May 26, 1858 and the l/6th he claimed
through his being appointed administrator of the deceased John
Ingoldsby's estate•••••••still outstanding was the l/6th claimed
by the Father John Llebaria now working for the Catholic Church
down in Mexico••••••••this l/6th claim.
NOTE: With the signing of this deed, if Martina Castro's
heirs were to loose the upcoming INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO
157
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
JUAN battle in the partition suits, Thomas Courtis"s claim
of ownership totals 41.667-percent of both ranches; a total
of 13,626 acres in the Augmentation's total of 32,702 acres,
and 695 of Rancho Sequel's 1,668 acres!
SEPTEMBER 8, 1860 - APPEAL to SUPREME COURT
On the above date Joel Bates appealed to the State Supreme
Court concerning the lower court's issuance of Frederick
A. Hihn's injunction to stop his logging activity within the
Augmentation•••••••••remember that the only other two logging
activities in the Augmentation were inactive waiting for the
higher court's decision on Joel Bates appeal (the logging
waiting in abeyance were the activities conducted by Richard
Savage and partners Francis Brady and Benjamin Nichols).
SEPTEMBER 10 1 1860 (Augmentation suit)- FRANCIS R. BRADY and BENJAMIN CAHOON
NICHOIS answer the complaint similiar to Joel Bates, except they claim that
through their deed dated October 19, 1859 with the Wesley Burnett & Company
they are the owners of l/6th of l/9th, or 1/54th undivided part of the l>.ug
mentation, and that at their own expense they have made valuable and costly
imµrovements totaling $2,000 ($28,000) consisting of a dwelling house, fencing,
a mill dam and other improvements••••••••remember their sawmill, purchased
from Wesley Burnett & Company was along the west side of Sequel Creek, between
the creek and old Mountain School.
NOTE, The two partners also claim, as did Joel Bates, that the percentage
of land claimed did not include the 242 acres of School Land Warrants
purchased May 1, 1860,
SEPTEMBER 211 1860 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers JOEL BATES
and partners FRANCIS R, BRADY and BENJAMIN C. NICHOI>S, •••••in both answers
Hihn states that the extra land that they claim (School Land Warrants) is
illegal, therefore they can claim only the land purchased through deeds.
Hihn also claims that both parties have over valued their improvements to a
great extent, that the portion that Joel Bates has been cutting timber on has
not increased by the cutting, and that the three defendants lands can be set
off without injury to himself and others.
SEPTEMBER 221 1860 (Augmentation suit)- LYMAN JOHN BURRELL's answer to Hihn's
complaint is simple and short•••••he conceeds that Hihn has some interest in
the area, but to what extent he does not know. He contends, that if it is the
l3/54ths claimed, then there is plenty of land left in which to take his l/27th
undivided part from. Lyman also denies that the area is so situated that it
cannot be divided and his share established without injury in a great degree,
or cause injury to the plaintiff and other defendants,
SEPTEMBER 22 1 1860 (Augmentation suit)- ROGER GIBSON HINCKLEY and JOHN LAFAYETTE
SHELBY answer Hihn's complaint similiar to Joel Bates and Brady and Nichols
except they claim ownership of 3/108th parts of the area between them, They
claim that they have at their own expense and cost jointly erected valuable
and permanent improvements valued at $2,500 ($35,000) consisting of a water
powered sawmill, a millpond dam, flume and mill race, dug a tunnel through
the ridge between Sequel and (Hinckley) creeks, a dwelling house and enclosed
all facilities with fencing which include several outhouses.
The partners also contend that their land is so situated that a partition of
the same can be made without prejudice to any of the other owners thereof.
Hinckley and Shelby continue that there is a lein upon 1/4 of their claim which
includes the sawmill known as the Hinckley and Shelby mill, all of the support
ing buildings including the outhouses, against Richard Savage, In the deed they
188
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
entered into with Richard Savage, Richard agreed to pay $1,800 ($25,200),
which was due on September 1, 1860. The entire amount plus the interest is
past due •••••••••••
SEPTEMBER 251 1860 (Augmentation suit)- GEORGE W. KIRBY, through his attorney
JOHN P. STEARNS, himself a defendant, states that both he and his client do
not believe that the plaintiff holds claim to 13/54ths of the area, but what the
proper claim is, they do not know.
Both defendants deny that the area is so situated that it cannot be divided and
the respective shares set off and assigned to the proper owners without injury
to the several parties in interest.
George Kirby, through his deed with Montgomery B. Shackleford dated January 29,
1855, states that for five years and more by the consent of several claimants
and owners (Thomas w. Wright, the deceased Peter Tracy and Shackleford), that
he has been in the quiet, peaceful and undisturbed possession of a certain
portion of the area located in its far southwest corner (where Bates and Soquel
creeks join) upon which he has erected lasting and valuable improvements tot
aling $1,000 ($14,000) and more
Kirby claims that his l/27th undivided part of the Augmentation can be set off
to him and should include his improvements, and that the referees be refrained
from including the value of the improvements in the value of the land.
SEPTEMBER 29, 1860 (Augmentation suit)- RICHARD SAVAGE ANSWERS Hihn's complaint
by stating that while the plaintiff has claim to land in the area, he does not
know its extent. He continues that he is siezed in fee simple of l/96th part of
the premises, and that the land is so situated that it can be set off from other
lands without injuring the plaintiff or other defendants.
Richard Savage continues•••••••that he is, and by himself, his predecessors and
partners for a long time before the commencement (of this action) been in the
actual, peaceable and quiet and exclusive possession (of a portion) of the prem�
ises, and has built and made permanent and valuable improvements thereon (his
348 acres, or thereabouts), consisting of a waterpowered sawmill, a mill race
for the water, a flume, a tunnel through the ridge leading to Sequel Creek,
houses, buildings and fences, all with a value of $5,000 ($70,000) or there
abouts, and that such possession has been had, and such improvements made and
erected with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and the other persons
interested in the Augmentation.
Richard concluded••••••that because the area is so very large it cannot be sold
in one parcel without great sacrifice and prejudice to the rights of the others
with interest in the premises, and that the value of his land not include the
value of the improvements, but if the area is sold in its entirety, then his
improvements be included and added to the value of the land.
SEPTEMBER 29, 1860 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers LYMAN JOHN
BURRELL by denying that he is properly informed and it is not true that he is
intrusted of 1/27th part or any part of the area•••••••remember that Lyman still
owes Henry and Antonia Peck $500 ($7,000), stated in a note signed when he
purchased his l/27th undivided part (from the Pecks)•••••• a note that both Henry
Peck and Frederick A. Hihn will try to take advantage of laterl
SEPTEMBER 291 1860 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers GEORGE W.
KIRBY by stating that Kirby is not entitled to l/27th parts of the premises,
and that his improvements are worth no more than $100 ($1,400).
OCTOBER 2, 1860- DEEDS
On the above date two deeds were signed by Henry and Antonia
Peck which were identical to deeds signed earlier with Joel
Bates (on November 21, 1859) and Lyman John Burrell (on April
13, 1859). Purpose of these identical deeds in which no
additional money passed between the grantors and the grantees
189
�CHAOS IN THE
COURTROOM
OCTOBER 2, 1860 (Continued)
is not stated in the papers. One possible reason for these
second deeds is that when they were signed Henry Peck was
working for the benefit of John Ingoldsby, who at the time
was the legal owner of both ranches•••••••••
OCTOBER 3 1 1860
On the above date the amended summons and complaints for both
Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation partitioning suits were
served to all defendants adding Thomas Courtis and several
additional persons that had purchased claims through John
Ingoldsby ••••••••copies of the papers were actually served
to all defendants the following day on October 4, 1860.
OCTOBER 11, 1860 (Rancho Soguel suit)- BENJAMIN F, and GEORGE R, PORTER answer
the amended complaint with statements identical with their answers of July 27,
1860,
OCTOBER 15, 1860 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers RICHARD SAVAGE
by stating that Richard has some interest in the area but he is not advised as
to the extent or nature of the interest. He also denies that Richard Savage and
his predecessors and grantors "for a long time" before this action began has
been in the actual peaceable and quiet and exclusive possession of a portion of
the premises, and that the improvements are valued at $5,000 ($70,000), but are
actually worth no more than the $1,800 ($25,200) that he paid for them.
OCTOBER 151 1860 (Augmentation suit)- JAMES TAYLOR answers Hihn's complaint
that there seems that there is plenty of land for his l/54th claim if the
plaintiff's calim totals 13/54ths. James also makes the same statement, denying
that the land is so situated that it cannot be divided and his share set off
without injury in a great degree, or cause injury, to several parties in int
erest.
OCTOBER 17 1 1860 (Rancho Soquel suit)- DR, JOHN P,P. VANDENBERG answers the
amended complaint with statements nearly identical to his first answer on
April 7, 1860, Where the doctor's answer differs from his first answer is that
this time he elaborates heavily on the validity of his deed with Nicanor and
Francisco Lajeunesse dated January 21, 1854 in which he purchased Nicanor's
l/9th claim in Rancho Sequel, The reason for his concern is Nicanor•s deed with
Frederick A. Hihn dated July 24, 1860 in which she sold to Hihn her l/9th
claim to land in both ranches •••••••questions are being raised as to the val
idity of the doctor's deeds because it was not properly notarized by a Notary
Public, or an officer of the court as specified in the ACT of April 1850.
OCTOBER 17 1 1860- DEED
In this deed, for $1,000 ($14,000) Maria Luisa and her husband
Ricardo Juan sold l/3rd of her l/9th claim to land in the Aug
mentation to the Amayo brothers, Casimero and Dario. The
brothers had settled earlier just to the south of the Summit
(Road) just slightly to the west of Lyman Burrell's Mountain
Home (located along the north side of the Summit Road slightly
northwest of today's Burrell School). They built several homes
and cultivated the surrounding land, planting mostly fruit
trees. Because of the many redwoods that were growing within
the l/27th claim to land they had purchased from the Juans•,
and the many logging activities that occurred both on and
around their land, the brothers have been considered to be
loggers. This assumption, while partly true, is mostly incorr-
190
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
OCTOBER 17, 1860 (Continued)
ect••••••the brothers were mostly interested in cultivating
their land, leasing the land and selling the stumpage rights
to others, later in the company of Frederick A. Hihn
NOTE: The proper spelling of the brothers last name is
AMAYO, not AMAYA, the spelling used today. In Spanish o
is masculine, while a is feminine•••••••in earlier documents
whenever the brothers signed they ended their last name with
an o. It is only after they die and their wives sign papers
that they used an� at the end of their last name.
OCTOBER 30 1 1860 (Rancho Soguel suit)- THOMAS COURTIS, MARY E.J. SLADE, HENRY
w.
LAWRENCE and CHARLES PLUM answer the complaint of Henry and Antonia Peck
by stating that he, Thomas Courtis is seized in fee of l/6th parts of the
premises through his deed with the Archbishop Joseph Alemany and an additional
2/3rds of l/8th undivided part through his deed with Cyrus Coe.
On the part of the other three defendants, before the death of Benjamin P.
Green Mary E.J. Slade purchased 1/4 of his l/12th claim; Henry w. Lawrence
3/20ths of l/12th; and Charles Plum 1/lOth of I/12th.
Thomas Courtis concludes his answer by stating that neither the plaintiffs or
any of the defendants are seized in fee simple of any portion of the premises
mentioned in the complaint.
NOVEMBER 8 1 1860
At the request of John Wilson the Agreement entered into
between the Archbishop Josephs. Alemany, Father John Llebaria
and John Ingoldsby in which it is stated that attorneys John
Wilson and James Scarborough have been hired is recorded for
the record (the agreement was signed September 11, 1855).
It is interesting to note that the Agreement signed on Sept
ember 2, 1857 between the Archbishop Joseph Alemany and John
Ingoldsby, which is identical with the earlier agreement
except for the lack of mentioning Father John Llebaria was
recorded for the record immediately after it was signed by
the two.
When the older of the two agreements was filed on the above
date, John Ingoldsby was dead and Father Llebaria was per
forming his duties for the Catholic Church down in Mexico.
NOVEMBER 24 1 1860 (Rancho So�uel suit)- On this date subpoena's are served by
Sheriff John T. Porter and his deputy Samuel Dunnan to Miguel Lodge, Lambert
B, Clements, O,K, Stampley, James Murphy, I,C, Willson, Joseph L, Majors, and
to himself, John T. Porter, to testify on behalf of the upcoming Agreement
between Charles H. Willson and Frederick A, Hihn which is scheduled for debate
on December 17, 1860,
DECEMBER 16, 1860- DEED
In this deed Jones Hoy, for $500 ($7,000) sold his l/18th
undivided part (1/2 of l/9th) claim to land in the Augmen
tation to George W. Evans•••••••it will be remembered that
the first deed entered into after Martina Castro's deed of
191
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
DECEMBER 16, 1860 (Continued)
August 29, 1850 was signed between Josefa and her husband
Lambert B. Clements in which the two sold to Hoy and �ruitt
Sinclair Josefa's 1/9th claim in both ranches•••••••each
claiming a l/18th ownership in each ranch.
This deed will be contested by Frederick A. Hihn. He will
claim that this was the l/18th undivided part that Jones Hoy
sold to Joseph L. Majors on July 25, 1853, then on July 3,
1858 Joseph L. Majors sold to him (Hihn) ••••••••both of these
earlier transactions have been previously discussed.
DECEMBER 14, 1860 (Augmentation suit)- BENJAMIN FARLEY., •.,.see next entry
DECEMBER 17, 1860 (Augmentation suit)- CRAVEN P, HESTER answers Hihn's com
plaint by stating that the plaintiff (Hihn) has some interest in the Augmentat
ion, but as to the amount, he is not advised, but if it is 13/54ths, then
there is plenty of land left for his l/48th part.
Because he is an acting County Judge, Hester is acting both as attorney for
Benjamin Farley and for himself as well. On behalf of his friend Benjamin,
Hester's answer to the court for the complaint is identical with his own.
DECEMBER 17, 1860 (Augmentation suit)- CHARLES H. WILLSON answering Hihn's com
plaint states that he is the owner of l/18th undivided part in both ranches,
and who owns the other 17/lSths he does not k.now. He also denies that the
Augmentation's lands cannot be partitioned among the several owners thereof
advantageously to all the owners thereof,
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHARLES H. WILLSON and FREDERICK A, HIHN
December 17, 1860-Rancho Soquel suit
The purpose of this agreement is to establish Charles H. Willson•s owner
ship of l/18th undivided parts in both ranches through his deed of May 26,
1858 with Joseph L. Majors before he sells his (supposed claim) to Fred
erick. A. Hihn in both ranches.
Before the Agreement was entered into between the two parties, Robert F.
Peck.ham, the attorney for the plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn entered into the
record the following paper•••••••
CHATTLE MORTGAGE
October 4, 1854
On October 4, 1854 a Chattle Mortgage was entered into between Joseph L.
Majors and Charles Watson of San Francisco. For a debt owed to Charles Watson,
Joseph L. Majors and his wife Maria Los Angeles de Castro Majors passed title
to all their cattle, which included oxen, bulls and cows, hefers and calves plus
all of the horses including stallons, geldings, mares and colts. The total of
the debt was $1,634 ($22,876). The mortgage paper ended with the terms and
nwnber of payments that Joseph L. Majors was to give Watson.
NOTE, Because of the lack. of full documentation available on the above
transaction, and the paper that transferred the debt from Charles Watson
to Charles H. Willson, this transaction and its following repercussions
concerning ownership of land within both Rancho Soquel and the Augmen
tation will be discussed based on the court assigned referee's findings,
which are as follows•••••••••
When the cattle and horses were given to Charles Watson by Joseph L. Majors,
they were placed in the custody of the sheriff, who inturn pl.aced them in the
custody of Jones Hoy. After several payments by Majors were made over the years
(by Majors), on April 15, 1856 Charles Watson sold, transferred and assigned all
the right and intrust of the chattel mortgage to Charles H, Willson.
After Joseph L, Majors made several payments to Charles H. Willson, he
192
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
(Majors) approached Willson with.$688,18 in gold and silver coin (a total
of $9,634,52 today), offering to pay the original debt in full, Charles H,
Willson refused the money, stating that he wanted the animals and the money
that would be derived from their sale, After the animals were sold, it was con
sidered by both Frederick A, Hihn and Charles H. Willson that Joseph L. Majors
was the owner of 1/18th undivided parts in both Rancho Soquel and the Augmen
tation.
To quickly review the transactions that transpired beginning with the first
deed entered into based on Martina Castro's August 29, 1850 deed,••••••
Maria Josepha and Lambert B. Clements sell her l/9th claim to land in both
ranches to partners Jones Hoy and Pruitt Sinclair on March 30, 1852.
On July 25, 1853 Jones Hoy sold his l/18th (1/2 of 1/9th) to Joseph L.
Majors,
Because he was experiencing financial difficulties, the court ordered Majors
to auction off his 1/18th claim in both ranches and his additional lands in
Rancho Refugio and Rancho San Augustine, On May 26, 1858 the high bidder was
Charles H. Willson.
Due to an error in the court's preceedings, Joseph L. Majors l/18th claim to
land in the Augmentation and Rancho Soquel were again auctioned off, and
on July 3, 1858 the high bidder was Frederick A, Hihn
Because the deed with Charles H. Willson preceeded Hihn's, Willson's deed
took precedence, therefore both considered that Willson was the owner of
the 1/18th in both ranches,
DECEMBER 19 1 1860 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY answers the com
plaint by stating that he is the owner of l/30th (4/120ths) undivided parts
of the Augmentation, and denies that the area is so situated that it cannot be
divided and the respective shares set off and assigned to the respective owners
without injury in a great degree to the several parties, to the contrary, he
alleges that partition can be made without prejudice to the owners.
JANUARY 2, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- GEORGE w. EVANS• enswer to Hihn's complaint
for the most part is identical with most of the preceeding answers, Evans
claims his l/18th claim to land in the Augmentation through his deed with
Jones Hoy dated December 16, 1860,
JANUARY 5, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers CHARLES H,
WILLSON by stating that it is not true that Willson is the owner in fee simple
of l/18th undivided part in the area,
JANUARY 5, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers FREDERICK W.
MACONDRAY by stating that his claim to land should be l/120th undivided parts
instead of the l/30th part he claims.
JANUARY 5, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A, HIHN answers GEORGE W. EVANS
by stating that he has no claim to land in the Augmentation.
JANUARY 91 1861 (Augmentation suit)- BENJAMIN F. and GEORGE K. PORTER together
answer Hihn's complaint by stating that he is the owner of land in the area,
but to what extent they do not know. Speaking for himself, George K, Porter
claims ownership of 7/lOths of l/3rd part of l/9th (a total of 7/270th undiv
ided parts) through his Sheriff's deed under an execution against the prop
erty of William Otis Andrews on April 21, 1858.
BENJAMIN F, PORTER states that he owns 7/54ths of the Augmentation through his
deed with Durrell Gregory dated August 13, 1859 •••••• he claimed 8/54ths of the
area through Gregory, but sold l/54th undivided part on January 20, 1860 to
James Taylor.
Both Porter cousins state that they believe that the area may be divided
amongst the respective tenants, and that they are also both informed and bel-
193
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
ieve and charge that certain of the defendants, namely Joel Bates, partners
Francis R. Brady and Benjamin c. Nichols and Richard Savage are and have been
committing waste and spoilation within the area by cutting of valuable trees
thereon as alleged in the complaint.
JANUARY 151 1861 (Rancho Soguel suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers the amended
complaint received October 4, 1860 which is identical to his answer to the
first complaint August 4, 1860. He again prays that the court will find, and
assign him his claimed 960/3,240 th parts•••••or 8/27ths.
JANUARY 15, 1861 (Rancho Soquel suit)- HENRY and ANTONIA PECK answer JOSHUA
PARRISH by denying that he has occupied less than the l/9th that he claims
through his deed with Carmel and Thomas Fallon, signed August 1, 1853.
JANUARY 151 1861 (Rancho Soguel suit}- HENRY and ANTONIA PECK answer the PORTER
cousins, BENJAMIN F. and GEORGE K. They deny that Benjamin F. Porter is the
owner of the five acres on which sits the tannery sold to him by the Juans. 'l'hey
next deny that George K. Porter is the owner of the 7/270th parts supposedly
acquired through his deed with the deceased William Otis Andrews on April 21,
1859.
JANUARY 18, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers the PORTER
cousins, BENJAMIN F. and GEORGE K. Hihn denies that either man has any claim,
legal or otherwise, to land in the Augmentation.
JANUARY 21, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- HENRY PECK answers Hihn's complaint by
first stating that defendants GEORGE W. KIRBY; HENRY P. PARSONS; AUGUSTAS NOBLE;
FRANCIS M. KITTRIDGE; ASA W. RAWSON; JOHN P. STEARNS; or HENRY CAMBUSTAN have
any right to title or intrust in the area.
Henry Peck continues••.••that he is informed and believes that Francis R.
Brady and his partner Benjamin c. Nichols have the right and title or intrust
to only l/54th part of the area ••••••and that Joel Bates can claim no more than
l/27th part ..••••••this last answer was denying the affore mentioned defen
dants the right to claim their School Land Warrants totaling 242 acres each by
partners Francis Brady and Benjamin Nichols and Joel Bates.
In his own right Henry claims that he is seized in fee simple, and entitled
to have 7/54th parts of the area, which may be adjusted to 2/27th parts if the
Augmentation is put up for sale
NOTE: To clarify Henry Peck•s ownership claim in the Augmentation, the following
is presented•••••••On August 29, 1859 Henry acquired his brother-in-law Miguel
Lodge's l/9th claim in both ranches, then on July 24, 1860 Frederick A. Hihn
sold him l/18th of the Augmentation. Now Henry was the owner of 9/54ths of
the Augmentation. From this total Henry deducted Lyman Burrell's l/27th part
sold on April 13, 1859 leaving him his claimed 7/54ths. Then, as he stated,
if the area were sold, then the l/27th sold to Joel Bates on November 21, 1859
and the l/54th sold to Wesley Burnett & Co. September 14, 1859 could be deducted which would leave him with 4/54ths or 2/27th undivided parts.
If his claim to land were to be reduced to 2/27ths, then his wife Antonia's
claim would remain at the l/9th total, the amount she had coming through her
mother's deed. Depending on how the percentage claim for Henry and Antonia was
calculated, Henry's claim varied from his original 9/54ths to 2/27ths, while
Antonia's varied between l/9th down to l/54th••••••making the total claim to
land between the two a total of 10/54ths or 5/27ths of the Augmentation, only
3/54ths less than Frederick A. Hihn's claim of 13/54ths, much of which was now
in doubt••••••••••••••
JANUARY 22 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- ANTONIA PECK answers Hihn's complaint by
first stating that defendants GEORGE W. KIRBY; HENRY F. PARSONSJ FRANCIS W.
KITTRIDGE1 ASA W. RAWSONJ JOHN P. STEARNS1 and HENRY CAMBUSTAN do not have any
claim to land in the area. She also states that the three men listed in her
husband's answer do not have any right to land in the Augmentation through
their School Land Warrants.
Antonia continues••••••that she is entitled to one equal l/9th part of the area,
and if it is sold she is to receive l/9th of the proceeds.
194
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
JANUARY 23 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- CARMEL FALLON'S answer to Hihn's com
plaint is identical with her sister Antonia's answer given the day before
JANUARY 23, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- LUISA JUAN answered Hihn's complaint by
first stating that her husband Ricardo Fourcade Juan has no claim to land in
the area•••••••a strange and confusing answer•••••• could there be trouble in
the Juan marriage?
Luisa continues by stating that CHRISTIAN MILLER; HENRY CAMBUSTAN; JOAQUIN BOL
ADOs and JAMES TAYLOR (also) do not have any claim to land, or any part thereof.
She continues by stating that she is entitled to 2/27th parts of the area in
spite of the two deeds in which she sold 1/27th of the premises in each one.
NOTEs On April 29, 1859 she and her husband sold l/27th to Frederick A.
Hihn, then on October 17, 1860 l/27th was sold to the Amayo brothers,
Casimero and Dario.
If Luisa's statement is analyzed, she appears to be saying that the last
sale was made without either her knowledge or consent by her husband.
JANUARY 23 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- RICARDO FOURCADE JUAN answers Hihn's
complaint by completely ignoring his wife's answer and claims that he per
sonally has coming to him 2/27ths of the area. He further states that BEN
JAMIN F. PORTER; CHRISTIAN MILLER; HENRY CAMBUSTAN; JOAQUIN BALADO; and JAMES
TAYLOR do not have any claim to land there.
Ricardo Juan comcludes by stating that he is entitled to 2/27ths of the area if
partitioned, or to 2/27ths of the proceeds if it is.sold.
JANUARY 23, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- THOMAS COURTIS, JOHN WII.SON, MARY E.J.
SI.ADE, CHARLES PLUM and HENRY W. LAWRENCE answer Frederick A. Hihn's complaint.
Thomas Courtis was answering for both himself and as administrator for the dec
eased John Ingoldsby who had died in Chicago shortly before the 1st of January,
1860 and the absent Father John Llebaria who was performing his church duties
down in Mexico. Thomas Courtis and John Wilson, spealdng for both themselves
and for the above defendants deny that the plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn has
ownership to the l3/54ths that he claims. They claim•••••••••that on January 22,
1855 that both Martina Castro Depeaux and her husband Louis Depeaux were
seized of in fee simple of the whole Augmentation, and on that date passed full
title to the premises to Father John Llebaria and the Archbishop Josephs.
Alemany. That in turn, on September 10, 1855 they conveyed their ownership to
the Augmentation to the Reverand John Ingoldsby in his lifetime.
The two attorneys continued•• , •••that on September 11, 1855 the three affore
mentioned priests entered into an agreement in which they each retained a
l/6th claim to the Augmentation and gave 1/4 each to attorneys John Wilson and
James Scarborough. Later in deeds, the two attorneys passed title to three
grantees a total of one half of their joint claim, leaving them each with a
l/8th claim. When this answer was given to the complaint, John Wilson still
claimed his l/8th ownership while James Scarborough had sold his l/8th claim
to Cyrus Coe.
Based on the above statement, Thomas Courtis claimed ownership of John Ingolds
bys l/6th as administrator of his estate, another l/6th through his deed with
the Archbishop Josephs. Alemany dated September 7, 1860 and another 2/3rds
of Cyrus Coe•s l/8th claim (with an option to purchase the balance of the
l/8th claim}.
Attorney John Wilson claimed for himself an undivided l/8th, the absent John
Llebaria through Thomas Courtis claims l/6th, while Mary E.J, Slade claims
1/4 of l/12th, Charles Plwn 1/lOth of l/12th and Henry w. Lawrence 3/20ths of
l/12th
At this point in the sequence of events it will help all to understand the
dilemma that was facing the court concerning the deed from Martina and Louis
Depeaux to the two Catholic priests on January 22, 1855 and the following
deed transactions based on this deed. Therefore the following is presented
which it is hoped will help the reader••••••••••
195
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
CLAIMANT ( GRANTOR)
THOMAS COURTIS (from Ingoldsby estate)
THOMAS COURTIS (from Archbishop Alemany- deed)
THOMAS COURTIS (from Cyrus Coe- deed)
CYRUS COE {from James Scarborough- deed)
JOHN WILSON (through Agreement of September 11, 1855)
FATHER JOHN LLEBARIA (through deed and above Agreement)
MARY E.J. SLADE (from Benjamin P. Green- deed)
CHARLES PLUM (from Benjamin P. Green- deed)
HENRY LAWRENCE (from Benjamin P. Green- deed)
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY {from Adolphe F. Branda- deed)*
FREDERICK A. HIHN {from Adolphe F. Branda- deed)*
ROGER HINCKLEY & JOHN SHELBY (from Augustas Noble- deed)
RICHARD SAVAGE (from Roger Hinckley & John Shelby- deed)
CRAVEN P. HESTER (from Augustas Noble- deed)
BENJAMIN FARLEY {from Craven P. Hester- deed)
GEORGE K. PORTER {from William Otis Andrews- deed)
AUGUSTAS NOBLE (from William Ireland- deed)
BENJAMIN P. GREEN (from John Ingoldsby, John Wilson
and James Scarborough- deeds)
*
PERCENTAGE
1/6
1/6
1/12
1/24
1/8
1/6
1/48
1/120
1/80
1/30*
1/30*
1/32
1/96
1/48
1/48
7/270
1/40
1/120
ACRES
5,450
5,450
2,725
1,362
4,088
5,450
681
273
409
1,090
1,090
1,022
341
681
681
848
818
273
32,732
Both Frederick w. Macondray and Frederick A. Hihn are claiming ownership
of the same percentage of land with the latter man's deed taking prec
edence to this point.
JANUARY 28, 1861 (Rancho Soquel suit)- THOMAS COURTIS answers the complaint of
HENRY and ANTONIA PECK as the appointed administrator of the deceased John
Ingoldsby•••••• Courtis states that John Ingoldsby departed this life on or
about the first day of Janyary, 1860, being at the time of his death seized of
in fee simple of l/6th part of the area, having in his lifetime conveyed away
the other 5/6th parts. John Ingoldsby died interstate (he left no will or test
iment), and that at the December term, 1860, of the Probate Court of Santa Cruz
County, letters of administration were granted to him.
Thomas Courtis continued••••••• that based on the deed entered into between
Martina Castro and her husband Louis Depeaux, at which time she owned the entire
area, she passed full title to the Reverand John Ingoldsby and Father John
Llebaria. Because full title was passed on to the two priests, therefore the
claims of the plaintiffs Henry and Antonia Peck, and the other defendants
claiming ownership through the deed of Martina Castro dated August 29, 1850
are invalid.
At this point in the sequence of events it will help all to understand the
dilemma that was facing the court concerning the deed from Martina and Louis
Depeaux to the two Catholic priests on January 22, 1855 and the following deed
transactions based on this deed. Therefore the following is presented which
it is hoped will help the reader•••••••••,.,,
CLAIMANT (GRANTOR)
THOMAS COURTIS (from Ingoldsby estate)
THOMAS COURTIS (from Archbishop Alemany- deed)
THOMAS COURTIS (from Cyrus Coe- deed)
CYRUS COE (from James Scarborough- deed)
JOHN WILSON (through Agreement of September 11, 1855)
FATHER JOHN LLEBARIA (through deed and above Agreement)
MARY E,J, SLADE (from Benjamin P. Green- deed)
CHARLES PLUM {from Benjamin P, Green- deed)
HENRY LAWRENCE (from Benjamin P, Green- deed)
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY (45.8 acres from Frederick A,
Hihn, balance from Adolphe F, Branda- deed)
GEORGE K. PORTER (from William Otis Andrews- deed)
AU3USTAS NOBLE (from John Ingoldsby, John Wilson
and James Scarborough- deeds)
AUGUSTAS NOBLE (from William Ireland- deed)
BENJAMIN P. GREEN (from John Ingoldsby, John Wilson
and James Scarborough- deeds)
196
PERCENTAGE
ACRES
1/6
1/6
1/12
1/24
1/8
1/6
1/48
1/120
1/80
23/600
278
278
139
70
209
278
35
14
21
64
7/270
1/12
43
139
1/40
1/120
42
14
1,624
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
FEBRUARY 4 1 1861
When Richard Savage agreed to stop his logging activities in
a stipulation agreement with Frederick A. Hihn for eight mon
thes rather than be served with an injunction on August 20,
1860 the expected income from his logging activity ceased.
This meant that the payments he had agreed to make monthly
to Roger Hinckley and his son-in-law John Shelby were del
ayed. The two original builders of the facilities took
Richard Savage (the buyer) to court to regain ownership
of the facilities and the l/96th claim to land in the Augmen
tation.
On the above date Benjamin Cahoon, for a debt of $810.61
($11,348.54) that Richard Savage owed him took Richard to
court. The court combined the two debts then ordered that the
sawmill, its supporting facilities and the l/96th undivided
part of the Augmentation be auctioned off to the highest
bidder, which was Benjamin Cahoon with a bid of $1,100
($15,400). Now Benjamin Cahoon was the owner of the sawmill
on Soquel Creek at the junction of the creek and Hinckley
Creek. Still to be signed was the Sheriff's deed passing title.
FEBRUARY 42 1861 (Rancho Soquel suit)- HENRY and ANTONIA PECK answer THOMAS
COURTIS, CYRUS COE, JAMES W, SCARBOROU3H, JOHN WILSON, JOHN LLEBARIA and AUG
USTAS NOBLE and their answer of October 30, 1860, Henry and Antonia state
that each and every allegation in their answer, plus the answers they gave
to the complaint dated January 28, 1861 are untrue, They contend t}-lat Martina
at the time she entered in fee simple with the two priests, that she was the
owner of no more than l/9th of the area.
Henry and Antonia contend that Thomas Courtis is not entitled to the l/6th
of Rancho Soquel, that Father John Llebaria had no more than l/18th parts to
convey to John Ingoldsby in their deed of September 10, 1855,
FEBRUARY 7 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- MARIA GUADALUPE AVERON answers Hihn•s
complaint by stating that Hihn himself, AugusLas Noble, Benjamin F, Porter,
Christian Miller, Joaquin Balado, Charles H, Willson, Archbishop Jcseph S,
Alemany and James Taylor ·ao not have any claim to land in the area, or any parts
thereof.
Guadalupe further states that she is the owner in fee of l/9th of the premises
if it is partitioned, and if sold, she is to receive l/9th of the proceeds.
FEBRUARY 7 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN answers Hihn's
complaint by stating that Hihn himself, Cyrus Coe, Benjamin F, Porter, Christian
Miller, Joaquin Bolado, John Wilson, Archbishop Joseph S, Alemany and James
Taylor do not have any claim to land in the area, or any parts thereof,
Helena further states that she is the owner in fee of 2/27th parts of the prem
ises if it is partitioned, and if sold, she is to receive 2/27ths of the pro
ceeds,
FEBRUARY 21 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- JOHN P, STEARNS, acting on his behalf
(he is also the attorney for George w. Kirby), states that he is not the owner
of 13/54ths of the area (Hihn), but because he is unadvised and cannot state
the correct amount, he leaves that to the court. He continues that the area
is so situated that it cannot be divided while claiming ownership for himself
l/27th parts,
NOTE: How Stearns arrived at l/27th of the Angmentation is questionable
because the only paper with his name as grantee is his purchase in partner
ship with Joel Bates for 242 acres of illegal School Land Warrants,
197
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
FEBRUARY 23 1 1861- DEED
On the above date ·attorneys Asa W. Rawson and Francis Kitt
ridge sold to Christian Miller of Santa Cruz County for
$500($7,000) Joel Bates old sawmill at the junction of Bates
Creek and Grover Gulch(at the end of today's Prescott Road)
and 242 acres of School Land Warrants. The two attorneys were
appointed by the court to handle the deceased Peter Tracy
estate, It will be remembered that when he died, Peter Tracy
still owned 968 acres of School Land Warrants in the Aug
mentation along Bates Creek and that the court ordered this
land divided into four equal areas of 242 acres each and
auctioned off to the highest bidders. In a joint bid, Joel
Bates and John P. Stearns, on May 5, 1860 were the high
bidders for one of the parcels of land,
Through confusion(?) by the two attorneys, John P. Stearns
and Christian Miller, the latter believes that she is the
owner of Joel Bates shutdown sawmill and l/27th of the
Augmentation(1,211 acres), not the 242 acres of illegal
School Land Warrants••••••• the 1/27th undivided part that
Miller is claiming is the claim that Joel Bates purchased
from Henry and Antonia Peck on November 21, 1859,
DEED-FATHER JOHN LLEBARIA to THOMAS COURTIS
February 28, 1861
SEE APPENDIX ·sOn the above date the Consul for the United States in
Mexico signed a deed on behalf of the absent Father Llebaria in
which all of the priest's claim to land in both of Martina
Castro's former ranches passed on to Courtis. Thomas Courtis
paid the priest through the Consul $250($3,500).
When this deed was signed, Courtis now added to his present
claim to land in both ranches another l/6th(5,450 acres in
the Augmentation and 278 acres in Rancho Soquel) for a total
of 19,076 of the Augmentation's 32,702 acres and 973 of Rancho
Soquel's 1,668 acres,
NOTE: It is interesting how quickly Thomas Courtis has
moved into a commanding position in the INGOLDSBY versus
RICARDO JUAN suit against the heirs of Martina Castro.
Remember, the first reference we have of him is in a letter
dated February 5, 1858 from Augustas Noble to John Wilson,
and this mention is only Noble's wish to pass on to Courtis
his "best wishes," to both Thomas and his wife Irene.
APRIL 9, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- THOMAS FALLON answers Hihn•s complaint by
stating that it is not true that defendants HENRY PARSONS; AUGUSTAS NOBLE; JOHN
P. STEARNS; FRANCIS W. KITTRIDGE and ASA W. RAWSON have any right, title or
intrust whatsoever. Thomas continues that the defendants Francis R. Brady and
his partner Benjamin c. Nichols are entitled to have the 242 acres of School
Land Warrants in addition to their l/54th part, and that Joel Bates is also
so entitled.
Thomas continues••••••that he is entitled to l/9th of the Augmentation after
198
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
the total of 1,120 acres of School Land Warrants are removed from its total.
Remember Thomas was one of the ·first to apply for School Land Warrants, acq
uiring a total of one square mile (warrants Nos. 353, 354 and 108).
APRIL 11, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answers JOHN P. STEARNS
reply to the complaint by stating that he is informed and believes and upon
such information that it is not true that Stearns is entitled to have l/27th
part of the area.
APRIL 131 1861 (Augmentation suit)- AffiUSTAS-NOBLE answered Hihn's complaint by
first stating that he (Hihn) did not have legal claim to the 13/54ths he con
tends to own••••••he also states that the land is not so situated that it
cannot be divided and the separate shares set off and assigned to the respect
ive owners thereof without injury in a great degree to the several parties in
interest.
Augustas next entered into a long discussion of the transactions that began
with the Mexican Government's giving Martina grants to Rancho Sequel then the
Augmentation, her deeds with the three Catholic priests, their deed and follow
ing agreement, then the following deeds to Benjamin P. Green, William Otis
Andrews, and to himself in which l/12th of both ranches were purchased by
each of the three.
Augustas next stated that he had sold his original l/12th claim to land in
two deeds, one to Roger Hinckley and his son-in-law John Shelby, and the second
to Craven Hester. He continued that after these two sales he next purchased
from William Ireland 3/lOths of l/12th of the area in contention then added to
this total by successfully bidding on 1/4 of Peter Tracy's School Land Warrant
sale of 968 acres•••••••for an unexplained reason, he stated that the 242 acres
of School Land Warrants totaled l/27th of the area (a total of 1,211 acres).
CHARLES B. YOUNGER APPOINTED REFEREE
April 15, 1861
District Court Judge Samuel B, McKee issued the following decree concerning
both the Sequel Augmentation and Rancho Sequel suits (better known respect
ively as the Hihn versus Peck et als suit and the Peck versus Hihn et als
suit) o • • • , ,
"It, appearing to the court from the pleadings in these cases that the
rights of the respective parties thereto are in issue, and that it is a
proper case for a reference, and on motion of Robert F. Peckham Esq.,
attorney for the plaintiffs Henry and Antonia Peck and plaintiff Frederick
A. Hihn, it is ordered that it be referred to Charles B, Younger Esq. to
hear the proofs, and interests of the respective parties hereto, to try
the same, and all the issues therein and report his findings thereon toget
her with the evidence taken therein, to this court, on or before the first
day of the next term thereof."
CHARlES B, YOUNGER
Charles B, Younger was born in Liberty, Missouri, December 10, 1831. He
came to California with his father in 1850, settling in San Jose. After acq
uiring his law degree he opened a law office which remained open until 1871.
In 1857 he opened a branch (which later would serve as his main office) in
Santa Cruz. He was active in Santa Cruz business financially, also in mining
and transportation affairs, In 1873 he married Jeannie Hudson Waddell, daughter
of William w. Waddell, Younger will die March 22, 1907 at age 75. His son
Charles B. Younger, Jr., a graduate of Santa Cruz High School and later from
Stanford University, married Agnes Hihn, the daughter of Frederick A, Hihn, Like
his father, Younger Jr. was a lawyer, passing away May 12, 1935.
Charles B, Younger senior's activities during the two partitioning suits
is considerable, In 1861 when it appeared that the two trials had reached an
"impasse," Frederick A. Hihn through his attorney Robert F. Peckham, rec
ommended that Younger be called in from San Jose and be given the respon
sibility of listening to all claims to ownership within both ranches and
establish the actual ownership percentage of each of the defendants, ••• ,he
199
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
was to establish percentage ownership only, not the location or final size
of the award. He will present his findings to the court in August of 1861.
While his findings will be contested over the next four years, because of the
accuracy and depth of his findings and conclusions, not one of his decisions
will be overturned by the court••••••••Younger's activities will again sur
face concerning Martina's two ranches when he is hired to do battle on behalf
of the 600-plus persons that E lizabeth Peck will attempt to evict in 1895/1896.
But this part of Charles B. Youngers senior's activities will not be dis cussed
at this ti�e, but is dis cussed in detail in CHAPTER 19 of this book titled MARY
ELIZABETH PECK versus FREDERICK A. HIHN et als•.••based on notes taken by Char
les B. Younger and Superior Court Trial testimony dated AUGUST 22, 1896.
APRIL 17. 1861 (Rancho Soguel & Augmentation suits)- CHARLES H. WILLSON of Marin
County withdraws his answer to the complaints (for both suits) and authorizes
the Clerk of the Court to enter default for want of answer, but for no costs or
damages. The request is signed by Daniel Black, Willson's attorney.
APRIL 22, 1861 (Rancho Soquel & Augmentation suits)- CHARLES B. YOUNGER 11,w
issued the following notice•••••• "Take notice that Thursday the 2nd day of
May, ]861 at 10 O'clock A.M. has been and is hereby set as the time, and the
Court House in the town of Santc1 Cruz in said County (of Santa Cruz) and Stcite
(of California), as the place for the hearing and trial of the above entitled
cause, before the w1dersigried referee herein appointed by the Third District
Court
APRIL 23 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN answered AUGUSTAS NOBLE by
stating that when Martina signed her deed on Januc1ry 22, 1855, basec.J on her
earlier deed dated August 29, 1850, she was in fee simple of no more than
l/9th part of the area, therefore he is not entitled to have set off to him
any parts of the Augmentation or its tenements as described in the complaint.
APRIL 25 1 1861- DEED
On the above date Frederick A. Hihn paid Charles H. Willson
$500 ($7,000) for his 1/18th claim to land in both ranches.
NOTE: Refer to the Argeement between Charles H. Willson and
Frederick A. Hihn dated December 17, 1860 and the Chattle
Mortgage October 4, 1854.
APRIL 30 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK �. HIHN answers the complaint by
stating that FREDERICK A. HIHN has no right, title, claim or entrust in any of
the premises described In th-= complaint•••••••••• this reply by Frederick C.
llihn is intrigulng in that there is no Fredericlc C. Hihn in the aihn family
genealogy from the Old Country to date in the New-Country. It would appear
that lhe two Hilms are one and the same person, that there was an advantage
for him to be both plaintiff and defendant.
APRIL 30, 1861 (Rancho Soquel suit)- FREDERIC!{ W. l'!ACONDRAY
s. Wriglll Esq. to represent him instead of attorneys Sidney
Rose••••••Macundr,:rr is prepari11g to defend his r.laim to the
part of both r;mches he purchased through the Probate Court.
Branda estate July 18, 1059.
authorizes Selden
L. Johnson and
l/30th undivided
sale of Adolphe r.
MAY 2, 1861 (Rancho Soquel suit)- THOMhS COUR'I'IS requests that the following
amendment to his a11swe1· dated October 30, lfl60 •••••• that based on the deed
dated February 28, 1861 bet,,·een himself c'nd Father John Llebaria he is the
mmer in fee simple of an additional l/6th part of each of Martina's ranches.
The amendment is accepted by Robert F. Pec.khum, the attorney for plaintiffs
Henry and Antonia Peck.
MAY 23. 1861 (Augmentation suit)- HENRY PARSONS, former assistant County Rec
order answers the complaint by stating that Hihnis not the owner in fee of the
13/54ths he claims and the total should be no more than l/27th part.
200
�CHAOS IN THE COURTROOM
Parsons also denies that the area cannot be divided among the legal owners
without injury in a great degree to the several parties in interest. He also
denies that the area is covered entirely with redwood timber, and that the
chief value is its timber trees.
Henry continue·, that he is the owner in fee simple of l/135ths of the whole
premises throu�h his purchase of a percentage of Peter Tracy's School Land
Warrant No. 108 (the warrant totaled 320 acres, therefore l/135th totals
three-quarters of the warrant). Henry purchased his interest in the warrant
February 1, 1855 for a total of $641 ($8,974).
JlTh.� 12 1 1861- DEED
In this second deed, which is identical to the deed signed
October 17, 1861, once again the Juans (Luisa and Ricardo
Juan) sell the Amaya brothers, Casimero and Dario, l/3rd of
Luisa's 1/9th claim to land in the Augmentation. Purpose of
this second, identical deed is not stated••••••no money
passes hand at this second signing, only the original amount
of $1,000 ($14,000) is mentioned.
JUNE 131 1861 �Augmentation suit)- CASIMERO & DARIO AMAYO answer Hihn's com
plaint by stating that Hihn is the owner of 13/54th parts of the area, the
area he claims, that the lands are so situated that they cannot be divided and
set off to the respective owners ••••••and the portion of the premises that they
are occupying cannot be set apart from others.
The Amayo brothers claim that they have erected at their own expense and cost
valuable and permanent improvements on the premises valued at $400 ($5,600)
consisting of a dwelling house, corrals, fences, and other improvements which
are situated about a half mile to the west of the portion of the area occupied
by Lyman Burrell. They also claim that the portion of the premises that they
are occupying is far less than their share of the Augmentation purchased
earlier from the Juans.
JULY 4 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A, HIHN answers THOM.AS COURTIS 's
answer made January 23, 1861 by denying all his claims based on the "fact"
that Martina Castro owned only l/9th of the area when she signed the deed
January 22, 1855 with FaLher John Llebaria and Archbishop Joseph S, Alemany.
That she had, in her deed of August 29, 1850 given to her children the other
8/9 th parts.
201
�Intentially left blank.
202
�CHAPTER13
PARTITIONING
REPORTS
BY
CHARLES B.
YOUNGER
203
�Intentially left blank.
204
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CH�LES B. YOUNGER
On April 20, 1863 District Judge Samuel B. McKee issued his
official DECISIONS CONCERNING Martina Castro's deed of AUGUST
29, 1850•••his opinion concerning the Referees decision that the
Augmentation was incapable of division except as to the two
claimants Lyman Burrell and James Taylor•••and that the balance
of the area should be auctioned and the money derived from the
sale be divided among the legal owners according to the perent
tage (of the area) awarded to them by Charles B. Younger•••and
the findings concerning which deeds took prececence concerning
both those generated by Martina Castro's heirs and those gen
erated by the John Ingoldsby backers. In this chapter we are
concerned only with the latter decisions, because, even though
they were officially rendered by Judge Samuel B. McKee, they
were generated by Charles B. Younger during his review of the
deeds and agreements offered by the claimants for land owner
ship in both ranches.
Understanding the following rulings concerning which deed
took precedence, which deed was acceptable, and which deed was
void, and the reasoning behind his decisions will help us under
stand how he arrived at the percentage ownership awards as
presented in this chapter••••••••••••••••••••·•••
The LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
SHACKLEFORD & VANDENBERG
versus FREDERICK A. HIHN
SEPTEMBER 19, 1852- Nicanor Lajeunesse and her husband Francisco
sold her l/9th claim to land in the Augmentation to Peter
Tracy (now deceased), Thomas w. Wright and Montgomery B.
Shackleford.
JANUARY 211 1854- Nicanor Lajeunesse and her husband Francisco
sold her l/9th claim to land in Rancho Soquel to Dr. John
P.P. Vandenberg.
JULY 23, 1860- Nicanor Lajeunesse sold her two claims (in both
ranches) to Frederick A. Hihn, then on the next day Francisco
signed the deed.
FINDINGS BY CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The deed dated SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 was signed before a
Justice of the Peace and acknowledged by the County Clerk,
while the deed of JANUARY 21, 1854 was executed and acknowledged
before a County Clerk.
The deed dated JULY 24 1 1860 to Frederick A. Hihn was signed
and acknowledged by a Notary Public.
All three of these deeds were executed after the passage of
the ACT of April 16, 1850 CONCERNING CONVEYANCES and the ACT of
205
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
SHACKLEFORD & VANDENBERG
versus FREDERICK A. HIHN
(Continued)
April 17, 1850 DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. Neither
the deed of SEPTEMBER 19 1 1852 or the deed of JANUARY 21, 1854
were acknowledged before an authorized person as prescribed in
the above ACTs while Frederick A. Hihn's deed signed by Fran
cisco Lajeunesse and Nicanor was properly acknowledged.
In acquiring the estate of Nicanor Lajeunesse, Frederick A.
Hihn, so far as proof goes, was not guilty of any fraud upon
the deceased Peter Tracy, Thomas w. Wright, Montgomery B.
Shackleford, or Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg.
NOTE: On JANUARY 29, 1855 Montgomery B. Shackleford sold
1/3rd of the l/9th that he, Tracy and Wright claimed in the
Augmentation to George w. Kirby••••••this sale was voided by
Charles B. Younger.
On SEPTEMBER 5, 1856 Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg sold 1/2 of
his l/9th (or 1/18th) claim in Rancho Soquel to Frederick A.
Hihn•••••••••this sale was voided by Charles B. Younger.
The JOHN INGOLDSBY DEEDS
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY
On MAY 3, 1856 John Ingoldsby, John Wilson and James Scar
borough sold to each of the following 1/12th undivided part of
both Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation••••••••
• AUGUSTAS NOBLE
e BENJAMIN P. GREEN
• WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS
The deeds to these three grantees were filed for record on
the following dates••••••••oo•
• AUGUSTAS NOBLE- June 4, 1857
e BENJAMIN P. GREEN- August 26, 1857
• WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS- August 18, 1860
FINDINGS BY CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The amount of land sold in the above deeds in both ranches
totals 1/4 of each area, 1/12th to each grantee. But, in the
California Supreme Court's reversal of the lower court's ruling
that Martina Castro's deed of AUGUST 29, 1850 was fraudulent,
this decision means that Martina Castro had claim to only l/9th
of each ranch, that she did not possess title to their entire
acreage.
206
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The JOHN INGOLDSBY DEEDS
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY
(Continued)
Because John Ingoldsby could legally claim no more than
1/9th of each ranch and he had sold a total of 1/4 of each
area, title to the three grantees and their grantees had to
be determined by other means. It was decided, and accepted by
the court that to determine ownership, it would be based by
the date that they were filed for record. Therefore, because
he filed first, Augustas Noble retained his entire 1/12th
claim in both ranches. With Augustas Noble being given his
entire claim, this left the second man to file, Benjamin P.
Green with the following percentage (1/9 - 1/12 = 12/108 - 9/108
= 3/108 or) 1/36th of each ranch.
Because William Otis Andrews filed last, he had no legit
imate claim to land in either ranch.
The AUGUSTAS NOBLE DEEDS
Augustas Noble retained his l/12th claim to land in Rancho
Soquel, while he sold his entire claim in the Augmentation in
two deeds as follows•••••••••••
JUNE 19, 1858- 1/2 of his 1/12th (or l/24th) claim in the Aug
mentation to Roger G. Hinckley and his son-in-law John Shelby.
AUGUST 17 1 1858- 1/2 of his l/12th (or l/24th) claim in the Aug
mentation to Craven P. Hester.
The BENJAMIN P. GREEN DEEDS
Benjamin P. Green entered into the following deeds after
his purchase of 1/12th· of each ranch from John Ingoldsby (which
Charles B. Younger had now reduced to 1/36th undivided parts) •••
MAY 5 1 1856- 1/lOth of l/12th of both ranches to Adolphe F.
Branda (he filed MAY 5, 1856)
MAY 5 1 1856- 1/4 of 1/12th of both ranches to Mary E.J. Slade
(she filed DECEMBER 16, 1860)
MAY 5 1 1856- 1/lOth of l/12th of both ranches to Charles Plum
(he did not file his deed in Santa Cruz County)
MAY 13 1 1856- 3/20ths of 1/12th of both ranches to Henry
Lawrence (he filed DECEMBER 17, 1860)
w.
JUNE 9, 1858- 3/lOths of 1/12th of both ranches to William
Ireland (he filed MARCH 18, 1859)*
BENJAMIN P. GREE,N retained l/120th of his 1/12th purchase in
each ranch.
* On JUNE 4 1 1860 Ireland sold his 1/40th claim in both
ranches to Augustas Noble.
207
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The JOHN INGOLDSBY DEEDS
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY
(Continued)
The WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS DEEDS
William Otis Andrews entered into the following two deeds
after his purchase of l/12th of each ranch from John Ingoldsby
(which Charles B. Younger had now ruled that Andrews had no land
claim in either ranch)•••••••••••
SEPTEMBER 291 1856- 3/lOth of l/12th in both ranches to Adolphe
F. Branda (he filed MAY 26, 1857)
APRIL 21, 1859- When William Otis Andrews signed the deed with
John Ingoldsby MAY 3, 1856 he paid only a portion of the
agreed upon amount of $2,000 ($28,000), giving Ingoldsby a
note for the balance. Because Andrews still owed him $916
($12,824) and the due date on the note was past due, on
JULY 22, 1858 Ingoldsby went to court and on AUGUST 14, 1858
he received a judgment against Andrews.
Before John Ingoldsby could collect on his judgment, William
Otis Andrews died. The court ordered, based on the percen
tage of money still due on the debt, that the same percentage
of his remaining claim in both ranches be sold at public
auction.
On APRIL 21, 1859 George K. Porter was the high bidder with
a bid of $740 ($10,360), acquiring 7/270th undivided parts in
both ranches. The Sheriff's deed was signed by the San Fran
cisco Sheriff. The 7/270th undivided parts awarded to George
K. Porter was given to him by Charles B. Younger because the
auction ordered by the Probate Court made the sale official
regardless of the fact that Andrews had no legitimate claim
to land after the State Supreme Court decision.
The ADOLPHE F. BRANDA and
WILLIAM IRELAND DEEDS
The question that Charles B. Younger had to now decide
was••••••• does Adolphe F. Branda or William Ireland take their
claim to land from Benjamin P. Green's remaining claim of
1/36th undivided part in each ranch, But the situation was
further complicated by the 3/lOths of 1/12th purchase from
William Otis Andrews on SEPTEMBER 29, 1856. When this purchase
was added to his earlier 1/lOth of l/12th from Benjamin P.
Green, this made his total now 4/lOths of 1/12th or l/30th of
both ranches.
But, as previously discussed, no estate· passed from Will
iam Otis Andrews to Adolphe F. Branda., ••••••then on JUNE 28,
208
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The JOHN INGOLDSBY DEEDS
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY
(Continued)
1859, because Andrews did not pay taxes for his two claims in
both ranches for the tax year of 1858, his supposed 4/lOths of
1/12th (or l/30th) claim was auctioned to the highest bidder
by the Santa Cruz County tax collector, and the high bidder was
Frederick A. Hihn.
While the tax collector was auctioning off Branda's land,
Branda died interstate (he left no will), and administration
had his estate, and the supposed l/30th parts, by order of the
Probate Court in San Francisco put up for sale and on JULY 18.
Ul22.. Frederick w. Macondray was the buyer.
NOTE: Based on the earlier tax sale, Frederick A. Hihn was
the legitimate owner of the contested l/30th undivided
parts in both ranches.
On AUGUST 26, 1859 Frederick A. Hihn conveyed his 1/30th
part acquired in his tax deed to Frederick W. Macondray, des
cribing in the deed the premises conveyed as an undivided
4/lOths of an undivided l/12th part of real estate in Soquel
Township known as the Rancho Soquel and Augmentation describing
them by their combined boundries as containing 45.8 acres
more or less.
FINDINGS BY CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The interest conveyed by Frederick A. Hihn was the total
interest purchased by him at the tax sale and all his estate,
right, title, interest, property possession, claim, and demand
whatsoever as well as in law and in equity ••••••In other words,
while it was clear that Frederick A. Hihn intended to sell only
45.8 acres in Rancho Soquel, his inclusion of the 1/30th per
centage and the description of the entire boundries surrounding
the sold land, and based on Macondray•s purchase in good faith
of the land through the Probate Court's sale, Charles B. Younger
decreed that Hihn sold the entire l/30th parts in both ranches
to Frederick w. Macondray.
Because Adolph F. Branda's 1/30th claim was more than
William P. Green's l/36th, this left William Ireland with
nothing to sell to Augustas Noble, when the deed was signed
JUNE 4, 1860 (Ireland sold Noble 3/lOths of 1/12th or l/40th
parts in both ranches). But with certain small fractions of
Martina Castro's interest not used or included in other claims,
Charles B. Younger decreed that William Ireland passed title
to Augustas Noble land in the Augmentation only, totalling
l/540th parts and 1/280th parts.
209
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus
JOSEPH L. MAJORS 1 GEORGE W. EVANS
and CHARLES H. WILLSON
DECEMBER 26, 1860- Jones Hoy sells l/18th of the Augmentation
to George w. Evans••••••• Frederick A. Hihn claims the sale
to George Evans was his claim which he acquired through a
deed with Joseph L. Majors dated JULY 3, 1858.
APRIL 25, 1861- Charles H. Willson sells to Frederick A. Hihn
his 1/18th claim to land in both ranches••••••Willson claims
ownership through his deed with Joseph L. Majors dated MAY 26,
1858.
EARLIER CONTESTED DEEDS LEADING TO,
AND INCLUDING FREDERICK A. HIHN DEEDS
MARCH 30, 1852- Josefa and Lambert B. Clements sell Josefa's
1/9th claim to land in both ranches to Pruitt Sinclair and
Jones Hoy.
JULY 25, 1853- Jones Hoy sells his 1/2 of the l/9th claim, or
1/18th undivided part in Rancho Soquel (only) to Joseph L.
Majors. Because he can only afford a down payment, in a second
deed signed the same day, Joseph L. Majors mortgages his
claim back to Jones Hoy, agreeing to make payments over an
unspecified period.
MAY 26, 1858- Because of an unpaid debt, the court orders land
that Joseph L. Majors owns in Ranchos Refugio and San Augus
tine and the l/18th that he (supposedly) owns in both ranches
be auctioned to the highest bidder. The high bidder was
Charles H. Willson of Marin County. When the Sheriff's deed
was signed on the above date, the granter, grantee and the
Sheriff considered the l/18th claim legitimate in both ran
ches.
JULY 3, 1858- Once again Joseph L. Majors is in court being
sued for another unpaid debt. The court orders that his
(supposed) undivided 1/18th claim in both Rancho Soquel and
the Augmentation be sold at auction. On the above date Fred
erick A. Hihn with a high bid of $175 ($2,450) acquired the
claim•••••a deed signed by the Sheriff was given him at this
time.
AUGUST 6, 1858- Joseph L. Majors signs the court ordered deed
transferring ownership of the l/18th claim in both ranches
to Frederick A. Hihn.
FINDINGS BY CHARLES B. YOUNGER
The deed dated JULY 25, 1853 between Jones Hoy and Joseph
L. Majors clearly stated that only a 1/18th claim in Rancho
Soquel was invloved in the sale. In the ·deed the description
210
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER
FP£DERICK A. HIHN versus
JOSEPH L. MAJORS, GEORGE W. EVANS
and CHARLES H. WILLSON
(Continued)
does not include the Augmentation, and because the two ranches
are entirely two different areas, and the title passed to them
onto Martina Castro were by different configurations and diff
erent patents, it was never intended by either the Mexican
Government or the United States Land Claims Commission to
consider them as one and the same.
The sale of the 1/18th undivided part in both ranches in the
two court ordered auctions were the same claims, a mistake made
by the court, but in the deed dated JULY 25, 1852 between Jones
Hoy and Joseph L. Majors, it was, as previously discussed,
clearly stated that only a l/18th claim in Rancho Sequel was
involved.
Therefore, because the transaction between Joseph Lo Majors
and Frederick A. Hihn, dated JULY 3 and AUGUST 6, 1858 passed
title only to land in Rancho Soquel, and the deed dated MAY 26,
1858 between Joseph L. Majors and Charles H. Willson is selling
the same l/18th that Frederick A. Hihn successfully bid on
later, therefore when Jones Hoy sold his remaining
l/18th claim to George w. Evans on DECEMBER 26, 1860, the land
that was passed on to Evans was located only in the Augmentation.
FINDING OF CHARLES B. YOUNGER
AGREE1'1ENT BETWEEN CHARLES H. WILLSON
and FREDERICK A. HIHN of December 17, 1860
It was decreed by Charles B. Younger that when Charles H.
Willson assumed ownership of Joseph L. Majors horses and cattle
(earlier) rather than accept the money in gold and silver that
Joseph L. Majors offered to pay his debt in full with, the
animals satisfied the debt when he (Willson) sold them. There
fore the sale of the animals satisfied the debt, and no land
passed from Majors to Willson •••••• ,see "AGREE1'1ENT BETWEEN
CHARLES H. WILLSON and FREDERICK A. HIHN" dated December 17,
1860 and the CHATTLE MORTGAGE dated OCTOBER 4, 1854, which is
included as part of the agreement,
FREDERICK A, HIHN versus
JA}IBS TAYLOR and BENJAMIN F, PORTER
JANUARY 20, 1860- Benjamin F. Porter sells l/54th of the Aug
mentation to James Taylor,o,o,,Frederick A. Hihn claims that
this l/54th part is his, while Benjamin F. Porter considers
that he is still the owner of 7/54th undivided parts in the
Augmentation through his earlier deed with Durrell Gregory,
21 I
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus
JAMES TAYLOR and BENJAMIN F, PORTER
(Continued)
FINDINGS BY CHARLES B. YOUNGER
AUGUST 11, 1855- Luisa and Ricardo Juan, Josefa and Lambert B.
Clements, Guadalupe and Joseph Averon, Joseph L. Majors and
Pruitt Sinclair agree to give to attorney Durrell Gregory
l/3rd of their claimed land in both ranches for representing
their interests before the United States Land Claims Commiss
ion in Southern California ( see CHAPTER 5•••••"1855 A TROUBLE
SOME YEAR").
Frederick A. Hihn's involvement with Pruitt Sinclair began
when Sinclair had a suit brought against him by a Charles P.
Stevenson for a debt owed him of $674 ($9,436). Because Sin
clair could not meet the debt's due date, his l/3rd claim to
land in both ranches derived from the above discussed deed were
put up for auction and Frederick A. Hihn was the high bidder
at $450 ($6,300). In October of 1857 by an execution levy and
sale and a Sheriff's deed, under a judgement which had been
docketed at the time so as to operate as a lien on the Sinclair
estate, Frederick A. Hihn claimed that he was the owner of an
undivided l/54th part in both ranches.
NOTE: The date of the auction in which Hihn was the high
bidder was MAY 29, 1856.
AUGUST 13 1 1859- Durrell Gregory sells his entire claim to
land in the Augmentation, which he considers to total 8/54ths
undivided parts in the Augmentation through his earlier deed
of AUGUST 11, 1855 with the Castro family heirs, Joseph L.
Majors and Pruitt Sinclair, to Benjamin F. Porter ••••• Charles
B. Younger, after considering all aspects of both deeds,
decreed that of the five parties granting land in the
AUGUST 11 2 1855 deed, only Pruitt Sinclair passed title to
Durrell Gregory, and the total was l/54th undivided part
located in both ranches.
When Frederick A. Hihn successfully bid on the l/54th part
in both ranches MAY 29, 1856, he was officially owner of that
percentage in both ranches. But when he had the deed filed for
record, a mistake was made in the recorder's office, and only
the l/54th part in Rancho Soquel was properly files•••••Hihn
lost the l/54th part in the Augmentation. The court decreed
that Hihn's only recourse was to sue the filing clerk, but a
successful suit would not bring back ownership of the l/54th
part in the Augmentation that he lost.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, it was decreed
that when Benjamin F. Porter sold the l/54th undivided part in
212
�PARTITIONING REPORTS by
CHARI.ES B • YOUNGER
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus
JA:MES TAYLOR and BENJAMIN F. PORTER
(Continued)
the Augmentation to James Taylor, this denied Frederick A.
Hihn from acquiring the l/54th part he had purchased from Pruitt
Sinclair. Charles B. Younger also decreed that the sale by
Benjamin F. Porter had exhausted his entire claim to land in
the Augmentation, which left him with, as his only legitimate
claim to land in either ranch, the five (5) acres in Rancho
Soquel that housed the tannery sold to him by the Juans January
1, 1858.
PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel suit)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 17, 1861
And now comes CHARI.ES B. YOUNGER, appointed Referee by this
Court and states to the Court that he has now herein com
pleted his findings of facts, herein, together with the
undertaken, and is ready to file the same on the payment of
his fee for the services as Referee herein, and in appear
ing to the Court that the parties herein have by agreement
and stipulation in writing passed to the hands of Charles
B. Younger for his services as Referee herein $500 ($7,000).
FINDINGS of REFEREE
JOSHUA PARRISH is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty of the l/9th of the ranch.
Joshua Parrish acquired his l/9th undivided part in a deed
with Thomas and Carmel Fallon on AUGUST 1, 1853.
MARIA GUADALUPE AVERON is the owner in fee, (as of her separate
estate,) and entitled to partition in severalty of the l/9th
part of the ranch.
MARIA ANTONIA PECK is the owner in fee simple, (as of her sep
arate estate,) and entitled to partition of the l/9th part of
the ranch.
HENRY w. PECK is the owner in fee and entitled to partition of
the l/9th part of the ranch.
Henry Peck acquired his l/9th undivided part in a deed with
his brother-in-law Miguel Lodge AUGUST 29, 1859.
213
�PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel suit)
PARTI-TIONING REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 17, 1861
MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN is the owner in fee, (as of her separate
estate,) and entitled to partition of the 2/27th parts of the
ranch.
Maria Helena sold l/3rd of her 1/9th inheritance in the ranch
to Frederick A. Hihn on JANUARY 82 1858.
MARIA LUISA JUAN is the owner in fee, (as of her separate est
ate,) and entitled to partition of the 2/27th parts of the
ranch, except as to that certain five (5) acres thereof inc
luding within a certain fence, separating the land a tannery.
Maria Luisa and her husband Ricardo Fourcade Juan sold their
tannery and the five acres it occupies on Tannery Gulch just
to the north of the County Road to Watsonville (today Soquel
Drive) ••••••today within the confines of Cabrillo College••••
JANUARY 1, 1858. The final deed was signed between the grantee,
Benjamin F. Porter and the two grantors JUNE 1, 1858.
On APRIL 29, 1859 the two sold l/3rd of Luisa's l/9th inherit
ance in the ranch to Frederick A. Hihn.
BENJAMIN F. PORTER is the owner in fee and entitled to par
tition of the l/9th part of all that certain five (5) acres
of the ranch included within a certain fence, separating the
land whereon stands a certain tannery and buildings for the
manufactory of leather. The five acres, on the north, east,
and west is separated from land occupied by defendants
Ricardo Fourcade Juan, and on the south by the road between
Santa Cruz and Watsonville. The defendant Benjamin F. Porter
(and others) have been in possession of the five acres since
1858, and while so in possession have at (their) own proper
costs and expense, made useful, valuable and permanent
improvements on said premises, consisting of a tannery,
vats, flumes, aqueducts, three dwelling houses, outhouses,
barn, hen-houses, machinery, and some fruit trees, all now
upon the said five acres last aforesaid.
GEORGE K. PORTER is the owner in fee, and entitled to partit
ion of the 7/270th parts••••••7/lOths of l/3rd of l/9th part.
of the ranch.
How George K. Porter acquired his 7/270th part in the ranch
on APRIL 21, 1859 is explained in the text and in this
Chapter in the JOHN INGOLDSBY- the WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS
DEEDS discussion.
214
�PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Sequel suit)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
Charles 8. Younger
August 17, 1861
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY, and that of the lands and tenements
herin first described, and described in the complaint, the
defendant William Macondray and James Otis, as executors of
the last will and testament of Frederick W. Macondray, dec
eased, and the heirs and devisees of Frederick W. Macondray,
deceased, whose names are unknown, are the owners of in fee
simple, and entitled to have set off and assigned to them
19/540th parts of the same, in severalty.
How Frederick W. Macondray (now deceased) acquired his
19/540th part in the ranch on AUGUST 26, 1859 in a deed with
Frederick A. Hihn is explained in the text and in this Chapter
in the JOHN INGOLDSBY- DEED discussion.
When Frederick w. Macondray entered into his deed with Fred
erick A. Hihn a total of 45.8 acres was sold while a percen
tage of l/30th parts was used as the size of the area that
passed title. It is interesting to note that 18/540ths red
uces to l/30th. What Charles B. Younger did was add to the
l/30th percentage was another l/540th part, probably because
the addition of the other percentages left this amount free
to pass on to another, and Younger chose Macondray.
AUGUSTAS NOBLE is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
of the l/12th part of the ranch.
Augustas Noble acquired his l/12th undivided part in a deed
with the Reverand John Ingoldsby and attorneys John Wilson
and James Scarborough on MAY 3 2 1856.
FREDERICK A. HIHN is the owner in fee, and entitled to partit
ion of the 71/270th parts of the ranch.
When the deeds that transfer title to Frederick A. Hihn are
combined, they total 7/27th parts. But when the Juans sold
him l/3rd of Luisa's l/9th claim, subtracted from this total
was the 5 acres that housed the tannery that had been sold
to Benjamin F. Porter. To make up for this loss Charles B.
Younger added an extra l/270th part, making Hihn's award
7/27th parts (70/270ths) plus the additional l/270th part.
The FREDERICK A. HIHN DEEDS
When the Summons and Complaint were served on the defen
dants, Frederick A. Hihn claimed 708/3,240th undivided parts
in Rancho Soquel, which was stated to include a total of 2,800
215
�PEC� versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel suit)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 17, 1861
The FREDERICK A•. HIHN DEEDS
(Continued)
acres, 1,132 acres more than the United States stated in their
survey and stated in the patent. Because of these extra acres,
it is difficult to compare Hihn's earlier statement of what he
owned against Charles B. Younger's findings because Younger
based his percentages on the 1,668 acres established by the
United States Government. Frederick A. Hihn based his 7O8/3,24Oth
undivided part claim on the following transactions•••••••••
MAY 29, 1856- Frederick A. Hihn acquires as high bidder 1/54th
part of Rancho Soquel from the estate of Pruitt Sinclair.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepts this deed for Rancho Soquel,
voiding it for the l/54th that Hihn purchased in the Aug
mentation.
SEPTEMBER 5, 1856- Frederick A. Hihn purchased 1/2 of Dr. P.P.
Vandenberg's l/9th undivided part in the ranch (1118th).
CHARLES B. YOUNGER declared this deed void because the
doctor's purchase of the 1/9th part of the ranch from
Nicanor Lajeunesse and her husband Francisco earlier was
not properly acknowledged.
JANUARY 8, 1858- Frederick A. Hihn purchased l/3rd of Helena
Littlejohn's l/9th claim in the ranch (l/27th part).
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepted this deed as valid.
JULY 3 and AUGUST 6, 1858- Frederick A. Hihn acquires as high
bidder l/3rd of l/9th (1/18th part) of the ranch from Joseph
L. Majors•••••the Sheriff's deed, signed July 3 was officially
signed by Joseph L. Majors August 6, 1858.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepted this deed as valid.
APRIL 29, 1859- Frederick A. Hihn purchases l/3rd of Luisa
Juans l/9th claim to land in Rancho Soquel.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepted this deed as valid.
JUNE 28, 1859- Frederick A. Hihn acquires as high bidder l/3Oth
of the ranch from the estate of Adolphe F. Branda in an
auction to pay Branda's unpaid tax bill for the year 1858.
AUGUST 26 1 1859- Frederick A. Hihn sells to Frederick W. Mac
ondray 45.8 acres in Rancho Soquel, but due to his error in
216
�PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel suit)
PART ITIONING REPORT
by
Charles 8. Younger
August 17, 1861
The FREDERICK A. HIHN DEEDS
(Continued)
wording the deed, it is decreed by the court that Hihn sold
the entire l/30th undivided part that he acquired through his
tax collector deed.
FREDERICK A. HIHN, when he calculated his 708/3,240th part
claim, based on the 2,800 acre total he subtracted the
45.8 acres he intended to sell to Frederick w. Macondray
from l/30th of 2,800 acres (93.3 - 45.8 = 47.5 acres) and
added the result to his total.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER, because he decreed that Frederick A.
Hihn, even though he intended to sell only the 45.8 acres,
because of the deed's wording, he sold the entire l/30th
part, therefore Hihn's calculations were rejected.
JULY 24 1 1860- Frederick A. Hihn purchased Nicanor Lajeunesse's
1/9th claim to land in both ranches.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepted this deed as legitimate. Because
it was written after the Summons and Complaint were served,
Frederick A. Hihn did not include it in his clQim of
708/3,240th undivided parts. Actually what the deed did, was
replace the voided deed with the Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg
in which he purchased 1/18th of the ranch, and which was
voided by Younger.
And it is further considered, adjudged and decreed, that the
defendants Benjamin F. Porter, George K. Porter, the plaintiffs
Henry w. and Maria Antonia Peck, the defendants Frederick A.
Hihn, Joshua Parrish, Maria Luisa Juan, Maria Guadalupe Averon,
Maria Helena Littlejohn and Augustas Noble, have each at their
own proper costs and expense, made useful, permanent, and val
uable improvements on the said lands above described.
And it is further considered, adjudged, and decreed, that
neither of the defendants, Joseph Averon, Jose David Littlejohn,
Ricardo Fourcade Juan, Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg, Miguel Lodge,
Thomas and Carmel Fallon, Francisco Young ALIAS Francisco Laj
eunesse, Nicanor Young, Pruitt Sinclair, Charles H. Willson,
William Ireland, William Otis Andrews, Charles w. Plum, I.S.
Reed, George H. Kirby, Thomas Courtis in his own right, or
217
�PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel suit)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 17, 1861
Thomas Courtis as Administrator of Benjamin P. Green, deceased,
Mary E.J. Slade, Henry Lawrence, Thomas Courtis as Administrator
of John Ingoldsby, deceased, John Francis Llebaria, John Will
son, or Cyrus Coe, have any title, right, claim, or interest in
the lands and tenements described in the Complaint, or any part
thereof.
signed and attested to by Charles B. Younger,
Court assigned Referee
HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PARTITIONING REPOR T
by
Charles B. Younge r
A u g u s t 2 2 , 1 8 -6 1
And now comes CHARLES B. YOUNGER, appointed Referee by this
Court herein and states to the Court that he has now herein
completed his findings of facts, herein, together with the
under taken, and is ready to file the same on the payment
of his fee for his service as Referee herein, and in
appearing to the Court that the parties herein have by
agreement and stipulation in writing passed to the hands
of Charles B. Younger for his services as Referee herein
$1,000 ($14,000), and the Court having each and inasmuch the
said findings of facts of the said Referee•••••••••the rest
of the opening statement concerns Referee Younger being
paid his bill in full of $1,000•••••••••••••••
NOTE: When Judge McKee issued his order that Charles B.
Younger be assigned Referee to partition percentage-wise
the Augmentation, he stipulated that each of the defen
dants and the plaintiff claim to land would not be filed
until their portion of Younger's bill was paid in full•••••
the amount of each grantees portion of the bill would be
218
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PARTITIONING REPOR T
by
Charles 8. Younger
August 22, 1861
the same as the percentage of land given them••••••Only
when their portion was paid, would their finding be filed
officially with the Court.
CARMEL FALLON is the owner in fee, (as of her separate estate,)
and entitled to partition in severalty of the l/9th part of
the ranch.
MARIA GUADALUPE AVERON is the owner in fee, (as of her separate
estate,) and entitled to partition in severalty of the l/9th
part of the ranch.
MARIA ANTONIA PECK is the owner in fee, (as of her spearate
estate,) and entitled to partition in severalty of the l/9th
part of the ranch.
MARIA REI.ENA LITTLEJOHN is the owner in fee, (as of her separ
ate estate,) and entitled to partition in severalty of the
2/27th parts of the ranch.
Maria Helena sold l/3rd of her l/9th inheritance in the ranch
to Frederick A. Hihn on JANUARY 1, 1858.
Waiting to be final is the deed signed with Frederick A.
Hihn dated JULY 24, 1860 in which Helena and her husband sold
her remaining 2/27th part in the Augmentation on the condition
that she retains ownership of the claim after the final
partitioning by the court is filed•••••••this event has not
occurred to date, therefore Helena retains owner of the
2/27th parts.
MARIA LUISA JUAN is the owner in fee, (as of her separate
estate,) and entitled to partition in severalty of the
l/27th part of the ranch.
Maria Luisa sold l/3rd of her l/9th inheritance in the ranch
to Frederick A. Hihn on APRIL 29, 1859.
Maria Luisa sold another l/3rd of her l/9th inheritance in
the ranch to the Amaya brothers, Casimero and Dario on
OCTOBER 17, 1860, then signed a second identical deed in
order to clarify proper ownership of the sold land in a
second identical deed JUNE 12, 1861.
HENRY W. PECK is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty of 2/27th parts of the ranch.
219
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PA RT I TI ON ING REPORT
by
Charles 8. Younger
August 22, 1861
HENRY W. PECK (Continued)
Henry Peck acquired his brother-in-law Miguel Lodge's 1/9th
claim to land in both ranches on AUGUST 29, 1859 ••••• accord
ing to Frederick A. Hihn this transaction was illegal and
could have been contested by Miguel, but never was.
On JULY 24, 1860 Frederick A. Hihn sold to Henry 1/2 of the
l/9th claim he had just purchased from Nicanor Lajeunesse
(Young), probably as an award for being the plaintiff in
the partitioning suit for Rancho Soquel.
Prior to Frederick A. Hihn selling him the 1/18th claim in
the Augmentation, Henry and his wife Antonia entered into
three transactions, as follows •••••••••
APRIL 13, 1859 they sell l/3rd of Antonia's l/9th claim
(1/27th part) to Lyman Burrell.
SEPTEMBER 14, 1859 they sell l/6th of Antonia's l/9th claim
(1/54th part) to Wesley Burnett & Company.
NOVEMBER 21, 1859 they sell l/3rd of Antonia's l/9th claim
(1/27th part) to Joel Bates.
DECISION BY CHARLES B. YOUNGER
Charles B. Younger decreed that the preceeding three deed
agreements be taken from Henry Peck's total of 1/9th + 1/18th
or 9/54ths which left him with 2/27th undivided parts of
the Augmentation.
LYMAN JOHN BURRELL is the owner in fee, and entitled to partit
ion in severalty of the l/27th part of the ranch.
Lyman Burrell acquired his 1/27th part in the ranch in a deed
with Antonia and Henry Peck APRIL 13, 1859, then reaffirmed
in a second identical deed OCTOBER 2, 1860.
JOEL BATES is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty of 1/27th part of the ranch.
Joel Bates acquired his 1/27th part in the ranch in a deed
with Antonia and Henry Peck NOVEMBER 21, 1859, then reaffirmed
the sale in a second identical deed OCTOBER 2, 1860.
220
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PA RT I TI ON I NG REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 22, 1861
GEORGE w. EVANS is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty of the 1/18th part of the ranch.
George Evans acquired his 1/18th claim to land in a deed with
Jones Hoy dated DECEMBER 26, 1860•••••••• Frederick A. Hihn
contested this award, claiming he was the legitimate owner
of the 1/18th part through his deed with Joseph L. Majors
dated JULY 3, 1858••••••see FREDERICK A. HIHN versus JOSEPH
L. MAJORS, GEORGE W. EVANS and CHARLES H. WILLSON this Chapter.
CRAVEN P. HESTER is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty of the l/48th part of the ranch.
Craven Hester acquired his l/48th part from Augustas Noble
in a deed dated AUGUST 7, 1858. In the deed Craven Hester
purchased 1/2 of Noble's l/12th claim, or a percentage of
1/24th part. In a deed dated SEPTEMBER 28, 1858 he sold 1/2
of his 1/24th part to the next grantee, Benjamin Farley.
BENJAMIN FARLEY is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty of the l/48th part of the ranch.
Benjamin Farley acquired his l/48th part in the ranch from
Craven Hester in a deed dated SEPTEMBER 28, 1858.
JAMES TAYLOR is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty of the l/54th part of the ranch.
James Taylor acquired his l/54th part in the ranch through a
deed dated JANUARY 20, 1860 with Benjamin F. Porter•••••••••
Frederick A. Hihn contested this award, claiming it was his
through his involvement with Pruitt Sinclair•• o••••••see
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus JAMES TAYLOR and BENJAMIN F. PORTER
this Chapter.
GEORGE K. PORTER is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty of the 7/270th part of the ranch.
George K. Porter acquired his 7/270th part•••••7/lOths of
l/3rd of l/9th part in a deed dated APRIL 21, 1859 through
a Sheriff's deed ordered by the San Francisco County Probate
Court••••••••see The WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS DEED discussion,
this Chapter.
FREDERICK w. MACONDRAY passed away before this award was made.
His estate was being handled by his brother William and an
221
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PA RT I TI ON ING REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 22, 1861
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY (Continued)
attorney, James Otis. The two were the executors of the last
will and testament of Frederick•••••the heirs and devisees
were unknown at the time•••••••Charles B. Younger decreed that
Frederick w. Macondray•s estate was entitled to in fee in
severalty to 1/30th part of the ranch.
Frederick w. Macondray•s estate executors acquired the l/30th
undivided part through a deed with Frederick A. Hihn dated
AUGUST 26, 1859 in which Hihn intended to sell a total of
45.8 acres to Frederick w. Macondray in Rancho Soquel only.
This highly contested deed is fully discussed in the text
and in the WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS discussion in this Chapter.
AUGUSTAS NOBLE is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty to two parts, l/540th part and 1/280th part.
Augustas Noble acquired through a deed with John Ingoldsby
MAY 3, 1856 1/12th undivided part in both ranches, selling
his claim to land in the Augmentation in two deeds•••••the
first to Roger G. Hinckley and John Shelby JUNE 19, 1858
and the second to Craven Hester AUGUST 17, 1858.
It would seem that he wanted ownership again in the Augmen
tation because he entered into a deed with William Ireland
on JUNE 4, 1860 in which he purchased 3/lOths of 1/12th or
l/40th of the ranch ••.•••but as discussed earlier in this
Chapter in the ADOLPHE F. BRANDA and WILLIAM IRELAND DEED
discussion, Augustas Noble's 1/40th purchase was reduced to
the above percentages.
CASIMERO & DARIO AMAYO are the owner in fee, and entitled
jointly to partition in severalty to 1/27th part of the ranch.
The brothers Casimero and Dario Amaya acquired their 1/27th
part in the ranch in a deed with Antonia and Henry Peck
OCTOBER 17, 1860, then reaffirmed in a second identical deed
the sale JONE 12, 1861.
FRANCIS R. BRADY & BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS are the owner in
fee, and entitled jointly to partition in severalty to l/54th
part of the ranch.
Partners Brady and Nichols acquired their claim to the l/54th
part of the ranch through their deed dated OCTOBER 19, 1859
222
�HIRN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PA RT I TI ON I NG REPOR T
by
Charles B. Younger
August 22, 1861
FRANCIS R. BRADY & BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS (Continued)
with the Wesley Burnett & Company••••••the Wesley Burnett
& Company acquired the 1/54th part through a deed with Henry
and Antonia Peck SEPTEMBER 14, 1859.
ROGER GIBSON HINCKLEY & JOHN LAFAYETTE SHELBY are the owner in
fee and entitled jointly to partition in severalty to 1/36th
part of the ranch.
Hinckley and Shelby acquired their claim to land in the ranch
through a deed with Augustas Noble dated JUNE 19, 1858. They
purchased from Augustas Noble 1/2 of his l/12th part, totaling
1/24th undivided part. After the two partners constructed a
sawmill and the necessary supporting facilities, they sold them
and 1/4 of their claimed land to Richard Savage DECEMBER 10,
1859. With the sale final, this left Hinckley and Shelby with
3/4•s of the l/24th part purchased from Augustas Noble, or
a total of l/32nd parts. For a reason that only Charles B.
Younger can answer (his notes have never been found), he
reduced Hinckley and Shelby's percentage to l/36th part.
RICHARD SAVAGE is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty to 1/96th part of the ranch.
Richard Savage acquired his 1/96th part in a deed from Hinck
ley and Shelby DECEMBER 10, 1859. Charles B. Younger awarded
Richard the l/96th part even though he lost all claim to the
land and sawmill facilities to Benjamin Cahoon through a
court ordered sale because of the unpaid debt to his grantors
Hinckley and Shelby. Richard Savage is owner of the l/96th
part in the area in name only. Charles B. Younger established
ownership as of the date that the Summons and Complaint were
served, AUGUST 14, 1860,
FREDERICK A. HIHN is the owner in fee, and entitled to partition
in severalty to 12/90th undivided parts of the ranch.
In his Complaint Frederick A. Hihn claimed ownership of
13/54th parts of the Augmentation, or 24-percent of the area.
Charles B. Younger, after considering all statements and
proofs, ruled that Hihn was the owner of 12/90th parts for a
percentage of 13.3. Without Frederick A. Hihn calculations
and those of Charles B. Younger, we will never be able to
223
�HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PA RT I TI ON ING REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 22, 1861
FREDERICK A. HIHN (Continued)
arrive at their totals. Therefore listed in the order that
Frederick A. Hihn became involved in transactions concerning
the Augmentation, the following is presented accompanied
with the final decision by Charles B. Younger••••••••••
MAY 29, 1856- In a court ordered sale Pruitt Sinclair sold to
the highest bidder, Frederick A. Hihn, l/54th part in both
ranches.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER declared part of this deed void•••••due to
an error in the recorder's office, when the deed was filed
only the portion sold in Rancho Soquel was filed correctly••••
see FREDERICK A. HIHN versus JAMES TAYLOR and BENJAMIN F.
PORTER this Chapter.
JANUARY 8, 1858- Helena Littlejohn and her husband sell to
Frederick A. Hihn 1/3rd of her l/9th claim to land in both
ranches.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepted this deed as valid.
JULY 3 and AUGUST 6 1 1858- In a court ordered sale Joseph L.
Majors sold to the highest bidder, Frederick A. Hihn l/18th
part in both ranches.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER decreed that Joseph L. Majors had claim to
land in Rancho Soquel only at the time the deeds were signed,
therefore the sale in the Augmentation was voided••••••see
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus JOSEPH L. MAJORS, GEORGE W. EVANS
and CHARLES H. WILLSON this chapter.
APRIL 29 1 1859- Maria Luisa Juan and her husband Ricardo Four
cade Juan sell l/3rd of her l/9th claim to land in both
ranches to Frederick A. Hihn.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepted this deed as valid.
JUNE 28 1 1859- In a court ordered sale, because Adolphe F.
Branda had failed to pay the taxes due on his l/30th claim
to land in both ranches for the 1858 tax year, Frederick A.
Hihn is the high bidder.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepted Frederick A. Hihn, because his
deed through the tax collector occurred before the Probate
Court in San Francisco sold the same claim to Frederick W.
224
�5IHN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PA RT I TI ON I NG REPOR T
by
Charles B. Younger
August 22, 1861
FREDERICK A. HIHN (Continued)
Macondray after Adolphe F. Branda's death. But in the deed
that Frederick A. Hihn entered into with Macondray in which
he (Hihn) intended to sell 45.8 acres only in Rancho Soquel,
due to the "wording" of the deed, Younger decreed that Hihn
had sold the entire 1/30th claim in both ranches to Macondray.
See The ADOLPHE F. BRANDA and WILLIAM IRELAND DEEDS this Chap
ter.
AUGUST 26, 1859- Frederick A. Hihn intends to sell 45.8 acres
only in Rancho Soquel to Frederick w. Macondray•••••see deed
dated JUNE 28, 1859 above.
SEPTEMBER 29, 1859- Pruitt Sinclair and his partner John Hames
claim that they jointly own 1/18th part in the Augmentation.
Because he has an unpaid debt totaling $925 ($12,950), the
court orders Pruitt Sinclair to auction the 1/18th claim in
the Augmentation and additional properties in downtown Santa
Cruz and along Corralitos Creek. Frederick A. Hihn, with a
high bid of $1,425 ($19,950) received a deed signed by the
Sheriff.
The Sheriff's deed was declared void due to an error made by
the Sheriff. For unknown reasons this deed is never con
sidered by either Frederick A. Hihn or Charles B. Younger as
far as known records indicate.
JANUARY 20, 1860- Benjamin F. Porter sells l/54th part of the
Augmentation to James Taylor.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER decrees that in spite of Frederick A. Hihn's
claim that the 1/54th part awarded to James Taylor was his
claim, Younger decided against Hihn•••••• osee FREDERICK A.
HIHN versus JAMES TAYLOR and BENJAMIN F. PORTER this Chapter.
JULY 24 1 1860- Nicanor Lajeunesse and her husband Francisco
sell her l/9th claim to land in both ranches to Frederick A.
Hihn•••••••then in the following deed•• o•••••••
JULY 24, 1860- Frederick A. Hihn sells 1/2 of the 1/9th he had
just purchased from Nicanor Lajeunesse (1/18th part) to Henry
W. Peck.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER accepts both of the above deeds as legal•••
see LAJEUNESSE DEEDS SHACKLEFORD & VANDENBERG versus FREDERICK
A. HIHN this Chapter.
225
�HIH� versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PA RT ITI ON ING REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 22, 1861
FREDERICK A. HIHN (Continued)
DECEMBER 26, 1860- Jones Hoy sells 1/18th of the Augmentation
to George w. Evans.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER decrees that this sale is final to George
Evans, that Frederick A. Hihn's claim that he acquired the
claim through an earlier deed dated JULY 3, 1858 with Joseph
L. Majors was incorrect••••••••see FREDERICK A. HIHN versus
JOSEPH L. MAJORS, GEORGE W. EVANS and CHARLES H. WILLSON this
Chapter.
APRIL 25 1 1861- Charles H. Willson sold his l/18th claim in
both ranches to Frederick A. Hihn.
CHARLES B. YOUNGER decreed that this deed was void due to
a mistake made by the court and to earlier agreements bet
ween Joseph L. Majors and Charles H. Willson•••••••see FRED
ERICK A. HIHN versus JOSEPH L. MAJORS, GEORGE W. EVANS and
CHARLES H. WILLSON this Chapter.
And it is further considered, adjudged and decreed, that the
defendants Maria Luisa Juan, Lyman John Burrell, Joel Bates,
Craven P. Hester, Benjamin Farley, James Taylor, George K.
Porter, Casirnero and Dario Amayo jointly, Francis R. Brady and
Benjamin Cahoon Nichols jointly, Roger Gibson Hinckley and
John Lafayette Shelby jointly, Richard Savage and Frederick A.
Hihn, have each at their own proper costs and expense, made
useful, permanent, and valuable improvements on the said lands
above described.
And it is further considered, adjudged, and decreed, that
neither of the defendants, Jose Littlejohn, Ricardo Fourcade
Juan, Joseph Averon, Thomas Fallon, Frederick c. Hihn, Christian
Miller, Henry Cambustan, Joaquin Boledo, Cyrus-Coe, George W.
Kirby, Henry F. Parsons, John P. Stearns, Francis M. Kittridge,
Asa w. Rawson, H.B. Holmes, Benjamin F. Porter, John Wilson,
Josephs. Alemany, Francisco Young ALIAS Francisco Lajeunesse,
Nicanor Young, Maria Josefa Clements, Lambert B. Clements,
Pruitt Sinclair, Joseph L. Majors, Charles H. Willson, William
Ireland, William Otis Andrews,James Scarborough, Charles Plum,
r.s. Reed, Thomas Courtis in his own right or Thomas Courtis
as Administrator of Benjamin P. Green, deceased, Mary E.J.
226
�HIEN versus PECK (Augmentation suit)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
Charles B. Younger
August 22, 1861
Slade, Henry Lawrence, Thomas Courtis as Administrator of John
Ingoldsby, deceased, John Francis Llebaria, have any title,
right, claim, or interest in the lands and tenements described
in the Complaint, or any part thereof.
signed and attested to by Charles B. Younger,
Court assigned Referee
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS BY
REFEREE CHARLES B. YOUNGER
Charles B. Younger found, and recommended that the Soquel
Augmentation is not susceptable of partition among the joint
owners thereof without great prejudice to their interest except
the interest, respectively claimed by James Taylor and Lyman
Burre11•••••••that their interests can be set off to them
respectively by water and bounds••••••••and that the Augmentat
ion ought to be sold with the exception aforesaid. He continued
that the respective owners should share in the sale money equal
to the percentage so given to them by this partitioning report.
2 27
�Intentially left blank.
228
�CHAPTER 14
MOTIONS, REQUESTS
FOR NEW TRIALS
and the
LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
229
�Intentially left blank.
230
�MOTIONS, REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
AUGUST 22, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- JOHN WILSON still representing John Ingold
sby, now deceased and the rest of the defendants in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO
JUAN suit serves notice the he and his clients take exception to the Partition
ing Report submitted by Charles B, Younger and will move for a new trial, The
notice is signed by John Wilson, the defendants and the added signature of
Augustas Noble,
AUGUST 26, 1861- SHERIFF's DEED
On this date Richard Savage signed a Sheriff's deed passing
title to Benjamin Cahoon, his water powered sawmill, its
supporting facilities and the l/96th part of the Augmentat
ion that Roger Hinckley and his son-in-law John Shelby incl
uded in the sale to him DECEMBER 10, 1859. Earlier Benjamin
had Richard in court for a debt of $810.61 ($11,348.54) when
Hinckley and Shelby had a lien served on Richard Savage for
non payment of his debt to them. Unable to pay either debt,
the court ordered the above discussed facilities and land
be auctioned at a Sheriff's sale, with Benjamin Cahoon the
high bidder at $1,100 ($15,400). Now the l/96th part of the
Augmentation and the idle sawmill and facilities belonged to
Benjamin Cahoon.
SEPTEMBER 11, 1861
The State Supreme Court overturned Frederick A. Hihn's anti
logging injunction against Joel Bates. Joel entered his appeal
to have the injunction overturned SEPTEMBER 8, 1860. Now Joel
Bates, Francis R. Brady and his partner Benjamin Cahoon Nich
ols and Benjamin Cahoon (in place of Richard Savage) could
resume their logging activity in the Augmentation.
During the period that the Hihn anti-logging injunction was
being fought in both the lower court and in the State Supreme
Court, Brady and Nichols continued their logging along the
west side of Soquel Creek, between the creek and "old"
Mountain School, while Richard Savage spent a lot of his
time and activity in court fighting Benjamin Cahoon•s suit
and Hinckley and Shelby's lien against his mill, supporting
facilities and the l/96th part of the Augmentation.
Now that Benjamin Cahoon was free to begin logging within
the vicinity of Soquel and Hinckley creeks, he choose to con
centrate his logging efforts elsewhere, keeping the Savage
Mill shutdown. The mill would not be reopened until the 1868/
1869 period••••••••
OCTOBER 3, 1861 (Rancho Soquel suit)- DR, JOHN P,P. VANDENBERG states that bec
ause of incorrect statements made by plaintiff Henry Peck and defendant Fred
erick A, Hihn he was prevented from having a fair trial before Charles B, Young
er, He states that the evidence presented was not sufficient to justify that
Hihn was entitled to partition of the 71/270th parts of the ranch, that the
findings were both against evidence and law, plus there was an error of law
occurring at the trial and excepted to by Hihn.
231
�MOTIONS I REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIAI,§
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
The doctor continued that the finding of the referee in favor of Henry Peck was
against law and the evidence was insufficient to justify his award of l/9th part
of the ranch and that the referee's report should show that he is the owner in
fee and entitled to l/9th of the premises.
OCTOBER 5, 1861 (Rancho Soquel suit)- DR. JOHN P.P. VANDENBERG, in this exception
to Charles B. Younger•s report, the doctor repeats his objections made in his
MOTION to SET ASIDE the YOUNGER REPORT submitted October 3, 1861, obviously
brought on by his dissatisfaction with the rejection of his deed dated JANUARY
21, 1854.
OCTOBER 5, 1861 (Rancho Soquel suit)- DR. JOHN P.P. VANDENBERG repeats the
previously discussed statements made OCTOBER 3, 1861, then adds the following
statement•••••••to Henry and Maria Antonia Peck, plaintiffs, and defendant
Frederick A. Hihn and each of the other defendants except for defendant Dr.
John P.P. Vandenberg••••••••••• you are hereby notified that defendant Vandenberg
requests of the Third District Court to set aside the referee's report and begin
a new hearing and trial beginning during the upcoming January term.
OCTOBER 8, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- CRAVEN P. HESTER & BENJAMIN FARLEY submit
their OBJECTIONS to the YOUNGER REPORT by stating their disagreement with
Charles B. Younger's decision concerning the sale of the Augmentation instead
of partition. Hester, speaking for himself and as attorney for Benjamin Farley
states that from all evidence presented, that partition should be made among
the joint owners of the Augmentation,
Craven Hester ends his objection to Younger's report by asking that it be set
aside and that a new trial be granted and that partition be made.
OCTOBER 14, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- TI-IOMAS COURTIS on his own behalf, as
Administrator of the deceased John Ingoldsby (after it was admitted by all
parties that he had died in Chicago prior to January 1, 1860), for attorney
John Wilson, Mary E.J. Slade, Cyrus Coe, Charles Plum and Henry Lawrence asl<::
the court to set aside the report of Charles B. Younger and that a new trial
begin on the following grounds•• ,,,•••••
Because the report and findings do not state the facts found, and the conclus
ions of law either together or separately•••or•••embrace all the issues
jointed in the case and embraced in the order of reference. Also, because the
evidence was insufficient to justify the findings and decisions which are also
against the law and contrary to the evidence. Courtis concludes his motion for
a new trial by stating that there were errors of law accuring at the referee's
trial and excepted to by each and every of the defendants named before the
referee.
Next, the above defendants were joined by Frederick W. Macondray (deceased),
Archbishop Joseph S, Alemany and the absent Father John Llebaria, and jointly
they offered into evidence Martina Castro's deed dated AUGUST 29, 1850. Next
with John Wilson speaking for the preceeding defendants offering the following
objections to the validity of the deed, to wit•••••.••••
John Wilson read the ARGUMENTS BY JOHN WILSON AGAINST VALIDITY OF MARTINA's
DEED presented to the Seventh District Superior Court in Contra Costa County
during the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit••••••the eleven (11) points
in the arguments will not be repeated here•••••see CHAPTER 8 for the full text.
NOTE: The objections to the validity of Martina's deed were submitted to
the court assigned referees by Judge Samuel B. McKee for their opinion.
The referees overruled all the objections and admitted the deed for all
purposes for which it was offered which each and every of the defendants
by their counsel then and there duly excepted.
Next the above defendants offered and read into evidence the following deeds
and agreements .•••••••••••
• DEED dated January 22, 1855 between Martina Castro and Louis Depeaux and
grantees Archbishop Josephs. Alemany and Father John Llebaria•••••••••••••
SEE APPENDIX "8"
232
�MOTIONS, REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
• DEED dated September 10, 1855 from Archbishop Josephs. Alemany and Father
John Llebaria to the Reverand John Ingoldsby ••••••••
• Defendants next read into evidence the deeds from Benjamin P. Green to
Mary E.J. Slade (May 5, 1856), to Charles Plum (May 5, 1856), to Henry w.
Lawrence (May 13, 1856) and from James S carborough to Cyrus Coe (May 24,
1858) •
• AGREEMENT dated September 11, 1855 between the Reverand John Ingoldsby,
Father John Llebaria and Archbishop Josephs. Alemany•••••••••.•.••••.•••.•
• DEED dated September 7, 1860 between Archbishop Josephs. Alemany to T homas
Courtis •••.••••.••and
• DEED dated February 28, 1861 between Father John Llebaria and T homas
Courtis .••••••••the text for the above two short deeds are available at
the County Recorders Office in Santa Cruz.
• DEED dated May 26, 1858 from Cyrus Coe to Thomas Courtis in which Coe sold
to Courtis an undivided 2/3rds of his I/18th claim to land in both ranches,
Thomas Courtis ended this motion for a new trial by offering into evidence the
deposition of Louis Depeaux taken July 14, 1856 in San Francisco •••• ,the entire
text of the deposition is presented in CHAPTER 7 of this book.
OCTOBER 15, 1861 (Rancho Soguel suit)- THOMAS COURTIS in making a MOTION for a
NEW TRIAL for Rancho Soquel partitioning suit, presents the almost identical
presentation that he presented the day before for the Augmentation suit.
OCTOBER 18, 1861 (Rancho Soguel suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN is joined by LUISA and
RICARDO JUAN, HELENA and JOSE LITTLEJOHN and GUADALUPE and JOSEPH AVERON in
a request to change THOMAS COURTIS's MOTION for a NEW TRIAL of October 15, 1861.
The changes recommended by the above defendants are the removal of the
deeds and agreements submitted for evidence by Thomas Courtis and replacing
them with the deeds accepted by Charles B. Younger on their behalf.
OCTOBER 18, 1861 (Rancho So�uel suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN submits his OBJECTIONS
to the YOUNGER REPORT. On his own behalf he claims that the 71/270th parts
should be 8/27th parts•••••and that Augustas Noble's I/12th should be I/27th
part••••••••that George K. Porter's 7/270th parts should be 13/1,018 parts••••••
and Frederick w. Macondray•s 19/540th parts should be 320/9,720 parts.
Frederick A. Hihn continues that the findings of the referee concerning the
above defendants are contrary to the evidence given and they are against law
and because they are against law, many errors were committed (by Younger).
Hihn, through his attorney Robert F. Peckham served notice to the above defend
ants that he was filing his objections with the Clerk of the court.
OCTOBER 18, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN submits his OBJECTIONS
to the YOUNGER REPORT. On his own behalf he claims that the 12/90th parts
should be the 13/54th parts that he claimed in his complaint ••••••and that
James Taylor••• George K. Porter•••Augustas Noble••••and George w. Evans should
not be awarded any portion of the Augmentation. Hihn continues••••••that Craven
Hester's 1/48th should be 5/432 parts ••••and that Frederick w. Macondray's
I/30th part should be no more than 2/243 parts.
Hihn next asked the court to set aside the claim of Francis Brady and Benjamin
Cahoon Nichols that their improvements total $2,000 ($28,000) •••••they are
worth no more than $450 ($6,300).
Hihn also disputed that neither Richard Savage or James Taylor had made any use
ful improvements on their property and it is improper for Taylor to include
his supposed improvements in the value of the land.
Concerning Lyman Burrell, Hihn stated that he had entered his proper costs for
233
�MOTIONS• REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
his improvements and that they are useful and permanent, but their value should
not be included in the value of the land.
Hihn continued that Joel Bates• improvements should total no more than $4,000
($56,000), that their worth is not the $10,000 ($140,000) that he claims and
that the value of the improvements made by Craven Hester and Benjamin Farley
should be included within the value of their land.
Frederick A. Hihn, through Robert F. Peckham concludes his objection to the
Younget Report for the Augmentation suit with the identical words that ended
the preceeding objections for the Rancho Sequel suit made on October 15, 1861.
OCTOBER 18. 1861 (Augmentation suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN is joined by HENRY
and ANTONIA PECK, HELENA and JOSE LITTLEJOHN, THOMAS and CARt-IBL FALLON, LUISA
and RICARDO JUAN and GUADALUPE and JOSEPH AVERON in a request to change THOMAS
COURTIS's MOTION for a NEW TRIAL of October 14, 1861.
The changes recommended by the above defendants are the removal of the
deeds and agreements submitted for evidence by Thomas Courtis and replacing
them with the deeds accepted by Charles B. Younger on their behalf.
Changes that Robert F. Peckham read into the record on behalf of his client
Frederick A. Hihn are as follows••••••••
• A lien duly recorded against the property of Lyman Burrell for $500 ($7,000).
When Burrell signed his deed with Henry and Antonia Peck APRIL 13, 1859
he gave them $1,000 ($14,000) in gold coin and a note for $500. Henry Peck
was in the process of pressuring Burrell to pay off the note or get off
the land with a law suit. Many over the years have considered that it was
Henry Peck attempting to acquire Burrell's land through his suit. But this
entry by Hihn into the court record clarifys the situation, it was Hihn that
was attempting to acquire Burrell's land through Henry Peck. When Burrell
sent his son to San Francisco to borrow the $500 ($7,000) from friends,
and paid Henry Peck in full, the suit was dropped, ending Hihn's attempt
to acquire ownership of Burrell's l/27th claim to land.
• Frederick A. Hihn objected to the following entry read into the record by
George Kirby's son of the deed dated SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 from Nicanor and
Francisco Lajeunesse in which they sold approximately 1,000 acres along
the north side of Rancho Soquel, between the Sequel River and Borregas
Gulch extending north to the junction of Grover Gulch and Bates Creek
to Thomas w. Wright, Peter Tracy and Montgomery B. Shackleford. Because
the deed was not properly notarized when signed, Charles B. Younger dec
lared it void••••••• after Hihn's objections were overruled, the deed was
allowed to be entered into the record.
Next, George Kirby's son read into the record the deed dated JANUARY 29,
1855 in which Montgomery B. Shackleford was purported to sell to his father
l/27th part of the Augmentation•••••the son's name was Charles who testified
as follows••••••••• my father lives on the ranch in suit; he has made improve
ments consisting of a picket fence enclosing 1 1/2 acres plus added 1 1/2
miles of rail fencing, a dwelling house, a stable, hen house, and a nursery
of trees totaling 10 acres. The dwelling house was there in 1855 when my
father purchased the place, also part of the rail fence was there.
Another witness came foreward and testified that Montgomery B. Shackleford
moved from the premises in 1854 or 1855, selling the land (located in the
far southwest corner of the Augmentation where Bates Creek joins the Soquel
River) to George Kirby.
When Robert F. Peckham requested on behalf of Frederick A. Hihn in this req
uest to change Thomas Courtis's motion for a new trial that all deeds origin
ating through John Ingoldsby and his two attorneys John Wilson and James
Scarborough are illegal and be removed from the record, this brought the follow
ing response from the following defendants••••••••
• AUGUSTAS NOBLE claims he owns 3/lOth of l/12th of the Augmentation through
his deed with William Ireland dated JUNE 4, 1860•••••Younger reduced this
234
�MOTIONS I REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
claim to 1/540th and l/280th parts.
• CRAVEN HESTER claims he purchased 1/2 of Augustas Nobles 1/12th, or l/24th
part, of which he sold half to Benjamin Farley.
• ROGER G. HINCKLEY & JOHN SHELBY claim that they purchased 1/2 of Augustas
Noble's I/12th, or !/24th part of the Augmentation.
• RICHARD SAVAGE claims that he purchased 1/4 of Hinckley and Shelby's I/24th
undivided part, or a total of 1/96th part of the Augmentation.
• GEORGE K. PORTER claimed that through the court ordered sale APRIL 21, 1859
he purchased 7/270th parts in both ranches••••••George claimed that he had
originally purchased 7/lOth of l/12th part in both ranches, but Charles B.
Younger reduced it to 7/lOths of l/3rd of I/9th, or 7/270th parts.
• FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY claimed the 1/30TH part he acquired through his deed
with Frederick A. Hihn AUGUST 26, 1859.
After the preceeding deeds were read into the record, Robert F. Peckham called
as a witness Lambert 8. Clements to testify on the validity of Martina Castro
Depeaux's deed dated AUGUST 29, 1850 in which she divided her lands into nine
equal sections among her eight children and herself•••••••this testimony was
in answer to the testimony presented by Thomas Courtis concerning the validity
of the deed.
TESTIMONY OF LAMBERT B. CLEMENTS
Lambert 8. Clements began his testimony by giving the following history of
Rancho Soquel••••••••Ricardo Juan had been on the ranch since 1847, and has
occupied land there since 1850 as his personal possession.
Nobody except Martina Castro, Ricardo Juan and Francisco Lajeunesse with Nicanor
were living on the ranch with permission of Martina when the deed was signed.
I never heard of any lease that was prepared for Martina Castro to sign whereby
it was proposed to lease the ranch to her children.
Previous to August 29, 1850, at the request (suggestion) of Louis Depeaux and
Martina Castro, there was a writing prepared by me whereby Martina Castro
obligated herself to give to each of her children an equal right in the ranches
with herself, and we obligated ourselves to pay the taxes equally and to keep
off squatters•••••••and the paper is in the possession of Thomas Fallon, at
least it was some time ago.
Martina Castro and Louis Depeaux had proposed to divide off the ranches among
us••••••••••there was a consultation at her house at which all the family were
present.
After talking over the matter and taking into consideration the various things,
pro and con, Martina thought it best to let it remain such time as the ranches
were confirmed (by the U.S. Land Commission) before a division was made.
Martina then proposed that we should occupy and cultivate any portion of the
ranch excepting a certain piece (where her house stood), which was to commence
at the old crossing of the Soquel River, and thence following on a line of the
road to the gulch in back of the house (today the gulch is called Nobles Gulch),
thence down the gulch to the Bay of Monterey, thence to the mouth of the Soquel
River, and thence up the river to the place of beginning, which she desired
for herself, Louis Depeaux, and her son Miguel Lodge, and her daughters Maria
Antonia, Maria Helena and Maria Guadalupe.
With the understanding there was drawn up, and signed by Martina, Ricardo Juan,
Francisco Lajeunesse, Thomas Fallon, and myself•••••••the document referenced
as the Acknowledgment dated November 29, 1850•••••a copy of that document was
made at the time which Louis Depeaux took•••••• Thomas Fallon took the original.
Martina could not read the English language.
The document that Lambert 8. Clements was discussing was the Article of
Agreement signed and dated the day before Martina's final deed was signed
235
�MOTIONS, REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
August 29, 1850••••••the text of both papers are presented in their com
plete text in APPENDIX'S"
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS W. WRIGHT & LAMBERT B. CLEMENTS
Next, called to testify with Lambert B. Clements was the County Surveyor, Thomas
w. Wright to give his comments on the condition of Rancho Sequel between 1850
and 1855. The purpose of his testimony was to establish that Father John Llebaria
was familiar with the status of the ranch (Rancho Soquel) when the two deeds
were signed with Martina and her husband January 22, 1855. First Wright then
Clements stated that Father Llebaria was in the area for several years before
the two deeds were signed in San Francisco, therefore he had to have been aware
of the number of persons living on the lower ranch. He also had to be aware of
the deed signed August 29, 1850, and that most of the persons living there were
doing so under the conditions of it.
Lambert B. Clements further testified that the Reverand John Ingoldsby was
observed as a frequent visitor to the county recorder's office and was known to
have read Martina's deed and its acknowledgment.
When asked about the condition of Martina's mind, Lambert answered••••••she is
now living on the Soquel Ranch••••••she was formerly in the Insane Asylum, at
Stockton, but was brought back from there in 1857•••••••I don't think her mind
is in a condition suitable to appear here and give testimony herein••••••for
though her mind is rational enough when quiet, yet whenever she is questioned
about the ranch matter, she becomes excited and irrational.
Lambert B. Clements was then asked who paid the taxes on the Sequel Rancho and
the Augmentation in 1850? He answered that Louis Depeaux paid the taxes on the
properties for the portions that Martina and the unmarried children, and that
Thomas Fallon, Ricardo Juan, Francisco Lajeunesse and myself paid the taxes on
the balance
Both Clements and Wright testified as to who were living on the Rancho Soquel
in 1850 when Martina made out her deed (August 29, 1850), and who was there when
the two deeds were signed in San Francisco (January 22, 1855)••• •SEE APPENDIX ·1t.
And finally Lambert B. Clements was asked to state what the two ranches of
Martina Castro were worth in 1850••••••Lambert guessed about $75,000 (which
todc1y would be about $1,050,000)••••••••then called to the stand and asked the
same question was John Daubenbiss, guessing that they were worth about $20,000
($280,000), stating that their value at that time (1850) was considered very
poor.
The DEPOSITION of LOUIS DEPEAUX
of JULY 14, 1856
Robert F. Peckham, as a final answer to Thomas Courtis's motion for a new trial,
read into evidence the deposition taken of Louis Depeaux on the above date in
San Francisco•••••••the complete text of the deposition is presented in
CHAPTER 7.
After the deposition was read to the court Peckham contended that the original,
as presented by John Wilson had been altered••••••to support his accusation he
called to the witness stand D.J. Haslam, the present County Clerk and Recorder
for Santa Cruz County as a handwriting expert.
Haslam stated that it appeared that the deposition was altered, sometimes in a
rather "crude" manner••••••Haslam's testimony will not be presented here because
in spite of his testimony, the deposition as presented by John Wilson earlier
was allowed to remain in the records.
NOTE: The preceeding testimony is not all the testimony that Robert F.
Peckham presented on behalf of his client Fraderick A. Hihn, but it is
all the testimony that was photographed and readeable••••••much of the
actual testimony was never photographed before the originals were dest
royed.
236
�MOTIONS, REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
OCTOBER 18, 1861 (Augmentation suit)- RICHARD S AVAGE, FRANCIS R. BRADY, BENJAM
IN C. NICHOLS, GEORGE KIRBY and JOHN P. S'IBARNS request that the Younger report
be set aside and accept their MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL on the following grounds,
•
Because the report and findings do not state the facts found and the conclusions of law therefrom.
• Because the report and findings do not state the facts found and the conclusions of law therefrom separately.
• Because the report and findings do not embrace all the issues joined in the
case and embrace in the order of reference.
• Because the evidence is as insufficient to justify the finding and decision
of the referee.
• Because the finding and decision of the referee is against law.
• Because the findings and decision of the referee is contrary to the evidence.
• Because the errors, of law, occurring at the trial and excepted to by each
and every one of the defendants above named.
On the trial of this case before the referee Younger, it was admitted by all the
parties thereby, that they each every and all claimed title to the premises in
question under Martina Castro and through her deed dated August 29, 1850••••
The deed is submitted without objection at this point into the record.
The defendants next offered into evidence the following deed which also is
offered in evidence by Robert F. Peckham for plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn
and defendants Henry and Antonia Peck•••••••••
DEED dated SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 in which Nicanor Lajeunesse and her husband
sell (approximately) 1,000 acres to Thomas w. Wright, Peter Tracy and
Montgomery B. Shackleford••••••after this deed was recorded, its wording
was misrepresented to comprise l/9th of the Augmentation with each grantee
claiming l/3rd, or a total of l/27th part.
George Kirby next offered the following deed into evidence •••••••.•
DEED dated JANUARY 29, 1855 in which Montgomery B. Shackleford sold to
George Kirby his share of the Augmentation, which Kirby claims is l/27th
part.
After George Kirby read his deed, defendants Joel Bates, Francis Brady, Ben
jamin Nichols and John Stearns read into evidence the following deed•••••••
DEED dated FEBRUARY 41 1853 in which Thomas Fallon sold to Thomas W. Wright
and Peter Tracy his claim to School Land Warrants Nos. 353, 354 and 108
totaling 640 acres.
After the preceeding deed was entered into evidence, the above defendants called
as witness Thomas w. Wright to testify as follows•••••••••
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS W. WRIGHT
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
After he was shown the preceeding deed, Thomas testified as follows•••••••
"I am one of the grantees in this deed. I know where the warrants are loc
ated that are mentioned in the deed•••••the lands were located between
Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation, stretching from the west boundry of
the two areas on the Soquel River east to the east boundry at Borregas
Creek.
The enclosed area encompassed approximately 950 acres, or l/33rd part of
the entire Augmentation. The purpose of this deed was intended to convey to
Thomas Fallon's interests, in all the land between the eastern and western
lines of the ranch, and extending from one to the other, and north of the
southern line of the locations.
237
�MOTIONS, REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
A little over 32/33s of the premises in question lie north of the area
described."
Next defendants Joel Bates, Francis Brady, Benjamin Nichols and Richard Savage
read into evidence the following deed•••••••••••
DEED dated NOVEMBER 30, 1854 in which Thomas W. Wright sold his claim to
Peter Tracy all the interest in School Land Warrants Nos. 353, 354 and 108
totaling 640 acres.
PETER TRACY's SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
It was admitted by all parties that Peter Tracy died at Santa Cruz August 7,
1857, then without objection the above defendants read Peter's last will
and testiment into evidence in which he appointed Asa w. Rawson and Francis
w. Kittridge as his executors, and the probate of his will in the Probate
Court of Santa Cruz County and the petition of Rawson and Kittridge to
the Probate Court for letters of testimony•••••••••and two bonds executed
by Rawson and Kittridge as executors, in the sum of $1,000 ($14,000) each
as required by the order, with two securities each, and the approval of
the bonds by the Probate Court, also the oaths taken by the executors,
and ACT of the Legislature of the State of California, approved March 8,
1860, in stature of 1860, page 11 authorizing said executors to sell the
real estate of Peter Tracy, at public or private sale••••••also the order of
the Probate Court, made April 5, 1860 fixing the amount of the executors
bond required by the said ACT at the sum of $2,200 ($30,800) •••••••also
the bond of the executors given inpursuance of the order, approved by the
judge of the Probate Court, and filed April 14, 1860•••••••also the report
of sales made by the executors at public auction in the manner of notice
required by law••••••the one fourth paid of his interest in the premises
in question to defendants FRANCIS BRADY and BENJAMIN NICHOLS •••• the one
fourth part thereof••••••••to AUGUSTAS NOBLE•••••••the one fourth part
thereof••••••••to JOEL BATES•••••••• the one fourth part thereof••••••• and
to defendant JOHN STEARNS .••••••• the remaining one fourth part thereof for
the sum of $1,435 ($20,090) on the aggregate, more than 2/3rds of the
appraised value of the estate.
Also the order of the Probate Court confining the sales and directing the
executors to make proper deeds there of to the purchasers respectively
made MAY 2, 1860.
Next defendant Joel Bates and Francis Brady and his partner Benjamin Nichols
each read into the record without objection a deed from the executors
dated MAY 5, 1860 for l/4th (each) of the interest of Peter Tracy.
Next John Stearns read into evidence his deed for 1/4 of Peter Tracy's
interest dated JANUARY 14, 1861.
Next Joel Bates read into evidence the following deed•••••••••••
DEED dated NOVEMBER 21 1 1859 in which Henry and Antonia Peck sold to Joel
Bates l/3rd of Antonia's I/9th, or l/27th part of the Augmentation••••••it
was agreed that the I/27th part should be taken from Henry Peck•s intrust
if such a total was owned by him at the time.
Next Francis Brady and Benjamin Nichols read into evidence the following deed
with the same understanding as agreed to in the preceeding read deed•••••••••
DEED dated SEPTEMBER 14 1 1859 in which Henry and Antonia Peck sold to Wesley
Burnett & Company I/6th of their I/9th, or l/54th part of the Augmentation
then they read the following deed••••••••••
DEED dated NOVEMBER 23, 1859 in which Wesley Burnett & Company (brothers
Wesley and William P.) sell to them their l/54th claim in the Augmentation.
Next Francis Brady and Benjamin Nichols called John P. Stearns to the witness
stand to testify•••••••John testified that he knew the firm of Wesley Burnett
238
�MOTIONS, REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIAIS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
& Company from April 1, 1857 to January 1, 1860, inclusive and during that time
the firm wns composed of Wesley Burnett and William P. Burnett, brothers and
partners performing as traders and doing business under the firm name.
After John P. Stearns testified, Richard Savage offered into evidence the series
of transactions that lead to his deed•••••• he first offered the deed of Martina
Castro and her husband Louis Depeaux dated JANUARY 22, 1855 with the Archbishop
Josephs. Alemany and Father John Llebaria, then the deed dated SEPTEMBER 1 0,
1 855 in which the latter two transfer ownership of the Augmentation to the
Reverand John Ingoldsby, and finally the deed dated MAY 3, 1 856 in which
Ingoldsby sold l/12th of the Augmentation to Augustas Noble. This now allowed
Richard Savage to read into the record the following deed, ••••••••
DEED dated JUNE 19 1 1858 in which Augustas Noble sold to Roger Hinckley and
John Shelby 1/2 of his 1/12th claim, or l/24th part of the Augmentation.
Richard Savage then read his final entry, the following deed.,••••• ,,,
DEED dated DECEMBER 101 1859 in which Roger Hinckley and John Shelby sell to
him their water powered sawmill, certain other improvements plus 1/4 of
their !/24th claim in the Augmentation, totaling 1/96th part for $1, 800
($25,200 ),
THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 & JULY 24, 1860
(Augmentation Suit)
The Plaintiff Frederick A, Hihn next produced a deed purported to have been
executed by Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse to the Plaintiff dated 7/24/1860
purporting to convey the l/9th part of the Au�nento. To this deed were attached
two certificates of acknowledgment, all being sul::mitted as evidence. Then the
Plaintiff called as witness Lambert B. Clements, who being sworn and the last
foregoing deed being shown him, testified as follows:
TESTIMONY of LAMBERT CLEMENTS
The name of Lambert B. Clements as witness on the deed was genuine and
made at its execution. Nicanor is the daughter of Martina Castro and
Francisco Lajeunesse was her husband and they were married at the time
the last witness si gned the deed. The wife and husband did not si gn the
deed on the same day, the husband was not present when the wife si gned.
The deed was first si gned by the wife and duly acknowledged at the
office of Bennett, who certified it. The Plaintiff Hihn, Henry Peck,
Bennett ( the Notary Public), the wife and myself were the only persons
present at the time.•.•.. and on the following day the husband signed the
deed at the same place, when the same persons were present. The hus
band was not present when his wife si gned or when she acknowledged the
deed.
The Plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn then offered the above deed in evidence to show
conveyance of the seperate estate of Nicanor Cota and her husband in all of
the premises to him, Frederick A. Hihn the Plaintiff.
To the admission of Frederick A. Hihn's deed dated 7/24/1860 in evidence, Joel
Bates, Francis R. Brady, Benjamin c. Nichols, Richard Savage, John P. Stearns
and George Kirby objected on the following grounds, to wit:
• Because there is no evidence tending to show any title or interests what
soever in the persons named as granters therein at the time of the date
therein.
• Because it appears from the first certificate of each acknowledgment
239
�THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 & JULY 24 1 1860
(Augmentation Suit)
thereto attached (wife's acknowledgment), that the wife was not made
acquainted with the contents of the deed by the officer granting the
certificate.
• Because it appears by the first said certificate of acknowledgment that
the wife did not acknowledge the execution thereof to the officer grant
ing the certificate.
• Because it appears by the two certificates of acknowledgments thereto
attached, and by the testimony of the Plaintiff's own witness, Clements,
that the husband did not concur in, assent to, approve of the act of the
wife in si gn ing and acknowledging the deed, prior to, or at the time of
her signing and acknowledging the same,
• Because the grantors therein named had no interest, or estate in the prem
ises therein mentioned at the date the deed which they could convey.
• Because the deed does not appear to have been signed by the granters
therein named, except by making their marks, and it has not been shown
that they could not write.
• Because it does not appear that the person described therein as wife has
any seperate estate in the premises in question, at the time of its
execution.
• Because there is no proper certificate to the same, nor any other compelents evidence showing the acknowledgments of the wife.
The objections were sutrnitted to a referee who overruled the objections, and
admitted the deed for all the purposes for which it was offered, and each and
every of the said Defendants by their consul then and there duly acepted,
Next the Defendant Henry Peck offered in evidence a deed from the Plaintiff
Frederick A, Hihn, to wit:
DEED dated 7/24/1860 from Frederick A, Hihn to Henry w. Peck in which Hihn
purported to convey 1/2 of the I/9th claim to land in both ranches to
Peck for $250 that he had just acquired from Nicanor and her husband.
Next the Defendants Bates, Brady, Nichols, Stearns and Kirby offered in evid
ence letters written and si gned by Frederick A. Hihn, to various of the Def
endants and other persons, claiming title under the deed from Nicanor and
her husband to Peter Tracy, Montgomery Shackleford and Thomas w. wright
dated 9/19/1852, tending to show that Hihn reco gnized and acknowledged their
title under the deed, before he took the deed from the grantors to himself by
demanding and receiving contributions from them to defray the expenses of def
ending an action of ejectments for said premises, which action was founded on a
claim of title under the deed from Martina Castro to Alemany & Llebaria dated
1/22/1855, and when John Ingoldsby, the grantee of said Alemany and Llebaria,
was Plaintiff (in the Ingoldsby versus Ricardo Juan et als suit), and Ricardo
Juan and others claiming title to said premises under the deed from Martina
Castro to her children, dated 8/29/1850, and divers••••••••conveyances, were
defendants.
The Defendants then called several witnesses who gave evidence tending to est
ablish the facts of Hihn's knowledge of the claim and acknowledgment of their
title under Lajeunesse and his wife Nicanor prior to Hihn's taking the deed
from them to him, and that said last mentioned deed was taken by him in fraud
of said Defendants rights and at a time when Hihn was a tenant, in common of
the premises with the Defendants, and among other witnesses, called for that
purpose by Defendants, was Israel C, Wilson, who duly sworn, said•••••••
The TESTIMONY of ISRAEL C. WILSON
Being duly sworn, Israel Wilson testified•••••Early in the year 1859 I
was employed by J.F. Bennett, who was then the acting County Clerk
240
�THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 & JULY 24, 1860
(Augmentation Suit)
and Recorder to make new indexes for all the record books in the office
of the County Recorder, and I did make such indices. In the same year,
and prior to August of that year (1859), Frederick A. Hihn and John
Garber examined the indices that I had made, and the books of record in
the Recorders Office for the purpose of ascertaining if such indices were
correct and I judge by the reports which they made of it to the Board
of Supervisors, which board had appointed them to examine them, that
their examination was through and complete.
The Defendants then offered and read in evidence a paper purporting to be a
covenants promise, or agreements, executed by Frederick A. Hihn, to Nicanor
bearing the date July 1860 (the date of the month is not included in the
testimony), whereby Hihn agreed and undertook, in consideration of the exec
ution of the deed dated 7/24/1860 to institute or cause to be instituted an
action for divorce for her against her husband, and for that purpose to
employ counsel to bring and conduct such action, and also to pay all the
expenses of such so to be instituted, and to execute the same to final
decree..•••which said agreements or undertaking is in the words and figures
following, to wit•••.•••....•..
Next, offered and read in evidence is the original judgement roll in the
case of Nicanor Lajeunesse versus Francisco Lajeunesse in the District
Court of the 3rd Judicial District from which it appeared that the suit
was an action for divorce, commenced on July 26, 1860, that John P.
Stearns was Nicanor's attorney, that her husband was regularly served with
Summons therein and afterwards appeared and filed an answer therein, and
that such proceedings were had therein that afterwards, to wit, on
December 18, 1860 a decree of divorce was duly entered therein in favor
of Nicanor and against her husband Francisco.
The TESTIMONY of DAVID HASLAM
After being duly sworn, David stated••••. ! was Clerk of the District
Court for Santa Cruz County from the first day of July, 1860 until
the present time (June 20, 1861), and still am. In February 1861 Hihn
paid me some money on account of my fees in the suit of Nicanor Lajeunesse
versus her husband Francisco which was commenced in July of 1860, and
determined in December of 1860. The attorney for Nicanor told me that
Henry Peck would pay my fees. There was no other suit between the same
parties, or of the same title, in the court. Between July 1, 1860, and the
present time, ••••••• on cross examination, David stated •••.• Stearns
(Nicanor attorney) told me that Henry Peck would pay my fees in that case,
and that if he didn't Frederick A. Hihn would pay them. Hihn also told me
that he would pay the fees if Peck did not•.•.•.it was here that it was
brought up that Frederick A. Hihn sold to Henry Peck for $250 1/2 of the
l/9th that he had just purchased from the now divorced Nicanor and Fran
cisco Lajeunesse •...•.....
LAMBERT B. CLEMENTS RECALLED to TESTIFY
Recalled to the stand by Defendants Bates, Brady, Nichols, Stearns and
Kirby, Lambert Clements testified••••••at the time of the execution of the
deed from Nicanor and her husband to Frederick A. Hihn, there was something
said by her that she wanted some security from Hihn reference to what he
had promised to do, and she told him that she wanted some flour and Hihn
told Bennett to let her have what she wanted.
QUESTION by Defendants consul .•••••what was said about what was to do?
ANSWER by Clements••••••he was to be at all the necessary expenses of
getting a divorce from her husband Francisco.
241
�THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
SEPTEMBER 19 1 1852 & JULY 24 1 1860
(Augmentation Suit)
QUESTIONS by Plaintiff's consul••••••was there other considerations
to the si gning of the deed?
ANSWER by Clements•••••••there was no other consideration of that deed.
But, he did not si gn it. At the time she executed the deed Hihn told
Bennett to let her have what flour she wanted. When her husband signed
the deed the following day Hihn paid him $50 which was I understood,
was in consideration of his executing the deed. Henry Peck was present
during the conversation between Hihn and Nicanor.
The TESTIMONY of JOHN P. STEARNS
John Stearns, after being duly sworn, testified as follows .•••! was the
attorney for Nicanor in her divorce suit, the judgement roll in which case
has already been given in evidence. Henry Peck engaged my services to
conduct that suit, and he paid me my fee. I don't recall that Frederick A.
Hihn manifisted a lively interest in that suit, he spoke to me about it
twice or three times. Nicanor was not living with her husband during the
summer of 1860, and up to the time of the commencement of that suit, Hihn
paid $20 or $25 to the referee in her suit. I spoke to the Deputy Sheriff
about serving the papers in that case, and he refused to serve them unless
his fees were secured. I told him that Peck had stated to me that he and
Hihn would pay the costs Hihn said that if Peck had agreed to pay them I
suppose he will, but if he don't, I will.
The TESTIMONY of SAMUEL DUNNAN
Samual Dunnan, a Deputy Sheriff testified•••••! was Deputy Sheriff during
the year 1860. The sheriff's fees due from Plaintiff Nicanor were paid
by Frederick A. Hihn. I don't know how he came to pay them, he volunteered
to pay them.
After the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Samuel Dunnan the testimony concerning
the two deed entered into by Nicanor and her husband Francisco Lajeunesse ended,
waiting to be sul::rnitted to the court assigned referee along with the balance of
their request for a new trial•.•••••••.
NICANOR COTA LAJEUNESSE, Plaintiff
versus
FRANCIS CO LAJEUNESSE, Defendant
On July 26, 1860 Francisco Lajeunesse was served with a Sunmons and a Complaint
by Deputy Sheriff Samuel Dunnan (sheriff at the time was John T. Porter). The
Complaint stated that while the Plaintiff lived with the Defendant she had
nine children (four that are now adults), and five who are minors and totally
incapable of providing for their own sustenance and education, namely: Simon
aged nine months; Mary aged two years; Andrea aged seven years; Francisco aged
eight years; and Louisa aged eleven years.
The Complaint continued that the Defendant has treated her in a cruel and
inhuman manner by striking her with his hands and fist, beating her with a
stick, and cruelly and inhumanely expelled her from his residence and refused
to permit her to return.
That the Defendant, in his fits of drunkeness has repeatedly committed acts of
cruelty and violence upon the Plaintiff Nicanor, and in particular as follows
by kicking her and striking her with his hands and fists, beating her with a
stick, pulling her hair and expelling her from his place of residence.
The Plaintiff continued, that in the practice of habitual intemperance and
in his fits of drunkeness has committed acts of cruelty and violence upon the
said children listed above.
24 2
�THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 & JULY 24, 1860
(A�gmentation Suit)
John P, Stearns, Nicanor's attorney ended the Complaint by stating••••wherefore
this Plaintiff demands judgement of divorce from the Defendant and that said
marriage (that occurred on or about the first day of June, 1839) and bonds of
matrimony may be dissolved. This Plaintiff further prays relief and demands
judgement against the Defendant that she may have the care custody and educ
ation of the said children.
FRANCISCO LAJEUNESSE ANSWERS the Cav!PLAINT
Through his attorney Francisco denied all of his wife's charges listed in the
CCTTiplaint, and for further answer, said based on information and belief, and
charges it to be true, that in the month of January of 1859, at the house of
the Defendant, his wife Nicanor committed adultery with one venturo Ruida,
that a few days subsequently thereto she again committed adultry at his
house with Ruida; that afterwards to wit, on the 20th day of June, 1860,
Nicanor committed adultry with Ruida at her own residence in Santa Cruz, and at
various times has committed adultry with Ruida between the 20th day of June,
1860 and this day at her own residence. Francisco continued that since the 20th
day of June, 1860 he has not cohabited with his wife Nicanor.
The attorney for Francisco Lajeunesse ended his answer to Nicanor's Complaint
that because of his information and belief of his wife's acts of adultery on
the 20th day of June, 1860 and subsequently, and Defendant avers that his wife
Nicanor, is a woman of gross immoral character and conduct, that she is in all
respects unfit to have the charge and custody of the children mentioned in the
Complaint; that her conduct is of evil example to them, and calculated to
bring disgrace and ruin upon them
ADDITIONAL CHARGES & WITNESSES TESTIFY
Through her attorney John Stearns Nicanor denied all of her husband's charges,
including the charge of adultery with one Ventura Ruida at his house, at her
house, or at any other location. Nicanor added the additional charge that on
the first day of November, 1858, her husband used violence upon her in attempt
ing to compell her to sul:mit to the vile practice of prostitution for the pur
pose of bringing money to him and because Nicanor refused to sul:mit to such
prostitution her husband expelled her from his residence and refused to permit
her to return. Nicanor also stated that she is informed and verily believes at
the County of Santa Cruz aforesaid the Defendant threatened to take her life
whenever he could without a great probability of detection,
On September 28, 1860 judge S,B, McKee appointed A.W. Blain to act as
referee and interview the Plaintiff, the Defendant and all possible wit
nesses. Francisco Lajeunesse refused to meet with the referee, therefore
because only Nicanor and her witnesses cooperated, most of the following
testimony came from the Plaintiff's side.
The referee interviewed Thomas Lajeunesse, age 21 and the son of Nicanor and
Francisco; Henry w. Peck who gave his age as 42; Ricardo Fourcade Juan, who
stated that he now lived in Sequel, he was 46 years ol, and 19 years ago he
lived down in Monterey and both Nicanor and Francisco, as man and wife, lived
there with him; Ventura Ruida who stated his age as 30, and denied all charges
of adultry with Nicanor; and Michael Lodge, Nicanor's brother, who stated he
was 22. All of the preceding witnesses stated to the referee that either all
or part of Nicanor's charges are true (because several of the witnesses were
not close to Nicanor, they were not able to substanuate all of her charges).
Nicanor Cota La ·eunesse received her divorce from Francisco La ·eunesse
officially December 18, 860.
243
�MOTIONS, REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
PARTITION DEBA'IES
DEPENDANTS versus PLAINTIFF
(Augmentation Suit)
JOEL BATES Answers Plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn•••••••Joel Bates calls several
witnesses that testify on his behalf tending to show that Joel had erected and
has permanent and valuable improvements on his premises consisting of a steam
sawmill, houses, buildings, fences, cleared and cultivated land and flume of
the present value of $6,000 ($84,000), or $7,000 ($98,000) and that such
improvements had added to the permanent value of the premises.
RICHARD SAVAGE Answers Plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn••••••••Richard calls several
witnesses that testify that he, and his two granters (Roger Hinckley and John
Shelby) had made valuable improvements on the premises now standing and adding
to the value thereof. The improvements consist of a water powered sawmill,
houses, fences, flumes, tunnel, a mill race and roads, all valued at $5,250
($73,500).
FRANCIS R. BRADY & BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS Answer Plaintiff Frederick A.
Hihn •••••••••• The witnesses that the two partners call to testify state that
they have erected and had on the premises permanent and valuable improvements
consisting of houses, fences, a dam, and crops all totaling $525 ($7,350) which
add to the value of the premises.
GEORGE KIRBY Answers Plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn••••••• The several witnesses
called to testify on his behalf state that George Kirby and his granter Mont
gomery B. Shackleford have erected and made in the southwest corner of the
Augmentation valuable improvements increasing the value of the premises con
sisting of houses, fences, orchard, nursery, the clearing and cultivation of
lands, and of the present value of $1,000 ($14,000).
FREDERICK A. HIHN Answers the Defendants•••••••••• Called to the stand to testify
in support of his allegation that the Augmentation is so situated that p�rtition
thereof cannot be made without injury in a great degree to several parties in
interest are the following••••••County Surveyor Thomas W. Wright••••••Deputy
Sheriff Samuel Dunnan ••••••••John Daubenbiss••••••••••and John Hames.
Each of the preceeding witnesses gave evidence to show that they were well
acquainted with the Augmentation and that it was so situated that partition
thereof MIGHT be made without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties,
and that improvements should be included within the value of the land.
Next, Frederick A. Hihn called John T. Porter to the stand who tended to show
that he was well acquainted with the Augmentation and that in his opinion such
partition thereof could NOT be made without prejudice to the parties. Then
Frederick A. Hihn called Lambert B. Clements and Elihu Anthony to testify.
After stating that they were slightly and partially acquainted with the Aug
mentation, they agreed with John T. Porter that the Augmentation could NOT be
partitioned without prejudice to the parties in interest.
JOEL BATES, FRANCIS BRADY, BENJAMIN NICHOLS, JOHN STEARNS, GEORGE KIRBY and
RICHARD SAVAGE Answer Frederick A. Hihn••••••••••••••Called as witnesses to
testify were James B. Burrell (Lyman Burrell's son)••••••Henry Hill (a long
time employee of Martina and Michael Lodge before Michael's death, then he
served Martina until he sued her for back wages)•••••••••••Henry c. White••••••
and Otis Straton. After being sworn in, each gave testimony stating that they
were well acquainted with the interior of the Augmentation and that it was
susceptible of a just and equal partition without prejudice to any of the part
ies in interest, and that it might be made so as to assign to the improving
tenants respectively their several portions so as to include their respective improvements without prejucice to the interests of any.
At the end of the last testimony, the above defendants request officially
for a new trial and submit their testimony to the court assigned referee
for his decision•••••••••••
244
�MOTIOJ\E, REQUESTS FOR NEW TRIALS
AND THE LAJEUNESSE DEEDS
REFEREE'S FINDINGS (To Date)
The court assigned several referees besides Charles B. Younger to settle
disputes between the plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn and defendants and to
provide support to the judge. Except for Charles B. Younger•s report,
the findings of the other referees are not part of the court's records.
When a referee is asked for his decision by either the plaintiff of a def
endant, the only way that his decision can be determined is to analyze
future testimony by either the plaintiff or a defendant when he either
accepts or rejects the referee's findings previously made.
To date it is known that the referees upheld Charles B. Younger•s decisinn
concerning Nicanor Lajeunesse•s deed dated SEPTEMBER 19, 1852 •••••• that it
was void because it was not acknowledged properly ••• and••• that the Augmen
tation is NOT susceptible to partition except for the land owned by Lyman
Burrell and James Taylor without injury in a great degree to the several
parties in interest.
245
�Intentially left blank.
246
�HAPTER15
OBJECTIONS
TO
YOUNGER
REPORT
and
MOTIONS FOR
NEW TRIALS
2 47
�Intentially left.blank.
248
�OBJECTIGNS TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS
OCTOBER 23, 1861 (Augmentation Suit)- JOEL BATES, FRANCIS BRADY, BENJAMIN NICH
OIS, CASIMERO AND DARIO AMAYO, BENJAMIN F. and GEORGE K. PORTER, ROGER HINCKLEY,
JOHN SHELBY and COUNTY RECORDER HENRY F. PARSONS join Frederick A. Hihn in
requesting a NEW TRIAL and recommending the following changes to THOMAS COURTIS
and his MOTION for a NEW TRIAL dated October 14, 1861.
The above defendants and plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn each request that the deeds
that gave them their claim to land in the Augmentation be entered into the
record and accepted as valid
The defendants and the palintiff that base their claim to land through Martina's
deed dated August 29, 1850 next requested that all the defendants that claim
their land through John Ingoldsby, there deeds be removed from the record.
REFEREE'S FINDINGS (To Date)
Both the court and referees have embraced the ownership percentages est
ablished by Charles B. Younger•••••••all motions for a new trial to date
have been rejected••••••and•••••••Martina•s deed dated August 29, 1850
and both her deeds with the Catholic priests dated January 22, 1855 have
been accepted as valid ••••••• but the amount of land that was sold in the
latter two deeds was l/9th of each ranch, not the entire premises claimed
by John Ingoldsby in his suit (The INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit).
OCTOBER 24, 1861 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- BENJAMIN F. and GEORGE K. PORTER amend
THOMAS COURTIS's MOTION for a new trial dated OCTOBER 15, 1861•••••••the request
of the two cousins to change Thomas Courtis•s motion for a new trial is nearly
identical to Frederick A. Hihn's objections to the Younger Report dated
OCTOBER 18, 1861.
As for the cousins request for a new trial and the Charles B. Younger report
be set aside, they gave the following reasons••••••••
• Because the evidence was insufficient to justify the findings and decision
of the referee (Younger).
• Because the findings and decision of the referee are againsr law.
• Because the findings and decision of the referee are contrary to the
evidence.
• Because of errors of law occurring at the trial (of the referee) and
excepted to by the defendants before the referee.
• Because the referee's report and findings do not state the facts found and
the conclusions of law therefrom.
• Because the report and findings do not state the conclusions of law thereupon separately.
OCTOBER 25, 1861 (Augmentation Suit)- BENJAMIN F. and GEORGE K. PORTER amend
THOMAS COURTIS's MOTION for a new trial dated OCTOBER 14, 1861••••••••the
request of the two cousins to change Thomas Courtis•s motion for a new trial is
nearly identical to the request made the day before, therefore it will not be
repeated here.
Because it was decided at the beginning of the trial that each and every and
all claimed title to the premises in question under Martina Castro's deed dated
August 29, 1850, Benjamin F. Porter offered and read into evidence without
objection Martina's deed, then the three deeds that affected him both directly
and indirectly•••••••••••
• DEED dated JULY 25, 1853 between Jones Hoy (grantor) and Joseph L. Majors
(grantee)•••••••Hoy sold his 1/18th claim to land in both ranches to
Majors••••••which Benjamin F. Porter pointed out to the court was for land
in Rancho Soquel only and was being contested by Frederick A. Hihn.
249
�OBJECTIONS TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAI.S
• DEED dated AIDUST 11 1 1855 in which the Juans, Averons, Clements, Joseph L.
,
Majors and Pruitt Sinclair sold to attorney Durrell Gregory 1/3rd of their
claimed land in both ranches for representing their interests before the
Land Claims Commission in Los Angeles.
Benjamin F. Porter claimed that 8/54th parts in both ranches were sold to
Durrell Gregory in the above deed•••••••• Charles B. Younger decreed that
in the deed only Pruitt Sinclair had title to land when the deed was signed,
and that total was 1/54th part in the Augmentation only.
e DEED dated AUGUST 13, 1859 in which Durrell Gregory sold his supposed
8/54ths claim in both ranches to Benjamin F. Porter.
• DEED dated JANUARY 201 1860 in which Benjamin F. Porter sold 1/5�th part
of the Augmentation to James Taylor. Porter, after the sale c�nsiders he
still owns 7/54th parts in the Augmentation and 8/54th parts 1n Rancho
Soquel •••••••• Benjamin also pointed out to the court that Frederick A.
Hihn was claiming Taylor's l/54th claim through another series of deeds.
After Benjamin F. Porter read to the court the preceeding deeds, coming for
ward to testify that they observed Benjamin pay Durrell Gregory the agreed upon
amount of $1,000 ($14,000) were Luisa and Ricardo Juan, Josefa and Lambert B.
Clements and Guadalupe and Joseph Averon.
When Benjamin F. Porter completed his testimony he submitted his motion for a
new trial to the referee for his consideration••••••the referee reported as
follOWSl
RE FEREE I s FINDINGS
The referee reaffirmed the percentage ownership established by Charles B.
Younger in his report which in turn established Benjamin F. Porter's
claim to 7/54th part in the Augmentation and 8/54th parts in the lower
ranch void and except for the lands of Lyman Burrell and James Taylor,
the Augmentation is,not acceptable for partitioning.
OCTOBER 25, 1861 (Augmentation Suit�- FREDERICK A. HIHN is joined by HENRY and
ANTONIA PECK••••••HELENA and JOSE LITTLEJOHN••••••GUADALUPE and JOSEPH AVERON•••
•• LUISA and RICARDO JUAN•••••.••• THOMAS and CARMEL FALLON•••••• (all defendants
in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit) to make the following proposal to
amend the request for a new trial by RICHARD SAVAGE, JOEL BATES, FRANCIS BRADY,
BENJAMIN NICHOLS, GEORGE KIRBY and JOHN P. STEARNS presented OCTOBER 18, 1861.
Because the original transcript is almost unreadable and the changes
requested in this amendment are listed by line number, the changes
are impossible to present here•••••• but it is obvious that the above
defendants and plaintiff requested that the deeds that led to Charles B.
Younger establishing, and accepting their ownership claim be inserted
in the request for a new trial entered into the records OCTOBER 18, 1861
and those, in the latter request be omitted.
OCTOBER 26, 1861 (Augmentation Suit)- RICHARD SAVAGE, JOEL BATES, FRANCIS BRADY,
BENJAMIN NICHOLS, GEORGE KIRBY and JOHN STEARNS enter the following EXCEPTIONS
to the CHARLES B. YOUNGER REPORT••••••••••••••
• Because
and the
• Because
and the
the report and
conclusions of
the report and
conclusions of
findings do not state the facts found by the referee,
law thereupon.
findings do not state the facts found by the referee,
law thereupon separately.
• Because the report and findings do not embrace all the issues joined in the
cause and embraced in the order or reference.
• Because of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings and
decision of the referee, to wit•••••••••
•
CARMEL FALLON is not the owner in fee simple of l/9th of the area,
250
�OBJECTIONS TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAIS
•
she is not entitled to any portion therein.
ANTONIA PECK is not the owner in fee simple of l/9th of the area, she
is not entitled to any portion therein.
•
HENRY PECK is not entitled to 2/27th parts
•
FREDERICK A. HIHN, the plaintiff is ·not the owner in fee simple, or
otherwise, of the 12/90th parts, but instead is entitled to no more than
l/27th part.
•
JOEL BATES is the owner of much more than the l/27th part that Charles B.
Younger states he is entitled to••••••the additional land is the 242
acres of School Land Warrants purchased from the Peter Tracy estate.
•
FRANCIS BRADY and BENJAMIN NICHOLS give the same answer as Joel Bates
except their claim through their deed with Wesley Burnett & Company is
for l/54th part•••••they also claim 242 acres of School Land Warrants.
• "GEORGE W. KIRBY is entitled to l/27th part of the area while Younger
does not find that he is entitled to any interest whatever.
e
JOHN P. STEARNS gives the same answer as George Kirby.
The six above defendants continue by stating jointly that the rights, interests
and estates to which the evidence shows that Joel Bates, Brady and Nichols (and
Augustas Noble and John Stearns) through their School Land Warrants and George
w. Kirby and John P. Stearns are respectively entitled to in the Augmentation,
excluding the interests allowed to them by the referee, are, by the finding of
the referee, allotted and given to other parties not entitled thereto.
The evidence also shows that Joel Bates has made improvements totaling $7,000
($98,000) while the referee sets the value at only $5,600 ($78,400). The same
holds for Richard Savage who has made improvements totaling $5,000 ($70,000)
while the referee sets the value at $4,000 ($56,000). The evidence also shows
that George Kirby has made improvements totaling $1,000 ($14,000) while the
referee does not find that he has made any improvements.
Also, the evidence presented to the referee clearly shows that the premises is
so situated that partition thereof can be made without great prejudice to the
owners thereof, while the referee finds that the premises is so situated that
partition thereof cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners thereof
(except as to the interests therein of Lyman Burrell and James Taylor).
Because the findings and decisions of the referee is against law as follows•••••
• DEED dated FEBRUARY 4 1 1853 in which Thomas Fallon sold to Peter Tracy and
Thomas w. Wright School Land Warrants Nos. 353, 354 and 108 totaling one
square mile•••••••the referee gives no effort to and does not allow as
valid, or effectual the passing of any title to or interest in the premises
to the grantees. The land sold is for valid land and valid and effectual
title did pass on to Tracy and Wright for the equal undivided l/9th of the
premises .
NOTE: Thomas Fallon sold warrants totaling 640 acres while l/9th of the
Augmentation totals 3,633 acres!
• DEED dated SEPTEHBER 191 1852 in which Nicanor Lajeunesse and her husband
sold to Peter Tracy, Thomas w. Wright and Montgomery B. Shackleford (for
School Land Warrants) is for valid land and the grantors did pass on valid
and effectual title to the grantees for the undivided l/9th part of the
premises ••••••again we have a confusing situation concerning School Land
Warrants•••••••in his official book listing all School Land Warrants issued
in Santa Cruz County, Thomas w. Wright does not mention warrants being
issued to Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse••••••••this subject has been
aptly discussed several times in this book with little or no enlightment
added to explain the thinking of all parties concerned in the land that
warrants 353, 354 and 108 occupied.
251
�OBJECTIONS TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAIS
• DEED
Hihn
ions
void
dated JULY 24, 1860 in which Nicanor Lajeunesse sold to Frederick A.
her I/9th claim to land in both ranches in spite of the valid object
made to the admission of the deed in which it is stated that it was
and of no effect, to wit•••••••••••
• The evidence shows that Nicanor, when she signed the deed with Frederick
A. Hihn, that she did not have any right to land in the Augmentation to
convey.
• The evidence shows, and by the deed itself to Frederick A. Hihn that it
was not executed, and was not acknowledged in the manner, or according
to the forms, presented by law for the execution and acknowledgment, by
a married woman, of a conveyance of her separate estate.
• Also, the evidence shows that the conversation for the execution of the
deed was immoral and contrary to public policy•••••••the same being an
agreement on the part of Hihn to employ counsel, and cause a suit to be
instituted and presented to final judgement and divorce in the name and
on part of one of the grantors therein, as plaintiff, against the other
grantor therein, as defendant (Francisco Lajeunesse) for the dissolution
of the bonds of matrimony, and for a long time prior thereto, existing
between them, and to pay all the expenses of such suit•••••••• and in
pursuance of which agreement, as shown by the evidence, the plaintiff
Frederick A. Hihn did cause such suit to be instituted and presented to
final decree.
That the defendants Joel Bates, John Stearns and George Kirby are severally,
and the defendants Francis Brady and Benjamin Nichols are together, entitled
and in title to the premises, in the proporations and to the extent herein
before mentioned, whereas, the referee has found some of them••••••Joel
Bates, Francis Brady and Benjamin Nichols•••••••entitled to much less interest
and smaller proporations thereof, and some of them•••••••John Stearns and
George Kirby•••••••• to no interest wharsoever.
That the law is that the defendants are entitled to have the premises partit
ioned amongst the several owners thereof, according to their respective right
or interest to therein, and so partitioned that the improvements erected or
made thereon by any of the parties in interest, be alloted and set off, as far
as possible, with their respective portions of the land, to the several owners
and matters of such improvements, respectively, whereas, the referee has found
the premises cannot be so partitioned.
Because of errors of law occurring at the trial before the referee (Younger),
in the admission and exclusion of evidence affecting these defendants, and then
and there duly excepted to by each and every of them, and for the particulars
of which the said defendants hereby refer to the minutes of the referee, and
the evidence taken by him, now on file in this court.
And the defendants Richard Savage, Joel Bates, Francis R. Brady, Benjamin
Cahoon Nichols, John Stearns and George Kirby, to support each, every and all
the foregoing exceptions, now here refer to the minutes of the referee, the
evidence taken by him, and his ruling thereon, reported by him to this
Honorable Court, and now on file herein, and to the finding of the referee,
and to the pleading and words of the court herein, and now here move this
Honorable Court to disregard the findings of the referee, and upon the evidence
so taken by him and reported to this court to enter such final decree as to
law equity may appertain.
OCTOBER 26, 1861- JOEL BATES dies•••••••••
Joel Bates died in Soquel (?). He was born in New Jersey in
1802 and is buried in the Soquel Cemetery along the west side
of Soquel Creek directly opposite where Bates Creek merges
from the east. Joel's grave site may be used as a rough
252
�OBJECTIONS TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS
OCTOBER 26, 1861- JOEL BATES dies (Continued)
point of origin for the west boundry point between Rancho
Soquel and the Augmentation.
Joel built the first steam powered sawmill within the con
fines of the Augmentation after he entered into the logging
agreement with Peter Tracy and Thomas w. Wright JUNE 16, 1853.
He built his mill and its supporting facilities, including
his homesite, at the end of today's Prescott Road where Grover
Gulch joins Bates Creek.
Because the agreement signed with Tracy and Wright was dir
ectly concerned with School Land Warrants Nos. 353 and 354
totaling 320 acres, Joel logged mostly south of his mill.
To reach his mill site Joel constructed a road (called at
that time the "Bates Mill Road") from the County Road (today
Soquel Drive). Today, from Soquel Drive his road is called
"Main Street" and "Glen Haven Road" until a point is reached
just beyond Lagunita Drive (about 1/4 mile). From this point
his road paralleled Glen Haven Road to the west for about
1,000 feet before it headed northeast which brought it across
today's Glen Haven Road in an easterly direction before it
turhed again towards the northeast until the mill site was
reached.
OCTOBER 30 1 1861 (Augmentation Suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN, HENRY and ANTONIA
PECK, LUISA and RICARDO JUAN, HELENA and JOSE LITTLEJOHN, GUADALUPE and JOSEPH
AVERON, and CARMEL and THOMAS FALLON amend BENJAMIN F. PORTER's Motion for a
new trial of OCTOBER 25, 1861••••••once again the filming of the original
court records make it impossible to quote directly the request made to the
court•••••but it is obvious that most of this amendment was each of the above
defendants reading into the record the deed(s) that Charles B. Younger
accepted as valid that gave their claim to land credence.
NOVEMBER 1 1 1861 (Augmentation suit)- BENJAMIN F. PORTER answers FREDERICK A.
HIHN, ROBERT F. PECKHAM, HENRY and ANTONIA PECK, LUISA and RICARDO JUAN,
HELENA and JOSE LITTLEJOHN, GUADALUPE and JOSEPH AVERON, and CARMEL and THOMAS
FALLON • •...•• , • stating............
You will take notice that Benjamin F. Porter does not admit nor agree to
the admendments to the statement on motion for a new trial and to set aside
the report and findings of the referee (Charles B. Younger) herein, of the
defendant Benjamin F. Porter as proposed by the plaintiff Frederick A.
Hihn and the above named defendants and that he will present to the judge
of the court at his chambers in the city of Oakland, on the 14th day of
NOVEMBER, 1861, a copy of the said statement and of said admendments
certified by the Clerk of the Court, to be settled by the said judge.
NOVEMBER 6 and 7, 1861 (Augmentation and Rancho Sequel Suits)- OBJECTIONS to the
Charles B. Younger Report by THOMAS COURTIS in his own right and as Administrat
or for John Ingoldsby, JOHN WII.SON, MARY E.J. SLADE, CYRUS COE, HENRY LAWRENCE
and CHARLES PLUM•••••••••••on NOVEMBER 6 the above defendants filed their
exceptions to the Younger Report concerning the Augmentation, then on NOVEMBER
7 they filed for Rancho Soquel•••••••••••The following objections to the
referee's report apply to both suits and have been combined and edited only
where the order of the words differ between them and the intent is not changeds
253
�OBJECTIONS TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS
• The report and findings do not state the facts found and the conclusions of
law arc not stated separately, and they do not embrace all the issues
joined in the case, and embraced in the order of reference.
• Because of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings and
decision of the referee to this, he found that the following persons do
not have any interest therein either legal or equitable, to wit•••••••••
'ffiOMAS COURTIS in his own right is entitled to 5/12th parts in both Rancho
Soquel and in the Augmentation.
'ffiOMAS COURTIS as administrator of John Ingoldsby deceased is entitled to
l/6th parts in both ranches, In addition to the affore mentioned claim, he
holds legal title to 1/2 of both ranches, in fee, subject to the equitable
claim of defendant John Wilson and one James Scarborough and their grantees
to the whole amount of the 1/2 while the referee does not find that
Courtis has any right in either ranch as administrator or that John Wilson
and James Scarborough or their grantees have any interest therein either
legal or equitable.
CYRUS COE is entitled to l/24th part in both ranches.
MARY E.J, SLADE is entitled to l/48th part in both ranches.
CHARLES H. PLUM is entitled to 1/120th part in both ranches.
HENRY W, LAWRENCE is entitled to l/80th part in both ranches.
OBJECTION by 'ffiOMAS COURTIS to YOUNGER REPORT (Rancho Sequel Suit)
Thomas Courtis continued his objection to the Younger report by stating that
the evidence does not show that the following persons are owner, in fee
simple, of any part of Rancho Soquel•••••••••Guadalupe Averon, Joshua
Parrish, Antonia Peck, Henry Peck, Helena Littlejohn, Luisa Juan, Benjamin
F. Porter, George K. Porter or Frederick A. Hihn.
OBJECTION by 'ffiOMAS COURTIS to YOUNGER REPORT (Augmentation Suit)
Thomas Courtis continued his objection to the Younger report by stating
that the evidence does not show that the following persons are owner, in
fee simple, of any part of the Augmentation•••••••••carmel Fallon, Guadalupe
Averon, Antonia Peck, Helena Littlejohn, Luisa Juan, George Evans, Casimero
and Dario Amaya, Lyman Burrell, Joel Bates, James Taylor, Henry Peck,
James Taylor, George K. Porter, John Daubenbiss, Francis Brady and Ben
jamin Nichols and Frederick A. Hihn.
OBJECTIONS by 'ffiOMAS COURTIS to YOUNGER REPORT
(Rancho Sequel and Augmentation Suits)
Because the findings and decision of the referee is against law, in this••••
• The referee gives effect to and adjudges as valid and effectual, to pass.
title to said premises to the parties claiming them under the pretended
deed of Martina Castro to her children dated AUGUST 29, 1850, not with
standing the objections of these defendants, as the same are stated in
the minutes of the referee.
• The findings and decision of the referee does not give effect to the deeds
from Martina Castro and Louis Depeaux to John Francis Llebaria and John
Ingoldsby (for Rancho Soquel) and John Francis Llebaria and Archbishop
Josephs. Alemany (for the Augmentation), both dated JANUARY 22, 1855,
offered and read in the evidence by the defendants, except so far as to
convey title to l/9th of each premises, whilest the said deed is valid
in law to pass title to the whole (of both) of the said premises to
these defendants, and those claiming under said deeds.
254
�OBJECTIONS TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS
r
•••
••
•
\�
�w
r
'
2.t>C>O
--I. o 1-111...C
4000
4
� BATES MILL SITE
_ -- BATES MILL ROAD
'I,. BATES GRA\'E SITE
0... 0
LOCATION OF JOEL BATES GRAVESITE,
MILL and "BATES MILL ROAD"
255
�OBJECTION TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAIS
• The errors of law occurring at the trial before the referee (Younger),
and excepted to at the time by each and every of these defendants, for
the particulars of which, reference is here made to the minutes of the
referee, and the testimony taken by him, now on file in this court.
DECEMBER 14, 1861 (Augmentation Suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN and BENJAMIN F. PORTER
Motion for a New Trial•••••••••••••
It is stipulated and agreed to by Frederick A. Hihn's attorney Robert F. Peckham
and the attorney for Benjamin F. Porter, Joseph H. Skirm and the defendants
represented by Robert F. Peckham in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit,
namely Antonia and Henry Peck, Helena and Jose Littlejohn, Luisa and Ricardo
Juan, Guadalupe and Joseph Averon and Carmel and Thomas Fallon that the report
and findings of referee Charles B. Younger be set aside and a new trial
begin•.
DECEMBER 16, 1861 (Augmentation Suit)- CRAVEN P. HESTER and BENJAMIN FARLEY
Motion for a New Trial•••••••••••••••
Craven Hester acting as his own attorney and representing Benjamin Farley filed
the following exceptions to the Charles B. Younger Report•••••••that both the
report and findings be set aside•••••••then made a motion that a new trial
begin on the following grounds••••••••••••
• That the referee reported that the Augmentation was not susceptible of
partition and that the land be sold while the premises is susceptible of
partition without prejudice to the owners thereof.
• That the referee improperly and illegally and without the prescence know
ledge or consent of Craven Hester and Benjamin Farley or either of them
exclude, and permitted to be withdrawn from the record of evidence herein
made by the referee of Augustas Noble, and made an order to that effect
that the three following deeds were executed by John Ingoldsby on the same
day for the same land that Craven Hester had paid Augustas Noble a con
sidcrntion for, and that he had no notice of the other deeds, only the one
made by John Ingoldsby to Augustas Noble (by other testimony it was est
ablished that Augustas Noble's deed was recorded first).
• On MAY 3, 1856 three deeds were entered into which John Ingoldsby stated
that Augustas Noble, Benjamin P. Green and William Otis Andrews were paying
$2,000 ($28,000) each for 1/12th of Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation.
On the same day, three additional deeds were written, in which each grantee
was sold by attorneys John Wilson and James Scarborough 1/24th of each of
the ranches for one dollar paid in hand, which resulted in each grantee
claiming l/12th part of each ranch, while the two attorneys retained half
of their original 1/4 claim to land in each area•••••after the previously
discussed deeds were signed the three Catholic priests claimed l/6th parts
in each ranch, while the two attorneys would claim l/8th part of each
ranch).
• Craven Hester next read to the court his deed dated JUNE 19, 1858 from
Augustas Noble and wife to Roger Hinckley and John Shelby in which the
latter two purchase 1/2 of Noble's 1/12th claim to land in the Augmentation.
• Craven Hester next read into the record his personal deed from Augustas
Noble in which he purchased 1/2 of the l/12th, or l/24th undivided part of
the Augmentation dated AUGUST 7, 1858.
• And finally Hester read into the record his deed to Benjamin Farley in which
he sold 1/2 of his l/24th, or l/48th part in the Augmentation.
NOTE: The point that Craven Hester was attempting to make in this
motion for a new trial was that John Ingoldsby and the two attorneys
owned all of both of Martina Castro's ranches, not just the l/9th that
Robert F. Peckham claimed was all that she owned when she signed the
two deeds with the Catholic priests••••••therefore, Ingoldsby and the
two attorneys could have sold 1/4 parts in both ranches while retaining
the remaining 3/4 parts (in both ranches).
256
�OBJECTIONS TO YOUNGER REPORT
AND MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAI.S
DECEMBER 161 1861 (Augmentation Suit)- AmUSTAS NOBLE Objects to the Charles B.
Younger Report on the following grounds••••••••••••
• Because of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings and
decisions of the referee, the evidence does not show.that Carmel Fallon,
Antonia Peck and Frederick A. Hihn are the owner of a separate estate or
otherwise, in fee simple, or otherwise.
• Because the findings and decision of the referee is against law when he
would not allow the School Land Warrants in which Thomas Fallon, Peter
Tracy, Gervis Hammond, Montgomery B. Shackleford and Thomas w. Wright
purchased, or the grantees that they sold all or portions to. He also said
that it was against law when the referee allowed the deed between Nicanor
Lajeunesse and Frederick A. Hihn dated JULY 24, 1860 to stand, and the
earlier deeds between Nicanor and Thomas w. Wright, Peter Tracy and
Montgomery B. Shackleford dated SEPTEMBER 19, 1852.
• Next, Augustas Noble stated that the findings of the referee were against
law when he disallowed the l/27th part of the Augmentation he purchased
MAY 5, 1860 from Peter Tracy's estate for School Land Warrants, and the
1/40th part he purchased from William Ireland JUNE 4, 1860.
DECEMBER 19, 1861 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- JUDGE SAMUEL B. McKEE Denies Motion for
a new trial by Thomas Courtis•••••••••••
Be it remembered that on this day came to be heard the objections filed and
the motion for a new trial made upon the part of the referee herein by the
defendant Thomas Courtis in his own right, Thomas Courtis as Administrator
of John Ingoldsby, deceased, John Wilson, Mary E.J. Slade, Cyrus Coe,
Henry Lawrence and Charles Plum in the undivided figures following•••••
(Here insert said objections and motion)
And after arguments of counsel the court overruled the objections and
motion for a new trial, and to the ruling of the court the defendants by
their attorneys John Wilson and James Scarborough duly excepted.
With this decision by Judge Samuel B. McKee all testimony ended for the Rancho
Soquel suit for partitioning, better known as the PECK versus HIHN et als
suit.
DECEMBER 19 1 1861 (Augmentation Suit)- JOHN WILSON on his own behalf and as
attorney for THOMAS COURTIS, AUGUSTAS NOBLE, FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY, MARY E.J.
SLADE, CYRUS COE, CHARLES PLUM and HENRY W. LAWRENCE stipulate that the request
of Frederick A. Hihn's attorney Robert F. Peckham and Benjamin F. Porter's
attorney Joseph H. Skirm for a new trial made on DECEMBER 14, 1861 is confirmed
by the above defendants.
257
�Intentially left blank.
258
�CHAPTER 16
PARTI Tl ON ING
REPORT
FOR
RANCHO
SOQUEL
259
�Intentially left blank.
260
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for RANCHO SOQUEL
MARCH 5 1 1862- DEED
When Benjamin Farley purchased from his friend Craven Hester
1/2 of his l/24th claim to land in the Augmentation, agreeing
to pay a total of $375 ($5,250), he gave Hester only a part
payment. On the above date Benjamin paid the balance of his
debt, $162 ($2,268).
APRIL 21 1862 (Augmentation Suit)- It was agreed that Charles B. Younger would
be paid the sum of $1,000 ($14,000) for his efforts to partition percentage-wise
the Soquel Augmentation. Each of the grantees of land within the area would pay
a fee to Younger that was based on the percentage of land awarded to them. On
the above date Younger stated that Guadalupe Averon still owed $111.11
($1,555.54) ••••••• l/9th of $1,000 = $111.11•••••••••Antonia owed a like amount,
Helena Littlejohn $74.00 ($1,036), Henry Peck $74.00, Lyman Burrell $37,000
($518.00), Richard Savage $10.44 ($1,406.16), Benjamin Farley $20.83 ($2,91.62),
Cassimero and Dario Amaya $37.00 ($518.00) and Joel Bates $74 .00 ($1,036).
As agreed to by both Charles B. Younger and the court when he was assigned
referee, only when a defendant that was awarded land paid his bill, only then
would his claim be filed with the court. On the above date each of the above
defendants were ordered to pay their bill to Charles B. Younger.
APRIL 21 1862 (Augmentation Suit)- The attorney for plaintiff FREDERICK A. HIHN,
Robert F. Peckham and the attorneys for RICHARD SAVAGE, FRANCIS BRADY and BEN
JAMIN NICHOLS, JOHN P. STEARNS, GEORGE W. KIRBY and the deceased JOEL BATES join
in asking that their requests for a new trial be deleated from the record and
the report of Charles B. Younger be put in their requests place ••••••in other
words they collectively had accepted the findings of Charles B. Younger and were
willing to settle for his percentages.
Robert F. Peckham also accepted the referee's report as attorney for the def
endants in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit, namely Luisa Juan , Helena
Littlejohn and Carmel Fallon.
APRIL 21 1 1862- DEED
SEEAPPENDIX'Er
On the above date Henry and Antonia Peck sold their combined
remaining claim to land in both Rancho Soquel and Augmentation
to Frederick A. Hihn. Sold to Hihn by Henry was his 2/27th
claim in the Augmentation and his l/9th in the lower ranch
while Antonia sold her l/9th claim in both ranches. Over the
years there has been much speculation as to why the Pecks'
sold their claims to Hihn. While the entire reasoning behind
Henry's thinking will never be answered, in Antonia's suit
against Frederick A. Hihn to have the deed declared void
during the 1866/1867 period part of the answer came to light
through Robert F. Peckham,and his client's testimony, Fred
erick A. Hihn••••••••the testimony by the two was as follows:
As 1862 approached Henry Peck wanted to head off for the newly
discovered gold fields up in Humboldt County. Needing money,
he approached Frederick A. Hihn and offered to sell him his
and his wife's claim in both ranches. Needing a total of
$4,850 ($67,900), of which $750 ($10,500) was to pay his
half of Robert F. Peckham's intiial fee to represent him
as plaintiff in the PECK versus HIHN partitioning suit for
261
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for RANCHO SOQUEL
APRIL 21, 1862 (Continued)
Rancho Soque1. He needed an additional $100 ($1�400) for
a personal debt and $4,000 ($56,000) to pay his expenses
for his trip north and for Antonia to live on while he was
gone.
According to both Frederick A. Hihn and Robert F. Peckham,
Hihn attempted to talk Henry out of headirtg north in search
of a dream, stating that they had "come so far" and "were
so close to victory," but Henry was adamant, insisting that
he wanted to head north. Frederick A. Hihn testified that he
"reluctantly" gave in to Henry, and on the above date
entered into a complicated twelve-point agreement before
the final deed was signed, which states that he paid Henry
$4,000 ($56,000) in cash•••••••after the two ranches were
finally partitioned for the $4,000 Hihn received about
6,800 acres in the Augmentation and 452 acres in Rancho
Soquel.
DECEMBER 12, 1862 (Augmentation Suit)- CRAVEN P. HES'IBR as his own attorney and
attorney for BENJAMIN FARLEY amend their answer to the Referee Charles B.
Younger Report•••••••a long time before the beginning of this suit and since
offered a portion of the area, that both parties have made permanent and
valuable improvements thereon which continue to exist. The improvements consist
in part of planting an orchard of the value of $400 ($5,500). Hester prays
that he mdy be assigned both the land and the value of the improvements jointly
with Benjamin Farley.
DECEMBER 15, 1862 (Augmentation Suit)- Representing JAMES TAYLOR as his attorney,
Craven Hester states that his client amends his answer to the Referee Charles B.
Younger Report as follows•••••• that he is a resident with his family on the
Augmentation a long time before institution of this suit and that he has made
permanent and valuable improvements which continue to exist to this day and
consist of a house and houses plus fences totaling $600 ($8,400).
James Taylor prays that he may have assigned to him the extent of his interest
in the land, a portion of the land in the division thereof including the
improvements, or he may have the value of the improvements allowed him by the
the court.
Also answering the Younger report in this answer were LYMAN BURRELL, CARVEN
HESTER on his own part, and as the attorney for BENJAMIN FARLEY. Their answers
are identical with that of James Taylor except LYMAN BURRELL's value of his
improvements is $2,000 ($28,000), CRAVEN P. HESTER's is $400 ($5,600) and
BENJAMIN FARLEY'S is also $400.
DECISION by SAMUEL B. McKEE
THIRD DISTRICT JUDGE
April 20, 1863
On the above date Third District Court Samuel B. McKee issued the first of
several reports and decrees concerning both Rancho Soquel and the Augmen
tation. The majority of the decisions handed down in this report concern
Charles B. Younger•s partitioning report and the court's acceptance of
his findings and the decisions behind these findings concerning a number
of controversial deeds, a number of which affected Frederick A. Hihn in
both suits.
Because the decisions concerning the acceptance or rejection of these
controversial deeds were presented in their entirety in CHAPTER 13 of this
262
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for RANCHO S OQUEL
BOOK, they will not be repeated here. The only portion of the judge's
decision that will be presented here is his opinion of the referee's
reports �on�erning partitioning versus selling of the Augmentation•••••••••
JUDGE McKEE I s OPINIONS of REFEREES REPORTS
The Referee(s) have reported that the Augmentation is incapable of division
except as to two of the claimants, namely Lyman John Burrell and James
Taylor and recommends that the shares of these two be set off to them and
the remaining sold. There is no doubt of the power of the court to allot to
such of the parties as can have their lands alloted to them. Their shares,
and to direct a sale of the residue which cannot be divided.
(Haywood vs Indson 4th Barb. s.c.R. 1/2 229 Act. Sec 275)
But we cannot, from the evidence, reach the conclusion that this property,
a ranch containing about 32,702 acres, cannot be partitioned. And unless
to be impracticable, or a sale will prove of greater benefit to the owner,
the court will always decree a partition, and even where an equality of
prejudice may exist to owner via partition and a sale, partition will be
preferred. Doubtless many difficulties will attend a partition of this
ranch on account of the mountainous character of the property but these
cannot be allowed to control the legal and equitable right of the owners
to have their respective interests with segregerted from each other. A sale
of so extensive a tract of country might prove advantageous to a few, but it
might at the same time result with the prejudice of most, and involve a
sacrifice of the interests of some of the claimants. Apprehended difficulties
of a partition may vanish or diminish before the reality of an effort, or
be provided against or modified by the decree of the court, or for instance
a right of way to portions where it may be impracticable to make roads may
be decreed.
Some of the owners have made improvements before and since they acquired
title; they are entitled to have their shares alloted to them so as to
include their improvements if it can be done without prejudice to others;
and this allotment might be made without taking these improvements or the
value of them into consideration. If these improvements have been placed
upon favorable localities of the ranch, shares, which have to be located
so as to include them, will only have to be shown of their proportions to
equalize them in the other shares but these are matter for the Referee
or Commissioners to be appointed to make partition, for it is for them to
take these things into consideration and determine the quantity and quality
of the several shares into which the ranch is to be divided, and equalize
the shares. We therefore sustain the exceptions as to the sale and overrule
the other exceptions filed to the REPORT of the REFEREE and order the same
to be confirmed. And DECREES of PARTITION may be prepared accordingly.
INTERLOCUTORY DECREES for RANCHO SOQUEL & AU3MENTATION
by THIRD DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUEL 8. McKEE
April 22, 1863
District Judge Samuel B. Mckee filed his decree pending the final decision
of the court concerning partition of the two ranches, called an "INTERLOC
UTORY DECREE" ••••••one decree for each ranch••••••••• on the above date.
Because of their length, they will net be presented here•••••their entire
text may be read in APPEND t X -c;
APRIL 221 1863- DEED
On this date George w. Evans sold his l/18th claim to land in
the Augmentation to John Daubenbiss for $500 ($7,000). It
will be remembered that this was the 1/18th claim that Jones
Hoy had sold to Evans DECEMBER 26, 1860 which Frederick A.
263
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for RANCHO SOQUEL
APRIL 22, 1863 (Continued)
Hihn claimed through his deed with Joseph L. Majors JULY 3,
1858•••••• see PARTITIONING REPORTS by Charles B. Younger,
CHAPTER 13, this book.
PARTITION DECREES for RANCHO SOQUEL & AU3MENTATION
by THIRD DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUEL B. McKEE
April 23, 1863
District Judge Samuel B. McKee filed his decree directing that the two ran
ches be partitioned and that the objections to partitioning entered into
testimony earlier be overruled •••••••• because of the length of the two
decrees they will not be presented here•••••••their entire text may be
read in A PPENDIX
"C'
APRIL 29 1 1863- DEED
In this deed Benjamin Cahoon Nichols sold to his uncle, old
Benjamin Cahoon, his half of the land that lie between the
original Mountain School and Soquel Creek plus the sawmill
and supporting facilities including the millpond, the l/54th
claim to land in the Augmentation across the creek from the
mill and millpond and land that he owned in common with his
partner Francis Brady in downtown Santa Cruz. Old Benjamin
paid his nephew $2,411 ($33, 754) for his half claim in the
above facilities and land.
MAY 29 2 1863- DEED
In this deed, Francis R. Brady sold his half of the affore
discussed properties and sawmill facilities (in the previous
transaction) to Benjamin Cahoon for $2,300 ($32,200).
BENJAMIN CAHOON, FRANCIS R, BRADY SEE APPEN01x·H"
and BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS
Little of Francis Brady's life has been found, but it is
known that his partner Benjamin Cahoon was born in New York
in about 1830, and he had two brothers Uriah and Merrill.
Benjamin arrived in California about 1852, probably with
his two brothers. Sometime between 1852 and 1859 Benjamin
met and entered into partnership with Francis Brady. One of
their first ventures was building and operating a tannery
(location unknown)� closing it down near the end of 1858.
On October 19, 1859 they purchased from Wesley Burnett &
Company their sawmill on Soquel Creek and the land that lie
between the creek and old Mountain School and their claim
to l/54th undivided part in the Augmentation.
Shortly after the two signed the deeds with the Wesley Bur
nett & Company Frederick A. Hihn began his partitioning suit
for the Augmentation then threatening the partners with an
264
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for RANCHO SOQUEL
injunction to stop their logging within the area.
When the State Supreme Court overturned the injunction served
on Joel Bates in September of 1861, this also released the
partners from their agreement with Frederick A. Hihn to stop
their logging activity in the Augmentation for a period of
eight months. During the period that Joel Bates was fighting
the anti-logging injunction through the courts, Brady and
Nichols logged their land along the west side of Soquel Creek,
then when the upper court overturned the injuction they
logged within the Augmentation until they entered into the
above deeds with Benjamin Cahoon,
Benjamin Cahoon, according to Margaret Koch in her book,
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PARADE OF THE PAST, was one of the county's
more colorful characters. He was born in Fairfield, Herkimer
County, New York in 1798 and died in his home at the junction
of the Soquel San Jose and Laurel Glen roads on June 30,
1874. Benjamin arrived in Santa Cruz County during the 18601861 period. One of his first purchases was Richard Savage's
water-powered sawmill on Soquel Creek at the mouth of Hinck
ley Gulch and 1/96th undivided part of the Augmentation.
He next entered into the above discussed two deeds, then at
age 67 he began withdrawing from the business world, entering
into a deed with his daughter Lucy Ann Cahoon in which he
turned over control of his lands to her.
NOTE: Today Benjamin Cahoon•s original homesite is owned
by the Casalegno family who operates a small country store
and gas station on the premises. After Benjamin's death
his son Edwin turned his father's home into a summer resort,
and operated it as such for a number of years.
PARTITIONING COMMISSION for the AUGMENTATION
by THIRD DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUEL B, McKEE
August 1 7, 1863
When the court assigned Charles B, Younger to establish ownership percentages
within both Rancho Sequel and the Augmentation, assisting Younger was Samuel
Dunnan (Deputy Sheriff) and David J, Haslam (Clerk for the 3rd District
Court i i:1 �anta Crqz), When.Judge.McKee first considered assigning referees
to partition both ranches in April, he again considered these three 1 then
changed the three to partition Rancho Sequel to Charles B. Younger, David
Tuttle and Joseph Rufner, who in turn assigned as official surveyors
Thomas w. Wright and Samuel Drennan•••••••this assignment well be made
official AUGUST 31, 1863.
With Charles B. Younger to be assigned to partition Rancho Soquel and Samuel
Dunnan and Daniel J, Haslam not being considered as referees, Judge McKee
t �rned tow�rds the County Surv7yor Thomas w. Wright who had surveyed many
times portions of the Augmentation and was the most familiar of all the
possible candidates available of the area. On the above date he assigned
Thomas W. Wright, John w. Towne and Godfrey M, Bockius as referees to
partition the Augmentation •••••••••• the complete text of Judge McKee's
PARTITIONING COMMISSION Decree is provided in APPENDIX "C'
265
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for RANCHO SOQUEL
AU3UST 181 1863 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- DR. JOHN P.P. VANDENBERG's attorney L.
Archer is replaced by attorneys Messrs Sloan and Provines residing in San Fran
cisco••••••• the request is signed by the doctor in San Jose August 7, 1863 and
the consent for the substition by L. Archer Esq August 8, 1863.
AU3UST 20, 1863 (Augmentation Suit)- The attorney for JOHN DAUBENBISS filed with
the court that his client now owns all of the former rights to the 1/18th claim
of land in the Augmentation formerly owned by George w. Evans. This is the claim
that Frederick A. Hihn claimed was his through previous deeds.
PARTITIONING COMNISSION FOR RANCHO SOQUEL
by THIRD DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUEL B, McKEE
August 31, 1863 SEE APPENDIX "C"
The sequence of events that led to Samuel B. McKee's decision to assign
Charles B. Younger, Joseph Rufner and Daniel Tuttle as referees to partition
Rancho Soquel was discussed in the Partitioning Commission for the Augmen
tation dated August 17, 1863, therefore it will not be presented here.
Au;UST 31, 1863 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- OATH of REFEREES........We the undersigned, referees appointed to make partition of the premises described in the
above entitled action by decree made and entered August 18, 1863. Each for him
self does solemnly swear that he will honestly and impartially execute the trust
reposed in him by the said decree and make partition and division as thereby
directed••••••assigned referees were CHARLES B. YOUNGER, JOSEPH RUFNER AND
DANIEL TUTTLE taking the oath which was sworn to and subscribed before David J.
Haslam, Clerk of the Court by James o. Wanzer, Deputy Clerk.
DECE1'1BER 1, 1863- DEED
John Daubenbiss sold the 1/18th claim to land he had rec
ently purchased from George Evans to the Chase brothers,
Stephen and Joseph, for $700 ($9,800). As previously dis
cussed this 1/18th claim to land in the Augmentation was
being contested by Frederick A. Hihn, claiming it was his
claim through his deed with Joseph L. Majors JULY 3, 1858.
RANCHO SOQUEL Suit (Peck versus Hihn)
PARTITIONING REPOR T
by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER, DAVID TUTTLE
and JOSEPH RUFNER
DECE1'1BER 22, 1863
Now the Referees Charles B, Younger, David Tuttle and Joseph Rufner, appainted
under and by the several decrees by this Court, made and entered in this cause,
on APRIL 22 and 23 of 1863 A.D. and on the 31st day of AUGUST, 1863 A,D., to
make partition of the lands and tenements described in the Complaint as follows:
A certain tract of land situated in the County of Santa Cruz, and State of
California, known there as the Rancho Soquel, bounded on the southwest by the
Bay of Monterey, on the northwest by the Soquel River, on the southeast by the
Borregas Gulch, and on the northeast by the upper Soquel Ranch, so called,
containing about 2,800 acres (surveyed to contain 1,668 acres), more or less,
being the same as surveyed under instructions from the United States Surveyor
General, for California, as the land called Soquel, confirmed to Martina Castro,
having made and filed with the Clerk of this Court, on the 22nd day of DECEMBER,
A,D, 1863, a full, true and correct repart of the preceedings under said decree,
wherein they reported to this Court•••••••••••
266
�RANCHO SOQUEL Suit ( Peck versus Hihn)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
CHARLl�S O , YOUNGER I DAV ID 'l'U'!"l'LE
and JOSEPH RUFNER
DECEMBER 22, 1863
That they having been first duly sworn, they carefully examined the rancho in
said commission mentioned, to wit••••••••••••
That certain tract of land lying and being situate in the township of Soquel, in
the County of Santa Cruz in the State of California, and known as the Rancho
Soquel, and bounded on the south by the Bay of Monterey, on the west by the
Soquel River, on the east by the Sanjon de la Borregas and on the north by the
Soquel Augmentation Rancho, being the same patented by the United States, to
Martina Castro, and have caused the said Rancho Soquel to be surveyed by Thomas
w. Wright, and divided into several parcels as hereafter mentioned, and have
made partition thereof, between plaintiffs HENRY W. PECK and ANTONIA PECK, his
wife, and the defendants FREDERICK A. HIHN, JOSHUA PARRISH, GUADALUPE AVERON,
HELENA LITTLEJOHN, LUISA JUAN, BENJAMIN F. POR'IBR, GEORGE K. PORTER, WILLIAM
�1ACONDRAY and JAMES OTIS, as executors of the last will and testament of
FREDERICK w. MACONDRAY, deceased, and the heirs and devises of said FREDERICK W.
MACONDRAY, whose names are unknown, and Au;USTAS NOBLE, according to their sev
eral respective rights, interests and estates therein, as the same, have been
by this Court ascertained, declared, determined and adjudged, and have designated
the parcels set apart in severalty, to the respective parties by proper descrip
tions and monuments, as we were by said commission commanded in manner following,
to wit.....•.....
We have divided saif Rancho Soquel into twenty (20) parcels, which are resp
ectively designated by the letters••• A•••B.••c •••D••• E••• F•••G•••H•••I•••K•••
L•••M••,N,,,D,,.P.,.R•••s ••• T•••v •••w... , on the map of the Soquel Rancho
hereto attached and annexed, and herein referred to, and made a part, and
marked EXHIBIT "B", that being in our judgment, the most equal partition,
quantity and quality relatively considered, that could be made of said Rancho
Soquel,
NOTE: The term "quantity and quality" ordered by the Judge Samuel B. McKee
to be considered by the referees in their partitioning of the rancho meants
as the quality of the land awarded to a recipient diminished, the quantity
would increase by a factor considered to be fair by the referees.
And they do further report, that for the accommodation of the several parties
herein, we have marked out and set apart, and have not assigned or set off to
any one, the following mentioned roads, which are to be kept open for travel
and use, to wit•• ,,•• ,,.
• A road called the "COUNTRY ROAD," that today is followed for the most part
by "SOQUEL DRIVE,,.• A 33-foot wide road called RICARDO LANE," that today is the north end of
CABRILLO COLLEGE DRIVE.
• A 33-foot wide road called "NOBLE'S LANE," that today, between BAY AVENUE
and SOQUEL DRIVE it is called CAPITOLA AVENUE.
• A 40-foot wide road called "HIHN's LANE," that today, from CAPITOLA AVENUE
to HIGHWAY 1 is called BAY AVENUE, while north of HIGHWAY 1 until the bridge
across Sequel Creek is crossed, it is called PORTER STREET,
And they do further report, that for the better understanding and education of
the shape and location of said Rancho Sequel, and the several parcels into which
we have partitioned the same, and of the several roads hereinbefore referred to,
and of the manner in which we have partitioned said Rancho Soquel, we have
caused to be made by Thomas W, Wright, by whom the same was surveyed, a map
of said Rancho Soquel, designating and delineating what parcels thereof have
267
�RANCHO SOQUEL Suit (Peck versus Hihn)
PARTl·TIONING REPORT
by
CHARLIC:S B, YOUNGER, DAVID 'l'UT'l'lli
and JOSEPH RUFNER
DECEMBER 22, 1863
been by us set off in severalty to the respective partie� herein, as� were
commanded by the said commission and by the decree of this Court therein ref
erred to and made a part thereof, and is hereunto attached and annexed and
marked as EXHIBIT "B",
And they do further report, that any of the parties to whom portions of said
Rancho Soquel have been set apart as aforesaid, who have fences on any part of
said Rancho Soquel that have been set off to another, are to be allowed to remove such fences,
EX HI BIT "A"
Following are the present and previous owners of land in Rancho Soquel living
in Santa Cruz County,.,,.,,.
FREDERICK A, HIHN
JOSEPH AVERON
GUADALUPE AVERON
JOSE DAVID LITTLEJOHN
HELENA LITTLEJOHN
RICARDO FOURCADE JUAN
GEORGE H, KIRBY
LUISA JUAN
JOSHUA PARRISH
DR, JOHN P,P, VANDENBERG
MIGUEL ANTONIO LODGE
BENJAMIN F, PORTER
GEORGE K, PORTER
THOMAS FALLON
CARMEL FALLON
FRANCISCO LAJEUNESSE (alias
FRANCISCO YOUNG)
NICANOR LAJEUNESSE (alias
NICANOR YOUNG)
PRUITT SINCLAIR
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
Following are the present and previous owners of land in Rancho Soquel living
in Santa Clara County,,,,,,
Following is the previous owner of land in Rancho Soquel living in Marin County,,
CHARLES H, WILLS ON
Following are the present and previous owners of land in Rancho Soquel living
in San Francisco County••••••••••
WILLIAM IRELAND
WILLIAM MACONDRAY and
JAMES OTIS as Exec
utors of the last
will and testament
of FREDERICK W, MAC
ONDRAY
HENRY LAWRENCE
WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS
CHARLES W, PLUM
THOMAS COURTIS as Admin
istrator of JOHN
INGOLDSBY
J,S, REED
THOMAS COURTIS as Admin
istrator of BENJAMIN P,
GREEN
THOMAS COURTIS on his own
behalf
MARY E, J, SLADE
Also submitted as part of EXHIBIT "A" was the bill for the referees efforts,
and for Thomas w. Wright's surveying expenses, which were as follows...........
THOMAS W, WRIGHT for surveying, calculating and mapping
$757 ($10,598)
REFEREE DANIEL TUTTLE
$247 ($3,458)
REFEREE CHARLES B, YOUNGER
$240 ($3,360)
REFEREE JOSEPH RUFFNER
$161 ($2,254)
REFEREE CHARLES B, YOUNGER for writing the Report
for Referees at an agreed upon price
$130 ($1,820)
TOTAL
268
$1,535 ($21,490)
�RANCHO SOQUEL Suit (Peck versus Hihn)
PARTITl·ONING REPORT
by
CHARLES B • YOUNGERa DAV ID TUTTLE
and JOSEPH RUFNER
DECEMBER 22, 1863
The three referees and Thomas w. Wright also submitted as part of EXHIBIT "A"
each individuals portion of the above bill, was was as follows ••••••••••
JOSHUA PARRISH
GUADALUPE AVERON
ANTONIA PECK
HENRY W. PECK
HELENA LITTIEJOHN
LUISA JUAN
BENJAMIN F. PORTER
FREDERICK A. HIHN
GEORGE K. PORTER
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY's Estate
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
$170.55
$170.55
$170. 55
$170.55
$113. 70
$109.09
$4.63
$403.65
$39.80
$ 54. Oil
$127.92
($2,387.70)
($2,387.70)
($2,387.70)
($2,387.70)
($1,591.80)
($1,527.26)
($ 64.82)
($5,651.10)
($557. 20)
($756.14)
($1,706.88)
It was also stated by the Court that each individuals final ownership awarded
to him or her would not be registered until the money they owed to the three
referees and to Thomas w. Wright was paid in full.
EXHIBIT"B"
HENRY w. PECK (Plaintiff) was awarded Lot "A" with (83.245 acres), Lot "B" with
(16,775 acres) and Lot "C" with (35.328 acres). totaling 135.348 acres which
was 49.98 acres less than his l/9th award by Charles B. Younger.
ANTONIA PECK (Plaintiff) was awarded Lot "D" with (134.687 acres), Lot "E"
with (112 acres) and Lot "F" with (70 acres) totaling 316.687 acres which was
131.357 acres more than her l/9th award by Charles B. Younger.
NOTE: The combined acreage of Henry and Antonia Peck, 452.035 acres,
were under the ownership of Frederick A. Hihn because of the deed
dated APRIL 21, 1862•••••••••••••
HELENA LITTLEJOHN (Defendant) was awarded Lot "I" with (116,448 acres) and Lot
"K" with (20.915 acres) totaling 137.363 acres which was 13.80 acres more
than the 2/27th parts that Charles B. Younger awarded her.
LUISA JUAN (Defendant) was awarded Lot "N" with (102,739 acres) which was 20.82
acres less then the, 2/27th parts awarded to her by Charles B. Younger
NOTE: Luisa Juan's award was actually 5 acres less that the 2/27th parts
awarded to her due to the sale of the tannery to Benjamin F. Porter on
January 1, 1858,
GUADALUPE AVERON (Defendant) was awarded Lot "T" (63.215 acres) and Lot "V"
with (54,495 acres) totaling 117.771 acres which was 67.56 acres less that the
l/9th parts awarded to her by Charles B. Younger.
JOSHUA PARRISH (Defendant) was awarded Lot "0" with (110.989 acres) and Lot "P"
with 8.948 acres) totaling 119.937 acres which was 65.40 acres less than the
I/9th parts awarded to him by Charles B. Younger.
Al.X;l.BTAS NOBLE (Defendant) was awarded Lot "W" with (121.571 acres) which was
17,429 acres less than the I/12th parts awarded to him by Charles B, Younger.
269
�RANCHO SOQUEL Suit { Peck versus Hihn)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
CHAR.LES B. YOUNGER, DAVID 'l'U'l'Tlli
and JOSEPH RUFNER
DECEMBER 22, 1863
GEORGE K, PURTER (Defendant) was awarded Lot "M" with (109,977 acres) which was
66,737 acres more than the 7/270th parts awarded to him by Charles B, Younger,
WILLIAM �!ACONDRAY (Defendant and Administrator for FREDERICK W, �!ACONDRAY) was
awarded Lot "R" with (16,599 acres) and Lot "S" with (77,270 acres) totaling
93,869 acres which was 37,181 acres more than the 19/540th parts awarded to
him by Charles B, Younger and 48,069 acres more than the 45,8 acres that
Frederick A, Hihn meant to sell him,
BENJAMIN F. PORTER (Defendant) was awarded the five (5) acres that the tannery
formerly owned by Ricardo and Luisa Juan occupied, designated as Lot "L" that
lie along both sides of Tannery Gulch's creek bed just to the north of the
County Road,,,,,today Sequel Drive,,,,,,within the boundries of Cabrillo
College.
FREDERICK A, HIHN was awarded Lot "G" with (22.23 acres) and Lot "H" with
(382,122 acres) totaling 404,352 acres which was 34.248 acres less than the
71/270th parts he was awarded by Charles B, Younger.
NOTE: With his award of 404,352 acres plus the 452,035 acres that the
Pecks deeded to him on APRIL 21, 1862, when this Partitioning Report
was made final, Frederick A, Hihn owned a total of 856.387 acres of
Rancho Soquel, which totaled a percentage of 51,34%.
270
�RANCHO SOQUEL Suit (Peck versus Hihn)
PARTITIONING REPOR T
by
CHARLES B. YOUNGER, DAVID TUTTLE
and JOSEPH RUFNER
DECEMBER 22, 1863
RANCHO SOQUEL LOT OWNERSHIP
EXHIBIT B
HENRY w. PECK (A) 83.245 acres;@ 16.775 acres;(c) 35.328 acres- all of which
were the proWrty of Frederick A. Hihn due to &e 4/21/1862 deed.
134.687 acres;(E\ 112 acres;r?i 70 acres- all of which
MARIA ANTONIA PECK
were the property of Frederick A. Hliu'.i due to the�21/1862 deed.
FREDERICK A. HIHN@ 22.23 acres;@ 382.122 acres
116.448 acres;@ 20.915 acres
MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN
@
BENJAMIN F. PORTER
@
G)
5.0 acres
GEORGE K. PORTER@ 109.977 acres
MARIA LUISA JUAN@ 102.739 acres
110.989 acres;
JOSHUA PARRISH
0
@
8.948 acres
WILLIAM MACONOOAY et al {R) 16.599 acres; (s) 77.270 acres- originally purchased
by his brother Frederiai<w. Macondray (¥ceased)
MARIA GUADALUPE AVERON
63,215 acres;G) 54,495 acres
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
®
G)
121,571 acres
271
�Intentially left blank.
272
�CHAPTER 17
PARTITIONING
REPORT
FOR THE
SOQUEL
AUGMENTATION
273
�Intentially left blank.
274
�AUGMENTATION Suit (Hihn versus Peck)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
THOMAS W. WRIGHT, JOHN W. TOWNE
and GODFREY M. BOCKIUS
DECEMBER 23, 1863
In pursuance of and in obedience to the commission dated AUGUST 17, 1863 which
is here attached and annexed and made a part hereof in the Soquel Augmentation
Partitioning Suit, better known as the HIHN versus PECK et als Suit, issued out
of and under the seal of this Court and delivered and directed to Thomas w.
Wright, John w. Towne and Godfrey M. Beckius as Referees therein named tested
the day of August 17, 1863 we Thomas W. Wright, John w. Towne and Godfrey M.
Beckius do report to the Court as follows, to wit..........•.....
That having been first duly sworn we carefully examined the Rancho in said Comm
ission mentioned to wit•••••••that certain tract of land lying and being sit
uated in the State of California and in the Counties of Santa Cruz and Santa
Clara known thereas the AUGMENTATION to the SOQUEL RANCH bounded by a line
commencing at the northwest corner of the Soquel Ranch so called and running up
the Soquel River to a place known as the Palo de la Yeska••••••thence to the
Laguna Sarjunte •••••••thence to and including the Loma Prieta•••••••thence to
the Chuchitas••••••••thence to the Cuatro Leguas••••••••thence to the northwest
corner of the Aptos Ranch •••••••thence to the northeast corner of the Soquel
Ranch •••••••and from thence to the place of beginning, containing 32,702 acres
more or less.
And we have caused the said Rancho to be surveyed by Thomas w. Wright and div
ided into the several parcels as herein after mentioned and have made partition
thereof between the Plaintiff FREDERICK A. HIHN and the Defendants •••••Carmel
Fallon ••••••Guadalupe Averon •••••Antonia Peck•••••Helena Littlejohn•••••Luisa
Juan •••••HPnry w. Peck•••••George w. Evans •••••Cassamero Amayo •••••Dario
Amayo •••••Lyman J. Burre11•••••Luther Farnham as Administrator of the estate
of Joel Bates, deceased and the heirs of the said Joel Bates whose names are
unknown ••••• Francis R. Brady •••••Benjamin Cahoon Nichols•••••Richard Savage •••••Roger G. Hinckley•••••John L. Shelby•••••Craven P. Hester •••••Ben
jamin Farley •••••James Taylor •••••George K. Porter •••••William Macondray and
James Otis as executors of the last will and testament of Frederick W. Mac
ondray deceased and the heirs and devises of Frederick w. Macondray deceased
whose names are unknown •••••and Augustas Noble, according to their several
respective rights, interests and estates therein as the same have been by this
Court ascertained, declared, determined and adjudged. And have designated the
parcels (to be called Tracts from this time on) so set apart in severalty to
the respective parties by proper descriptions and monuments as we were by said
Commission commanded in manner following, to wit..•••••
We have divided the said Augmentation to the Soquel Ranch inJ:.c< 27 wc�s (par
eels) which are respectively designated by the numbers from'-.!} to � 1nclus
ive. On the map of said Rancho hereto attached and annexed and here in referred
to and made a part hereof and marked EXHIBIT "A".
That being in our judgement the most equal partition quantity and quality con
sidered that could be made of said Rancho.
And we do further report that for the better understanding and elucidation
(to make clear ••••Webster) of the shape and location of said Rancho and of the
several parcels into which we have partitioned the same, and of the manner in
which we have partitioned said Rancho, we have caused to be made by Thomas W.
Wright by whom the same was surveyed a map of said Rancho designating and del
ineating what parcels thereof have been by us set off in severalty to the resp
ective parties herein as we were commanded by said Commission and by the decree
of this Court therein referred to, which map is herein referred to and made a
part hereof and is hereunto attached and annexed and marked EXHIBIT "A".
275
�AUG.MENTATION Suit (Hihn versus Peck)
PARTITl·ONING REPORT
by
THOMAS W. WRIGHT, JOHN W. TOWNE
and GODFREY M. BOCKIUS
DECEMBER 23, 1863
And we do further report that we have assigned and set off in severalty to the
Plaintiff FREDERICK A. HIHN as the 12/90th parts th�W QUAN�TY and QUALITY
considered for following tracts of land•••••Tracts \J)� and �.
And we do further report that we have assigned and set off in severa)-.t;_y to the
estate of JOEL BATES l/27th part of the said Ranch to wit.,,,.Tract �.
And we do further report that we have assigned and set off in severalty to the
Defendant LUISA JUAN as the l/27th part of said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALIJ::( con
sidef5.d all those portions of the Sequel Augmentation to wit, ••••Tracts �.
and�And we have set off and assigned to the Defendant GUADALUPE AVERON in severalty
as the I/9th of the said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITYr:-Zonsidered all the portion
of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit.,,,,Tract �•
And we do further report that we have assigned and set off in severalty to the
estate of FREDERICK W, �IACONDRAY I/30th part of said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALI�
considered all the partion of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit••,••Tract �.
And we have assigned and set off to the Defendant CARMEL FALLON in severalty
as the l/9th part of said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively�onsidered all
the partion of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit,••••Tract \..2).
And we have assigned and set off in severalty to the Defendant ANTONIA PECK as
the I/9th part of the said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively considered the
follow� two tracts,.?J land within the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit••.••
Tract \!._91 and Tract Q:..:Y.
And we do further report that we have assigned and set off in severalty to the
estate of Defendant GEORGE K, PORTER as the equal 7/270th parts of said Ranch
QUANT!� and QUALITY :elatively co�dered all the portion of the Sequel Aug
mentation Rancho to w1t,,,,.Tract Q31.
And we have assigned and set off in severalty to the Defendant AUGUSTAS NOBLE
as the 1/540th and l/280th parts of said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively
consid�d all the portion of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit•••••
Tract Qj).
And we do further report that we have assigned and set off in severalty to the
estate of Defendant CRAVEN P. HESTER as 1/48th part of said Ranch QUANTITY and
QUALITY relativelHonsidered all the portion of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho
to wit•••••Tract �•••• and to BENJAMIN FARLEY a like percentage of l/48th
part of the ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively c�idered all the portion
of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit,, ••,Tract l.!:J,
And we have set off and assigned in severalty to the Defendant HENRY w. PECK as
2/27th parts of the said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively 5.:0rsidered all
the portion of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit•••,,Tract Q.§1.
And we do further report that we have assigned and set off in severalty to the
estate of Defendant JAMES TAYLOR as l/54th part of said Ranch QUALITY and
QUANTITY relatively conswred all the portion of the Sequel Augmentation
Rancho to wit••••,Tract QJ).
And we have assigned and set off in severalty to the Defendant HELENA LITTLEJOHN
as the 2/27th parts of the said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY,,,NOT,,.considered
the fo�wing two tra� of land within the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit.,,
Tract � and Tract �.
276
�AUGMENTATION Suit (Hihn versus Peck)
PA RT I TI_ 0 N I NG REPORT
by
THOMAS W, WRIGHT, JOHN W, TOWNE
and GODFREY M, BOCKIUS
DECEMBER 23, 1863
0
4
2
,,. ,,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SOQUEL AUGMENTATION TRACT OWNERSHIP
EXHIBIT A
FREDERICK A. HIHN
12 GEORGE K, PORTER
20 CASIMERO & DARI 0
FREDERICK A. HIHN
13 AUGUSTAS NOBLE
AMAYO
FREDERICK A. HIHN
14 CRAVEN HESTER
21 JOHN DAUBENBISS
JOEL BATES
15 BENJAMIN FARLEY
22 GEORGE W. EVANS
MARIA LUISA JUAN
16 HENRY W. PECK
23 GEORGE W, EVANS
MARIA LUISA JUAN
17 JAMES TAYLOR
24 LYMAN JOHN BURRELL
MARIA GUADALUPE AVERON
18 MARIA HELENA
25 R.G. HINCKLEY &
FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY
LITTLEJOHN
JOHN L. SHELBY
CARMEL FALLON
19 MARIA HELENA
26 FRANCIS R. BRADY &
MARIA ANTONIA PECK
LITTLEJOHN
BENJAMIN C. NICHOLS
MARIA ANTONIA PECK
27 RICHARD SAVAGE
27 7
�AUGMENTATION Suit (Hihn versus Peck)
PART ITIONING REPORT
by
THOMAS W. WRIGHT, JOHN W. TOWNE
and GODFREY M. BOCKIUS
DECEMBER 23, 1863
And we have set off and assigned to the Defendants CASSIMERO and DARIO AMAYO
together l/27th part in severalty QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively c�idered
all the portion of the Soquel Augmentation Rancho to wit•••••Tract
@.
And we have set off and assigned to the defendant GEORGE w. EVANS in severalty
as the I/18th part of said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively considered the
follow�g three Aacts of land8thin the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit•••••
Tract l.lY Tract � and Tract g.
And we have assigned and set off in severalty to the Defendant LYMAN JOHN BURRELL
as the l/27th part of said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively cons:jA,_ered the
following portion of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit•••••Tract �.
And we have assigned and set off in severalty to the Defendants ROGER G. HINCKLEY
nad his son-in-law JOHN LAFAYETTE SHELBY as the l/36th part of the said Ranch
QUANTITY and QUALITY••• NOT•••consider�the following portion of the Sequel
Augmentation Rancho to wit•••••Tract �.
And
and
and
ion
we have assigned and set off in severalty to the Defendants FRANCIS R. BRADY
his partner BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS as the l/54th part of said Ranch QUANTITY
QUALITY relatively consi�ed the following portion of the Soquel Augmentat
Rancho to wit.....Tract �•
And finally we have assigned and set off in severalty to the Defendant RICHARD
SAVAGE as the l/96th part of the said Ranch QUANTITY and QUALITY relatively
consid�d the following portion of the Sequel Augmentation Rancho to wit•••••
Tract "Ci)•
NOTE: Three of the defendants (actually four when the partners Hinckley and
Shelby are considered separately) were awarded their tracts without QUANTITY
and QUALITY relatively considered, namely JOEL BATES, HELENA LITTLEJOHN and
ROGER HINCKLEY and JOHN SHELBY. Joel Bates purchased from Henry and Antonia
Peck l/27th part of the Augmentation, which totals 1,211 acres more or less.
But when he was awarded his final area it totaled about 330 acres, more or
less. The reasoning behind this decision is not difficult to determine••••••
since June of 1853 he had logged freely in the Augmentation between the
north boundry of Rancho Sequel and the end of Prescott Road, stopped only
for a period of about one year by Frederick A. Hihn's anti-logging injunct
ion before his death in October of 1861. The three referees took his logging
activity into consideration, awarding his estate the l/27th total of the
Augmentation less the acres he had logged earlier.
The referees decision concerning Roger Hinckley and John Shelby is also
easy to arrive at••••••the two partners had settled on the area at the
mouth of Hinckley Gulch along the west side of Sequel Creek, establishing
their land with fences and monuments, therefore QUANTITY and QUALITY was
not a factor. But why Helena Littlejohn's two tracts were awarded without
QUANTITY and QUALITY being considered is not as obvious, except the reason
ing behind the referees decision may have been the fact that if the partit
ioning suit was successful and she was awarded her 2/27th claim to land in
the Augmentation, the earlier deed that she and her husband entered into
with Frederick A. Hihn in which they passed title to him upon a successful
decision by the court, influenced the referees decision based on Hihn's
desire to own the areas awarded to Helena.
EXPENSE REPORT by REFEREES WRIGHT, TOWNE & BOCKIUS
And now at this day come the parties herein and also come Thomas w. Wright,
John W. Towne and Godfrey M. Beckius, the referees heretofore appointed to par-
278
�AUGMENTATION Suit (Hihn versus Peck)
PARTITIONING REPORT
by
THOMAS W. WRIGHT, JOHN W. TOWNE
and GODFREY M. BOCKIUS
DECEMBER 23, 1863
titian the Soquel Augmentation Rancho, and move the court for an order for the
payment of their fees as Referees herein and of the other expenses attending
and incidental to the partition of said Ranch •••••and it appearing to the court
that said referees have made partition of said Ranch in pursuance of the decree
in the premises and have filed their report herein and that the same has been by
the court confirmed••••••and it further appearing that their (time and effort)
amounts to the sum of $1,600 ($22,400) and that said $1,600 is payable in coin
and ought to be paid immediately in coin and the parties consenting thereto.
It is therefore now here ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the
parties herein in proportion to their respective interests in said Ranch as the
same have been ascertained and set off to the respective parties herein, do
forthwith pay David J. Haslam as Clerk of this court, in coin their respective
portions of the expenses of said partition as follows, to wit•••••••••
CARMEL FALLON
GUADALUPE AVERON
HELENA LITTLEJOHN
LUISA JUAN
JOHN DAUBENBISS
DARIO AMAYO
CASIMERO AMAYO
LYMAN JOHN BURRELL
LUTHER FARNHAM as Administrator
of the estate of JOEL BATES
FRANCIS R. BRADY & BENJAMIN NICHOLS
RICHARD SAVAGE
ROGER HINCKLEY & JOHN SHELBY
CRAVEN P. HESTER
BENJAMIN FARLEY
JAMES TAYLOR
GEORGE K. PORTER
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
JA�IBS OTIS & WILLIAM MACONDRAY as
Executors of the last will and
testament of FREDERICK W. MACONDRAY
FREDERICK A. HIHN*
$177,89
$177.89
$112.55
$59,29
$88,94
$29.64
$29,64
$59.29
$59.29
$29.64
$16,67
$44.37
$33,33
$33,33
$29,64
$41.51
$8.73
$53.36
($2,490.46)
($2,490.46)
($1,575.70)
($830.06)
($1,245.16)
($414,96)
($414,96)
($830,06)
($830,06)
($414.96)
($233,38)
($621.18)
($466.62)
($466,62)
($414,96)
($581.14)
($122.22)
($747.04)
$509.98 ($7,139,72)*
* Included within Frederick A. Hihn's portion of the referees expenses were
Henry and Antonia Pecks portion of the bill which totaled (about)
$296.47 ($4,150,58) because of the deed signed APRIL 21, 1862.
DECEMBER 23 1 1863 (Augmentation Suit)- CRAVEN P, HES'IBR on his own behalf and as
attorney for BENJAMIN FARLEY enter into the record the following EXCEPTIONS to
the preceeding Referees Report, •••••••••
• The description of the tracts of land assigned to them is absurb on its
face, whose boundries enclose no tract of land, and not the tracts of land
supposed to be assigned to them and that the description is insufficient,
• The quantity of land which should have been adjusted to them has not been
so assigned in the report
Wherefore we, CRAVEN HESTER and BENJAMIN FARLEY, pray that the court set aside
the report and that commissioners be appointed to divide the Augmentation amongst
the owners thereof assigning to each his proper share of the ranch.
279
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
NOTE: Charles B. Younger in his earlier partitioning report established that
both Craven Hester and Benjamin Farley had a legitimate claim in the Aug
mentation totaling 1/48th undivided part, which total 681 acres more or
less. The two claiming defendants were each awarded a total of 320 acres,
more or less, which each appears from their complaint, did not include
the lands, or all of the land, that they had made their improvements upon.
JANUARY 12, 1864 Augmentation Suit)- FRANCIS R. BRADY and his partner BENJAMIN
C. NICHOIS enter into the record the following EXCEPTIONS to the preceeding
Referees Report••••••••••••
• The amount of land assigned to (us) as described in the report is insuffic
ient and is not equivalent to the 1/54th part herefore directed to be set
off to us in fee simple by decree of this court.
• The tract of land set off to (us) does not include the land upon which we
have previously erected and now have standing permanent and valuable
improvements.
• The portion of the land set off to (us) is so located as to be inaccessable
from the point at which our buildings are presently located.
Wherefore we, Francis R. Brady and Benjamin c. Nichols, pray that the court
set aside the report and that commissioners be appointed to divide that Aug
mentation amongst the owners thereof assigning to each his proper share of the
ranch.
NOTE: Charles B. Younger in his earlier partitioning report established that
partners Brady and Nichols had a legitimate claim to l/54th undivided part
in the Augmentation totaling 605.6 acres more or less. The two partners
were awarded a total of 350 acres, more or less.
FEBRUARY 13, 1864- AGREEMENT
In this agreement Casimero Amaya and Frederick A. Hihn enter
into partnership to log the land awarded to the Amaya broth
ers (Dario and Casimero), Tract 20. After the partnership
was formed, with Hihn taking the leadership, most of the
logging of the land was done by others through leases and
selling the stumpage rights.
FEBRUARY 22, 1864- DEED
In this deed Dario Amaya sold his 1/2 interest in Tract 20
to Frederick A. Hihn. A total of $50 ($700) is mentioned in
the deedo
JULY 19 1 1864 (Augmentation Suit)- Now comes ROGER G. HINCKLEY and JOHN L.
SHELBY to except to the report of the referees in partition, herefore filed
therein and move the court to set aside the report on the following grounds
to wit .•.•••.....•.•
• Gross and inquality and injustice in the assignment of the joint interest of
the (two) defendants in the lands partitioned by the referees, and that the
same is against equity••••• in this that the principal part of the share set
off to the (two) defendants consists of land which can be made use of for no
other purpose than for grazing.
• And that the land set off to them has a very (small) quantity of which is
arable land•••••land suitable for raising crops•••••••• that on the whole of
said land there are but two small springs of water•••••and the situation
of the springs is such and the quantity of water afforded by them so small
that they are entirely insufficient for the purpose of watering the number
of cattle that the tr�ct of land is capable of sustaining.
280
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
• The two continue•••••that while the Soquel River, a year-round running stream
runs along the east side of their assigned plot of land for about two miles
and a half••• , •• and the stream would be a very great benefit and advantage in
the use of their land for grazing and for other purposes••••••••••that the
defendants can reach the stream at one point only which greatly diminishes
the value of the tract because the use thereof the running stream is as
previously stated, greatly diminshed by the denial to them of the use of
the waters (of the stream)•••••••and that in no other assignment of the
various portions of the lands partitioned has any party holding an interest
theirin been debarred from the free use of the waters of a boundry stream.
NOTE: The land awarded to Hinckley and Shelby, for the purpose that they
intended to use it, for the grazing of cattle, it was almost totally
unuseable due to its makeup. While their land, at its most southern point
extended from Sequel Creek along a straight line from just below Hinckley
Gulch up to the Laguna Sarjento in a northwest heading and from the same
point followed the twists and turns of Sequel Creek north. Their cattle
could reach Sequel Creek only within a small area directly across from
Hinckley Creek•••••••occupying the upper half of their tract was Sugarloaf
Mountain, while along Sequel Creek the sides dropped, for the most part
directly to its sides•••••the best, and most direct access for their cattle
was now on Frederick A. Hihn's Tract 10 located directly to the south.
JULY 25, 1864 (Rancho Sequel Suit)- On this date it was ordered, adjudged and
decreed by the court, that the Report of the Referees be confirmed, and that
judgment be entered according to the said report, and that the partition be
effectual forever.
Wherefore, on motion of the plaintiffs Henry and Antonia Peck by their attorney
Robert F. Peckham, it is considered, adjudged and decreed by the court, that
the referees report, so made and reported by them to this court, be and the same
is hereby approved, and forever confirmed, and be held firm, effectual and valid
forever.
And that the defendant FREDERICK A, HIHN, be allowed the sum of $370,60
($5,048.40) for his costs herein laid out and expended,
And that the defendant GEORGE K, PORTER, be allowed the sum of $20.($280), for
his costs and disbursements laid out and expended.
And that the sum of $370.60 to Frederick A. Hihn, and the sum of $20 to George
K. Porter, the plaintiffs Henry w. Peck and Antonia Peck, pay the sum of
$87.67 ($1,227.38).
And that defendant JOSHUA PARRISH, pay the sum of $43.83 ($613.62).
And that defendant GUADALUPE AVERON, pay the sum of $43,83 ($613.62).
And that defendant HELENA LITTLEJOHN, do pay the sum of $32,46 ($454.44).
And that the defendant LUISA JUAN, do pay the sum of $32.46 ($454.44).
And that the defendants WILLIAM MACONDRAY and JAMES OTIS, do pay the sum of
$13.75 ($1�2.64).
And that the defendant AUGUSTAS NOBLE, do pay the sum of $32.55 ($455.57).
And that execution do issue therefor, and that when the same is collected,
that the sum of $10 ($140) be paid to the defendant GEORGE K. PORTER, and the
remainder thereof to the defendant FREDERIC!{ A. HIHN,
Judgment entered July 25, 1864 by the Honorable
Samuel B. McKee, District Judge
Attested to by D.J, Haslam, Clerk of the Court
AU3UST 81 1864 (Augmentation Suit)- ACTION FOR PARTITION by Samuel B. McKee,
District Judge••••••this cause coming on to be heard upon this report of the
281
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
referees heretoafore appointed by the court to make partition of the lands and
tenements described in the Complaint. According to the decree of this court
swear and ordered in this court at the APRIL term, 1863. And upon the several
objections to said referees report by the defendants CRAVEN HESTER, BENJAMIN
FARIEY, FRANCIS R. BRADY, BENJAMIN NICHOLS, ROGER HINCKLEY and JOHN SHELBY, and
the said objections of these defendants now withdrawn and the court having heard
the entries in support of the objections of said defendants FRANCIS BRADY and
BENJAMIN NICHOLS, and having upon consideration of such evidence and denied
the objections.
It is now on motion of Robert F. Peckham, as attorney for defendant LUISA JUAN
considered adjudged and decreed by the court that the partition made by the
referees and reported to this court as this same now appears and remains on
file in this cause be and the same is hereby approved, ratified, confirmed,
established and made binding firm and effectial forever,
Judge McKee completed his Action for Partition with the following highly con
troversial statement••••••••••• ,
And that there be and is hereby reserved to each and every party to such
partition a right of way over the nearest convenient route from the lands set
off and assigned to him or her by this decree across the 1ands of the others
to a public highway and that a judgement be entered by the Cler!<: of the
Court accordingly, and that a writ of assistance be issued from this court
to put the parties in possession of the tracts of land set off and assigned
to them respectively.
And that the parties to this suit have until the next term of this court to
file their several bills of cost in this action and have them apportained
among the parties hereto respectivley•••••••••
Judgement entered SEPTEMBER 14, 1864
AUGUST B, 1864 - DEED
When Roger Hinckley and John Shelby were told what the bound
ries of their Tract 25 were, they complained vigorously that
being denied the land that lie to the south along Soquel
Creek, land that was now owned by Frederick A. Hihn (Tract
10), that they did not have enough access to the year-round
water available in Soquel Creek for their cattle and to
irrigate their land.
In their complaints, they pointed out to the court of the
steep terrain north of where Hinckley Creek merged with
Soquel Creek and the presence of San Francisco Mountain
(today called Sugarloaf Mountain) in the virtual center of
their tract. With the loss of Tract 27 in Hinckley Gulch,
the sawmill along the east side of Soquel Creek just above
the mouth of the latter gulch, the millpond on Soquel
Creek, and now the land to the south that belonged to Fred
erick A. Hihn, Hihn decided to quiet their complaints, In
this deed Hihn allowed the two partners to build a dam across
Soquel Creek on his Tract 10 land (within the vicinity of
today's Millpond Lake near the mouth of Spignet Gulch). Hihn
stated in the deed that the partners created lake could not
interfere with his wagon road along the east side of Soquel
Creek leading to his Sulphur Springs Resort upstream.
282
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
AUGUST 9 through SEPTEMBER 10, 1864- DEEDS
A total of eight deeds between Stephen and Joseph Chase,
brothers that presently owned title to George W. Evans former
claim to l/18th of the Augmentation, John Duabenbiss who
purchased the claim from George W. Evans, and Frederick A.
Hihn were entered into and filed between the above dates.
When the Augmentation was officially partitioned the George
w. Evans l/18th claim, purchased from Jones Hoy DECEMBER 26,
1860 and contested by Frederick A. Hihn, then sold by Evans
to John Daubenbiss APRIL 22, 1863 who inturn sold it to the
Chase brothers DECEMBER 1, 1863 was now officially Tracts
21, 22 and 23. As previously mentioned, the Jones Hoy l/18th
claim sold to George Evans was claimed by Frederick A. Hihn
unsuccessfully. Now on the above last date, the three tracts
were legally the property of Frederick A. Hihn.
Rancho Soguel Suit
DR, JOHN P,P, VANDENBERG APPEAL
AUGUST 12, 1864
On the above date the attorney for Dr, John P.P. Vandenberg; R.R. Provines filed
an appeal based on the doctor's Objections to the Charles B, Younger Report
entered into the record OCTOBER 3 and 5, 1861. Because the appeal is extensive
it will not be presented here. T he entire text of the appeal is presented in
its entirety in APPENOIX·c
Rancho Soguel Suit
DR, JOHN P,P. VANDENBERG APPEAL
AUGUST 12, 1864
On the above date the attorney for Dr. John P,P. Vandenberg, R.R. Provines filed
an appeal based on the doctor's OBJECTIONS to the Charles B, Younger Report
entered into the record OCTOBER 3 and 5, 1861, The appeal concerned Younger•s
rejection of the doctor's deed with Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse dated
JANUARY 21, 1854 in which sold to him was Nicanor•s 1/9th claim to Rancho Soquel
land and acceptance of.Nicanor and her husband signing the deed with Frederick
A, Hihn in which she sold the same l/9th claim JULY 24, 1860,
Because the appeal is extensive and includes additional testimony it will not be
presented here. The entire text of the appeal and the State Supreme Court's
decision is presented in APPENOIXc
Rancho Soguel Suit
FREDERICK A, HIHN APPEAL
AUGUST 12, 1864
On the above date the attorney for Frederick A, Hihn, Robert F, Peckham filed
�n appeal based on their OBJE�TIONS to the Charles B, Younger Report entered
into the record OCTOBER 18, 1861. The appeal concerned the claim that Hihn's
claim to land should be 8/27ths, not the 71/270th parts allwoed by Younger,
and that Augustas Noble's l/12th should be l/27th, that George K, Porter's
7/270ths should be 13/1,018, and Frederick W, Macondray•s l9/540th parts should
be 320/9,720th parts,
Because the appeal is extensive and includes additional testimony it will not be
presented here. The entire text of the appeal and the State.Supreme court's
decision which is canbined with the Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg appeal decision
is presented in APPENDIX
c
283
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUG:MENTATION
AUGUST 132 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- District Judge Samuel B. McKee signed the
following COURT ORDER••••••let all the defendants in the cause titled the Peck
versus Hihn et als suit who are or have been represented by Seldon s. Wright
Esq. or by General John Wilson, or both of them, have thirty (30) days from this
date in which to prepare and file a statement on appeal therein•••••••the def
endants represented by the two attorneys are Thomas Courtis, Mary E.J. Slade,
Cyrus Coe, Charles Plum and Henry Lawrence and John Wilson himself.
AUGUST 13, 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- District Judge Samuel B. McKee signed the
following COURT ORDER•••••••upon a good cause to me shown by George K. Porter,
one of the defendants in the cause titled the Peck versus Hihn et als suit,
is allowed twenty (20) days from the 12th day of AUGUST, 1864, within which to
file amendments to the statement on appeal served herein by Frederick A. Hihn
on the 12th day of AUGUST, 1864•••••••and to serve a copy of said amendments
on said appellant, Frederick A. Hihn, and it is so ordered by me this 13th day
of AUGUST, 1864 at Santa Cruz.
AUGUST 15, 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- Attorney Seldon s. Wright sent the follow
ing NOTICE to Robert F. Peckham as attorney for the plaintiffs Henry and Antonia
Peck and defendants Frederick A. Hihn and other defendants••••••you will please
take notice that an order, a copy of which accompanies this notice, was made in
the cause called the Peck versus Hihn et als suit and filed on the date it is
of, to wit••••• AUGUST 13, 1864.
Rancho Soguel Suit
THOMAS COURTIS APPEAL
AUGUST 15, 1864
On the above date attorneys Thomas Courtis, John Wilson and Seldon s. Wright
on behalf of Thomas Courtis as Administrator for John Ingoldsby, Frederick w.
Macondray and others, Thomas Courtis for himself, John Wilson, Mary E.J. Slade,
Cyrus Coe, Charles Plum, Augustas Noble and Henry Lawrence filed an appeal
based on previously entered OBJECTIONS to the Charles B. Younger Report.
Because the appeal is (very) extensive and includes additional testimony it will
not be presented here. The entire text of the appeal and the State Supreme
Court 's decision is presented in APPEN01x·F
AtpUST 16 1 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- James o. Wanzer, Deputy County Clerk of
Santa Cruz County in an AFFIDAVIT before County Clerk David J. Haslam swore that
he mailed properly a copy of the proposed Amendments to Frederick A. Hihn's
Appeal made by Augustas Noble and the persons handling the estate of Frederick
w. Macondray.
AUGUST 16, 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- On this date defend� nts Augustas Noble and
James Otis and William Macondray, executors of the last will and testament of
Frederick w. Macondray proposed the following amendments to the Frederick A.
Hihn Appeal ••••••••
The requested change consisted of the reading of the deed from Martina
Castro 1 dated AUGUST 29, 1850 be changed from "plaintiff then read in evid
ence a conveyance from Martina Castro" ••••• to•••• "plaintiff �hen offered to
read in evidence what purported to be a conveyance from Martian Castro."
It was also proposed that the statement by Frederick A. Hihn that the deed of
Martina Castro conveyed to each of her eight heris l/9th of her two lands: ••
to•••••to the reading of which said deed in evidence the defendants offering
this amendment objected.
AffiUST 19, 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- Robert F. Peckham, attorney for Frede�ick
A. Hihn answered the proposed amendments made by the attorney, Selden s. Wright,
for defendants Augustas Noble and James Otis and William Macondray, Executors
as follows•••••••••you will take notice that your proposed a�endment� to the
statement to be used on appeal, proposed by defendan� Frederick A. Hihn .
is
disagreed to••••••• and•••••••that the proposed statement with the proposed
28�
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
amendments will be presented to the Clerk of the Court in Santa Clara County
for settlement on the 13th day of September, 1864 at 10 O'Clock A.M. and when
and where you may appear and insist on your proposed amendments.
AUGUST 19, 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- Attorneys Robert F. Peckham for his
client Frederick A. Hihn and Seldon s. Wright for defendants Augustas Noble
and the executors for Frederick w. Macondray stipulate that Frederick A. Hihn
has twenty (20) days from the date (above) to give notice and to present the
statement on appeal filed by him (Hihn) in the cause on the 12th or 13th day
of AUGUST, 1864 to the judge for settlement.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- Frederick A. Hihn stipulated that George
K. Porter and Benjamin F. Porter have until and including the 10th day of
SEPTEMBER, 1864 to file and serve amendments to the statement on appeal filed
by me (Hihn) on the 12th day of AUGUST, 1864••••••signed by Frederick A. Hihn.
In a second stipulation Frederick A. Hihn and the attorney for George K. Porter
and Benjamin F. Porter agree that the amendments being prepared by the two
defendants, that the time they have to file is extended until and including the
20th day of SEPTEMBER, 1864.,. •.,.and.,.,.Frederick A. Hihn is allowed ten
days time additional to that allowed by law in which to bring said statment and
amendments before the judge for settlement.
SEPTE�IDER 12, 1864 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to FREDERICK A.
HIHN APPEAL••••••• AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIHN, NOBLE, GEORGE K. PORTER and FRED
ERICK W. MACONDRAY••,,,,,
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the preceeding that all errors in the
above named cause are hereby expressly waived, so far as the same affect
the defendants in relation to each other and not otherwise••••••••
And it is further stipulated that none of the said defendants shall, or will
appeal from the judgment in the said cause, so far as the same affects the
said defendants in relation to each other••••••••••
And defendant Frederick A. Hihn stipulates to withdraw and hereby withdraws
his statement on appeal heretofore filed in said cause, from so much of the
judgment of the court as affects Augustas Noble, George K. Porter, and the
heirs of Frederick w. Macondray; the errors being waived and the appeal not
to be taken also in regard to the heirs of Frederick W, Macondray; and this
stipulation and agreement, being made upon payment of $500 ($7,000) by
Augustas Noble, George K, Porter, the heirs of Frederick w. Macondray to
Frederick A. Hihn as the consideration of his entering into the same, and
waiving his rights and being it the intention of the parties hereto to make
the judgment entered in the cause, final as between the defendants Frederick
A. Hihn, Augustas Noble, George K. Porter and the heirs of Frederick w.
Macondray, so that the same shall not be in any manner appealed from, or
objected to as regards the defendants,
signed by Frederick A. Hihn, Augustas Noble and
attorney for George K. Porter
SEPTEMBER 13, 1864- DEED
William Macondray and attorney James Otis, executors of the
deceased Frederick w. Macondray estatHnd Mrs. L.S. Mac
ondray, Frederick's widow, sell Tract®for $800 ($11,200)
to Carmel Fallon. Carmel is acting as agent for her husband
Thomas Fallon. This sale will have far reaching repercuss
ions on future events within the Aptos area.
SEP'IEMBER 14, 1864 (Soguel Augmentation Suit)- Partitioning Report by Thomas w.
Wright, John W, Towne and Godfrey M. Beckius is accepted by the Third District
Court, as ordered by District Judge Samuel B. McKee,
285
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
SEP'IEMBER 26, 1864 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- FRANCIS R, BRADY,,,BENJAMIN C,
NICHOLS,,,BENJAMIN r. PORTER,,,GEORGE KIRBY,,,JOHN STEARNS,,,and JOEL BATES
(deceased) agree upon a statement for a NEW TRIAL,,,,.the defendants statement
for a new trial transcript now on film is unreadable because of the many changes
made by the court recorder, The request for a new trial consists of 48 frames
of testimony, and after careful review of the portions that are readable it is
obvious that their appeal consists of previously presented testimony which is
adequately presented in this text,
SEPTEMBER 29, 1864 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- CRAVEN P, HESTER and BENJAMIN
FARLEY enter a Statement for a Motion for a Rehearing or a New Trial,,,,,
Because the major portion of their statement is repeated in the following
Affidavit entered by the two defendants, it will not be repeated here,,,,,
SEPTEMBER 30, 1864 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- CRAVEN P, HESTER acting as his
own attorney, and attorney for BENJAMIN FARLEY (who lives in Santa Clara Valley)
and whose interest since the beginning of the suit has conveyed his interest to
CRAVEN HESTER, presented to the court the following AFFIDAVIT for a NEW TRIAL,,,
• The referees were duly appointed by the court to make partition of the land
in the complaint so as to give to each party, the quality of land equal in
value to the interest decreed to him by Charles B, Younger,
• That the referees reported to the court at the DECEMBER term thereof 1863
their doings in that matter and that they had set off to each party land,
of equal value to the interest in land decreed by the court.
• And, in the report made by the referees in setting off lands to the parties
respectively, they made no reservation in favor of any one of a right-of-way
over the lands of other parties or party in said suit, all of which will
more fully appear by reference to the report and proceedings is said suit,
• Thnt the court gave time to the parties to object to the report and some of
the parties made objections which came on to be heard by the court on the
first Saturday of the AUGUST term of 1864,
• The court next ordered the objections to be continued until the next
succeeding Tuesday after the said Saturday, for proof by affidavits, of the
matter of the objections,
• When I was in court, I asked Robert F. Peckham who was opposing the object
ions, whether the matter of costs in the suit be continued until the follow
ing term for decision by the court, to which he replied "yes."
• I next asked Peckham whether other proceedings would be had at the AmUST
term in the court than the disposing of the objections and the final con
firmation of the report, to which he replied, as I understood him, "no."
• I next asked the plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn substantially the same queat
ions and he replied, as I understood him, the same as his attorney Robert
F. Peckham,
• After I received the preceeding answers to my questions which indicated that
both the plaintiff and his attorney were not interested in the objections
to the referees report, and as nothing further was to be done in the court
pertaining to the suit, I went home,
• At the time the preceeing occurred, Robert F, Peckham was the attorney of
record in the present suit for the plaintiff Frederick A, Hihn and also for
Luisa Juan and also for some other defendants in the suit, That on Monday
next after the said Saturday the objections were delivered or overruled and
a decree rendered by the court of confirmation of the referees report as
the affiant has been informed,
• And also, at the same time Robert F, Peckham as attorney for Luisa Juan
moved the court to enter among the preceedings the following order••••••••••
And that there be and is hereby reserved to each and every party to such
partition a right-of-way over the nearest convenient route from the
286
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
lands set off and assigned to him or her by the decree across the land
of others to a public highway.
The preceeding motion was then granted and said order made by the court, as
well fully fully appear by reference to the preceedings of this suit.
• Craven Hester next stated that neither he, or Benjamin Farley authorized
the preceeding motion, nor were either of them consulted or even present
when the motion was presented. Hester further stated that neither of them
knew anything about the order until sometime after the adjournment of the
term of the court and that he received verbal information that some such
a proceeding had been had but not of its true character.
• And although the order was made as stated, yet I and Benjamin Farley have
not had any notice of the motion in either writing, verbally, or otherwise,
nor have either of us had since the making of the order any notice in
writing within ten days after the making of the order or at any time served
upon us of the order, or of a reservation of the right-of-way as let out
in the order, or any reservation of the right-of-way, or of the final decree
in the cause.
• Craven Hester continued•••••that neither the plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn,
nor any of the defendants or their answers therein, or in any proceeding in
said cause, to have reserved, in any way or form whatever, the right-of-way
embraced in the order, or any right-of-way•••••••that the recent information
was not only a surprise to me, but an astonishment.
• Also, the order was made by the court upon Robert F. Peckham•••• motion
without having any testimony in regard to the matter of it or hearing any
testimony whatever, and its decision in regard to the order was not justif
ied by any evidence or matter before the court•••••• that no time has been
given by the court to object to the order•••••••that no objections could be
made to it under the leave given to object to the report of the referees
that if the court has power to make said order, it should have heard test
imony that the land set off as aforesaid to the parties were not a just
partition and their interest was not apportioned in conformity to the decree
fixing their interest respectively, to said land, and that the correct way
to equalize the interest was by a reservation of the way as aforesaid made.
• I, Carven P. Hester and my client Benjamin Farley each had a lot of land set
off to us by the referees report•••••that the order affects the interest of
me, Craven Hester injureously, to the two lots that were set off to me and
Benjamin Farley, and that the injury is a peculiar one to me owning to the
locality of the land set off to me and to Benjamin Farley••••• both being
located on a high mountain with little rollong land on top that is
cultivable that will now be subject to disturbance by travellers and thus
rendering the land much less valuable.
• The order by the court operates as a great grievance to me, that I was
prevented from having a fair hearing of the matter of the court order, and
if set aside I believe that I can show the court that it has no right to
supply the doings of the three referees by such an order, and that I can
show by testimony the injustice and impropriety of such an order, and that
because of its injurious operation upon the rights of me, Craven Hester.
Soguel Augmentation Suit SEE APPEND IX'G"
FREDERICK A. HIHN APPEAL
OCTOBER 4, 1864
This Appeal to the State Supreme Court on behalf of his client, Frederick A.
Hihn is in the handwriting of attorney Robert F. Peckham, who has probably the
"worst" handwriting imaginable, making this appeal unreadable. From what can be
read, it appears that it only repeats Frederick A. Hihn's previously made
statements and objections, except for two main points••••••••
FIRST are the statements from each of Martina Castro's daughters that they were
legally her daughter••••••and•••••SECOND, Frederick A. Hihn was objection to
287
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
the Augmentation being partitioned by the three court assigned referees, that
according to the first assigned referee, Charles E. Younger the area was NOT
susceptible to partition, but instead should be sold to the highest bidder and
the preceeding money derived from the sale divided among the agreed upon owners,
the amount based on the latter referee's findings made in late 1861.
OCTOBER 8, 1864 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- CRAVEN P. HESTER and BENJAMIN FARLEY
enter a MOTION for a NEW TRIAL••••••this motion for a new trial is accompanied
by, and is based on testimony made and entered into the record on SEPTEMBER 30,
1864.
Soguel Augmentation Suit SEE APPENDIX 'G"
THOMAS COURTIS & JOHN WILSON APPEAL
OCTOBER 25, 1864
Attorney John Wilson representing himself and defendants Mary E,J. Slade, Cyrus
C oe, Charles Plum and Hnery Lawrence and Thomas Courtis, representing himself
and as the administrator for the deceased John Ingoldsby and grantee of the
Archbishop Josephs. Alemany and Father John Llebaria present for admittance to
the State Supreme Court their objections and statements previously made and
quoted in this text, Also included is the testimony entered into the record
concerning the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN et als suit, Because of the size
of this testimony it will not be repeated here because it is identical with the
appeal made in the Rancho Sequel Suit, better known as the PECK versus HIHN
suit and is presented in its entirety in APPENDIX F. The State Supreme Court's
decision concerning Courtis•s appeal from the HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation
Suit) is presented in APPEN01x·cr
OCTOBER 28, 1864- DEED
The land sold in this deed is not described in this deed,
but the purpose (of this deed) appears to pass final title
of Tracts 18 and 19 awarded to Helena Littlejohn but sold to
Frederick A. Hihn JULY 24, 1860 in a conditional deed. It
will be remembered that Hihn agreed to pay the Littlejohns
$10,000 ($140,000) for Helena's 2/27th remaining claim to
land in the Augmentation if she were to retain this ownership
claim, plus Hihn agreed to pay their court costs regardless
of whether they won or lost the claim. Because Helena ret
ained her 2/27th undivided part claim, this deed passed title
to the two tracts to Frederick A. Hihn.The amount of money
that passed from Hihn to the Littlejohns when they signed
was $175 ($2,450).
NOVEMBER 3, 1864- AGREEMENT
In this Agreement between FREDERICK A. HIHN and GEORGE H.
KIRBY, Hihn agrees to sell to Kirby 20 acres of land in the
far southwest corner of his Tract 3 •••••• where Bates Creek
maeges and joins with the Soquel River, In the agreement it
is stated that if such 20 acres should not include the little
orchard next to the small house built by Kirby, then the
land shall be located further north so as to include the whole
of the orchard, but if such a change is necessary, the amount
of the land hereby to be conveyed shall not exceed 20 acres.
Frederick A. Hihn further stated that the redwood timber
growing on the 20 acres, Kirby has the right to cut down
288
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
sufficient timber to build the fences to enclose the land,
but that this right will expire in six months after the
following deed is signed.
George Kirby agreed to have the land surveyed in order to
leave the present traveled road towards the Joel Bates mill
open for travel until a new road is constructed during the
coming winter on the northeast boundries of the land and that
he hereby delivers the possession of all the lands on which he
is now in possession of on the Soquel and Soquel Augmentation
Rancho, outside of the land hereby agreed to be conveyed, to
Frederick A. Hihn, allowing the latter to enter into possess
ion of the same, and that the final partitioning in the case
of HIHN versus PECK et als in the 3rd District Court shall be
final and no appeal shall be taken therefrom and that by the
deed of Nicanor Lajeunesse and her husband Francisco to
Frederick A. Hihn dated JULY 24, 1860 given in evidence in
the above case, said Hihn becomes the owner of 1/9th of the
Augmentation and that all former deed for the said land by
Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse to Thomas w. Wright, Peter
Tracy and Montgomery B. Shackleford dated SEPTEMBER 19, 1852
are void and passed no title to them and that the Statement
on Appeal in said case filed by George H. Kirby SEPTEMBER
26, 1864 is hereby withdrawn.
DECEMBER 6, 1864- DEED
On this date James Taylor sells his Tract 17 (originating
from his accepted l/54th claim) to Frederick A. Hihn (the
amount of money paid is not mentioned in the deed) •••because
Taylor's home site is on the land plus his orchard he is
allowed to remain .••• Hihn's interest lies in the redwoods
that occupy the gulch that today is called Taylor Gulch
and those that line the side of the mountains between the
Summit Road and Morrell Cutoff.
NOTE: James Taylor's home was located just within the
boundries of Santa Clara County on the headwaters of what
was called Taylor Gulch•••••today the homesite would be
located just to the north of the Summit Road where Morrell
Cutoff and Morrell Road join that latter road.
DECEMBER 61 1864 (Soguel Augmentation Suit)- The three referees assigned by the
court to partition the Soquel Augmentation, Thomas W, Wright, John w. Towne and
Gregory M, Bockius, having taken Luisa Juan to court for not paying her share of
their bill totaling $59.29 ($830,06), received a judgement on the above date,
The judgement stated that the sum of $59,29 in coin is now due on said
judgement and also the sum of $2,50 ($35,00) accuring costs and is a lien
on said lands awarded to her (Tracts 5 and 6), Now you, the sheriff are
hereby commanded to make the said sum as aforesaid due on the judgement to
satisfy the judgement of the afore mentioned real estate so set off to
Luisa Juan and make return of this writ within 60 days with what you have
done enclosed hereon,
289
�PARTITIONING REPORT
for the SOQUEL AUGMENTATION
Also as part of the above judgement, the court ordered Richard Savage to pay his
share of the referees bill, $16.67 ($233.38) and Francis R. Brady and Benjamin
Cahoon Nichols their share, a total of $29.64 ($415.10).
DECEMBER 8, 1864 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- On this date Frederick A. Hihn rec
overed in the District Court Luisa Juan's portion of his court expenses which
totaled $34.56 ($483.84). Frederick A. Hihn will not enter his expenses into
the court records until DECEMBER 8, 1866.
DECEMBER 30 1 1864- DEED
In this deed, for $1.00 in gold paid in hand ($14.00) Freder
ick A. Hihn sold the 20 acres to George Kirby agreed to in
the Agreement that the two entered into NOVEMBER 3, 1864.
29 0
�CHAPTER18
-
IN THE
SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
291
�Intentially left blank.
292
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 13, 1865 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- FRANCIS R. BRADY, BENJAMIN CAHOON
NICHOLS, BENJAMIN F. PORTER, GEORGE KIRBY and JOEL BATES (Deceased) send notice
to attorney Robert F. Peckham of their intention to file a NOTICE of APPEAL to
the State Supreme Court. When the notice was sent to Peckham, it listed his
clients as Carmel and Thomas Fallon, Antonia and Henry Peck, Guadalupe and
Joseph Averon and Helena and Jose Littlejohn, all defendants in the INGOLDSBY
versus RICARDO JUAN et als suit. The five men filing this notice of appeal
stated that they were moving for a new trial.
FEBRUARY 16, 1865 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- The sheriff serves the judgement
made by the 3rd District Court on DECEMBER 6, 1864 against Luisa Juan. Served
is a lien on her Tracts 5 and 6 to persons living on the tract.
FEBRUARY 201 1865 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- EDWARD PORTER, BENJAMIN F. PORTER,
FRANCIS R. BRADY, BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS and JOEL BATES deceased serve notice
of their intent to appeal and request for a new trial based on the Decree for
Partition dated APRIL 23, 1863 and the final Acceptance of the Decree dated
SEP'IBMBER 14, 1864.
MARCH 15, 1865 (Soguel Augmentation Suit)- RICHARD SAVAGE and FRANCIS R. BRADY
and his partner BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS send notice to Robert F. Peckham as
attorney for plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn and defendants Carmel and Thomas Fallon,
Guadalupe and Joseph Averon, Helena and Jose Littlejohn plus other defendants,
and to David Haslam, the Clerk of the Court and referees Thomas w. Wright,
John w. Towne and Godfrey M. Bockius that they will appeal to the State Supreme
Court against the judgement entered DECEMBER 6, 1864 that they pay to David
Haslam the charges made by the three referees for their services in partitioning
the Augmentation•••••••••the notice is signed by John P. Stearns as attorney for
the defendants.
MARCH 18 1 1865 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- RICHARD SAVAGE, FRANCIS R. BRADY and
his partner BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS file their UNDERTAKING of their APPEAL to
the State Supreme Court. Two near identical notices were entered into the record
on behalf of the three defendants by their attorneys and witnesses.
On behalf of RICHARD SAVAGE ••••• we John B. Stearn, a resident of the town of
Santa Cruz, by occupation a carpenter and William Anthony, a resident of the
town of Santa Cruz, by occupation a tinsmith, do undertake on the part of
Richard Savage, that we are bound to the tune of $400 ($5,600) in coin that
if said judgement or any part thereof, be affirmed that Savage shall pay the
amount directed by the said judgement, or the part of such amount as to which
the judgement shall be affirmed, if affirmed only in part, and all damages and
costs which shall be awarded against Richard Savage upon the appeal, in coin
not exceeding $400 ($5,600).
On behalf of FRANCIS BRADY and BENJAMIN NICHOLS an identical notice was
signed, except John B. Arcan, a resident of the town of Santa Cruz and a
carpenter by occupation signed in place of John Stearns.
NOTE: The $400 in coin was to cover the $16.67 that the (three) referees
charged Richard Savage and the $29.64 they charged Brady and Nichols, which
was made necessary when they appealed to the State Supreme Court against the
referees judgement.
APRIL 5, 1865 (Rancho Soguel and Soquel Augmentation suits)- This STIPULATION
signed by FREDERICK A. HIHN and defendants GEORGE K. PORTER and AUGUSTAS NOBLE
concerns the deed dated AUGUST 26, 1859 in which Frederick A. Hihn contended
that he sold I/30th part, or 45.8 acres only in Rancho Soquel to Frederick w.
Macondray, while referee Charles B. Younger decreed that he sold I/30th parts
in both ranches. The stipulation also included the deed dated SEPTEMBER 13,
1864 in which Frederick w. Macondray•s widow sold to Carmel Fallon the l/30th
part of the Augmentation (Tract 8) while acting as agent for her husband Thomas
Fallon.
293
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
Purpose of the stipulation was, after Augustas Noble and George K, Porter paid
$242,50 ($3,395) in coin and Carmel Fallon paid in other valuable considerat
ions, was to remove Augustas Noble, George K, Porter, Carmel Fallon and the
heirs of Frederick W. Macondray from any liability concerning his (Hihn's)
appealing the sale of his l/30th claim in both ranches to Frederick W, Macon
dray,
APRIL 18, 1865 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- CRAVEN P. HESTER and BENJAMIN FARLEY
serve notice and statement concerning their APPEAL to the State Supreme Court,
Craven Hester acting as his own attorney and attorney for Benjamin Farley
stated that they presented to the court an AFFIDAVIT for a new trial concerning
the courts decision on the right-of-way that must be provided by others in
order for those that do not have direct access to a public highway to reach
such a highway on OCTOBER 8, 1864 and that on the first day of the APRIL term
of 1865 the court overruled the motion for both a new trial or a rehearing
of the order, therefore they are entering this Notice and Statement of Appeal,
Again District Judge Samuel B, McKee overruled the appeal of both Craven Hester
and Benjamin Farley and reaffirmed his decision of the right-of-way decree,
JUNE 16, 1865- DEED
After his arrival in the county during the 1860/1861 period,
Benjamin Cahoon became interested in the growing logging
industry, entering into his first logging venture AUGUST 26,
1861 when he acquired in a Shefiff's deed Richard Savage's
water-powered sawmill and its supporting facilities plus
l/96th undivided part of the Augmentation. When the area was
partitioned this claim became Tract 27 with its 140 acres
within the mouth of Hinckley Gulch, After this purchase he
decided not to open the mill, instead concentrate his business
activities elsewhere,
In APRIL and MAY of 1863 he purchased from Francis R, Brady
and his nephew (his, not Brady's) Benjamin Cahoon Nichols
their sawmill on Soquel Creek just to the east of old Mount
ain School and the land between the school and the creek.
Part of the purchase included the l/54th undivided part of
the Augmentation that would become Tract 26 with its 350
acres, more or less.
As 1865 approached with his 67 birthday celebration, Ben
jamin Cahoon decided to slow down his pace, therefore he
sold most of his real estate holdings throughout the county
to his daughter Lucy Ann Cahoon on the above date.
JULY 8, 1865 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- THOMAS COURTIS in his own right and as Admin
istrator of the John Ingoldsby estate, MARY E,J, SLADE, CHARLES PLUM, HENRY H,
LAWRENCE, CYRUS COE and JOHN WILSON serve notice of their intention to file a
NOTICE of APPEAL to the State Supreme Court of their APPEAL filed with the 3rd
District Court AUGUST 15, 1864.
signed by attorneys John Wilson and Seldon S, Wright
JULY 8, 1865 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- JAMES o. WANZER being duly sworn states that
he served a copy of the above NOTICE of APPEAL to Joseph�• Skerin, Esq,, at
his residence in the town of Santa Cruz,
294
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
JULY 10, 1865 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- SELDEN s. WRIGHT states that on the 10th day
of JULY, 1065 that he mailed in the Post Office, in the City and County of
San Francisco, a full, true and correct copy of the notice of the above
defendants appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of California.
JULY 151 1865 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- SELDEN S. WRIGHT states in an affidavit
that he did mail a copy of the APPEAL to the State Supreme Court on JULY 10,
1865.
JULY 201 1865 (Rancho Soquel Suit)- JA�IBS o. WANZER being duly sworn states that
he served a copy of the NOTICE of APPEAL to Frederick A. Hihn by delivering
the copy directly to his hand.
JULY 211 1865 (Soguel Augmentation Suit)- THOMAS COURTIS in his own individual
right and as Administrator of the deceased John Ingoldsby estate, attorney
JOHN WILSON, MARY E.J. SLADE, CHARLES PLUM, HENRY H. LAWRENCE and CYRUS COE
serve their NOTICE of APPEAL of the court's overruling of their motion for a
new trial.
AUGUST 31, 1865- DEED
In this deed Luisa Juan passed title to her two Tracts, num
bers 5 and 6 to Frederick A. Hihn. This transfer of title
was brought on by her refusal to pay the three referees
assigned by the court to assign areas by size and boundry
to the grantees settled on earlier by Charles B. Younger.
Luisa's portion of the referees bill was $59.24 ($829.36).
See DECEMBER 6, 1864, DECEMBER 8, 1864 and FEBRUARY 16,
1865.
SEPTEMBER 13 1 1865 (Soguel Augmentation Suit)- On this date the Execution of
the Referee and Plaintiff expenses are filed officially against Luisa Juan
•...... see DECEMBER 6, 1864, DECEMBER 8, 1864 and FEBRUARY 16, 1865.
OCTOBER 7, 1865
After Luisa Juan ignored several served notices and court
orders to pay her po·rtion of the referees expenses associated
with partitioning the Augmentation, the court ordered the
Sheriff to collect the total of her portion of the referees
bill, plus the accruing costs associated with the courts
attempt to collect the $59.24 ($829.36). Finally a lien was
put on Luisa Juan's two properties in the Augmentation,
Tracts 5 and 6, then on the above date the proper notice
of the impending auction of the properties was printed in
the Santa Cruz Sentinel.
See DECEMBER 6, 1865, DECEMBER 8, 1865, FEBRUARY 16, 1865
and deed dated AUGUST 31, 1865.
DECEMBER 1865 (Exact date unknown)
Guadalupe and her husband Joseph Averon enter into an Agree
ment with Stephen Frealon and his brother James Lyman Grover,
James' son Dwight w. Grover and the "silent" business part
ners, B.G. Elsmore and James Linscott.••••••there is a third
brother Whitney, but his name never appears on any document
295
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
associated with the Averons• Tract 7.
The Agreement entered into between the parties concerns the
stumpage rights to the redwood timber growing on the lower
500 acres of Tract 7 which was estimated to total 15-million
board feet of loggable timber. When the Grovers signed the
agreement only a small down payment was made with the under
standing that at a later date they would pay the Averons
for the logged over land a total of $26,910 ($376,740).
NOTE: The logging of Tract 7 by the Grovers will not be
further discussed here. The complete logging history of
this tract, the Grover brothers logging of the area and
their logging activity over in Hinckley Gulch (Tract 27)
will be aptly dis cussed in a future volume of this book.
DECEMBER 81 1865- DEED
On this date the widow of Joel Bates, he had died OCTOBER 21,
1861, sold his sawmill, the first steam powered mill built
within the confines of the Augmentation, all of its support
ing facilities and the 330 acres that comprised his (Joel's)
final award in the Augmentation, Tract 4 to James Lyman
Grover. The grantors signing the deed selling the land an_d
mill was signed by••••Louis P. Bates••• Rebecca Bates•••Abbie
Bates•••Aura R. Bates•••Martha B. Packer•••and Charles W.
Packer
NOTE: The early history of Tract 4 and its final logging
by the Grovers will not be discussed here. The complete
story of this tract and Tract 7 will be aptly dis cussed
in·a f�ture vmlume of this book,
APRIL 10, 1866 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)- THOMAS COURTIS on his own behalf and
as Administrator for John Ingoldsby, JOHN WILSON, MARY E,J. SLADE, CYRUS COE,
CHARLES PLUM and HENRY LAWRENCE serve NOTICE of APPEALS and AFFIDAVITS that
they, collectively, will serve notice that they will appeal the Third District
Court's acceptance of referee Charles B. Younger•s findings, In their appeal
to the State Supreme Court attorney John Wilson claims ownership for himself
and for each of his clients plus Thomas Courtis all of the Augmentation,
In the affidavits sent to Robert F. Peckham, attorney for plaintiff Frederick A.
Hihn and the defendants in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN et als suit, he
declares his intention to appeal the court's findings to the State Supreme
Court.
APRIL 20, 1866- DEED
Thomas Fallon, preparing to "reap the harvest" of his Tract 8
and his wife's Tract 9 redwood timber, he purchases a total
of 124 acres of land along Monterey Bay between Borregas
and Tannery gulches from Richard E. Hyde••••••see AGREEMENTS
with the Porter cousins dated AUGUST 22, 1866.
296
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
MAY 1, 1866 (Rancho Soquel Suit)
SEE APPEND I Xe
IN THE SUPREME COURT of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Henry W. Peck and Maria Antonia Peck his Wif,e
versus John P.P. Vandenberg, and F,A. Hihn, et als
Before rendering their decision concerning the deed dated JULY 24, 1860 between
Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse and Frederick A. Hihn versus the earlier deed
dated JANUARY 21, 1854 between the same two granters and Dr. John P.P. Vanden
berg, Martina Castro Depeaux•s deed dated AUGl.ST 29, 1850 was reviewed and then
upheld as valid. As for the two deeds with the Lajeunesses• as granters, because
Hihn's deed was acknowledged properly by a Notary Public while the earlier deed
with the doctor was signed before a Justice of the Peace, Hihn's deed was
declared valid over the earlier one.
MAY 19, 1866- SHERIFF's DEED
It will be remembered that on DECEMBER 6, 1864 the three
referees assigned to partition the Augmentation received a
judgement of $59,29 ($830,06) against Luisa Juan for not
paying her share of their bill, then on DECEMBER 8, 1864
Frederick A. Hihn recovered in the District Court Luisa
Juan's portion of his court expenses totaling $34,56 ($483.84),
On FEBRUARY 16, 1865 the Sheriff next served a lien against
Luisa's two tracts in the Augmentation Tracts 5 and 6,
On AUGUST 31, 1865 in a deed, Luisa Juan passed title to her
two tracts to Frederick A. Hihn, then on SEPTEMBER 13, 1865
the Execution of the Referee and plaintiff Frederick A,
Hihn's expenses are filed officially against Luisa Juan. On
OCTOBER 7, 1865 notice appears in the Santa Cruz Sentinel of
the impending auction of her two properties,
On the above date, MAY 19, 1866 Frederick A, Hihn was the
high bidder for Luisa Juan's Tracts 5 and 6 with a high bid
of $70,76 ($990,64), A Sheriff's deed was signed by tme Sheriff
giving Hihn ownership of both tracts,
NOTE: Tract 5, located within the center of Frederick A,
Hihn's Valencia Tract 2 consisted of 567 acres, while
Tract 6 lying in the northwest portion of the Augmentation
held 442 acres, containing some of the area's prize first
growth redwoods,
Atx.;l.ST 20, 1866 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)IN THE SUPREME COURT of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
Frederick A. Hihn versus Henry Peck and Francis R. Brady et als
The entire transcript of this Supreme Court decision of the combined appeals
of Francis R. Brady, Benjamin Cahoon Nichols, Joel Bates (deceased), Benjamin
F. Porter , George Kirby and John Stearns is presented in APPENDIX ·a- T he major
decisions rendered by the high court that warrant dis cussion here are as
follows ......... .. .
• The complaint made by several defendants that Frederick A. Hihn's ownership
297
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
claim should be no more than l/27th part of the Augmentation is rejected,
• Frederick A, Hihn's deeds with Helena and Jose Littlejohn, Luisa and Ricardo
Juan and Nicanor and Francisco Lajeunesse were upheld and declared valid
in favor of the grantee (Hihn),
• Frederick A, Hihn's deed with John Hames and Pruitt Sinclair in which the
latter claimed 3/54th parts of the Augmentation, dated SEPTEMBER 29, 1859,
that was declared void due to an error made by the Sheriff was upheld,
it wa� declared invalid on the part of Frederick A, Hihn,
AUGUST 22, 1866- Agreement
Agreement between Benjamin F. Porter and Thomas Fallon•••• for
a discussion of this agreement see next entry•••••••
AUGUST 22, 1866- Agreement
Agreement between Benjamin F. and George K. Porter and Thomas
Fallon••••••
In this agreement and the preceeding one, the Porter cousins
gave Thomas permission to cross their lands in Rancho Soquel
from the County Road (today Soquel Drive) from a point just to
the west of Borregas Gulch with a 40 foot wide wagon road
until Monterey Bay was reached. After the bay came into
sight Thomas could continue along the bay until he reached
the 124 acres just purchased from Richard E. Hyde.
Also a clause was added that Thomas was allowed to widen his
road to 60 feet in order to handle a railroad and the nec
essary spur lines if, and when a railroad between Watsonville
and Santa Cruz was operational.
In return, Thomas Fallon agreed to continue the road from
the vicinity of today's Cabrillo College across Rancho Aptos
until his Tract 8 was reached, then across his tract until
his wife's Tract 9 was reached•••••••actually Thomas util
ized the County Road heading towards Aptos until the vicinity
of today's Public Library is reached, then leave the road
here and head north along Aptos Creek.
Thomas agreed to also build the road to a width of not less
than 40 feet over its entire length, from the County Road
until Tract 9 was reached far up along Aptos Creek. He also
agreed to maintain the road in such a condition that it could
be used by heavy wagons for the hauling of lumber from the
forest to market. Thomas also allowed the Porter cousins
to use the road free of charge.
This road and the sawmill that the Porters• built along
it route within the confines of Thomas Fallon's Tract 8
will be discussed further in a future volume of this book.
298
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 81 1866 (Soguel Augmentation Suit)- FREDERICK A. HIHN's BILL FOR HIS
COURT EXPENSES••••••••
Now comes the parties to this cause and the plaintiff Frederick A. Hihn
moving on this first day of this term and filed a memoranda of his clients
and their disbursments amounting to the sum of $929.32 ($13,010.48) paid
out and expanded in gold and silver coin of the United States.,•••••
It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff Frederick A.
Hihn's portion thereof is the sum of $129.41 ($1,811.74). And that he shall
recover of the defendants in gold and silver coin the remainder of said sum
of $799.91 as follows, to wit••••••••••
ANTONIA PECK
HENRY W. PECK
CRAVEN P. HESTER
BENJAMIN FARLEY
CARMEL FALLON
HELENA LITTLEJOHN
LUISA JUAN
JOHN DAUBENBISS
CASIMERO & DARIO AMAYO
LYMAN BURRELL
LUTHER FARNHAM as Administrator
of the estate of JOEL BATES
FRANCIS BRADY & BENJAMIN NICHOLS
RICHARD SAVAGE
ROGER HINCKLEY & JOHN SHELBY
JAMES TAYLOR
GEORGE K. PORTER
JAMES OTIS & WILLIAM MACONDRAY as
Executors of the last will and
testament of FREDERIC!< w.
1'1ACONDRAY
AffiUSTAS NOBl.E
$103.68
$69,12
$15,00
$15,00
$103.68
$69,12
$34.56
$51.84
$34.56
$34,56
$34,56
$17.28
$9.72
$25,92
$17.28
$24.19
$31.10
($1,451.52)
($967.68)
($210.00)
($210,00)
($1,451.52)
($967.68)
($483.82)
($721.84)
($483.84)
($483.84)
($483.84)
($241.92)
($136.08)
($362.88)
($241.92)
($338.66)
($435,40)
$4,96 ($69,44)
DECEMBER 17, 1866 (Rancho Soquel Suit)SEEAPPENOIX"F'
IN THE SUPREME COURT of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
Henry w. Peek versus Th�mas Court�s et als
This appeal made to the State Supreme Court by Thomas Courtis, John Wilson and
several of the defendants, all grantees through the Reverand John Ingoldsby was
dismissed by the upper court for several reasons•••••but in the words of
Justice J. Sawyer•••••••it follows that the appeal was not in time, and this
court has no jurisdiction to entertain it ••••••ordered that the several appeals
be dismissed.
DECEMBER 19, 1866 (Soquel Augmentation Suit)SEE APPENDIX"G"
IN THE SUPREME COURT of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
Frederick A. Hihn versus Thomas Courtis et als
This appeal made to the State Supreme Court by Thomas Courtis, John Wilson and
several of the defendants, all grantees through the Reverand John Ingoldsby was
also dismissed, but not before decreeing that Martina Castro Depeaux•s deed of
AUGUST 29, 1850 was valid based on the earlier INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN su
suit decision ••••••not because this court agreed with the earlier decision,
which they stated may have been incorrect, but because of the number of persons
that have since purchased land based on this earlier decision ••••••"to overturn
the former adjudication under such circumstances because a majority of the
present court might arrive at a different conclusion from that attained by
their predecessors•••••men equally well qualified to discern and equally con
scientious in the pursuit of the right, would be to trifle with the rights
299
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
of litigants and bring merited obloquy upon the administration of the justices,"
Also, based on the Henry w, Peck versus Thomas Courtis et als decision, the
charges that the petition for a rehearing were not improperly dismis�ed,
therefore there is no ground for a rehearing being shown, the application is
denied
APRIL 1, 1867 (Rancho Soguel and Soguel Augmentation Suits)-
IN THE SUPREME COURT of the S TATE of CALIFORNIA
Frederick A, Hihn versus Thomas Courtis et als
Henry W. Peck versus Thomas Courtis et als
On the above date W.D. Harriman, Clerk (for the State Supreme Court) filed for
the record the court's decision for both appeals by Thomas Courtis et als,
APRIL 10, 1867- DEED
In this deed Henry w. Peck sold for $7,500 ($105,000) his
claim to Lot A (83.245 acres), Lot B (16.775 acres) and Lot
C (35.348 acres), all in Rancho Soquel totaling 135.368 acres
and Tract 16 totaling about 2,300 acres in the Augmentation
to attorney Benjamin F. Bayley. When Charles B. Younger
established percentage ownership in the two ranches in late
1861 these areas just sold to Bayley by Henry Peck evolved
from his l/9th claim in Rancho Soquel and 2/27th parts in
the Augmentation which Henry and Antonia sold to Frederick
A. Hihn APRIL 21, 1862.
APRIL 10, 1867- DEED
In this deed Henry and Antonia Peck sold for $5,000 ($70,000)
Antonia's claim to Lot D (134.687 acres), Lot E (112 acres)
and Lot F (70 acres), all in Rancho Soquel totaling 316.687
and Tract 10 (1,063 acres) and Tract 11 (about 3,300 acres),
both in the Augmentation to attorney Benjamin F. Bayley.
When Charles B. Younger established percentage ownership in
the two ranches in late 1861 these areas just sold to Bayley
by Henry and Antonia evolved from Antonia's l/9th claim in
Rancho Soquel and her l/9th claim in the Augmentation which
they had sold to Frederick A. Hihn APRIL 21, 1862.
APRIL 13, 1867- EVICTION NOTICE SERVED
Benjamin F. Bayley is served an eviction notice by Frederick
A. Hihn and several additional persons referred to as John
Doe(s). The notice lists the three lots in Rancho Soquel and
Tract 16 in the Auqmentation, ordering Bayley to abandon
the areas to Frederick A. Hihn and his grantees.
APRIL 18 1 1867- DEED
In this deed Benjamin F. Bayley deeds Lots D, E and F and
Tracts 10 and 11 back to Antonia, stating that from all
indications, her, and her husband's deed with Frederick A.
Hihn dated APRIL 21, 1862 was final and only a law suit
would render it void.
300
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
APRIL 18 1 1867- AGREEMENT
Benjamin F. Bayley, after returning her three lots in Rancho
Soquel and two tracts in the Augmentation to her in the
preceeding deed, he agrees to represent her against the
evistion notice about to be served by Frederick A. Hihn
and her suit against Hihn to overturn the APRIL 21, 1862
deed.
APRIL 18 1 1867- EVICTION NOTICE SERVED
Antonia Peck is served an eviction notice by Frederick A.
Hihn and several additional persons referred to as John Doe
and including Charles H. Ryder. The notice lists the three
lots in Rancho Soquel and tracts 10 and 11 in the Augmentat
ion, ordering Antonia to abandon the areas to Frederick A.
Hihn and his grantees.
APRIL 20, 1867 (Rancho Soguel and Augmentation Suits)
BENJAMIN F. BAYLEY versus
FREDERICK A, HIHN et als
In his suit against Frederick A, Hihn and the John Does, Benajmin F. Bayley
alleged simply that he was the owner of Lots "A", "B" and "C" in Rancho Soquel
and Tract 16 in the Augmentation through his deed with Henry W. Peck APRIL 10,
1867.
Frederick A. Hihn on his own behalf, ·and behalf of his grantees answered Bayley• s
suit by stating that on APRIL 21, 1862 Henry w. and his wife Antonia Peck sold
their remaining claim to land in both ranches to him. Proof of whether or not the
latter deed was legitimate and would be accepted as final by the court was being
tried in the following suit••••••
ANTONIA PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
In her suit against Frederick A. Hihn and the John Does and Charles H. Ryder,
Antonia Peck with Benjamin F. Bayley as her attorney, attempted to have the deed
with Frederick A. Hihn dated APRIL 21, 1862 declared a fraudulent paper. Antonia
will testify that when she signed the deed in her home, being unable to read
English or understand it when spoken to when it concerned technical subjects
such as t.he sale of land, that neither her husband, Frederick A. Hihn, his att
orney Robert F. Peckham or the notary public there to take her acknowledgment
explained the deed to her properly.
Henry Peck, her husband when i:estifying on her behalf would fall into moments of
memory loss concerning his agreements wit.h Frederick A. Hihn, ••••• , as an example
Henry would testify that. when he and his wife signed the deed with Hihn he had
completely forgotten the deed in which Hihn passed tit.le t.o 1/18th undivided
part of the Augmentation JULY 24, 1860••••••he also testified during the present.
suit that he could not recall the deed.
SEPTEMBER 261 1868 (Rancho Soguel and Augmentation Suits)
BENJAMIN F. BAYLEY versus
FREDERICK A, HIHN et als
and
ANTONIA PECK versus
FREDERICK A, HIHN et als
In both of the above suits, tried without a jury, District Judge Samuel B, McKee
found in favor oft.he defendant. Frederick A, Hihn and the John Does, declaring
301
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of C ALIFORNIA
the deed dated APRIL 21, 1862 as a legal paper in which both Henry W. Peck and
Maria Antonia Peck passed full tit.le to all of the remaining claim to land in
bot.h Rancho Soquel and in the Augmentation, which, after final partitioning
became Lots "A", "B", "C", "D", "E" and "F" in the former area and Tracts 10,
11 and 16 in the latt.er.
MARCH 19 1 1869 (Rancho Soguel and the Augmentation Suits)- JUDGEMENT ROLL BY
DISTRICT JUDGE SAMUEL B. McKEE •••••• on this date District Judge Samuel B. McKee
entered into the court records the flnal decision in the Bayley and Antonia Peck
versus Frederick A. Hihn et als suits reached SEPTEMBER 26, 1868.
FEBRUARY 14, 1872- AGREEMENT & DEED
On this date Frederick A. Hihn and James Taylor enter into
an agreement in which Hihn allows Taylor to remain on the
land that was once his••••he sold his Tract 17 to Hihn on
December 6, 1864•.•• if Taylor lives within the restrictions
listed in the agreement. Taylor is allowed to remain in his
home and cultivate the 41 acres that his orchard occupies.
In the deed, signed on the same day, Frederick A. Hihn deeds
back to James Taylor the 41 acres that his home and orchard
occupy within the confines of Tract 17. Taylor paid Hihn a
total of $241 ($3,374) for the 41 acres.
FEBRUARY 3, 1877
Judge Belden in San Jose made the formal decree concerning
Thomas and Carmel Fallons divorce. Carmel received $30,000
($420,000) in gold, their home in San Francisco at 3rd and
Minnie, the home in Santa Cruz and Tract 9 in the Augmentat
ion. All else is confirmed to Thomas as separate property
including his Tract 8 in the Augmentation.
Not only will this divorce have far reaching effects concern
ing the future of the Aptos area, but it would end the logging
activity of the Porter cousins, Benjamin F. and George K.,
within the confines of Tract 8 as well as the production
of splitstuff produced elsewhere on the tract and within
Carmel's Tract 9. It is probably after the divorce that
Thomas•s wagon road ceased to be used for the purpose that it
was extended for from the County Road (today Soquel Drive in
Aptos) into both tracts.
NOVEMBER 28, 1877- D EED
On this date the heirs of Roger G. Hinckley and his son-in-law
John Lafayette Shelby sold Tract 25 with its approximately 800
acres to Frederick A, Hihn. When Hihn purchased the tract he
was in the process of forming his Soquel Water Company. While
he was interested in the remaining standing redwoods north of
Hinckley Gulch, his main interest was in acquiring the tract's
water rights,
302
�IN THE SUPREME COURT
of the STATE of C ALIFORNIA
JUNE 16, 1881- AGREEMENT
After her divorce Carmel Fallon began looking for a buyer
of her Tract 9 in the Augmentation...••••taxes had to be
paid••••••••and the production of income producing split
stuff had ended several years earlier. On the above date the
first recorded meeting occurred between Carmel and the Wat
sonville Mill & Lumber Company and their two backers, John T.
Porter and William P. Dougherty. Meeting in the recorders
office in San Francisco was Carmel, her attorney, the affore
mentioned men and two directors of the Watsonville company,
Alvin Sanborn and John B. Brown. Also there was a J.R. Whit
ney to loan the four men $10,000 ($140,000), which they will
agree to pay back in full by JUNE 1, 1885.
Carmel is in the recorders office to sell the rights to her
standing timber (called stumpage rights) to the Watsonville
Mill & Lumber Company••••••in the following agreement she is
the "Party of the First Part", Sanborn, Brown, Porter and
Dougherty are the "Parties of the Second Part" while Whitney
is the "Party of the Third Part." The parties of the second
part agree to the following conditions••••••••
• The four men agree to pay Carmel $60,000 ($840,000) plus
interest in five payments•.•..•$5,000 ($70,000) upon
signing the agreement, $10,000 ($140,000) on or before the
1st of JANUARY, 1883 ••••••.then the balance of $45,000
($639,000) in three equal payments on the 1st of JANU ARY
of 1884, 1885 and 1886.
• The four men also agree to take immediate possession of her
property and build roads over and through her Tract 9
plus a sawmill or.mills for the purpose of manufacturing
lumber.
• They also agree to "denude" not less, or more than 1,000
acres each year (through 1886). If they end up logging more
than 1,000 acres in a year's time before the next payment
was due the next due payment must be made immediately plus
the total amount of interest due for the entire period.
Maintaining the agreed upon schedule is of prime importance
to Carmel for reasons that only she knows. If this agreement
is not met, then none of the other agreements can be met
satisfactorily.
• Carmel agreed to pay the current taxes while the parties
of the second part agree to pay all future taxes due over
the period of the agreement.
• Carmel retained the right to enter the property and
immediately expel them if any of the preceeding stipulat
ions were not met on time.
303
�IN THE SUPREME C OURT
of the STATE of CALIFORNIA
• The four parties of the second part also allow Carmel to
enter the property unannounced at any time of her choosing
to inspect the lands in order to make sure that the denuding
of the land was not progressing at a faster rate then the
agreed upon schedule would allow.
• When all of her 6,845 acres are completely denuded by the
end of 1886 (according to the agreed upon schedule) the
land will revert back to Carmel.
JANUARY 14, 1884- DEED
On the above date an ailing Thomas Fallon sold his Tract 8
in the Augmentation with its 1,100 acres to Timothy Hopkins,
who at the time was acting as agent for his stepmother Mary
Francis Sherwood Hopkins, the supposed widow of Mark Hopkins.
Until Mary's death in 1891 Timothy was agent for his mother,
investing her money mostly in property throughout Santa Cruz
County.
Included in the sale of Tract 8 was 383 acres of land that
Thomas Fallon owned along the east side of the Soquel Aug
mentation just to the north of Buzzard Lagoon.
FEBRUARY 21, 1884- DEED
When Timothy Hopkins purchased Tract 8 and the land within
the vicinity of Buzzard Lagoon, as previously discussed, it
was an investment for his stepmother. On the above date
Timothy passed title to the two areas to Mary Francis Sher
wood Hopkins
MAY 26, 1886- DEED
A.C. Bassett, Supertintendent for Southern Pacific Railroad
Company's Coast Divi�ion sold to Mary Francis Sherwood
Hopkins the 61 acres along the east side of the Soquel Aug
mentation that contained the small body of water known as
"Buzzard Lagoon." With the purchase of this 61 acres and the
previous 383 acres just to the north earlier, this is the
total amount of land along the Augmentation's east side that
will become part of the Forest of Nisene Marks State Park in
1965.
30il
�CHAPTER19
MARY
ELIZABETH
PECK
VERSUS
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
ET. ALS.
305
�Intentially left blank.
306
�MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
BACKGROUND
It seems, according to Carrie Lodge's interview made in
(about) 1965, that Mary Elizabeth Peck, the second oldest
daughter of Antonia and Henry Peck had been for years carrying both a resentment and deep feeling hatred of Frederick A.
Hihn. When Carrie was interviewed she stated that Mary's mother
Antonia was willing to forget the past rather than "open old
wounds," but not Mary. She decided for the benefit of her mother,
for the benefit of the remaining children of her grandmother,
Martina Castro, and for herself, that she would apply to the
court for Letters of Administration of Martina's formerly
owned lands. While her mother, Martina's remaining children
and she, herself would benefit if she were successful in
acquiring the Letters, it is obvious that her main purpose was
to "get back" at Frederick A. Hihn, for both the deed that her
parents signed APRIL 21, 1862 and her mother's failure to have
the deed overturned in 1867/1868.
Whether the testimony given by both the plaintiff (Antonia)
or the defendant (Frederick A. Hihn) during the 1867/1868 trial
was truthful••••••by either party ••.••••.is not of importance
at this time. The important fact to clearly understand is that
Elizabeth was attempting to "get" Frederick A. Hihn through
her attempt to become the Administrator of her grandmother's
former estate. To back the previous statement, a newspaper
article is quoted here concerning the State's Supreme Court
decision to uphold the lower court's decision to turn down
Elizabeth's request for her Letters of Administration.....•.to
quote the article ......... .
"The Supreme Court this week has handed down a decision
which practically confirms the rights of the ranchers on
the Soquel and Soquel Augmentation grants who acquired their
titles through Frederick A. Hihn or by subsequent purchase.
Several hundred of these holders have been much distrubed
during the past year by a suit brought by the Depeaux heirs
to set aside the original conveyances, made forty years
ago on the grounds that the grantor was insane or of unsound
mind.
Although the suit is mainly directed against Frederick A.
Hihn and the F.A. HIHN Company, yet all the present owners
of the subdivided portions of the grant have been made def
endants in the suit and most of them have made subscript
ions towards attorney fees.
The case in point to which reference is made would seem to
fully settle all doubts as to the disturbance of these
secondary owners, and is a strong precedent in favor of
finally establishing the Frederick A. Hihn title.••••••"
307
�MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
In 1895 Elizabeth Peck hired attorneys J.F. Utter, J.J.
Scrivner and A.H. Cohen while representing the 600 plus con
testants lead by Frederick A. Hihn were Charles B. Younger and
his associates Jetter and Makinney. The only documents that I
have found to date of the trial in the lower court were several
pages (about 25 in all) taken by Charles B. Younger during the
trial. The notes were found at the University of California
Bancroft Library in Berkeley.
According to Younger•s notes, Elizabeth first planned to
establish an estate of her deceased grandmother, Martina .•••.••
this suit had to be brought to court within five (5) years of
Martina's death, DECEMBER 14, 1890 ••••••••which involved tracing
and establishing the whereabouts of as many of Martina's per
sonal items that were in her possession when she died. Once the
estate was established, included would be the lands that she
formerly owned, than after the court gave her her Letters of
Administration eviction notices would be served on every person
presently owning, claiming land or living on, or within Rancho
Soquel, the Soquel Augmentation and 1/13th of Rancho San Andres.
After the preceeding effort was begun, next it would be
proved that the deed si gn ed by Martina Castro Depeaux AUGUST 29,
1850 was fraudulent. This would be proven by producing the
original copy of the Article of Agreement si gn ed AUGUST 28,
1850 (Elizabeth presumedly had the original in her possession).
After Martina's deed was accepted as a fraudulent paper, through
testimony given by Martina's remaining children, it would be
proven that she was unsound of mind when she si gned the two
deeds with the Catholic priests on JANUARY 22, 1855, which would
rended these deeds void.
If Elizabeth proved that Martina's deed of AUGUST 29, 1850
was fraudulent and the Article of Agreement si gned the day
before reflected her true wishes, and that Martina was either
insane or unsound of mind when she si gned the two deeds with
the Catholic priests, then the only title that her mother and
father had to pass on to Frederick A. Hihn APRIL 21, 1862 was a
small portion of Rancho Soquel. While there was much more to
the plot then what was discussed in the preceeding discussion,
it will serve to outline Elizabeth's and her attorneys plans.
STATD1ENT of the SUIT
Martina Castro De�eaux, generally known as Martina Castro, died on DECEMBER 14,
1890, at Soquel, in the County of Santa Cruz, of which county she was a resid
e�t at the ti�e.of her �eath. On MAY 19, 1896, petitioner, M. Elizabeth Peck,
filed her petition praying for Letters of Administration.
On AUGUST 29, 1850, Martina Castro Depeaux owned the Soguel and Soguel Aug
mentatio� ranch�s in s�id cou� ty, a�d on that day she conveyed 8/9ths thereof
t� her eight children in consideration of love and affection and the sum of
five dollars ($70); her husband concurred in the deed.
On OCTOBER 31, 1853, in consideration of $500 ($7,000), Martina Castro Depeaux
308
�MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
and her husband conveyed their interest in the San Andres Ranch to Jane Smith.
On JANUARY 22, 1855, the same grantors conveyed the balance of their interest
in the Soquel and Soquel Augmentation ranches, in consideration of $2,500
($35,000) to John Ingoldsby et al.
These several conveyances were duly acknowledged by Mrs. Depeaux upon her exam
ination, had separate and apart from and without the hearing of her husband,
and were duly recorded in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
That at the time of the said several conveyances the grantees entered into the
possession of the land so conveyed, and they and their grantees ever since
have been and yet are in open, notorious, continuous and adverse possession of
the land so conveyed, and have made useful, permanent and valuable improvements
thereon of the value of more than $1,000,000($14,000,000). Said several ran
ches have been duly partitioned among the respective owners, by the judgment of
the District Court, of said county••••••the Soquel and Soquel Augmentation
ranches in 1864 and the San Andres ranch in 1873. The land so conveyed has been
annually assessed by the County Assessor to the grantees in said several deeds
and to their successors in interest, for State and County, School and other
taxes thereon paid.
No property has been assessed to Martina Castro Depeaux since 1855, nor has
she been in possession of any part of said ranches since 1855. The land desc
ribed in several deeds is in the possession of more than 600 persons, who
claim to own the same.
On FEBRUARY 15, 1852, Martina Castro Depeaux and her husband, Louis Depeaux,
leased to Jervis Hammond certain interests in the Soquel ranch and certain
personal property, for the term of five years, at the rate of $1,500 ($21,000)
for the first year and $2,500 ($35,000) per year for the last four years, rent
payable on the first day of January.
This lease was duly acknowledged and on the same day, at the request of Martina
Castro, filed for record.
TRIAL TESTIMONY NOTED by Charles B. Younger
The portion of Charles B, Younger's notes concerning Elizabeth and her
attorneys attempts to establish an estate comprised of her personal affects
in her possession when she died (Martina Castro Depeaux) will not be
included here, only the testimony notes taken during Miguel Lodge and
several of Martina's daughters, plus several of the contestants testimony.
MIGUEL ANTONIO LODGE
Miguel Lodge•..••son of Martina Depeaux••••••••she started to go to Mexico
about 1854 or 1855. I went with her and we went to the Sandwich Islands.
Depeaux beat her in the Islands and I jumped on him and from the effects of
this he sent us back by the Yankee Barker to San Francisco. She stayed in
San Francisco two weeks and Ingoldsby came to her and made her sign a paper.
She got a little better afterwards but never got well.
CROSS EXAMINATION (by Charles B. Younger)••••• ! am 58 years old. I had seen
crazy people, Mr. (•••••••••••••) for one. My mother went to San Francisco,
two weeks before I did. We were there about two weeks before sailing for the
Islands. Fare at that time was $50 ($700). I don't know what time it was that
we sailed only just know that the grass was just beginning to come up green.
She was so short. She didnt come when called(?). She weighed about 200. We
were 21 days going over. We sailed by D. Levertt. We stayed on the Hilman
Ranch in the Islands. Captain Warren commanded the ship we sailed to the
Islands in. we stayed in L.•.•.•..•••••Island two months and at the Ranch
about three months. The natives would visit her, and they all liked her. She
took seven(••••..••••.••) with her.
I saw Father Ingoldsby ask my mother to sign a paper•••••••and I don't know
what it was about. Sold furniture in the Islands••••••• best we left(it)
there.
309
�MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
Mrs. Helena Littlejohn••••••••I was married in 1852 •••••••Mrs. Averon was
married in 1854••••••••••I am 60 years old.
MIGUEL ANTONIO LODGE (Second Interview)
I reside in Santa Cruz County. I remember that my mother wanted in 1854 or
1855 to go to Mexico and then changed to (the) Sandwich Islands. I went with
her and returned with her from the Islands. They went two weeks before I left
here, determining to go to Mexico. She made (the) change to go to the Islands.
I went to her room, she said the captain was a pirate and a murder. She said
they were going to kill her. When we got to the Islands she began to feel
unsteady and she began to hit at things. She used language that I did not
understand.
Then we moved to the Hilman Ranch. She saw witches, then she would be calm
for a while. I struck Depeaux and I(••••••••••. ) then he shipped us back to
San Francisco. I had to watch her on the trip. The watch sang out a woman
overboard, we stopped the ship and she was picked up and brought aboard.
After we got to San Francisco Father Ingoldsby came by and gave her a paper
and made her sign it. She was out of her mind completely. I stopped at Red
wood City and my mother came on home. She got a little better but not much.
She saw witches all the time when I saw her. She had a club to whip the devil
or spirts.
Mrs. Fallon was not with us in San Francisco before I went to the Islands.
After Mrs. Averon's marriage this is when I went to the Islands. I was here
at her marriage.
The furniture was sold to the bishop. Depeaux got the money. I did not see
Father Ingoldsby after I left my mother at Redwood city.
MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN
I was married in 1852. Mrs Averon was married in 1854. My mother left for the
Islands as soon as Mrs. Averon was married. I said my mother after the marr
iage of Mrs. ( •••••••••• ). She would say one thing and then say another thing.
They told my husband to be at one place and then told him to be at another.
I was here in Santa Cruz when my mother went to the Islands. She went to the
Islands in 1854. Before they went to the Islands, they sent me to build a
(••••••••) and then sent us to another place and then to another.
After my mother came from·the Islands I saw her first at my house. She was
out of her mind. She pounded the roof. She said she was pounding the(•••••••)
devils. I could not see anything but the roof and the boards.
The she came to Mrs. Ricardo, then to Mrs. Peck in the(•••••••••••) orchard
here; then to Mrs. Majors; then she went to San Francisco. I next saw her in
the asylum at Stockton. I had to tell a lie to find her. She was off her
mind entirely.
When I found my mother she was off her mind, she was sick in her head. My
mother said there was a man who had hit her over the head with a cane.
I asked my mother to come away with me and my husband and I went(to) them
and brought here to my house. Her conditjon was just the same until her death.
When I found my mother she was not working as a servant for any one.
MARIA ANTONIA PECK
I am 60 years old, I never(•••••••) my sister after her marriage. She went
to San Jose to live (this would be Carmel married to Thomas Fallon). My
mother•..••••.•..•••.we left Stockton on the same day on which we arrived
there. She knew us, asking us to take ner along with us. She did not speak
English.
MARIA LUISA JUAN
When I saw my mother at Stockton, she had on a skirt, no shoes, no stockings
310
�MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
and a shawl over her head and fac:e. Her skirt came to her ankles. I went to
(••••••••••••) to get my mother. I did not(••••••••••) at the(••••••••)
place because Dr.(•••.••••.•••) would not allow it. I saw her in 1856 after
she came back.
PARTITIONER RESTS
BENJAMIN F. PORTER (Contestant)
I knew Martina Castro Depeaux sinc:e 1854 until she left. I saw her frequently,
I met her and communicated with her. I lived near her. I met her onc:e or twic:e
a month in 1854. She rented me some of her lands. Her manner was(the) same
as anybody else. She appeared to be a little above the average in intelligenc:e.
She was engaged in ordinary household duties. She was then married.
FREDERICK A. HIHN (Contestant)
I met the dec:eased first in the early part of 1852 or 1851. My acquaintanc:e
continued with her until she left about 1855. I had a store on the lower part
of the grant and she came to me to trade(often). I called at her resinenc:e
in Soquel. I passed her frequently. There was a proposition from her and her
husband for me to move my store to Soquel. Sometimes I saw her twic:e a week,
sometimes once in two months. I have an opinion as to her mental sanity, she
was the same, she attended to her business as intelligently as anyone. She
made her purchases, spoke about(local things) conveyed land to her children.
She pointed where she wanted me to put the store.
ISAAC FLEISIG (Contestant)
I knew the deceased for 16 years before her death. I did not(••...••..•.•• )
to her. I talked with her frequently, selling her then some goods for her.
She would say(..••••••••••.•) and take her goods to her kitchen.
JOSE JOAQUIN CASTRO DEPOSITION
JUNE 6, 1896
On the above date Jose Joaquin Castro, the unaccounted for fifteenth (15th)
child of Jose Joaquin Castro Senior and Martina's youngest brother made a
deposition on behalf of his cousin, Mary Elizabeth Peck in her attempt
to be awarded by the court Special Letters of Adminsitration of Martina's
estate. The deposition was taken in the offic:e of Notary Public W.R. Pyle,
with attorney J.F. Utter representing Elizabeth Peck and attorney Charles
B, Younger representing·the Frederick A. Hihn Company and the other
defendants.
Jose stated that his age was(about) 78, he was born in California and had
lived in the state his entire life. When he was asked who his sister Martina
Castro had married, he answered first to Jose Maria Cota, then to Miguel Lodge,
and the third time to Louis Depeaux. When asked by attorney J.F. Utter if his
sister was ever injured in any way, he answered.••••••yes.
During the entire deposition, which totals 51 pages of testimony, Jose
"fought" both the plaintiff's and the defense's attorneys questions•••••••
many times refusing to answer questions, claiming to be either tired or
sick. Also, because of his lack of education and inability to remember
dates and details of events, his entire deposition must be carefully read
and analyzed in order to arrive at the following story(in his words)••••••
Jose Joaquin continued by stating that before she and her husband Michael Lodge
left for the gold fields Martina fell from a fence, hurting her shoulder and
head, also injuring her ribs and hip. It seems, from Jose's testimony that she
fell on to some "sticks'(redwood posts) that were on the ground where she fell.
When asked if she became insensible at the time she fell, Jose answered•••yes.
"She was unconscious all the time she was with him(Michael her husband)••••.•
an arguement at this point begins between the attorneys concerning the use of
the word insensible versus unconscious conc:erning the state of Martina after
the fall.
311
�MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
When Jose was asked how long she was unconscious he answered (possibly) two
hours, (possibly) one hour. When he was next asked••.••••what was the condition
of her mind both before and after the fall•••••••he answered•••••••••••
Before the fall, frequently she was out of her mind when talking, and afterwards
she was sick of the head. Her head was sore, she was out of her head. She would
talk about anything that came along out of her mouth. She would talk about
spirits, about the sun, moon, and witches. She was always speaking of things
that were not natural.
When asked how long did she continue in the previously mentioned condition of
her mind, �ose answered•••.••••••the first and second husband it was the same
thing. When asked if the condition continued after her third marriage, Jose
answered...•••.•.•she was in the same state of mind. When asked how long did
she continue in this state, Jose answered .•.•..••••she was always out of her
mind from the first husband down to the third •.•.•.•••.••. when asked what was
the state of her mind after she married her third husband..•..••.. Jose answered
she was bad, always.
It is interesting to note that this deposition is not mentioned by either
the plaintiff and defense••••.•••.•••
MARTINA CASTRO'S CCTv!PETENCY SlliMATION by Charles B. Younger
After the hearing adjorned in which the above gave testimony, on JULY 3, 1896
Charles B. Younger presented the following summation••••••
Martina Castro Depeaux, at the time of her several deeds read in evidence, was
competent to execute the same. It is claimed by petitioner that Martina was of
unsound mind at the time of the execution of these several conveyances by her,
but it is not claimed that she was entirely without understanding.
A conveyance or other contract of a person of unsound mind, but not entirely
without understanding, made before his incapacity has been judicially deter
mined, is valid.
The grantors could not have received the property conveyed, or have quieted
their title thereto, without a rescission (the act of rescinding) of the con
veyances, and to have rescinded they must have acted promptly.
And they must have restored or offered to restore everything of value which
they had received under the conveyances.
The conveyances, even if voluntary, were good between the parties thereto and
against the heirs of Martina Castro.
A consent which is not free is nevertheless not absolutely void, but may be
rescinded by the parties in the manner prescribed by the chapter on rescission.
The court must take into consideration the conduct of Martina Castro during her
lifetime subsequent to these conveyances, and that she never set up any claim
to the property or made any demand upon the parties occupying the same to del
iver the possession thereof to her, or paid the taxes thereon, nor did any
other act asserting ownership over the property.
The conveyances of Mrs. Depeaux recite a consideration and are presumptive
evidence of the payment of such consideration.
From and including the date of the conveyance of Martina Castro Depeaux to her
children on AUGUST 29, 1850, to and including the date of her conveyances to
John Ingoldsby et al (JANUARY 22, 1855), there was nothing in her conduct
indicating that she was unsound of mind. During all that time until she went
to San Francisco in JANUARY, 1855, she lived at her residence on the Soquel
Ranch and tended to business. Her conduct in relation to the purchase of a
bedroom set, about twelve years before the hearing herein mentioned by the pet
itioner, proves that she was competent to transact business. At the time she
was visiting at the home of her daughter, Antonia Peck in Santa Cruz. The
mother of the petitioner, Mrs. Depeaux, gave her daughter, Mrs. Averon $20
312
�MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
($28)) to make this purchase. Mrs. Guadalupe Averon bought an ash set from
Staffler's for $35($490), and had it sent to Mrs. Antonia Pedc's house. On
arrival there(Martina) examined it and said it was too common.
NOTE: The preceeding transaction concerning the bedroom set occurred
about 1883.
Martina attended to her household duties and continued to live on the Sequel
Ranch until she left with the intention to go to Mexico. Her son Miguel lived
with her during that time, and worked part of the time for other people. He
brought the money he earned to his mother, who provided for him. She married
off her daughter, Maria Antonia to Henry w. Peck, her other daughter, Maria
Helena to Jose David Littlejohn in 1851, and her youngest daughter, Maria
Guadalupe to Joseph Averon in 1854. She bought the necessary supplies for her
household and negotiated with Frederick A. Hihn to induce him to move his
store to the Sequel Rancho, and for that purpose offered to furnish him with
a part of the land which she then occupied on said rancho. She invited Hihn to
visit at her residence and entertained him there.
Benjamin F. Porter knew Mrs. Martina Castro Depeaux in 1854 and 1855. He met
her at her residence several times, and at other places, and he testified
that she was in the habit of attending to business. Frederick A. Hihn became
acquainted with Martina in the latter part of 1851 or the early part of 1852.
He then kept a store in Santa Cruz; he frequently met and conversed with her,
and she was in the habit of trading with him at his store from the time he first
knew her until she left the Sequel Rancho and went to San Francisco, and during
all this time she was perfectly sane, and his reason for thinking so was that
she transacted her business in an intelligent manner and acted as sane people
ordinarily do.
She left the ranch with the intention of going to the City of Mexico on bus
iness, and while in the city she changed her mind and took passage with her
husband and son for the Islands. All her actions up to this time indicate that
she was the leader of her family and competent to transact business. She went
to the Islands in the early part of 1855, after she made the conveyances in
evidence of JANUARY 22, 1855. Her son Miguel testified that she left for the
Islands while the grass was green and returned to San Francisco at the time of
the next wheat harvest. This could not have been in 1854, because in that year
she had a lawsuit with John Hames. On September 9, 1853, John Hames commenced
an action wherein he was plaintiff and Martina Castro Depeaux was the defendant,
in the District Court of Santa Cruz County, to recover from her a large sum of
money. On OCTOBER 1, 1853, �efendant appeared in person and filed her demurrer
to his complaint; on NOVEMBER 3, 1853, she verified and filed her answer to
the complaint; on APRIL 5, 1854, a decision was rendered in her favor, and on
the same day she filed her bill of costs, duly verified and signed by her.
This shows not only that Martina Depeaux was in Santa Cruz County at that time,
but also that she was competent to conduct an important litigation in which she
was interested.
NOTE: A Bill of costs was made out for a total of $63.50 ($889) for the
Harnes versus Martina Castro sawmill suit with the following statement•••...
"I Martina Castro defendant in the above entitled cause, do solemnly swear,
that the items in the above memorandium are correct to the best of my
knowledge information and(••••••••••) and that the disbursements have
been necessarily smaller in the action.
her
signed by Martina X Castro
mark
Sworn and subscribed before me this April 5, 1854
(name unreadable) by Justice of the Peace, Sequel
There is no evidence of her incompetency. She kept house and attended to her
household duties. She visited her children, married off all marriageable dau-
313
�MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus
FREDERICK A. HIHN et als
ghters; her children visited her, and she transacted business. She appeared
from time to time before public officials, including the County Judge, for the
purpose of acknowledging the execution of her conveyances and leases, on
examination separate and apart and without the hearing of her husband, and to
make affidavits in an important litigation. She successfully defended a lawsuit
brought against her for a large sum of money, and wound up the suit by filing
her bill of costs. No guardian was ever appointed for her.
The statement of her son that she saw witches and was fighting spirits amounts
to nothing, as all this, if true, occurred subsequent to her conveyances.
After her return from the Islands her son left her at Redwood City and saw but
little of her thereafter for a long time.
NCYrE: On AUGUST 22, 1896 Charles B, Younger and Jeter and Makinney moved
that the petition for Letters of Administration by M, Elizabeth Peck be
denied. Afterwards, the 3rd District Court removed the letters from Eliz
abeth, she in turn appealed to the California Supreme Court where the lower
court's decision was upheld,
SANTA CRUZ LAND TITLE COMPANY
REQUESTS AUGMENTATION PARTITIONING
DECISION TO BE RECORDED
February 10, 1916
For fifty two years, every deed written selling land
within the confines of the Soquel Augmentation contained
the following words, in one form or another ••••• "All that
real property situated in Santa Cruz County •••••known as the
Augmentation Rancho •••••.•set apart to ••••••••. in severalty
by the final decree of the District Court of the Third Judicial
District of the State of California, in and for the county of
Santa Cruz, in the action of FREDERICK A. HIHN versus HENRY W.
PECK et als and entered on the 14th day of September 1864, and
being particularly described as Lot No••••••••in the report and
maps of the commissioners of said Rancho, in said action, which
said decree, report and maps, are hereby referred to for par
ticular description as follows •.••••.•••.•
After discussing the above word description necessary
for fifty two years with Earl Livingston of Ben Lomond,
it was decided that the Santa Cruz Land Title Company
simply tired of having to write the above into every deed
concerning land sales within the Augmentation and req
uested that the decision by District Judge Samuel B.
McKee be recorded. Earl Livingston stated that the possible
reason the decision was not recorded when handed down on
SEPTEMBER 14, 1864, was that there were many disputes over
land ownership at the time, therefore delaying the final
recording of the decision. Someone in the title company
simply tired of writing the phrase over and over, and
over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�APPENDICES'
The following nine (9) APPENDIXES identified with the letters
A.•. B... c ••• D... E... F ...G... H... I contain reference material that
helped towards the accuracy and integrity of this book. The mat
erial contained in each book differs in subject matter, and for
the most part, is published elsewhere. The material was not incl
uded in the text in its entirety because, being so extensive, it
would thereby disrupt story continuity. The majority of the mat
erial presented in these nine APPENDIXES was difficult find, and
once found usually difficult to read. The material is presented
as accurately as possible for the convenience of the reader
that is interested in accuracy, in additional background infor
mation, or for the historian that simply wants to challenge the
accuracy of this book.
NOTE: These nine APPENDIXES are unpublished at this writing
but are available in text form in my library upon request.
A
This APPENDIX at this writing consists of seven (7) subjects
as follows ....................
BOUNDRY DESCRIPTIONS and Palo de la Yesca
Boundry descriptions, found on documents concerning the Soquel
area and the Soquel Augmentation, beginning with the 1833/1834
period through the court's acceptance of the two partitioning
plans in 1863/1864 are discussed. Many of the changes that
occurred during these 31 years seem trivial, but they do ref
lect the thinking at the time concerning (mostly) the Augmen
tation's boundries. Also, a more indepth discussion of the
terms PALO de la YESCA, CHUCHITA and LOMA PRIETA are included.
The FRANCISCAN TRAIL
The history of this early day trail is traced based on the
best found material to date. The map is based on Bibliography
item No. 265, several discussions with Bill Wulf and on Donald
Thomas Clark's excellent book .... SANTA CR UZ COUNTY PLACE NAMES.
FREDERICK A. HIHN
Little has been written that is accurate of this man's early
envolvement with Martina Castro's Rancho Soquel and Augmen
tation grants, the period from his arrival in the county in
1851, in 1856 when he made his first purchase of land within
Martina's lands•..•••it is during this period that he dec
ided that it was more advantageous for him to begin purchasing
land in the county rather than make his money on the interest
gained through loaning money•••••.and through the lawsuits
brought on by Antonia Peck and her attorney Benjamin F. Bay-
315
�A
APPENDICES'
FREDERICK A. HIHN (Continued)
ley during the 1866/1868 period.
Any attempt to chronicle the life and times of this man in
detail is an effort that is far, far beyond the scope of this
book, and beyond the capabilities of this writer. Stanley
Steven's, the former archivist of the Map Room in the McHenry
Library at UCSC is attempting this chore, but whether or not
he can achieve his goals before his passing is somewhat
doubtful.
The story of Frederick A. Hihn's early life as presented in
this APPENDIX is brief, it is only an attempt to highlight
his major activities through the 1870 to 1874 period.•..but
let it not be forgotten that this complicated, major early
day pioneer established the foundation cornerstones of his
future fortune during this early period within the confines of
Martina Castro's two grants.••. Camp Capitola•••the logging
activities from his Aptos and Valencia mills••.and the
logging activity from his Laurel mill.... plus numerous addit
ional transactions, too numerous to list here.
Following is a partial list of the reference material that
provided the short history of Frederick A. Hihn•.•••.
BIBLIOGRAPHY item numbers are..•....
215
History of Santa Cruz County by E.S. Harrison
216
California Central Coast Railways by Rick Hamman
30 1
Descendancy Chart of Frederick A. Hihn's family
dated May 14, 1989
206
Santa Cruz- The Early Years by Leon Rowland
207
Santa Cruz County- Parade of the Past by Margaret
Koch
164/171 Letters from Frederick A. Hihn to John Wilson
172 and
173
Many Interviews and discussions with Stanley Stevens
Frederick A. Hihn was involved as either plaintiff,
102
defendant or as a witness in each of these court
thru
112/119 suits. His participation has been chronicled throughand 123 out this book, therefore no attempt will be made to
list each participation by either date or source.
thru
218
237
The LAND COMMISSION 1852-1857
This short history of the Land Claims Commission and both
Spanish and Mexican land grants in California is taken from
316
�A
APPENDICES'
The LAND COMMISSION 1852-1857 (Continued)
W.W. Robinson's book•••••LANDS IN CALIFORNIA••••••Chapter VIII.
The activity of the commission concerning Martina Castro's
two grants is presented in APPENDJX I.
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
This is a repeat of the presentation in the text, CHAPTER 3,
pages 47 through 52 inclusive with an expanded introduction.
The location of the warrants in the Soquel Aug mentation are
based on the records of Thomas w. Wright, head surveyor for
Santa Cruz County for a number of years, found in the County
Recorders Office in Santa Cruz.
SOQUEL- AN EARLY HISTORY
This early-day history of the Soquel area begins with the
first found written documents by the members of the Portola
exploratory party in 1769 and carries through in brief detail
through the 1850 to 1855 period. Much of the history was
found in BIBILOGRAPHY No. 202, Brian D. Dillon Ph.D's excellent
history of the area found in his ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL
SURVEY of the SOQUEL DEMOSTRATION STATE FOREST••••Santa Cruz
County and in BIBILOGRAPHY Nos. 101 through 112 (the partit
ioning suits for both of Martina Castro's grants.
VILLA de BRANCIFORTE and MISSION SANTA CRUZ
Once again Brian D. Dillon's history of the Santa Cruz area
found in his ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL SURVEY of the SOQUEL
DEMOSTRATION STATE FOREST.•..Santa Cruz County forms the
major portion of APPENDIX A (BIBLIGOGRAPHY No. 202). Also
used as a source wa� BIBLIOGRAPHY No. 206••..Leon Rowland's
book SANTA CRUZ ••••the Early Years, No. 207 •.••Margaret
Koch's book SANTA CRUZ COUNTY•..•Parade of the Past and
No. 141••••TRANSCRIPT of the PROCEEDINGS of MARTINA CASTRO,
CLAIMANT versus the UNITED STATES, Defendant for the place
named SOQUEL
This APPENDIX at this writing is divided into two sections,
the first consisting of the two ACT S passed by the State Legis
lature in 1850 and the TREATY WITH MEXICO while the second con
sists of the actual wording of the ARTICLES, AGREEMENTS and
DEEDS that had a major impact on events in Martina Castro's
story •...•
AN ACT CONCERNING CONVEYANCES••••passed April 16, 1850
317
�B
APPENDICES'
AN ACT DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE .•••passed April
17, 1850
TREATY WITH MEXICO,,.,TREATY OF PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS, AND
SETTLEMENT,,,.signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848
ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT,, .. signed August 28, 1850
DEED OF MARTINA CASTRO,,••signed August 29, 1850
ACKNOWLEDGMENT by T.R. PER LEE., .•signed November 28, 1850
DEED- MARTINA CASTRO TO THOMAS FALLON•••,signed November 29,
1850
AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARTINA, GREGORY AND WilSON .•••signed October
28, 1852
ADDITION TO AGREEMENT ••••signed May 21, 1855
DEED- RANCHO SOQUEL (SALE) •••.signed January 22, 1855
DEED- SOQUEL AUGMENTATION (SALE) ••••signed January 22, 1855
DEED- LLEBARIA/ALEMANY TO 1NGOLDSBY .•••signed September 10,
1855
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INGOLDSBY, LLEBARIA AND ALEMANY, •••signed
September 11, 1855
AGREEMENT BETWEEN INGOLDSBY AND ALEMANY ..•• signed September 2,
1857
AGREEMENT BETWEEN FREDERICK A, HIHN and HENRY W. PECK •.••signed
April 21, 1862
DEED- HENRY & ANTONIA PECK TO FREDERICK A. HIHN••••signed April
21, 1862
This APPENDIX at this writing consists of the major doc
uments decreed by Samuel B. McKee concerning the two partit
ioning suits, the PECK versus HIHN (the Rancho Soquel Suit)
and the HIHN versus PECK (the Soquel Augmentation Suit) •••.
INTERLOCUTORY DECREE ••••for PECK versus HIHN dated April 22,
1863
INTERLOCUTORY DECREE,•••for HIHN versus PECK dated April 22,
1863
PARTITION DECREE,,,,for PECK versus HIHN dated April 23, 1863
PARTITION DECREE •..,for HIHN versus PECK dated April 23, 1863
PARTITIONING COMMISSION to Thomas W, Wright, John W. Towne and
Godfrey M. Bockius,,.,dated August 17, 1863
PARTITIONING COMMISSION to Daniel Tuttle, Joseph Rufner and
Charles B. Younger,,.,dated August 31. 1863
318
�APPENDICES'
D
This APPENDIX at this writing consists of the INGOLDSBY
versus JUAN et als Decision in the Supreme Court of the State
of California in the January Term, 1859. The suit through the
lower courts and appeal are not included in this APPENDIX, this
testimony is presented in the text of this book.
E
This APPENDIX at this writing consists of the DR. JOHN P.P.
VANDENBERG and FREDERICK A. HIHN appeals, dated August 12,
1864 to the State Supreme Court and the high court's decision
called the HENRY W. PECK & MARIA ANTONIA PECK versus JOHN. P.P.
VANDENBERG & F.A. HIHN et als.
F
This APPENDIX at this writing consists of the entire Thomas
Courtis appeal to the State Supreme Court which includes the
earlier INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN et als testimony that
eventually led to the INGOLDSBY versus JUAN et als Decision in
the upper court covered in APPENDIX D. Also included is the upper
court's decision for this appeal, called the HENRY w. PECK versus
THOMAS COURTIS et als, dated December 17, 1866 (for PECK vs HIHN).
G
This APPENDIX consists of two Supreme Court of the State of
California decisions. ·The first is the appeal by Francis R.
B rady, Benjamin c. Nichols, Joel Bates (deceased) and Benjamin
F. Porter against Frederick A. Hihn (for the HIHN versus PECK
suit) better known as the FREDERICK A. HIHN versus HENRY W.
PECK & FRANCIS R. BRADY et als appeal. The second is the appeal
by Thomas Courtis against Frederick A. Hihn and the defendants
in the INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN suit (for the HIHN versus
PECK suit) better known as the FREDERICK A. HIHN versus THOMAS
COURTIS et als appeal. Not included in this APPENDIX is the
testimony that occurred in the Third District Court during the
Soquel Augmentation partitioning suit.
H
This APPENDIX at this writing consists of the BIOGRAPHIES
of many of the personalities concerned with this book. Much
of this text repeats documentation and findings available in
319
�APPENDICES'
H
other books and writings, but added to each personality's
story is his, or her's connection with the Martina Castro
story presented in the text of this book.
I
This APPENDIX at this writing consists of the complete
available testimony and findings of the Land Claims Commission
conce�ning Martina Castro's two land grants from the Mexican
Government.
320
�SUPPLEMENT
NICANOR LAJEUNESSE
Nicanor Cota, the first child of Martina
Castro and Simon Cota was born sometime
in 1825 in Monterey where her father
was stationed (at the Monterey Presidio,
a corporal first in the Spanish, then in
the Mexican Army), At age 14, while liv
ing with her mother and stepfather, Mich
ael Lodge on the ranch in Soquel she met
and married Francois (Francisco) Lajeun
esse, a French Canadian trapper born in
Canada in 1809, When he married Nicanor
he was 16 years older then her.
Francisco entered California during the
winter of 1833/1834 with the famed Jos
eph Walker party, After arriving in
California, Francisco also used the
French meaning of his last name, which
means "young man," He dropped the "man"
and seemed to use indiscriminately both
names, namely "Francisco Lajeunesse" and
"Francisco Young," He is also credited
with two additional last names, "Moss"
and "Mozo," For an explanation we must
refer to a portion of Leon Rowland's
book, SANTA CRUZ, THE EARLY YEARS., ••
MARIA
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
j
"In 1839 a request for Zayante was made
by "Don F. Moss," whose real name was
Francisco Lajeunesse, He was a French
Canadian who had come to the Monterey
region in the Walker party of 1833, Des
pite the fact he had been naturalized
and had married Nicanor Cota,"Moss" was
not given the grant, Adopting his nick
name as surname, he moved to Ventura
about 1860 (this is false and will be
corrected shortly),"
When Francisco applied for the Zayante
grant, he applied as "Francisco Young,"
In Spanish the word for "youthful" is
"mozo," therefore they wrote the name
of the applicant as Don (for Mr,) F,
(for Francisco) Mozo, which later
became "Moss" through translator mis
takes.
Little is written of Nicanor and her
husband's activities between their
I
MARRIED
1822/1823
FRANCISCO
LAJEUNESSE
or
YOUNG
1809
TO
DATE
Unknown
NICANOR
COTA
1825
TO
1890
(Approx)
I
"Zayante, site of the first power sawmill
JUAN
in California, was a Mexican grant in
LAJEUNESSE
1834 to Joaquin Buelna, who had been
born
Branciforte alcalde and earlier teacher
1841
in San Jose, Brancroft, the historian,
cites the fact that he was a writer of
verse,"
CARMA
"The scolarly Joaquin let his claim lapse
JEUNESSE
LA
after conferring in 1835 timber rights
born
to Ambrose Tomlinson and Job Dye, thus
1845
starting the settlement of "foreigners"
which ten years later was a trouble spot
in Mexican-Californian politics."
SIMON
COTA
birth
date
unknown
disappeared
1830
I
I MARRIED
1839
THOMAS
LAJEUNESSE
born
1843
MARIA
. LAJEUNESSE
born
1847
LOUISA
LAJEUNESSE
(MOSS)
born
1849
FRANCISCO
LAJEUNESSE
(MOSS)
born
1852
ANDREA
MARY
LAJEUNESSE
(MOSS)
born
1858
LAJEUNESSE
(MOSS)
born
1853
SIMON
LAJEUNESSE
(MOSS)
born
1860
32 I
�SUPPLEMENT
NICANOR LAJEUNESSE
marriage in 1839 and 1852, but by the latter date they were living (somewhere)
on Rancho Soquel as owners of two houses. In the second home, which was about
500 yards away from their living facility, they ran a grocery store. On Sept
ember 19, 1852 Nicanor and Francisco sold Nicanor•s I/9th claim to land in the
upper ranch (the Augmentation) for $224 ($3,136) to County Surveyor Thomas w.
Wright, County Recorder Peter Tracy and Montgomery B. Shackleford.
While Nicanor and Francisco were selling her claim to land in the Augmentation,
a Dr. John P.P. Vandenberg moved onto the Rancho (Soquel) and occupied land
within the vicinity of the store that they were operating. The doctor occupied
a total of about 80 acres, building a home and several additional facilities.
On January 21, 1854 Nicanor and Francisco entered into a deed with the doctor in
which they sold Nicanor•s l/9th claim to land in Rancho Sequel for $3,300
($46,200). Shortly after the doctor purchased the l/9th undivided part of Rancho
Soquel the doctor leased the land and moved to Santa Cruz. While he lived on the
land, as previously stated he made a number of improvements on the land, then
continued making new additions for the next six or seven years.
The two preceeding deeds have been discussed here because both would be declared
void because they were not acknowledged properly as required by law in the ACT
of April 16, 1850, titled "An ACT Concerning Conveyances," an Act passed to
protect a woman when selling a part, or all of her land.
During their 21 turbulent years together the two had a total of nine children,
four that were adults when Nicanor had a summons served on her husband accompan
ied by a Complaint, both served July 26, 1860. In her complaint Nicanor stated
that while the defendant (her husband) lived with her she had nine children,
five of which were at the time minors and totally incapable of providing for
their own sustence and education.
Nicanor's Complaint continued •••••••••• that her husband has treated her in a
cruel and inhuman manner by striking her with his hands and fist, beating her
with a stick, and cruelly and inhumanely expelled her from his residence and
refused to permit her to return. She continued•••••••••that in his fits of
drunkeness he has repeatedly committed acts of cruelty and violence upon her,
and in particular as follows by kicking her and striking her with his hands and
fists, beating her with a stick, pulling her hair and expelling her from his
place or residence.
Nicanor continued••••••••••that in the practice of habitual intemperance and
in his fits of drunkeness has committed acts of cruelty and violence upon the
said children listed as minors.
Francisco denied all of his wife's charges, and for further answer, he accused
his wife, that in the month of January of 1859, at the house of the defendant
(himself), that Nicanor committed adultry with one Ventura Ruida, and that a few
days subsequently thereto she again committed adultry at the house of Ruida,
that afterwards to wit, on the 20th day of June, 1860 she committed adultry with
Ruida at her own residence in Santa Cruz, and at various times has committed
adultry with Ruida between the 20th day of June 1860 and this day at her own
residence. Francisco continued that because of his wife's gross immoral char
acter and conduct, that she is in all respects unfit to have the charge and
custody of the children; that her conduct is of evil example to the children;
and is calculated to bring disgrace and ruin upon them.
Nicanor denied all of Francisco's charges, including his charge of adultry,
and added an additional charge that on the first day of November, 1858, her
husband used violence upon her in an attempt to compell her to submit to the
vile practice of prostitution for the purpose of bringing money to him, and when
she refused he expelled her from his residence and refused her permission to
return.
On September 28, 1860 Judge S.B. McKee appointed a referee to interview the
plaintiff, the defendant and all possible witnesses. Francisco refused to meet
with the referee, therefore the judge could only base his decision on the wife's
testimony and on her witnesses. The referee interviewed Thomas Lajeunesse,
322
�SUPPLEMENT
NICANOR LAJEUNESSE
age 211 Henry w. Peck brother-in-lawJ Ricardo Juan brother-in-law; Ventura
Ruida; and Martina's son Miguel Lodge. All witnesses stated that either all
or part of Nicanor•s charges were true, but because several of the witnesses
were not close to Nicanor, they were not able to fully substanuate all of her
charges.
Nicanor Cota Lajeunesse received her divorce from Francisco Lajeunesse officially
December 18, 1860, paid for in full by FREDERICK A. HIHN. With this man's name
added to the preceedings, there is obviously more to be discussed••••••••••
To review earlier events, it will be remembered that Nicanor entered into two
deeds, the first on September 19, 1852 in which Nicanor•s l/9th claim to land
in the Augmentation was sold, then on January 21, 1854 they sold Nicanor's l/9th
claim in Rancho Soquel to a Dr, John P.P. Vandenberg. Both deeds would be dec
lared during the Frederick A. Hihn backed suits to have Rancho Sequel and the
Augmentation partitioned void because they were not acknowledged properly. Some
how Frederick A. Hihn became aware of this fact, and through his friend Henry
Peck, who had informed him of Nicanor•s desire to divorce her husband, but was
not possessing the financial means to achieve her freedom, he (Hihn) offered to
purchase her l/9th claim to land in both ranches and pay her $500 ($7,000);
finance her divorce, and as a show of good faith, give her a supply of flour
to feed her kids with••••••this last gratuity was requested by Nicanor as proof
of Hihn's sincerity.
On July 23, 1860 before the proper witnesses and a Notary Public, Nicanor signed
the deed selling her l/9th claim to land in both ranches for $500 ($7,000),
then on the following day Francisco signed, receiving $50 ($700) in gold for
his trouble. This deed signed by Nicanor would be one of the most contested
sales of land during both partitioning suits, with Dr. John P,P. Vandenberg
contesting it all the way to the State's Supreme Court, The High Court would
uphold the lower court's decision, that while Frederick A. Hihn's deed may
have been unethical, because it was done according to law, while the two
earlier deeds were not, Hihn's deed was judged to be valid.
After her divorce Nicanor moved down to San Luis Obispo and assumed the name
Moss, giving this surname to her five minor children!
323
�SUPPLEMENT
MAR IA LU ISA JUAN
Maria Luisa Cota, the second child of
Martina Castro and Simon Cota was born
sometime in 1826 in Monterey where her
father was stationed (at the Monterey
Presidio, a corporal first in the Span
ish, then in the Mexican Army). At age
16, while living with her mother, and
stepfather Michael Lodge on the ranch
in Soquel she met and married Jean
Richard Fourcade at Mission San Carlos
Borromeo de Carmelo, August 8, 1842.
Little is known of Jean, both before
he left France where he was born and
during the period immediately after he
arrived at the Port of Monterey in
1840. When he married Luisa he was 12
years older then her.
Jean, born outside of Paris in 1814
was one of eight brothers, of which
six had identical names, being iden
tified by "nicknames." After he arrived
in 1840, it is known that he entered
into several commercial businesses,
dealing in lumber, farm products and
other commercial items. Wanting to
"blend" in with the Spanish speaking
populace, he changed his name, changing
Jean to its Spanish counterpart, Juan
and Richard to Ricardo, then reversing
the two. Although he would use mostly
the name "Ricardo Juan," during upcom
ing court suits, his last name Fourcade
was also used extensively.
Ricardo Juan enters into Martina's
story early, as early as January 7,
1844, when the Governor of Upper Calif
ornia Manual Micheltorena received the
letter written by him on behalf of his
mother-in-law Martina Castro. From
all indications, events both before and
especially after the Governor received
Ricardo Juan's letter were greatly
influenced by this man. It will be rem
embered that Ricardo requested that he
(the Governor) give Martina the nec
essary title to additional land for the
grazing of her cattle away from Rafael
Castro's cattle. Before receiving the
letter, the Governor had chosen not to
react to Martina's request, but leave
it up to the courts to solve her prob
lem. It is obvious that even though he
had just married into the family, he
was taking an active part in its prob
lems, until the "gingos" Thomas and
Lambert B. Clements arrived and married
Carmel and Josefa respectively!
It should also be noted that when it was
noticed in 1848 that there were several
documents missing from the archives in
Monterey pertaining to Martina's req
uest for additional land, it was
32�
MAR IA
MARTINA
SIMON
COTA
birth
date
unknown
disappeared
1830
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
I
I
MARRIED
1822/1823
I
JEAN
RICHARD
FOURCADE
or
RICARDO
JUAN
1814
TO
1884
MARIA
LUISA
COTA
1826
TO
DATE
Unknown
I
I
MARRIED
,
1842
ROSEWALL
(female)
FOURCADE
(JUAN)
born
1843
JOSEPHINE
FOURCADE
(JUAN)
born
1845
CHARLOTTE
FOURCADE
(JUAN)
born
1849
MIGUEL
FOURCADE
(JUAN)
born
1851
JOSE
FOURCADE
(JUAN)
born
1854
ELIZA
FOURCADE
(JUAN)
born
1858
ALBERT
FOURCADE
(JUAN)
born
1860
�SUPPLEMENT
MARIA LUISA JUAN
Ricardo Juan that brought copies to William Hartnell, assigned by the United
States to straighten out the files.
The life and times during the early years of both Ricardo Juan and Luisa (this
is the Spanish spelling of her name, and well be used throughout this book)
are sketchy, but we do have several short references to Ricardo's life, which
are quoted from the Larkin Papers, dated November 17, 1842 and written down in
Monterey.......a new arrival at the Port of Monterey writes......."I have not
been able to get any lumber here. Juan Ricardo I have not been able to see; his
brother has been very badly wounded by the Indians, and is in the woods at the
point of death."
The next reference is from a letter published in the California History Quarter
ly dated Monterey, October 15, 1848, written by the French Consulate in Calif
ornia concerning his visit to the California Gold Fields••••••••••
Monsieur le Ministre:
On the 17th of last August I had the honor of addressing to Your Excellency
a report on the journey that I had just made in the northern part of Upper
California, the principal object of which was to visit the gold regions that
had recently been discovered in this country. These discoveries, far from
decreasing, are constantly extending both to the north and to the south, but
the spots most noted now for their richness and to which most people are
going are the rivers Cosumnes, Mokelumne, Stansilaus, Merced, and the source
of the San Joaquin, together with the hills and gulches that separate or lie
between these rivers.
Just as I was writing this two Frenchmen, the Messrs. Fourcade, presented
themselves at the Consulate (in Monterey) on their return from the Placer
with seventy pounds of gold. Two other Frenchmen who were working with them
but who have remained at the Pueblo of San Jose have a like sum; that is to
say, one of them, named Cinquantin, has forty pounds, and the other one,
whose name I do not know, twenty-eight pounds. Nearly all this gold comes
from a single gulch, about four-hundred yards long and located about four
leagues north of the Stanislaus. It has produced more than $150,000
($2,100,000). The most extraordinary thing is that this gold has been obtain
ed without washing the dirt, for as water is entirely lacking there at this
season they gather nothing but the large pieces and the grains that are
visable and easy to pick up."
NOTE: Based on the above quoted letter, Ricardo Juan and his brother, also
called "Ricardo Juan," were looking, and finding gold within the same gen
eral area that Martina and Michael Lodge were operating their store and
freighting business in partnership with Balo Reedl
The first reference we have of Ricardo Juan and Luisa, his wife, is in a letter
written by a De Massey that was published in the California History Quartely
titled "A FRENCHMAN IN THE GOLD RUSH." While there is no date mentioned in the
letter, it was written during the 1852/1853 period, possible in very early 1854.
Besides giving insight into life on Rancho Soquel, it also gives a picture of
the personal life of the Fourcade familY••••••••••••
NOTE: A comment must be made here, that based on the earlier presented letter,
the two Fourcades (Ricardo Juan and his older brother Ricardo Juan, called
"Albert," were now rich based on the fact that they returned from the gold
fields with 70 pounds of gold•••••••••••••
To quote from the letter•••••••••"Upon going to see Mr. Thomas (Fallon),
who knew the purpose of our trip, he sent us over to see his (brother-in
law) Mr. Fourcade, a Frenchman from Bordeaux, who married the daughter of
a "ranchero" and who own property about two leagues from here.
On the morning of September eleventh we left Santa Cruz to visit the rancho.
Toward four o'clock we reached our destination. Mr. Fourcade, the owner and
manager it appears was formerly a sailor whose ship was confiscated or
325
�SUPPIBMENT
MAR IA LU ISA JUAN
deserted by the crew when the placers (gold) was discovered in California.
Fourcade stayed in California and tried his luck at the mines where he had
remarkable success; within three months he took out nuggets valued at
$30 000 ($420,000). Then, since he had been one of the first to reach and
expioit these particular placers the mines �ere named after �im. These
diggings are famous even as far south as this. To cap the climax he had his
heart, fortune, and hand accepted by a rich Californian (Luisa, who certainly
was not rich!).
NOTE: Because we know that Jean Richard Fourcade (Ricardo Juan) was in
Monterey in 1840 and married Maria Luisa in 1842, De Massey probably
confused the life and times of two other brothers who were living with
the married couple on the ranch at this time. From the earlier quoted
found letter it is known that at least one of Ricardo Juan's brothers
accompanied him to the gold fields••••••and then there was the brother
that was dying of an arrow in the hills•••••••••how many Ricardo Juans
there were living on the ranch during this period is unknown•••••••••
"The rancho contains between eight and eleven square leagues of land
(35,200 to 48,400 acres). Just now it is in litigation over a boundry dis
pute; the case is still pending.
NOTE, This would be the Fallon Partitioning Suit filed August 2, 1852.
"We noticed, as we walked around, that it looked like a fine piece of prop
erty; it has three kilometers of seacoast (almost two miles), running water
on it, not to mention fields suitable for pasturage, meadows, woods, and
soil adaptable for use in making bricks. He (Ricardo Juan, but which one?)
has offered us a certain number of animals, access to the ocean, and an
acre of land on the shore for a landing. As all this seemed like an attract
ive proposal we were about ready to sign an agreement.
While we were discussing all these points with Mr. Fourcade he graciously
invited us to spend the evening with his family. We accepted his invitation
without cermony, hoping in this way to settle all minor points during the
course of the evening.
"Orders to kill a two-year old steer were immediately given with as much
unconcern as a French farmer would show in ordering chickens dressed for
extra guests. A Mexican servant mounted on horseback started off, lasso in
hand, after an animal. He brought it down at a distance of thirty feet,
turned around, and returned dragging this victim, tied by the horns, behind
him. He then severed the animal's head with one blow, threw it away, then cut
the remainder into quarters. All this did not take more than twenty minutes.
After quickly grilling some steaks our meal was ready. The menu was simple:
red beans, which were fairly good, an abundance of meat, tortillas, and
fresh water. Tea, coffee, wine, and brandy may occasionally be used here
but of this I am not certain. At all events they are reserved for state
occassions.
The Senora, the mistress of the house (Luisa) is young, pretty, and in an
interesting(?)•••••pregnant?•••••••••condition. She did not dine at the
table with her husband and brothers-in-law. Five of us counting Fourcade
(Ricardo Juan) and his brothers enjoyed the feast; the fifth was a relation
of the woman (probably Miguel, Martina's son).
In the course of the conversation the purpose of our visit was again broach
ed, It was then that a number of difficulties and obstacles put in an
appearance. They were quite willing, it seemed, to rent us part of the ran
cho, but first of all it was nevessary to have the rancho divided among the
eight-co-owners and to obtain the consent of the grandmother (mother-in
law).
Neither did they care to rent for over three years and we wanted a six
years' lease with the privilege of buying at a price fixed in advance to
be applied against the rental, for we hoped eventually to make the lands
326
�SUPPLEMENT
MAR IA LU ISA JUAN
valuable. Our host, without refusing our proposition, asked permission to
defer his reply until next December, hoping, so he said, that the property
would by that time be divided.
In this country a deal delayed is a deal lost. This was our conviction when,
toward nine o'clock, our host escorted us to the apartment reserved for us.
It was a dirty, untidy place close to the ground and with mud walls thickly
covered with dust, a door that refused to close, and broken panes of glass.
The hides of a few horses were spread on the floor and were used to sit or
sleep on. Everything was primitive and extremely simple; I understand the
owners quarters are equally uncomfortable, and yet they are considered to
be wealthy rancheros. Moreover, I do not think the Fourcades are like so
many local ranch-owners who do not know any better way of living.
Had we not been afraid of offending these people we would have camped out
in the open, but such a move might have seemed like repaying courtesy with
rudness. So we resigned ourselves to the situation and with a clear con
science lay down to sleep of the just.
First of all, however, here is some gossip about the household••••••••true
or false as it may be•••••••••••that is being circulated around the country.
On the surface it seems far from charitable, and what surprises me is that
it is known as there is little visiting out here between families because of
the great distance. It concerns the domestic life of my hospitable hosts,
the Fourcades••••••••••
"Now when anyone speaks of them they are mentioned in disparaging tones
as small, blunt men, and if anyone asks whether they are married, there
is an embarrassing silence, for theirs is a three-cornered establishment
and no one knows what the status of the one woman (Luisa) is. Perhaps
in California theres is a sacrament that blesses such a union, but it
does not meet with local approval.
In France there is a constant visiting back and forth between neighbors.
But in California, this country with the future, it is possible to
travel forty kilometers (25 miles) without meeting a solitary person.
It is barely possible that this custom existed here in times past among
the natives and that they exchanged visits between tribes.
NOTE: De Massey's letter and comments are interesting because they provide
us with a foreigner's impressions of early California life under
American rule shortly after the successful war with Mexico. While the
above comments are all that he wrote of the Forcades, the short
continuation following also gives us added insight into the
local area during this early period•••••••••••
"Earl_y on the morning of September twelth we left our hosts and returned to
Santa Cruz, As the day was a �te-day we joined in the singing of mass,
accompanied by violins and other discordant instruments. Being provided with
a letter from the cur� (a parish priest in France)- sent by this Capuchin
father (a monk in France) to his rich brother land-owner- after an except
ionally good dinner we left for San Juan (Bautista).
For three hours our route followed the coast. We passed one fine rancho,
owned by a rich Californian who, like most of his associates, is uneducated
and unable to read or write. Riding, gambling, playing, drinking, swagger
ing, and brutality tal{e the place of this elementary knowledge and seem
essential to the happiness of these isolated ranch-owners'"•••••••the rancho
he was discussing would be either Rafael Castro's Rancho Aptos (but Rafael
could both read and write), or Rancho San Andres under the ownership of
Martina's brother Guadalupe (who could neither read or write).
In 1853 Ricardo Juan is credited with building the first tannery on Rancho Soq
uel. It was located on five ac�es a short 700 feet above today's Soquel Drive
within the confines of Cabrillo College. He sold the facility to Benjamin F.
327
�SUPPIEMENT
MAR IA LU ISA JUAN
Porter January 1, 1858, with the final papers signed in June of the same year.
It is possible that Ricardo was active within the confines of Trout Gulch bec
ause originally it was called .. Ricardo Gulch" by Thomas w. Wright. When the
Augmentation was partitioned in 1864, his wife Maria Luisa was awarded two
areas, one which was Tract 5 located within the center of Frederick A. Hihn's
Valencia Tract 2. The 550 acre Tract 5, extending east from Valencia Creek and
including a portion of Cox Creek is interesting from the standpoint that
contained within its acreage were possible coal mines••••••to quote from a
newspaper article that appeared in the June 13, 1862 issue of the Santa Cruz
Sentinel•••••••••••••
"Coal veins were discovered along the east branch of Valencia Creek (today
the branch is called Cox Creek). When the reporter visited the area, a
party of men were busily digging a tunnel to reach the coal. The vein that
they had reached was something over six feet wide, ten feet deep and was
widening as the tunnel continued down into the earth. Numerous outcroppings
had been discovered in the general area but had not been worked when the
article was written...
As the 1860s approached, then after the partitioning suits began for Rancho Soq
uel and the Augmentation began later that year, it appears that Ricardo Juan
and Maria Luisa were experiencing martial problems. This observation is made
all the more definite based on Maria Luisa's answer to Frederick A. Hihn•s
complaint, dated January 23, 1861. In her answer to Hihn, Luisa was the only
daughter of Martina that stated that her husband had no rightful claim to
land in the Augmentation, or any parts thereof.
Additional evidence of martial problems between the two are also evident in a
Sheriff's deed dated May 19, 1866. This deed came about as follows, the three
referees assigned by the court to establish location and size of the areas
that the Augmentation and Rancho Soquel were to be divided into submitted
their bill, which was based on each owners awarded tract size. Luisa was
awarded two tracts, Nos. 5 and 6, and her portion of the referees bill was
$59.24 ($829.36).
After Maria Luisa ignored several notices of the referees bill, and refused to
pay it, the Court ordered the Sheriff to collect the due money plus the accuring
costs associated with the Sheriff's attempts to collect the money. Finally a
lien was put on Luisa's two tracts in the Augmentation, a notice placed in the
October 7, 1865 issue of the Santa Cruz Sentinel of the upcoming auction of
the two properties. On August 31, 1865, mysteriously a deed was signed between
Maria Luisa and Frederick A. Hihn in which she passed title to both tracts
5 and 6 (a little over a month before the auction). For the nearly 1,000 acres,
Hihn bid a total of about $76 ($1,064).
And the final clue found to date that there were problems between Luisa and
her husband, as well as between Maria Helena and Joseph David Littlejohn is
found in court testimony taken during the Mary Elizabeth Peck application
for Special Letters of Administration of Martina's estate in 1895. In a
summons issued to all living members of Martina's family, Maria Luisa's
last name was .. Littlejohn" and her home is in Merced. Maria Helena is still
..Littlejohn.. and she still lives in Soquel.
And what of Ricardo Juan (Fourcade)? According to a newspaper article from the
San Luis Obispo Tribune, dated February 21, 1874.......... Juan Fourcade, 65
years old, suicide last Saturday. His family is living in France. He was one of
the original discoveries of the Fourcade Mine in Calaveras County. His
brother lives six miles from town, near Pecho Rancho.........The brother that
committed suicide was the older brother Albert, also using the name Ricardo
Juan. His younger brother, the supposed husband of Maria Luisa would die in
about 1884••••••••it is also interesting to note that Nicanor Lajeunesse moved
to San Luis Obispo after her divorce in 1860.
32<o
�SUPPLEMENT
CARMEL FALLON
Maria del Carmen Juana Josefa Adelayda Cota, the third (or fourth- there was a
son born that died soon after birth) child of Martina Castro and Simon Cota was
born in Monterey on July 12, 1827. Simon Cota was a corporal in, first the
Spanish, then in the Mexican Army, stationed at the Presidio in Monterey. As
discussed earlier in the text, Carmel, as she preferred to be called, would
assume her stepfather's surname LODGE. Because of her known birth date, which
was before Simon Cota disappeared in 1830, and Michael Lodge claiming her as
his daughter, not stepdaughter in his petition to Governor Figueroa on Sept
ember 7, 1833, we can only assume that he fathered Carmel before Simon dis
appeared.
At age 21, which was a relatively "old age" when compared to her sisters when
they married, in 1848 Carmel married Thomas Fallon. Thomas, born in County Cork,
Ireland in either 1818 or 1819•••••••this was the same county that Miguel Lodge
was born in twenty_three years earlier•••••••••was Carmel's only husband. Their
"stormy" marriage lasted 29 years. It is regretable that the only published
book concerning Thomas is Thomas McEnery•s inaccurate book titled "CALIFORNIA
CAVALIER, THE JOURNAL OF CAPTAIN THOMAS FALLON." The only other found version
of Fallon's early life comes from Martina's granddaughter, Carrie Electra
Lodge through several interviews conducted in 1965. Carrie was the daughter of
Miguel Lodge, Martina's only son to grow into manhood.
Carrie, in her interview stated that "Fallon was an actor whose company (of
actors) went broke in New Orleans. After the company disbanded, Fallon packed
his bags and headed west where he picked up the trade of making saddles. He
arrived on the local scene in the mid-1840s.
The brief quotes from local historians are not too flattering.of Fallon. To
quote Margaret Koch •••••• "Thomas Fallon was a saddle maker by trade, a ladies
man by choice, and an adventurer by luck"., ........Edna Kimbro stated ••••• , ."he
was a trouble maker from the time he first entered the area."
Thomas McEnery, in his book has Thomas Fallon serving with Sam Houstan in Texas,
then entering California as a scout for John Fremont during his first explor
atory mission. On their trip across the Sierra Nevada, on a side jaunt, Thomas
claimed to be the first white man to view Lake Tahoe. After reaching California
with Fremont in 1843, by 1845 he is in Santa Cruz, planning to settle there.
Fallon
with a
period
frames
is next a member of Fremont's California Battalion, marching southward
number of local volunteers to battle the Mexicans. During the 1846-47
he returned to San Jose where he opened a shop making saddle trees (the
for making saddles).
In late 1847, supposedly he loaded a wagon with all his worldly goods and headed
across the Santa Cruz Mountains, reaching Santa Cruz where he set up shop.
According to Fallon, on one of his trips to the Soquel area he met Michael Lodge,
and shortly after, a warm friendship began that soon had Thomas being invited
to attend a Christmas dinner with the Lodge family at the Soquel ranch. It is
supposedly at the dinner that Fallon first set his eyes on Carmel, stating•••••
"the two middle daughters of Michael and Martina are as beautiful as any two
(young) woman that I have seen."
Over the next year or so, Michael and Fallon cement their friendship, with
Fallon's interest in Carmel "growing each day." To again quote Fallon•••••••
"during this period I courted Carmel according to old Spanish tradition••••sev
eral times taking her for a walk down to the river (Soquel Creek), naturally
chaperoned by Martina••••••••Carmel is described in McEnery•s book as having
the beautiful full face of an Irish lady and the dark shades of her mother.
Several historians have stated that Thomas Fallon married Carmel expecting to
marry into a family that possessed great wealth and large expanses of land.
How disappointed he must have been when, after marrying Carmel, he went down to
the archives in Monterey, and after several discussion with William Hartnell,
the man assigned to "straighten out the records there," that only Martina's
small Rancho Soquel grant was valid, that the supposed Augmentation above it
329
�SUPPLEMENT
CARMEL FALLON
was fraudulent, that no such grant was ever made.
As history has recorded, it was Ricardo Juan's letter dated January 7, 1844
that changed the Governor's mind, allowing Martina and Michael Lodge to select
their "Yesca" addition to Rancho Soquel, but it was Thomas Fallon, Lambert B.
Clements, Durrell Gregory (plus how many others?) that can be created with
finishing what Ricardo Juan began, the creation of the Soquel Augmentation with
its 32,702 acres.
Carmel, when she married Thomas, she was an uneducated young woman of 21,
described, like her mother, as being quick of temper, extremely jealous of
her husband, attempting to possess him totally. This must have frustrated
Carmel over the years because of her husband's roving eye for the ladies.
Thomas was extremely handsome, charming, and never hid his more than passing
interest in a beautiful woman.
The just discussed traits of these two would eventually involve them in a rather
"nasty" divorce suit in late 1876 in which Carmel would charge Thomas with
adultry, and he in turn, would accuse her of willfullly attempting to kill him
by hitting him over the head with a blunt instrument. The divorce suit ended in
January of 1877 with Carmel receiving her sought after divorce, $25,000
($350,000) in gold coin, the homes in San Francisco and Santa Cruz, and custody
of the six living children if they so chose to remain with the mother.
Because the two had sold her l/9th claim to land August 1, 1853 to Joshua Parr
ish, this claim did not enter into the divorce settlement, but Carmel's l/9th
claim in the Augmentation did. Thomas also owned the 1,100 acre Tract 8, which
Carmel had purchased as his agent from Frederick w. Macondray September 13,
1864. Carmel would retain ownership of her Tract 9 claim in the Augmentation,
while Thomas would retain ownership of all other properties that the two owned
in both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties.
After the divorce Carmel would divide her time between San Francisco and Santa
Cruz, with most of her time spent up in the City. Because her 6,845 acres in the
Augmentation was now a tax burden, she began looking for a buyer, finding one
in the Watsonville Mill & Lumber Company on January 10, 1883. With this sale,
plus several others she was able to accumalte a rather extensive fortune for
an unmarried woman of that time. Her fortune would total well over a million
dollars when she died (today this would total nearly $12,000,000). How did an
illiterate young woman, unable to read or write in either Spanish or English,
and barely able to speak English acquire a fortune of this size in a male
dominated world? She was able to achieve all of this through her husband's
tutorage, which included on the job education in sales and meeting the public,
and having to serve as the First Lady of San Jose during Thomas's four years
as San Jose's mayor between 1859 and 1863, Carmel not only learned to read and
write in English, but she was able to speak on even terms with the best of the
day's businessmen. This would be very evident through her most successful
negotiations with the Watsonville Mill & Lumber Company concerning the sale of
her Tract 9.
But not all of Carmel's later life was happy according to one of her daughters,
Annie••••••Annie Fallon became a well known actress under the name of Annie
Malone.
After Annie married John Malone of San Jose•••••••he was an assistant
district attorney when he met Annie, leaving his position to go on the
stage with his wife. Annie had already achieved success as an accomplished
Shakespearean actress, and he, through his amateur parts, had also ach
ieved status as an accomplished Shakespearean actor and scholar in his own
right•••••••••••as an interesting sidelight to our story••••••••••the Mal
ones were close friends of the DeCordova family. Fred DeCordova would bec
ome the producer of the Johnny Carson TV show until it went off the air in
1992,
Carmel would live until 1923, dying in San Francisco at age 96, while Thomas
330
�SUPPLEMENT
CARMEL FALLON
would die in 1885, divorced from his second wife and being sued by a third
woman accusing him of a breach of promise•••••••• a judgement of $10,000
($140,000) was awarded to the woman which was appealed to the California Sup
reme Court. After Thomas's death, his children contended that their father's
estate was "vast," and that he had "lost his grip" and was constantly intox
icated and often brandished his pistol or sword in a threatening manner.
There is much more to Thomas•s story, his attempt to compete with Frederick A.
Hihn's Camp Capitola, calling his development first Camp San Jose, then changing
it to New Brighton, his sale of Tract 8 in the Augmentation to Timothy Hopkins
in early 1884, a sale that would eventually save the Loma Prieta Lumber Company
from going bankrupt, etc., etc•••••••••••••••Thomas•s activities are chronicled
throughout the text of this book, and his life as it concerned both Rancho Sequel
and the Augmentation will be continued in follow-on books.
As Carmel approached her final years her daughter Annie petitioned the Santa
Clara Superior Court for the guardianship of her mother's estate•••••• in Court
she made the sensational charges that her brother, Alfred, had retained
influence over their mother by using hypnotic control. Annie further charged
that her brother made threats against her life. She further stated that Alfred
was, what many called a "soldier of fortune" who had returned after years of
wandering to await the division of Carmel's estate. She continued that there
were many scenes of violence at the family residence at 1802 Market Street in
San Francisco and that her brother's uncanny hypnotic control over Carmel in
the silent house has caused her days and nights of horror. She accused her
brother of, within strict limitations of imposing control over her by directing
her business affairs••••••••that through his intemperate habits and general
unfitness, their mother has been robbed of many thousands of dollars.
Annie Malone also accused her brother of assuming the pose of a "fiend" in an
Edgar Allen Poe story, that he is the passionate, impulsive Spanish type, he
has wandered over the earth, and has employed a brilliant but erratic mind in
the mastery of strange occult powers. Annie continued that of late she had seen
her mother brought quietly, but irrestibly under his sway••••••the testimony
continues, but the preceeding will illustrate that Carmel did not find total
solice in her later years, and that Thomas Fallon probably "got" what he put
into life, what he deserved in his dealing with Martina Castro•••••••
331
�SUPPLEMENT
MARIA JOS_EFA CLEMENTS
Maria Josefa Lodge was Martina's fourth
daughter and fifth child, Her first
four were fathered by Simon Cota, namely
Nicanor, Maria Luisa and Carmel and a
son that died early, After Simon dis
appeared in 1830 Martina remarried, her
second husband being Micael Lodge, an
Irishman born in 1795 in County Cork,
Ireleand. We have two possible dates
(years) for Martina's second marriage.
Historian Leon Rowland places the marr
iage in 1831, while Castro family
historian Kenneth Castro places it in
1833. Josefa (sometimes spelled Josepha)
was born, according to available infor
mation in either 1831 or 1832, which
brings up several questions.
Josefa married Lambert Blair Clements
at age 18 or 19 in early 1850. Lambert,
of Irish descent was born in Philadel
phia, Pennsylvania on July 6, 1823. It
is interesting to note that Lambert,
Thomas Fallon and County Recorder
Peter Tracy were all Irishmen. Just
as it is today, but even more so during
this early period of California history,
nationalities tended to band together,
and help each other, an important
point to remember and consider•••••••
all three were deeply involved in the
writing and signing of Martina's
fraudulent deed., ••••••
Lambert came to California in late 1845,
having left New York on the 10th of
January of the same year, departing on
an American boat commanded by Nath
aniel Crosby, Jr. After sailing around
Cape Horn, they stopped at Valparaiso,
Callao, then continued on to Honolulu
before theYarrived at their final dest
ination, Portland, Oregon. After unload
ing their cargo, and taking on a new
load, the ship headed for San Francisco,
arriving in November of 1845.
Lambert remained on the boat, serving
as a member of the crew as it sailed
between San Francisco and Portland,
conducting coasting trade until the 22nd
of April, 1847. On this date, anchored
in San Francisco Bay, he decided to
leave and settle in the Santa Cruz area.
Shortly after he arrived he met and
married Josefa.
In 1851 Lambert was elected Justice of
the Peace, was elected again the next
year, then in 1853 he and Josefa moved
to San Francisco. Before they departed,
on March 30, 1852 they sold Josefa's
l/9th claim to land in both the upper
3 32
MARIA
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
I
MICHAEL
LODGE
1795
TO
1849
I
MARRIED I
l
1831 or 1833
J
MARIA
JOSEFA
LODGE
1831/1832
TO
DATE
Unknown
I
LAMBERT
BLAIR
CLEMENTS
7/6/1823
TO
DATE
Unknown
I
MARRIED
1850
ROBERT
CLEMENTS
born
1851
LOUISA
CLEMENTS
born
1853
DANIEL
CLEMENTS
born
1855
ELLEN
CLEMENTS
born
1857
LEON
CLEMENTS
born
1861
ALBERT
CLEMENTS
born
1864
ANNIE
CLEMENTS
born
1866
EDWARD
CLEMENTS
born
1869
LOUISA
CLEMENTS
born
1870
�SUPPLEMENT
MARIA JOSEFA CLEMENTS
and lower ranches (the Augmentation and Rancho Soquel) to the Frenchman Pruitt
Sinclair and his partner Jones Hoy. This was the first sale of land in either
of the ranches based on Martina's deed of August 29, 1850, It wasn't long after
the Clements• sold Josefa's claim to land in both ranches, that the two grantees
joined with Thomas Fallon and his wife Carmel in a partitioning suit to force
Martina to divide her land among her heirs, plus Sinclair and Hoy. The Summons
and Complaint were served August 2, 1852, while the suit was dropped officially
February 17, 1854, This suit, brought on by the Clements• deed to Sinclair and
Hoy would divide the Castro family into "waring" factions and help bring Martina
to the brink of insanity,
In San Francisco Lambert entered into several businesses, experiencing little
success before moving back to the Santa Cruz area in mid 1860. Even though he
lived in San Francisco until about 1860, his name appears on many deeds and
agreements, helping family members in legal matters concerning both Rancho
Soquel and the Augmentation. After he returned to the area, he was again elected
Justice of the Peace, holding this position into the 1870s, Later he would become
a judge, a position he would retire from.
During the two Frederick A, Hihn partitioning suits beginning in early and
late 1864, Lambert would testify on behalf of Martina's heirs against the
Catholic Church priests in their attempt to prove that Martina's deed of August
29, 1850 was fraudulent, While it would be unfair to say that he out and out
lied under oath, it was obvious that many times he "stretched" the truth on
behalf of the heirs,
333
�SUPPLEMENT
MARI A ANTONIA PECK
Maria Antonia Lodge was Martina's fifth
daughter and sixth child, Her first four
were fathered by Simon Cota, namely
Nicanor, Maria Luisa and Carmel and a
son that died early, After Simon dis
appeared in 1830 Martina remarried, her
second husband being Michael Lodge, an
Irishman born in 1795 in County Cork,
Ireleand, Antonia was the second child
born on the ranch in Soquel, born some
time in 1835, At age 16 she met and
married Henry Winegar Peck on May 12,
1851.
Henry Peck was born in New York in 1818,
When he �arried Antonia he was 17 years
her senior, and these years of differ
ence would eventually be one of the
factors that would lead to their break
up.
Shortly afLer his arrival in the area
and his marriage to Antonia he was
elected Justice of the Peace along
with his father-in-law Louis Depeaux
in 1854, Henry was not one of the early
planners of Martina's fraudulent deed
of August 29, 1850, but later he would
more than make up for not being there
at the time, In 1855, when the Santa
Cruz County portion of the Santa Cruz
Gap Turnpike was being planned, from
Sequel to the top of the Summit, Henry
on behalf of the Castro family inter
ests was selected as one of the three
men to survey the route,
MARIA
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
MICHAEL
LODGE
1795
TO
1849
l
I
MARRIED
1831 or 1833
f
I
MARIA
ANTONIA
LODGE
1835
TO
DATE
Unknown
HENRY
PECK
1818
.TO
9/14/1873
I
I
MARRIED
1851
FRANCIS
PECK
born
1852
MARY
ELIZABETH
PECK
born
1855
What little information we have of
Henry's early years comes from deeds and
agreements he entered into with his wife,
SARAH
ALICI
from court testimony, and sadly from
PECK
PECK
Thomas McEnery•s inaccurate book of
born
born
Thomas Fallon, titled "CALIFORNIA CAV
1857
1861
ALIER THE JOURNAL OF CAPTAIN THOMAS
FALLON," Thomas Fallon is quoted in the
book that Henry's life was a series of failures, that he was a Man "that could
find the most laughable ways to failure, It seems that every interprise that
Henry entered into, somehow ended in failure,
When Martina and her husband Louis Depeaux sold both Rancho Soquel and the Aug
mentation to the three Catholic priests on January 22, 1855, every person conn
ected with both ranches knew that the sale was final and legitimate, therefore
they accepted the new owners as owners of both ranches. But in the courts at
the time, there was the "Ingoldsby versus Ricardo Juan" suit, which the new
owners just might loose. In other words, they may not be able to prove that
Martina's deed of August 29, 1850 was a fraudulent paper, which would mean that
Martina had sold only l/9th of each ranch, not their entire acreage, Therefore,
while there were many transactions occurring involving the sale of land prior
to the Ingoldsby versus Ricardo Juan decision was reached, they were all made
with the understanding that they might be judged void.
Henry and Antonia Peck would enter into several transactions prior to April 21,
1862 that would cause both confusion to the partitioning suits begun later by
Frederick A. Hihn and hardship to himself and especially to his brother-in-law
Miguel (Michael) Lodge, Martina's son.
334
�SUPPLEMENT
MARI A ANTONIA PECK
On the three dates shown to
ANTONIA
the right, Antonia and Henry
sold 5/54ths of Antonia's
FROM
6/54ths (or l/9th) claim to
MARTINA
land in the Augmentation.
1/9 OF
During the period that the
AUGMENTATION
transactions were occurring,
shortly after Miguel Lodge,
who was living with the Peck's
at the time, turned 21, Henry
"convinced" Miguel to sell
him for a paltry $500 ($7,000)
4/13/1859
9/14/1859
11/21/1859
both of his claims to land
ANTONIA &
ANTONIA &
in Martina's two ranches,
ANTONIA &
HENRY PECK
HENRY PECK
1/9th in Rancho Soquel, and
HENRY PECK
TO
TO
a like amount in the Aug
TO
LYMAN
'WESLEY
mentation. On August 29, 1859
JOEL BATES
BURRELL
BURNETT
the deed was signed. When
1/27
1/27
& co.
Miguel's daughter Carrie
1/54
was interviewed in 1965 she
did not give the reason why
her father signed away so
much land, but Frederick A.
Hihn had some definite comments on the signing. To quote from a speech that Hihn made at the 25th anniversary of the founding of Camp Capitola (the camp was founded in 1875, the speech
was given June 18, 1895••••••the article appeared in the Santa Cruz Sentinal of
that date):
I
I
"Michael Lodge, the only son of the proud Martina Castro is still living
and living on the ranch, but instead of being the owner of thousands of
acres, his present possessions are but a little more than one acre.
Michael had the misfortune of being born of rich parents and receiving little
or no education. On the day he arrived at the age of twenty-one he was tric
ked into signing a paper which swept away all his inheritance. The paper was
voidable in law, but required money and experience to make it void. He had
neither. The result was he conveyed his interest, thus incumbered, to his
brother-in-law for what he could get for it, which was but little.
It would have been much better for him to have been poor and to have rec
eived a fair education. Since then he has labored faithfully at common labor
to make a living for himself and family. He is now among us and it affords
me pleasure to introduce him to you•••••••••••••••••••••••••
NOTE: According to Carrie Lodge, Miguel's daughter, when Henry was on his
deathbed he called for Mike and asked for his forgiveness••••••Carrie did
not disclose whether the forgiveness was forthcoming. Henry died December
12, 1873, a fairly young 53, Antonia was only 38, while Mike was but 35.
When the California Superme Court upheld portions of Martina's deed dated Aug
ust 29, 1850 in early 1859, Frederick A. Hihn decided that the time had arrived
to establish ownership within both Rancho Sequel and the Augmentation. Because
of the many conflicts that existed among so many possible owners, final owner
ship could only be decided by the courts. Because the United States Land Claims
Commission had treated the two areas as being separate, this meant that two
suits were necessary. Because of the complexity of the Augmentation, and because
it was so much larger, Hihn decided that he wanted to be the plaintiff in the
suit to establish its ownership. This meant that a plaintiff was needed to handle
the smaller Rancho Soquel suit. Hihn needed a man he could trust, and of most
importance control and manipulate. The man he settled on was Henry Peck. Henry
agreed to be the plaintiff in the suit to have the small Rancho Sequel par
titioned, later to be known as, the "PECK versus HIHN et als" suit. Henry also
agreed to pay half of Robert F. Peckham•s initial fee to represent Henry a�
335
�SUPPLEMENT
MARI A ANTONIA PECK
plaintiff, which was a total of $750 ($10,500).
NOTE: The suit, with Frederick A. Hihn as plaintiff was known as the "HIHN
versus PECK et als" suit, with its purpose to establish ownership within
the Soquel Augmentation.
The Summons and Complaint for Rancho Soquel, with Henry and Antonia Peck as
plaintiffs were served February 13, 1860, while the two papers for the Augmen
tation would not be served until August 14, 1860 with Frederick A. Hihn as
plaintiff. On July 23, 1860 Nicanor Lajeunesse would sell to Frederick A. Hihn
her I/9th claim to land in both ranches (see NICANOR LAJEUNESSE for a dis
cussion of this transaction). On the following day Nicanor•s husband Francisco
signed the deed, then Frederick A. Hihn entered into a deed with Henry Peck in
which he sold Henry, for $250 ($3,500) one half of Nicanor•s l/9th claim to
land in the Augmentation. The reasoning behind this deed is known only to Hihn.
It could have been a gratuity for Henry agreeing to be the plaintiff in the
"Peck versus Hihn et als suit," or it could be Hihn's repaying a debt owed to
Henry•••••••we will probably never know the real reason for the deed. And to the
question••••• did Hihn know that Henry had recently acquired I/9th of each ranch
through a deed with his brother-in-law will probably never be answered.
When the Summons and Complaint were served August 14, 1860 Frederick A, Hihn
considered that he owned 22 percent of Rancho Soquel, while the Pecks between
them owned slightly more. As for the Augmentation, Hihn stated in his Complaint
that he owned 24 percent, while Henry and Antonia had 10/54ths, or about 18.5
percent.
As the two partitioning suits progressed, getting no where because ownership
claims had not been officially established, Charles B. Younger of San Jose was
called in by the court on recommendation by Frederick A. Hihn to establish
percentage ownership within Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation. On August 17
and 22, 1861 Younger presented to the court respectively his findings for
Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation. He established that that Frederick A, Hihn
could claim 26 percent of Rancho Soquel, while the Pecks, between them could
claim I/9th each, or 22 percent total,
But Charles B, Younger•s finding for the Augmentation were far different, Instead
of Hihn's 24 percent ownership claim, Younger reduced it to 13 percent, while
the Pecks' between them CO'Uld claim 18 percent!
As 1862 approached Henry Peck wanted to head off for the newly discovered gold
fields up in Humboldt County. He approached Frederick A, Hihn and offered to
sell him his, and his wife's claim to land in both ranches. He stated that he
needed $4,850 ($67,900), $750 to pay Robert F. Peckham his initial fee to rep
resent him as plaintiff in the Peck versus Hihn et als suit, plus $100 for
additional debts. Henry stated that he wanted $4,000 cl8ar to pay for his trip
north and to leave his wife in safe financial "hands." Hihn "attempted" to
talk Henry out of leaving, stating that they had "come so far" and "were so
close to victory," but Henry wanted to head north.
According to Frederick A. Hihn, in later testimony, reluctantly gave in to
Henry, and on April 21, 1862 entered into a twelve-point agreement and a
following deed, in which Henry ended up with his $4,000 ($56,000) in cash,
and Hihn acquired, after official partitioning of the two ranches, about
6,800 acres in the Augmentation and 452 acres in Rancho Soquel. When the deed
was signed April 21, 1862, the Pecks ownership claims were as follows:
When Charles B, Younger established Antonia and Henry's ownership percen
tages in the Augmentation in August of 1861, he decreed that the 5/54ths
sold to Lyman Burrell, Wesley Burnett & Co. and Joel Bates should be ded
ucted from Henry's 9/54ths (Miguel Lodge's l/9th plus the I/18th sold to
him by Hihn), leaving him with 2/27ths. This decision reestablished
Antonia's share at I/9th. Because the deed between the Pecks and Hihn
occurred after Younger had established percentage ownership, these per
centages would remain in effect even though the percentage was sold to
ar,other person (such as Frederick A. Hihn).
336
�SUPPLEMENT
MARI A ANTONIA PECK
ANTONIA
FROM
MARTINA
1/9 OF
RANCHO
SOQUEL
MIGUEL
LOrx:;E
FROM
MARTINA
1/9 OF
RANCHO
SOQUEL
8/29/1859
MIGUEL
LODGE
TO
HENRY PECK
1/9
MIGUEL
LQrx:;E
FROM
MARTINA
1/9 OF
AUGMENTATION
NICANOR
LAJE UNESSE
FROM
MARTINA
1/9 OF
AUGMENTATION
8/29/1859
7/23/1860
MIGUEL
LODGE
TO
HENRY PECK
1/9
NICANOR
LAJEUNESSE
TO
FREDERICK
A. HIHN
1/9
4/21/1862
ANTONIA &
HENRY PECK
TO
FREDERICK
A, HIHN
2/9
7/24/1860
FREDERICK
A, HIHN
TO
HENRY PECK
1/18
IANTONIA's RESTORED l/9th OF
AU}MENTATION AFI'ER l/27th f to
Burrell), l/54th (to Wesley
Burnett & Co,) AND l/27th (to
Joel Bates) ARE DEDUCTED FROM
HENRY PECK's 6/54ths PLUS
3/54ths (9/54ths less 5/54ths
to total 2/27ths UNDIVIDED
PARTS).
NICANOR
LAJEUNESSE
FROM
MARTINA
1/9 OF
RANCHO
SOQUEL
--....
From all indications, it seems as
time passed and the Augmentation
and Rancho Soquel partition suits
were settled in late 1864 that
Antonia tired of her husband's
business antics which were forcing her to live, relying on handouts to feed herself and the
four daughters. During the 1865/
1866 period she sued for a divorce,
Shortly after, on June 8, 1867 she
remarried, Her second husband was Guad
alupe Bernal which lasted ten years.
After she divorced Guadalupe, she marr
ied a third time, to Robert H. Majors.
While Antonia would live to see the
dawn of the 20th Century, Henry would
die September 14, 1873,
In 1867 Antonia hired attorney Benjamin
F, Bayley to contest the deed that she
and Henry had signed April 21, 1862
with Frederick A, Hihn. Henry, rather
than fight the deed in court, sold his
claim to Tract 16 (the Laurel Tract)
and the three lots he was awarded in
7/23/1860
NICANOR
LAJEUNESSE
TO
FREDERICK
A, HIHN
1/9
t
4/21/1862
ANTONIA &
HENRY PECK
TO
FREDERICK
A, HIHN
1/9
PLUS
2/27
Rancho Soquel to
Bayley, Now rep
resenting both him
self and Antonia two
suits were filed in
Superior Court, att
empting to prove, on
the part of Fred
erick A. Hihn,
"cheating" prior to
Antonia's signing,
and his attempt to confuse her during
the signing cermony because of her
difficulty in both reading and under
standing English, especially anything
concerning technical matters, Bayley
also accused Hihn of misquoting and
misrepresenting the facts to Antonia
after she signed the deed, Frederick
A. Hihn hired Robert F. Peckham to
represent him in the suits, which
proved a smart move on his part bee
Peckham was present when the deed was
signed in the Pecks home in 1862, Bay
ley lost both suits, Hihn's deed was
337
�SUPPLEMENT
MARI A ANTONIA PECK
upheld by the court in two separate decisions.
NOTE: Over the years many have "wondered" at Henry Peck's "stupidity" in
receiving only $4,000 for his 2/27ths and his wife's l/9th claim to land
in the Augmentation which ended up as Tract 16 (awarded to Hihn on his
behalf) and Tracts 10 and 11 (awarded to Hihn on Antonia's behalf), all
together totalling about 6,800 acres•••••••and ••••••••• the six lots in
Rancho Soquel totalling 452 acres. But when court testimony is carefully
read, the sum of $4,000, today about $56,000, was not considered to be a
"bargain price" for undeveloped land that had a chance of coming under the
ownership of the Catholic Church priest, John Ingoldsby if his suit was won,
and there was a better than even chance that this is what would happen.
Several witnesses testified, that at the time, suit or no suit, that Hihn
paid a fair price.
The story of the Peck family does not end here, because in 1895 Mary Elizabeth
Peck hired attorneys J.F. Utter, J.J. Scrivner and A.H. Cohen to establish an
estate for her grandmother, Martina, who had died December 14, 1890 interstate
(leaving no will or last testiment). After an estate was established which
included the 1/13th part of Martina's father's Rancho San Andres plus the total
acreage in both Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation, Elizabeth then began her
suit to be awarded Special Letters of Administration, which in turn, if awarded,
would allow her to evict all persons owning property within the three areas.
Mary Elizabeth Peck's attempt to receive from the court Letters of Administrat
ion of her grandmother's estate is discussed in detail in CHAPTER 19 of this
book.
338
�SUPPLEMENT
MARIA HELENA LITTLEJOHN
Maria Helena Lodge was Martina's sixth
daughter and seventh child. Her first
four were fathered by Simon Cota, namely
Nicanor, Maria Luisa and Carmel and a
son that died early. After Simon dis
appeared in 1830 Martina remarried, her
second husband being Michael Lodge, an
Irishman born in 1795 in County Cork,
Ireland. Helena was the third child
born on the ranch in Soquel, born some
time in 1837.
Helena was the only daughter to marry
someone of her own age, marrying 17
year old Joseph (Jose) David Little
john in 1852. Joseph was born a citizen
of Mexico due to his Scottish born
father who had applied earlier for
citizenship in order to qualify for a
land grant. His father was given Ran
cho las Careros in what would eventually
become Monterey County.
After Martina's deed of August 29, 1850
was signed by Martina, and until they
entered into two unique deeds with
Frederick A. Hihn, the first on January
8, 1858, little is known of Helena and
Joseph•s activities except for the
three children, the first three of a
total of 14 they would have, that Hel
ena gave birth to.
O n the above date Helena and Joseph sold
l/3rd of Helena's l/9th claim to land
in both ranches (Rancho Soquel and the
Augmentation) to Frederick A. Hihn for
$2,000 ($28,000). What makes this deed
different from others is that Hihn
agreed to pay all court expenses for the
two grantors in the upcoming "Ingoldsby
versus Ricardo Juan suit" in which the
plaintiff Ingoldsby was attempting to
prove that Martina's deed of August 29,
1850 was fraudulent. Hihn agreed to
pay all expenses for the two whether
they won or lost the suit •••••• if the
suit was lost the Littlejohn's claim
to ownership in both ranches was void.
In a second deed, dated July 24, 1860
the two sold Helena's remaining 2/27ths
undivided parts claim in the Augmen
tation to Frederick A. Hihn for a total
of $10,000 ($140,000). The terms in this
deed were identical, except that Hihn
agreed to pay their court expenses, win
or loose in the upcoming partitioning
suit that he was about to begin.
When Martina's Rancho Soquel and the
Augmentation were officially partit
ioned in late 1864, the Littlejohns had
sold all of their claim to land in the
Augmentation to Frederick A. Hihn, but
MARIA
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
I
I
MICHAEL
LODGE
1795
TO
1849
MARRIED
1831 or 1833
l
MARIA
HELENA
LODGE
1837
TO
1/9/1904
I
JOSEPH
(JOSE)
LITTLEJOHN
1835
TO
12/19/1906
J
/MARRIED I
1852
16 CHILDRENI
'PT r-r<::
CAROLINE
LITTLEJOHN
born
1853
DOLPHINA
LITTLEJOHN
born
1856
DAVID
LITTLEJOHN
born
1858
JOHN
LITTLEJOHN
born
1860
JOSEFINA
LITTLEJOHN
born
1861
WILLIAM
LITTLEJOP.N
born
1863
EMILY
LITTLEJOHN
born
1865
BENJAMIN
LITTLEJOHN
born
1869
339
�SUPPIEMENT
MARIAH ELENA LITTLEJOHN
in Rancho Soquel they retained an ownership claim that totaled 2/27th undivided
parts. After percentage claims, location of land, and other factors were con
sidered, the Littlejohns ended up with two lots, identified as "I" and "K"
totalling 137.4 acres
NOTEs Both lots "I" and "K" are located in the eastern half of Rancho Soq
uel within the vicinity of Cabrillo College•••••• "K" is north of Soquel
Drive, while "I" extends from the road south along Borregas Gulch, from
the road to Monterey Bay.
With the money paid them by Frederick A. Hihn Helena and Joseph purchased a
large parcel of land in Rancho Rodeo and good farmland within the vicinity of
the bridge that crosses Soquel Creek at Olive Springs Road. Today the bridge
is constructed of cement, but at this time it was a wooden structure that
became known as the "Littlejohn Bridge."
The Littlejohns would end up loosing their land in both Rancho Soquel (lots
"I" and !'K") and the land at the junction of the Soquel San Jose and Olive
Springs roads to Benjamin F. and George K. Porter. How this event came about
we must quote the interview made with Carrie Lodge, granddaughter of Martina,
Miguel Lodge's daughter, in 1965•••••••••••
"Uncle Littlejohn knew quite a lot outside work. He knew horses like his
hands. He knew how to drive, knew outside work, but that's about all. And
the burden fell upon Aunt Helena. And I heard how they lost their ranch,
known as the "Littlejohn Place." How true it is, I don't know. Uncle Little
john wanted a wagon and he got it from one of the Porters•. And he mort
gaged the ranch to buy it. Well, I guess he didn't know about mortgages,
how quickly the interest mounts up, see, and they had a tremendous big
family and that takes an awful lot to raise. So they lost their ranch and
the land in Rancho Soquel•••••••••••to give credence to Carrie Lodge's
account, after partitioning of Rancho Soquel and the Augmentation were
made final in late 1864, the entire area along the west side of Borregas
Gulch, from well within the Augmentation south to Monterey Bay, by the
late 1860s belong to the two Porter partners, Benjamin F. and George K.
After exhaustive searches of the deed books, there is no transfer of
ownership of lots "I" and "K" from the Littlejohns to the Porters!
Maria Helena Littlejohn would die in Santa Cruz on January 9, 1904, while
Joseph would die three years later on the 19th of December, 1906.
NOTE: There is a mystery concerning the name "Littlejohn." In the Swnmons
for Mary Elizabeth Peck's 1895 suit discussed earlier, Maria Luisa Juan's
name is listed as Maria Luisa "Littlejohn," living in Merced! Did the
Littlejohns, Helena and Joseph divorce? ••••••or••••••• Did Maria Luisa
marry one of the Littlejohns• sons?
3LJ 0
�SUPPLEMENT
MIGUEL(MICHAEL) LODGE
Miguel (he preferred to be called Mich
ael, or just plain " Mike" after his fat
her) Antonio Lodge was Martina's second
son and eighth child. Her first four
were fathered by Simon Cota, namely
Nicanor, Maria Luisa and Carmel and a
son that died early. After Simon dis
appeared in 1830 Martina remarried, her
second husband being Michael Lodge, an
Irishman born in 1795 in County Cork,
Ireleand. Mike was the fourth child
born on the ranch in Sequel, born on,
or just prior to August 29, 1838.
Mike was named after his mother's patron
Saint, San Miguel••••••• and according
to the United States Land Claims Comm
ission records, this was one of the
titles that Martina used to call her
requested additional land in 1843/1844,
the others being "Yesca" or "Palo Yesca"
which was finalized into the term "Palo
de la Yesca."
Because Mike's early years have been
discussed in CHAPfER 4.,,., "THE END OF
AN ERA 1807 to 1890", .....in CHAPfER 19
"MARY ELIZABETH PECK versus FREDERICK
A. HIHN et als and in this SUPPLEMENT
in the "MARIA ANTONIA PECK" story,,., •.
it will not be repeated here, only
the portions of his life no covered in the above.
After Mike returned from the Haw
aiian Islands (then called the
Sandwich Islands) with his mother
M artina sometime in late 1855
he lived on the ranch with first Maria
Luisa and her husband Ricardo Juan,
then until reaching the legal age of
21, he lived with the Pecks. This
has been confirmed in a letter written
by Augustas Noble and sent to John Wil
son dated February 10, 1857••••.• ,"I
have not been able to communicate with
young Miguel Lodge because he now lives
with the Pecks who keep a sharp eye on
him " ••••••••••••• the meaning of this
letter is discussed fully in the
text of this book, in CHAPfER 8
" INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN•
MARIA
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
I
MICHAEL
LODGE
1795
TO
1849
I
I
MARRIED
1831 or 1833
I
MIGUEL
(Michael)
ANTONIO
LQr:x:;E
1838
TO
, q:n
I
I
MICHAEL III
LODGE
born
1874
LOUISA
LOIX;E
born
1878
I
3RD WIFE
MARGARITA
CASTILLA
1857
TO
1892
I
MARRIEDI
1874
FELIX
LOIX;E
born
1876
CARRIE
ELECTRA
LODGE
born
1881
Mike was living with the Pecks when he
turned 21 and Henry Peck either tricked
or forced him to sign over his l/9th
claim to land in both of his mother's
FRANK
ranches for $500 ($7,000). The existing
JULIA
LODGE
situation on the ranch and Frederick A.
LODGE
born
Hihn's comments on the signing were
born
1884
fully discussed in the Maria Antonia
1887
Peck portion of this SUPPLEMENT.
Mike married three times, separating
from his first wife, then enduring the trajedy of having his second wife die
during childbirth. In 1874 at age 36 he married for a third time, to nineteen
year old Margarita Castilla. When Margarita died in 1892 at age 35 Mike kept
the three boys while the three daughters were taken in by Maria Guadalupe and
her husband Joseph Averon. Mike died in Sequel in 1931 at age 93.
341
�SUPPIEMENT
MAR I A GUADALUPE AVE RON
Maria Guadalupe Lodge was Martina•s sev
enth daughter and ninth child. Her first
four were fathered by Simon Cota, namely
Nicanor, Maria Luisa and Carmel and a
son that died early. After Simon dis
appeared in 1830 Martina remarried, her
second husband being Michael Lodge, an
Irishman born in 1795 in County Cork,
Ireland. Guadalupe was the fifth child
born on the ranch in Soquel, born some
time in 1842.
Three additional children would foll
ow: Dolores; Elijenia; and Joaquin.
They would all die up in the gold
fields prior to Michael Lodge•s
death in 1849. After her third marr
iage to Louis Depeaux in 1849, Mar
tina would have her last child num
ber 13 which would die shortly after
birth.
In 1854 12 year old Guadalupe married
Jose h Averon, born �bout 182� in
seca Lorraine, France in a family
alleged to be of nobility. Joseph,
unlike his father who loved the army,
he had no love for it. After he came to
the United States he joined the navy,
and because of his early training in
France, and also because of his love of
good food, he became a cook on Commodore
Sloat•s flagship. After the American
flag was raised prematurally in 1846 at
Monterey, he left the service and sett
led in the Santa Cruz area.
Guadalupe•s marriage at such an early
age to a man fourteen years older may
seem strange to many today, but at this
early date in California•s history, it
was a common occurrance••••••• but ••••••
there seems to be another reason for
this early marriage according to Carrie
Lodge as stated in her 1965 interview.
According to Carrie, Guadalupe married
"to get away from the stepfather" Louis
Depeaux, Martina•s third husband. We
also have the fact that three of Mar
tina•s daughters, Josefa, Antonia and
Helena all moved out before marrying,
then married (all at an early age)
within a period of two years ••••••
There is a statement made to me by a
local historian••••• she was sworn to
never repeat what she was told during
an interview with Carrie Lodge con
cerning several daughters,(of Martina)
and Louis Depeaux•••••the historian
did not devulge what was told to her
in confidence••••••• but based on
further evidence gathered by me, there
is only one conclusion that can be
342
MARIA
MARTINA
CASTRO
baptized
3/17/1807
died
12/14/1890
MICHAEL
LODGE
1795
TO
1849
I
'
MARRIED I
1831 or 1833
I
,
MARIA
GUADALUPE
LOffiE
1842
TO
1920
I
JOSEPH
AVERON
�
TO
A-TE"
Unknown
I
'MARRIED '
1854
MIGUEL LODGE' s DAUGHTERS
"TAKEN IN" AFTER HIS
WIFE' s DEATH IN 1892
CARRIE
ELECTRA
LODGE
born
1881
LOUISA
LODGE
born
1878
JULIA
LODGE
born
1887
3� J&L?
�SUPPIEMENT
MARIA GUADALUPE AVERON
arrived at••••••••and••••••••••• it does not require a "dirty mind" to reach a
logical conclusion1
Based on the lives of Martina's first seven children to reach adulthood after
marriage, Guadalupe's marriage, for a number of years was the "best" of the
lot. What activities Joseph Averon conducted in the area after his marriage to
Guadalupe are sketchy, but after Rancho Soquel was partitioned in 1863 his
wife was awarded two lots totaling 117.7 acres, and in the Augmentation she
received Tract 7 totaling 1,308 acres. Guadalupe's award in the latter area
included almost all of the upper reaches of Bates Creek and most of what would
later become known as "Grover Gulch."
In Rancho Soquel they would sell the lot on the headwaters of Noble Gulch,
keeping the lot within the vicinity of Bay and Capitola avenues. On this
lot they would later build a large, stately home that stands to this day near
the top of the hill on Capitola Avenue. Before they built this large fine home,
they lived in a small wooden structure at the base of the hill. It is in this
structure, "foreign" to Martina that she would live out most of the rest of
her life after being released from the Stockton Insane Asylum on November 8,
1856••••••••••Martina, after living her early years in an adobe built home
would feel that a wooden structure was "strange."
Concerning Guadalupe's award of Tract 7 in the Augmentation, on December 8,
1865 she and her husband sell to the Grover brothers Stephen and James and
James son Dwight , the stumpage rights to the lower 500 acres (later they will
be paid for selling the stumpage rights $26,910 ($376,740). On April 13, 1869
the Averons• sell a total of 598 acres of the upper portion of the tract to
Benjamin F. Porter for $10,000 ($140,000). The Averons' would retain ownership
of the land within the vicinity occupied today by Kennolyn Camp well into the
early 1900s.
The Averons did not have any children of their own, but after Miguel's wife
Margarita died in 1892, they took in the three daughters: Carrie Electra;
Louisa; and Julia••••••Miguel (Mike) kept the three boys. Joseph Averon, in
his youth was an extremely "thin looking" handsome man, but as the years
passed, paying little attention to his diet, he soon acquired an over weight
problem. He had two strokes including a cerebral hemorrage that would affect
his mind during the last years of his life. According to Carrie Lodge, Guad
alupe and Joseph were very much in love, with Joseph constantly catering to
Guadalupe. After the strokes, and especially after the cerebral hemorrhage,
she, with the help of the three Lodge girls, they were able to return the love
and affection that Joseph had shown towards Guadalupe over the years.
A c�mrnent that was made by Carrie Lodge during her 1965 interview is inter
esting•••••••••••••"Joseph, refusing to go to a doctor until it was too
late, could have lived a much longer life if only he had •••••••••••• anybody
that has had to care for a loved one under the above circumstances knows
that there is only "heartache" involved.
en
Guadalupe died in 1920 at age 78, she had a mausleum waiting for herself
�
in the Holy Cross Cementery on
� Avenue in Santa Cruz. When she was laid to
rest there, she had Martina and
uer husband exhumed and all three are buried
{
together in the tomb today.
�
3L13
�Intentially left blank.
344
�Bl BLIOGRAPHY
Find Number
In Text
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Lawsuits Ap eals an d
Supreme Cour r Decisions
CALIFORNIA REPORTS (Supreme Court Cases) VOLlME 12, 1859
INGOLDSBY versus JUAN et al
PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit) et al PARTITIONING
SUIT••••transcript on film at Santa Cruz County Superior
Court•••• case No. 280
APPEAL- PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit) et al
PARTITIONING SUIT
• HENRY W, PECK and MARIA ANTONIA PECK, his wife
versus JOHN P.P, VANDENBERG, and F,A, HIHN et als
•..•transcript on film at Santa Cruz County Superio�
court.••• case No. 280
CALIFORNIA REPORTS (Supreme Court cases) VOLUME 30, 1866
HENRY W. PECK and MARIA ANTONIA PECK, : is wife versus
JOHN P,P, VANDENBURG, and F,A, HIHN et als
APPEAL- PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit) et al
PARTITIONING SUIT
• HENRY W. PECK et al versus THOMAS COURTIS et als
.•.•transcript on film at Santa Cruz County Superior
court•••• case No. 280
APPEAL- PECK versus HIHN (Rancho Soquel Suit) et al
PARTITIONING SUIT
• INGOLDSBY versus RICARDO JUAN et al.,:.transcript
at Map Room McHenry Library UCSC
CALIFORNIA REPORTS (Supreme Court Cases) VOLUME 31, 1867
HENRY W. PECK et al versus THOMAS COURTIS et als
HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit) et al PARTITIONING
SUIT.,••transcript on film at Santa Cruz County Superior
Court•••• case No. 308
APPEAL- HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit) et al
PARTITIONING SUIT
• F.A. HIHN versus HENRY PECK and FRANCIS BRADY et
als..••transcript on film at Santa Cruz County
Superior Court ..•• case No. 308
CALIFORNIA REPORTS (Supreme Court Cases) VOLlME 30, 1866
FREDERICK A. HIHN versus HENRY W. PECK and FRANCIS BRADY
et als
APPEAL- HIHN versus PECK (Augmentation Suit) et al
PARTITIONING SUIT
• FREDERICK A. HIHN versus THOMAS COURTIS et als.• ,.
transcript on film at Santa Cruz County Superior
court.••.case No, 308
CALIFORNIA REPORTS (Supreme Court Cases) VOLUME 31, 1867
FREDERICK A, HIHN versus THOMAS COURTIS et als
ENNESS LODGE versus LOUIS DEPEAUX:.••• transcript on film
at Santa Cruz County Superior Court•••• case No. 1
DEPEAUX: and CASTRO versus FRANKLIN BALL •••.transcript
on film at Santa Cruz County Superior Court.•.•case
No. 15
HENRY HILL versus LOUIS DEPEAUX: and MARTINA CASTRO,,,,
transcript on film at Santa Cruz County Superior Court
.•••Case No. 21
345
�Bl BLIOGRAPHY
Find Number
In Text
116
117
118
Lawsuits Ap eals an d
Supreme Cour r Decisions
THCMAS FALLON/PRUITT SINCLAIR/JONES HOY versus MARTINA
CASTRO et al PARTITIONING SUIT•.••transcript on film at
Santa Cruz County Superior court•••• case No. 74
JOHN HAMES versus MARTINA CASTRO,,,,transcript on film
at Santa Cruz County Superior court•••• case No. 78
CALIFORNIA REPORTS (Supreme Court Cases) VOLU1E 5, 1855
JOHN HAMES versus MARTINA CASTRO
119
MARIA COTA LAJEUNESSE, Plaintiff versus FRANCISCO
120
JOHN INGOLDSBY versus WILLIAM OTIS ANDREWS.,,.transcript
on film at Santa Cruz County Superior Court•.•. case
No, 219
121
HINCKLEY and SHELBY versus RICHARD SAVAGE,,••transcript
on film at Santa Cruz County Superior Court•••• case
No, 315
122
BENJAMIN CAHOON versus RICHARD SAVAGE,.,,transcript on
film at Santa Cruz County Superior Court•••• case No. 333
123
ANTONIA PECK versus F.A. HIHN et als, •••transcript on
film at Santa Cruz County Superior Court•••. case No. 608
124
BENJAMIN F. BAYLEY versus F.A. HIHN et als.•••transcript
on film at Santa Cruz County Superior Court.••• case
No, 609
125
In the Matter of the Estate of MARTINA CASTRO DEPEAUX,
Deceased•..•Petition for Special Letters of Administrat
ion by M, ELIZABETH PECK.,,.transcript on file at Santa
Cruz County Superior Court
LAJEUNESSE, Defendant ••••transcript on film at Santa
Cruz County Superior Court •••• case No. 303
126
In the Matter of the Estate of MARTINA CASTRO DEPEAUX,
Deceased, Filed in the Superior Court, Third District,
AUGUST 22, 1896•••.copy of defendants attorney Charles B
Younger portion of trial in VOLlliE 17 of Charles B,
Younger Reports, available in McHenry Library, Special
Collections Room, UCSC
127
CALIFORNIA REPORTS (Supreme Court cases) VOLlliE 126,
1899 M. ELIZABETH PECK, as Special Administratrix,
et cetera, of MARTINA CASTRO DEPEAUX, Deceased,
Appellant, versus H. Agnew et al., Respondents
128
CALIFORNIA REPORTS (Supreme Court Cases) VOLUME 126,
1899 PECK versus ADAMS Motion to Dismiss Appeal denied
and Judgment Modified on the Authority of PECK versus
AGNEW, 126 Cal, 607, S.F. No, 1927
Land Claim s, S tate Laws
and Tr eaty With Mexico
141
142
346
TRANSCRIPT of the PROCEEDINGS of MARTINA CASTRO,
CLAIMANT versus the UNITED STATES, Defendant for the
place named SOQUEL (Rancho) case No. 184, No. 295 ND
transcript available at Bancroft Library, University of
California at Berkeley
TRANSCRIPT of the PROCEEDINGS of MARTINA CASTRO,
CLAIMANT versus the UNITED STATES, Defendant for the
�Bl BLIOGRAPHY
Find Number
In Text
143
144
145
Land Claims, State Laws
and Treaty With Mexico
place named SHOQUEL (Augmentation) Case No, 593, No,
295 ND transcript available at Bancroft Library,
University of California at Berkeley
An ACT Concerning Conveyances ••••Passed APRIL 16, 1850
transcript available at Law Library
An ACT Defining the Rights of Husband and Wife,•••
Passed APRIL 17, 1850 transcript available at Law
Library
TREATY WITH MEXICO,,,,Treaty of Peace, Friendship,
Limits, and Settlement dated at Guadalupe Hidalgo,
2nd FEBRUARY, 1848
Lette rs
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
LOUIS DEPEAUX to JOHN WILSON dated JULY 22, 1853••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
LOUIS DEPEAUX to JOHN WILSON dated DECEMBER 30, 1853 ••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
LOUIS DEPEAUX to JOHN WILSON dated JULY 5, 1856,,. ,File
CB 420, Bancroft Library
AUGUSTAS NOBLE to JOHN WILSON dated FEBRUARY 10, 1867,••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
ROBERT F. PECKHAM to JOHN WILSON dated FEBRUARY 12, 1857
,...File CB 420, Bancroft Library
JOHN INGOLDSBY to JOHN WILSON dated APRIL 4, 1857 ••.•
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
JOHN INGOLDSBY to JOHN WILSON dated APRIL 16, 1857 ••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
CHARLES McKIERNAN (Mountain Charley) to JOHN WILSON
dated JULY 24, 1857,,,,File CB 420, Bancroft Library
CHARLES McKIERNAN (Mountain Charley) to JOHN WILSON
dated NOVEMBER 1, 1857,,,,File CB 420, Bancroft Library
CHARLES McK IERNAN (Mountain Charley) to JOHN WILSON
dated JANUARY 2, 1858,,,,File CB 420, Bancroft Library
CHARLES McKIE RNAN (Mountain Charley) to JOHN WILSON
dated JANUARY 17, 1858,,.,File CB 420, Bancroft Librarv
AUGUSTAS NOBLE to JOHN WILSON dated FEBRUARY 5, 1858
.•••File CB 420, Bancroft Library
AUGUSTAS NOBLE to JOHN WILSON, dated MARCH 20, 1858 ••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
CHARLES McKIERNAN (Mountain Charley) and FREDERICK A.
HIHN to JOHN WILSON dated APRIL 25, 1858,,,,File CB 420,
Bancroft Library
AUGUSTAS NOBLE to JOHN WILSON dated MAY 13, 1858 ••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
166
CHARLES McKIERNAN (Mountain Charley) to JOHN WILSON
dated MAY 23, 1858,,,,File CB 420, Bancroft Library
167
AUGUSTAS NOBLE to JOHN WILSON dated MAY 25, 1858••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
�Find Number
In Text
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
Bl BLIOGRAPHY
Lette rs
AUGUSTAS NOBLE to JOHN WILSON dated JULY 24, 1858..•.
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
AUGUSTAS NOBLE to JOHN WILSON dated AUGUST 26, 1858••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
AUGUSTAS NOBLE to JOHN WILSON dated SEPI'EMBER 15, 1858 •.
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
FREDERICK A HIHN to JOHN WILSON dated APRIL 19, 1859••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
FREDERICK A. HIHN to JOHN WILSON dated APRIL 26, 1859••.
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
FREDERICK A, HIHN to JOHN WILSON dated JUNE 3, 1859••••
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
CRAVEN P. HESTER to JOHN WILSON dated OCTOBER 13, 1859.
File CB 420, Bancroft Library
Stockton Develoµnent Center (Stockton Insane Asylum) to
Charles Keiffer concerining Martina Castro admittance
and release dated AUGUST 25, 1992
REVERAND THa-iAS A MARSHALL, S.J, Province Archivist, Los
Gatos•••••several letters concerning John Ingoldsbu,
John Llebaria and Archbishoo Joseoh s. Alemanv
REVERAND THa-iAS A MARSHALL, S,J. Province Archivist, Los
Gatos••••a preliminary sketch of John Ingoldsby
REVERAND TH0-1AS A MARSHALL, S.J. Province Archivist, Los
Gatos •••.a preliminary sketch of Father Juan Francisco
Llebaria
JOHN J. TREANOR, Assistant Chancellor Archdiocese of
Chicago to REVERAND THa-iAS A. MARSHALL, S,J. PROVINCE
ARCHIVIST, Los Gatos concerning John Ingoldsbv
KENNETH CASTRO to RONALD POWELL in answer to inquires •••
letter dated MAY 22, 1992
REBECCA LIVINGSTON, MILITARY REFERENCE BRANCH, Textual
Reference Division, National Archives, Washington, D.c.
20408 to RONALD POWELL concerning Louis Depeaux tenure
in u.s. Navy
LOUIS DEPEAUX to JOHN WILSON dated DECEMBER 14, 1854••••
copy of unsent letter courtesy of Leonard A. Greenberg,
P.O. Box 2355, Aptos, Ca. 95001
Books
201
202
203
204
205
206
348
A HOWLING WILDERNESS by Stephen Payne
ARCHAEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL SURVEY of the SOQUEL DEMOSTRATION STATE FOREST••••Santa Cruz County by Brian D.
Dillon Ph.D
CALIFORNIA CAVALIER•••.the Journal of Captain Thomas
Fallon by Thomas McEnery
CASTRO of CALIFORNIA., ••A Genealogy by Kenneth M. and
Doris Castro
GHOST TOWNS of the SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS by John
SANTA CRUZ••••the Early Years by Leon Rowland
v.
Younq
�Find Number
In Text
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
Bl BLIOGRAPHY
Books
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY••••Parade of the Past by Marqaret Koch
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PLACE NAMES by Donald Thomas Clark
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Volume 1
PATRICIAN, Spring 1992, BEFORE the SULPICIANS: Formation
of Priests in Early Diocesan California (1841-1885) by
the Reverand Harry Morrison
LANDS in CALIFORNIA by W.W. Robinson published by U.C.
Press 1948 (Chapter VIII).
SANTA CLARA COUNTY HARVEST of CHANGE by Stephen M, Payne
Describing of Martina Castro's homestead and adobe home
found in book in Los Altos Library••••••title and author
unknown
The BANCROFT WORKS Volume XIX (arrival of Louis Deoeaux)
HISTORY of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY by E.S. Harrison
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL COAST RAILWAYS by Rick Hamman
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY as recorded
by County Surveyor Thomas W. Wright•••• book of maps and
notes available at County Recorders Office (northeast
corner), Santa Cruz County offices
Interviews
231
CARRIE ELECTA LODGE Interviewed by several persons in
1965 .•••available at Special Collections Room, McHenry
Library, UCSC
232
Various Interviews conducted with the Reverand Thomas A.
Marshall, S.J. Province Archivist Los Gatos
233
Telephone Interviews with Father Harry Morrison, Santa
Maria Church, 20 Santa Maria Way, Orinda California
234
Telephone Interview with Donald M. Hayes, 1041 Arkell
Road, Walnut Creek, California••••descent of Jean Rich
ard Fourcade (Ricardo Juan)
Telephone Interviews with Edna Kimbro
Interviews and personal discussions with Bill Wulf
Interviews and personal discussions (over a period of
15 plus years) with Stanly Stevens, Mdienry Library Map
Room, ucsc .... Archivist and Frederick A. Hihn historian
now retired
235
236
237
Maps
251
EXHIBIT "A" by Thomas W. Wright dated 1863/1864 produced
for HIHN versus PECK et al Partitioning Suit, •••there
are various editions of this map, several, but surely
not all, have been reviewed and analyzed
252
PLAT of the SHOQUEL AUGMENTATION RANCHO as finally
confirmed to martina Castro, Surveyed under instructions
from the U.S. Surveyor General February and December
1858
253
PLAT•of the SHOQUEL RANCHO finally confirmed to Martina
Castro, Surveyed under the instructions from the U.S.
Surveyor General February and December 1858
349
�Find Number
In Text
254
Bl BLIOGRAPHY
Maps
EXHIBIT "B" by Thomas W, Wright dated 1863 produced for
PECK versus HIHN et al Partitioning Suit
255
Map of Santa Cruz County 1881 compiled by Thomas w.
Wright, M.V. Bennett and L.B. Healy, April 1880 to
Aoril 1881, Santa Cruz 1881, 64 sheets
256
Map of the boundry (line) between Santa Clara and Santa
Cruz Counties, jointly surveyed by order of the respect
ive Board of Supervisors by T.W. Wright County Surveyor,
Santa Cruz County and Charles Hermann, County Surveyor,
Santa Clara County, 1880
257
U.S. Geological Survey Map Laurel Quadrangle 7.5 Minute
Series (Topographic) 1955, photorevised 1968
258
U.S. Geological Survey Map Loma Prieta Quadrangle 7,5
Minute Series (Topographic) 1955, photorevised 1968
259
U.S. Geological Survey Map Santa Cruz Quadrangle
5 X 11 Minute (Topographic) 1955, photorevised 1968
and 1981
260
U.S. Geological Survey Map Soquel Quadrangle 7,5 Minute
Series (Topographic) 1954, photorevised 1968 and 1980
261
U.S. Geological Survey Map Watsonville West Quadrangle
7,5 Minute Series (Topographic) 1955, photorevised 1968
and 1980
262
U.S. Geological Survey Map Los Gatos Quadrangle 7,5
Minute Series (Topographis) 1953, photorevised 1968,
1973 and 1980
263
Map of EARLY TRAILS, Santa Cruz Mountains from "The
Burrell Letters" Edited by Reginald R, Stuart for the
California Historical Society Quarterly Vol, 29 (1950)
pages 39 through 59 (continued in Vol. 30),..,map is
page 51
264
U.S. Geological Survey Maps da ted 1914 (Capitola sheet)
and 1915-1916 Rancho Soquel and Shoquel Augmentation
sheets
265
Map of Franciscan Trail route from the Burrell Letters,
edited by Reginal R, Stuart, Westgate Press, Oakland
California 1950
Newspaper Articles
281
282
283
284
285
350
SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL,,,,date unknown.,,,article about
life and times of Carmel and Thomas Fallon by Margaret
Koch
SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL or SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS,,.,date
unknown••••published just before Carmel Fallon's death
in 1923••,.concerns the life and times of Carmel Fallon
"PORTOLA's SEARCH LAUNCHED BY A LIE" Cabrillo Times &
Green Sheet, dated Thursday, APRIL 1, 1976
"THE MAN WHO STARTED IT WAS A LITTLE BIT ODD" source
and publication date unknown
"RAFAEL CASTRO,,,DON OF APrOS" Cabrillo Times & Green
Sheet- Thursday. Julv 30, 1970
�Find Number
In Text
286
287
288
289
Bl BLI OGRAPHY
Newspaper Articles
Article published in the Santa Cruz Surf dated JUNE 18,
1894 titled "AT CAPITOLA" concerning 25th Anniversary
Speech made by Frederick A, Hihn concerning Miguel Lodge
and Henry Peck
Article published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel dated
JUNE 13, 1862 concerning discovery of coal mines along
Valencia Creek
Article titled MOTHER of CASTRO FAMILY was BURIED IN
SANTA CRUZ" by Leon Rowland, Santa Cruz Sentinel, date
unknown
FIRST PECKHAM HAD MANY JOBS,,,,Article in San Jose Mercury News••••our OF THE PAST,,••dated Monday, FEBRUARY
21, 1994 (Robert F, Peck.ham's life and times)
Miscellaneous
301
302
303
304
305
306
DESCENDANCY CHART of Frederick A, Hihn's Family dated
MAY 14, 1989 by unknown family member
THE LEGEND of MOUNTAIN CHARLEY by Barbara Bailey
Kelly••••available at Forbes Mill Museum, 75 Church
Street, Los Gatos
Collection of Research Material concerning Mountain
Charley available at Forbes Mill MuSeillll, 75 Church
Street, Los Gauos
SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAINS and CHARLES M cKIERNAN, A BIOGRAPHY 1851, JUNE compiled by Bill Wulf
Marriages at Monterey Mission •.•• Roll No, 913161 Carmel
by the Sea,,,,Ricardo Juan to Maria Luisa Cota
The Larken Papers, page 320 titled "HENRY DELANO FITCH
to JAM.ES McKINLEY" dated NOVEMBER 17, 1842
307
California History Quartely "THE FRENCH CONSULATE IN
CALIFORNIA, 1843-1856" page 271 dated OCTOBER 15, 1848
308
California History Quartely "A FRENCHMAN IN THE GOLD
RUSH," pages 363, 364 and 365 dated about 1853
309
310
311
COUNTY of SANTA CRUZ Marriage and Death records at
County Recorders Office 701 Ocean Street� Santa Cruz
Article from HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
the biographical sketches of early and prominent settlere
San Francisco, Alley, Bowen & Company.,,,,1881••••
UCSC Spec Coll F868,S25h67•••. article concerns the life
and times of ROBERT F, PECKHAM
JUDGE ROBERT F. PECKHAM,,,,An Eventual Life,,,,available at the Bancroft Library dated 1877
351
�BIBLIOGRAPHY
Action
Date
RANCHO SOQUEL
GRANT
RANCHO SOQUEL
GRANT (final award)
AUG1ENTATION GRANT
11/23/1833
AGREEMENT
TREATY of PEACE,
FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS,
and SETTLEMENT signed at GUADALUPE
HIDALGO
AGREEMENT
MARRIAGE
11/1/1846
2/2/1848
CALIFORNIA Admitted
to the Union
BRANCIFORTE COUNTY
Admitted
BRANCIFORTE COUNTY
changed to SANTA
CRUZ COUNTY
An ACT Concerning
Conveyances
8/2/1834
2/9/1844
2/16/1848
10/14/1849
2/5/1850
GOVERN- MARTINA CASTRO
Recorded
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 141
GOVERN- MARTINA CASTRO BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 141
GOVERN- MARTINA CASTRO BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 142
JOHN HAMES
LODGE
BOOK 1 PAGE 88
BIBLIOGRAPHY
�o. 145
MICHAEL LODGE
MARTINA CASTRO
LODGE and
LOUIS DEPEAUX
JOHN HAMES
BOOK 1 Page 89
MISSION SAN
JUAN BAUfISTA
2/18/1850
4/5/1850
4/16/1850
4/17/1850
ARTICLE of AGREEMENT
8/28/1850
8/29/1850
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
11/28/1850
DEED
11/29/1850
352
MEXICAN
MENT
MEXICAN
MENT
MEXICAN
MENT
MICHAEL
Grantee
SEE
APPENDIX'B'
An ACT Defining
the Rights of
Husband & Wife
DEED
Grantor
CALIFORNIA
STATE
LEGISLATURE
CALIFORNIA
STATE
LEGISLATURE
MARTINA CASTRO
DEPEAUX
NICANOR LAJEUNESSE
LUISA JUAN
CARMEL FALLON
JOSEFA CLEMENTS
ANTONIA LODGE
HELENA LODGE
MIGUEL LODGE
GUADALUPE LODGE
MARTINA CASTRO NICANOR LAJEUNESSE
DEPEAUX
LUISA JUAN
CARMEL FALLON
JOSEFA CLAMENTS
ANTONIA LODGE
HELENA LODGE
MIGUEL LODGE
GUADALUPE LODGE
Acknowledged by Acknowledgment
Judge T,R. PER of 8/29/1850
DEED
LEE
MARTINA CASTRO TH01AS and CARand LOUIS DEP- MEL FALLON
EAUX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 143 SEE
APPENDIX'8"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 144 see
APPENDIX'8'
Original lost,
copy found at
Special Collections Room,
UCSC
SEE
APPENDIX'S'
BOOK 1 PAGES
38, 39 and 40
SEE
APPENDI X 'B'
BOOK 1 PAGE 68
SEE
APPENDIX 'B'
BOOK 1 PAGE 69
�Action
LEASE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Date. G rantor Grantee
2/5/1852
DEED
3/30/1852
SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
LAW ESTABLISHED
SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
No, 228 Purchased
SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
No, 90 Purchased
5/8/1852
6/28/1852
8/3/1852
SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
No, 37 Purchased
DEED
9/10/1852
DEED
9/10/1852
QUIT CLAIM DEED
9/19/1852
MARTINA CASTRO
and LOUIS DEPEAUX
JOSEFA & LAMBERT CLEMENTS
STATE of CALIFORNIA
STATE of CALIFORNIA
STATE of CALIFORNIA
GERVIS HAMMOND
Reco�cd
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 141
PRUITT SINCLAIR BOOK 1 PAGE
& JONES HOY
307
APPLICANTS
PETER TRACY
GERVIS HAMMOND
TH<l-1AS W.
WRIGHT
MONTGOMERY B,
S HACKLEFORD
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No. 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 217
BOOK 1 PAGE
410
BOOK 1 PAGE
412
BOOK l PAGES
423 and 424
CRAVEN P.
HESTER
MONTG<l-1ERY B.
SHACKLEFORD
LUISA & RICARDO
JUAN
TH<l-1AS W.
WRIGHT
PETER TRACY
MONTG<l-1ERY B.
SHACKLEFORD
MARTINA CASTRO DURRELL GREGORY and
DEPEAUX
JOHN WILSON
STATE of CALIF- PETER TRACY
ORNIA
BIBLIGRAPHY
No, 217
1/27/1852
STATE of CALIF- THCMAS FALLON
ORNIA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No. 217
12/20/1852
STATE of CALIF- PETER TRACY
ORNIA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 217
12/20/1852
STATE of CALIF- THCT-IAS FALLON
ORNIA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No. 217
2/4/1853
PETER TRACY &
THCMAS W.
WRIGHT
ANTONIA & HENRY MONTGOMERY B.
SHACKLEFORD
PECK
STATE of CALIF- CRAVEN P.
HESTER
ORNIA
BOOK 2 PAGE 8
8/3/1852
AGREEMENT
10/28/1852
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No, 327 and
No, 329 Purchased
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No. 353, 354
and 108 Purchased
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No, 228, 327
and 329 Filed
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No. 353, 354
and 108 Filed
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No, 353, 354
and 108 Sold
DEED
11/19/1852
2/13/1853
SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
No, 37 Filed
4/28/1853
AGREEMENT
6/16/1853
STATE of CALIFORNIA
LUISA & RICARDO
JUAN
MONTGO-!ERY B.
SHACKLEFORD
NICANOR & FRANCISCO LAJEUNESSE
THCMAS FALLON
PETER TRACY &
THCMAS W.
WRIGHT
JOEL BATES
WILSON K.
HERRICK
GEORGE K.
r-T,UYAS
AGREEMENTS
BOOK No, lSEE
APPENDIX ·a-
BOOK 2 PAGE 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 217
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 106 & 108
353
�Action
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Date Grantor
Grantee
l!EED
7/25/1853
JONES HOY
MORTGAGE DEED
7/25/1853
DEED
JOSEPH L.
MAJORS
8/1/1853
DEED
10/31/1853
DEED
12/30/1853
DEED
1/21/1854
DEED
1/31/1854
DEED
CARMEL & THCNAS
FALLON
MARTINA CASTRO
and LOUIS
DEPEAUX
LUISA & RICARDO
JUAN
NICANOR and
FRANCISCO LAJEUNESSE
NICANOR and
FRANCISCO LAJEUNESSE
3/7/1854
JOSEPH L.
MAJORS
JONES HOY
JOSHUA PARRISH
JANE SMITH
Recorded
BOOK 2 PAGE
180
BOOK 2 PAGE
182
BOOK 2 PAGE
187
BOOK 2 PAGE
274
MONTGa-iERY B.
SHACKLEFORD
DR. JOHN P.P.
VANDENBERG
BOOK 2 PAGE
337
DR. JOHN P,P,
VANDENBERG
BOOK 2 -PAGE
347
MARTINA CASTRO
and LOUIS DEPEAUX
HENRY CAMBUSTAN
BOOK 4 PAGE
PETER TRACY
BOOK 2 PAGE
540
w.
BOOK 5 PAGE 87
728
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS Sale of 1/2
of No. 353, 354
and 108
11/30/1854
THOMAS
WRIGHT
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No, 353 and
354 Sale
SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
No, 90 Sale
11/30/1854
PETER TRACY
THa-iAS FALLON
BOOK 2 PAGE
540
12/11/1854
MONTGCMERY B.
SHACKLEFORD
PETER TRACY
BOOK 4 PAGE
146
DEED
1/22/1855
MARTINA CASTRO
and LOUIS DEPEAUX
REVERAND JOHN
INGOLDSBY
FATHER JOHN
LLEBARIA
BOOK 3 PAGES
4 and 5
HENRY F. PARSONS
BOOK 3 PAGE 11
DEED
1/22/1855
MARTINA CASTRO
and LOUIS DEPEAUX
DEED
1/29/1855
MONTGa-!ERY B.
SHACKLEFORD
SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
No, 10B Sale of
partial interest
ADDITION TO AGREE�ENT of 10/28/1852
2/1/1855
PETER TRACY
DEED
35�
5/21/1855
8/11/1855
SEE
APPENDIX
·e-
BOOK 3 PAGES
FATHER JOHN
5 and 6
LLEBARIA &
SEE
ARCHBISHOP JOSEPH ALEMANY
APPENDIX ·eBOOK 5 PAGE 69
GEORGE KIRBY
ARCHBISHOP JOS- DURRELL s.
GREGORY and
EPH ALEMANY
JOHN WILSON
LUISA & RICARDO DURRELL s.
GREGORY
JUAN
JOSEFA & LAMBERT CLEMENTS
GUADALUPE &
JOSEPH AVERON
JOSEPH L. MAJORS
PRUITT SINCLAIR
AGREEMENT BOOK
SEE
NO, 1
APPENDIX.Ir
BOOK 3 PAGE
121
�Action
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Date· Grantor
Grantee
!SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No, 353 and
354 Sale
9/10/1855
THCMAS FALLON
DEED
9/10/1855
FATHER JOHN
REVERAND JOHN
LLEBARIA and
INGOLDSBY
ARCHBISHOP JOSEPH ALEMANY
HENRY W. PECK
REVERAND JOHN
INGOLDSBY
DEED
5/3/1856
REVERAND JOHN
INGOLDSBY
DEED
5/3/1856
DEED
5/3/1856
DEED
5/3/1856
JOHN WILSON
JAMES SCARBOROUGH
REVERAND JOHN
INGOLDSBY
DEED
5/3/1856
DEED
5/3/1856
DEED
5/5/1856
DEED
5/5/1856
DEED
BENJAMIN P.
GREEN
5/5/1856
BENJAMIN P,
GREEN
DEED
5/13/1856
SHERIFF'S DEED
BENJAMIN P.
GREEN
5/29/1856
PRUITT SINCLAIR FREDERICK A.
HIHN
DEED
9/5/1856
DEED
9/29/1856
DR, JOHN P. P.
VANDENBERG
WILLIAM OTIS
ANDREWS
INDEMNIFICATION
BOND
1/24/1856
AGREEMENT
SCHOOL LAND WARRANT
No, 37 Floated
9/2/1857
10/20/1857
JOHN WILSON
JAMES SCARBOROUGH
REVERAND JOHN
INGOLDSBY
JOHN WILSON
JAMES SCARBOROUGH
BENJAMIN P.
GREEN
BOOK 3 PAGE
115
BOOK 3 PAGES
110 and 111
SEE
APPENDIX 'B'
BOOK 1 PAGES
FATHER JOHN
28 and 29
LLEBARIA
ARCHBISHOP JOS SEE
EPH ALEMANY
APPENDIX 'B'
JOHN WILSON
JAMES SCARBOR OUGH
AUGUSTAS NOBLE BOOK 3 PAGES
5il5 and 516
9/11/1855
AGREEMENT
Recorded
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
BOOK 3 PAGE
513
WILLIAM OTIS
ANDREWS
WILLIAM OTIS
ANDREWS
BOOK 5
39 and
BOOK 5
40 and
BENJAMIN P.
GREEN
BENJAMIN P,
GREEN
BOOK 3 PAGES
559 and 560
ADOLPHE F.
BRANDA
MARY E.J.
SLADE
CHARLES PLUM
HENRY LAWRENCE
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
ADOLPHE F.
BRANDA
PAGES
40
PAGES
41
BOOK 3 PAGE
563
BOOK 3 PAGES
507, 508 and
509
BOOK 5 PAGES
136 and 137
Not Recorded
in Santa Cruz
County
BOOK 5 PAGE
137
BOOK 3 PAGE
279
BOOK 4 PAGE
549
BOOK 3 PAGES
505 and 506
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NO, 106
ARCHBISHOP JOS - BOOK 3 PAGE
REVERAND JOHN
587 APPENDI��
EPH ALEMANY
INGOLDSBY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATE of CALIF- CRAVEN P.
No. 217
ORNIA
HESTER
HENRY W. PECK
F,H. WILSON
PETER TRACY
355
�Action
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Date Grantor Grantee
DEED of SALE
1/1/1858
DEED
1/8/1858
DEED
2/5/1858
CONFORMATION of
SALE
2/13/1858
DEED
5/24/1858
DJSED
5/26/1858
DEED
5/26/1858
Final DEED of SALE
6/1/1858
DEED
6/9/1858
DEED
BENJAMIN P.
GREEN
6/19/1858
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
AGREEMENT
7/3/1858
DEED
8/6/1858
DEED
8/7/1858
JOSEPH L.
MAJORS
JOSEPH L.
MAJORS
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
DEED
9/28/1858
SHERIFF 's DEED
11/1/1858
SHERIFF'S DEED
l/28/1859
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No. 228, 327,
329 and 108 Floated
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS No. 353 and
354
DEED
DEED
4/21/1859
356
LUISA & RI CARDO
JUAN
HELENA & JOSE
LITTLEJOHN
MARTINA CASTRO
and LOUIS
DEPEAUX
PROBATE COURT
in San Francisco-ADOLPHE
F. BRANDA
JAMES SCARBOROUGH
CYRUS COE
JOSEPH L.
MAJORS
RICARDO JUAN
CRAVEN P.
HESTER
JOSEPH L.
MAJORS
BENJAMIN F.
PORTER
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
HENRY CAMBUSTAN
CYRUS COE
Recorded
BOOK 4 PAGE
378
BOOK 3 PAGE
671
Deed of 3/7/54
BOOK 4 PAGE
728 Notarized
in San Francisco (Louis
Depeaux)
BOOK 4 PAGE
241
BOOK
781
THCMAS COURTIS BOOK
138
CHARLES H.
BOOK
784
WILLSON
BOOK
BENJAMIN F.
PORTER
788
WILLIAM IRELAND BOOK
305
ROGER G. HINCKLEY
JOHN L. SHELBY
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
CRAVEN P.
HESTER
BENJAMIN FARLEY
3 PAGE
5 PAGE
3 PAGE
3 PAGE
4 PAGE
BOOK 4 PAGE 13
BOOK 4 PAGE 39
BOOK 4 PAGE
328
BOOK 4 PAGE 38
2/12/1859
FREDERICK A.
ADOLPHE F.
HIHN
BRANDA
STATE of CALIF- PETER TRACY
ORNIA
BOOK 4 PAGE
129
BOOK 4 PAGE
329 (Sherri££
deed for deed
of 5/26/1858)
BOOK 4 PAGE
429
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 217
2/18/1859
STATE of CALIF- HENRY W. PECK
ORNIA
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No, 217
4/13/1859
ANTONIA & HENRY LYMAN BURRELL
PECK
GEORGE K.
WILLIAM OTIS
PORTER
ANDREWS
BOOK 4 PAGE
340
BOOK 4 PAGE
394
CHARLES H.
WILLSON
�Action
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dat e G rantor Grantee
DEED
4/29/1859
TAX COLLECTORS
DEED
PROBATE COURT DEED
6/28/1859
7/18/1859
DEED
8/13/1859
DEED
8/17/1859
DEED
8/26/1859
DEl5D
8/29/1859
DEED
9/14/1859
SHERlFF's DEED
9/29/1859
DEED for land next
to Augmentation
10/19/1859
DEED
10/19/1859
AGREEMENT
11/14/1859
RELEASE OF LEASE
AGREEMENT
DJE:ED
11/21/1859
11/21/1859
DEED
12/10/1859
DEED
1/20/1860
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS 5/1/1860
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS 5/5/1860
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
5/5/1860
SCHOOL LAND WARRANTS
5/5/1860
DEED
DEED
6/4/1860
7/24/1860
LUISA and RICARDO JUAN
ADOLPHE F.
BRANDA
ADOLPHE F.
BRANDA
DURRELL s.
GREGORY
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
FREDERICK w.
MACONDRAY
BENJAMIN F.
PORTER
MIGUEL LODGE
RICARDO JUAN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
MIGUEL LODGE
HENRY
CAMBUSTAN
FREDERICK w.
MACONDRAY
HENRY W. PECK
ANTONIA and
WESLEY BURNETT
HENRY PECK
& COMPANY
PRUITT SINCLAIR FREDERICK A.
HIHN
WESLEY BURNETT FRANCIS BRADY
& COMPANY
BENJAMIN NICHOLS
WESLEY BURNETT FRANCIS BRADY
& CCX-1PANY
BENJAMIN NICHOLS
ROGER HINCKLEY RICHARD SAVAGE
JOHN SHELBY
HENRY PECK
JOEL BATES
ANTONIA and
HENRY PECK
ROGER HINCKI.EY
JOHN SHELBY
BENJAMIN F.
PORTER
1/4 of PETER
TRACY' s ESTATE
1/4 of PETER
TRACY'S ESTATE
JOEL BATES
RICHARD SAVAGE
JAMES TAYLOR
JOEL BATES
AUGUSTAS NOBLE
FRANCIS BRADY
BENJAMIN NICHOLS
JOEL BATES
1/4 of PETER
TRACY'S ESTATE JOHN P. STEARNS
WILLIAM IRELAND AUGUSTAS NOBLE
LUISA & RICARDO FREDERICK A,
HIHN
JUAN
1/4 of PETER
TRACY'S ESTATE
Recorded
BOOK 4 PAGE
380
BOOK 4 PAGE
429
BOOK 4 PAGE
467
BOOK 4 PAGE
556
BOOK
524
BOOK
513
BOOK
500
BOOK
4 PAGE
4 PAGE
4 PAGE
5 PAGE 88
BOOK 4 PAGE
502
BOOK 4 PAGE
547
BOOK 4 PAGE
547
AGREEMENT BOOK
No, 1 PAGE 14
MORTGAGE BOOK
No. l PAGE 21
BOOK 4 PAGE
565
BOOK 4 PAGE
582
BOOK 4 PAGE
604
BOOK 4 PAGE
745
BOOK 5 PAGE
283
BOOK 4 PAGE
780
BOOK 4 PAGE
782
BOOK 5 PAGE 3
BOOK 5 PAGE 20
357
�Action
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dat e G rantor Grantee
DEED
7/24/1860
DBED
7/23/1860
DEED
7/24/1860
DEED
7/24/1860
,
DEED
9/7/1860
DEED
10/2/1860
DEED
10/2/1860
DID.ED
10/17/1860
ADDITION to AGREEIMENT of 10/28/52
11/8/1860
DEED
12/16/1860
CONFIRMATION OF
2/14/1861
!EARLIER SALE
HELENA & JOSE
LITTLEJOHN
NICANOR LAJEUNESSE
FRANCISCO
LAJEUNESSE
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
HENRY W. PECK
ARCHBISHOP JOS- THCMAS COURTIS
EPH ALEMANY
ANTONIA & HENRY LYMAN BURRELL
PECK
ANTONIA & HENRY JOEL BATES
PECK
Recorded
BOOK 5 PAGE 22
BOOK 5 PAGE 24
BOOK 5 PAGE 24
BOOK 5 PAGE 26
BOOK 5 PAGES
138 and 139
BOOK 5 PAGE
270
BOOK 5 PAGE 96
LUISA & RICARDO CASIMERO and
BOOK 5 PAGES
JUAN
DARIO AMAYO
100 and 101
ARCHBISHOP JOS- DURELL S.
EPH ALEMANY
GREGORY
JOHN WILSON
JONES HOY
GEORGE W. EVANS BOOK 5 PAGE
178
1/4 of PETER
TRACY'S ESTATE JOHN P. STEARNS BOOK 5 PAGE
204
IDHD
2/23/1861
JOHN P. STEARNS CHRISTIAN
1/4 of PETER
MILLER
TRACY' s ESTATE
and JOEL BATES
SA\-;t,!lLL
BOOK 5 PAGE
209
!DEED
2/28/1861
THCMAS COURT IS
BOOK 5 PAGE
293
DEED
FATHER JOHN
LLEBA.RIA
4/25/1861
DEED
6/12/1861
SHERIFF'S DEED
8/26/1861
CHARLES H.
WILLSON
LUISA & RICARDO
JUAN
RICHARD SAVAGE
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
CASIMERO &
DARIO AMAYO
BENJAMIN
CAHOON
BOOK 5 PAGE
265
BOOK 5 PAGE
289
BOOK 5 PAGE
343
DE:ED
3/5/1862
BENJAMIN
FARLEY
CRAVEN P.
HESTER
AGRLEMENT
4/21/1862
HENRY W. PECK
DEED
4/21/1862
DEED
ANTONIA & HENRY FREDERICK A,
PECK
HIHN
4/22/1863
DEED
4/29/1863
DEED
5/29/1863
GEORGE W. EVANS JOHN DAUNENBISS
BENJAMIN
BENJAMIN CAHOON NICHOLS
CAHOON
FRANCIS BRADY
DEED
12/1/1863
JOHN DAUBEN-?BISS
355
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
BENJAMIN
CAHOON
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
BOOK 5 PAGE
507
B IBLIOGRAPHY
No, 123
BOOK 5 PAGESEE
561 APPENDIX'S-
BOOK 6 PAGE
100
BOOK 6 PAGE
108
BOOK 6 PAGE
203
BOOK 6 PAGE
404
�Action
1/1.GREEMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dat e Grantor Grantee
2/13/1864
CASIMERO AM.AYO
DEED
2/22/1864
DARIO AMAYO
DEED
8/8/1864
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
QUIT CLAIM DEED
8/9/1864
QUIT CLAIM DEED
8/9/1864
QUIT CLAIM DEED
8/10/1864
QUIT CLAIM DEED
8/10/1864
DEED
9/9/1864
DEED
9/9/1864
DEED
9/10/1864
DEED
9/10/1864
DEED
9/13/1864
DE.ED
10/28/1864
AGREEMENT
11/3/1864
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
JOHN DAUBENBISS
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
JOHN DAUBEN BISS
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
MRS. L.S. MACONDRAY
HELENA & JOSE
LITTLEJOHN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
DEED
12/6/1864
DEED
12/30/1864
DEED
6/16/1865
AGREEMENT
12 /1865
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
ROGER HINCKLEY
JOHN SHELBY
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
JOHN DAU BENBISS
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
STEPHEN and
JOSEPH CHASE
JOHN DAU BENBISS
CARMEL FALLON
Recorded
BOOK 7 PAGE
245
BOOK 6 PAGE
500
BOOK 6 PAGE
749
BOOK
751
BOOK
752
BOOK
753
BOOK
755
BOOK
751
BOOK
752
BOOK
753
BOOK
755
BOOK
787
BOOK
6 PAGE
6 PAGE
6 PAGE
6 PAGE
6 PAGE
6 PAGE
6 PAGE
6 PAGE
6 PAGE
7 PAGE 63
FREDERICK A,
HIHN
GEORGE H. KIRBY BlBLIOGRAPHY
No, 108
BOOK 7 PAGE
JAMES TAYLOR
FREDERICK A.
136
HIHN
GEORGE H. KIRBY BOOK 7 PAGE
FREDERICK A.
162
HIHN
BENJAMIN CAHOON LUCY CAHOON
BOOK 7 P AGE
662
STEPHEN GROVER
GUADALUPE and
JOSEPH AVERON
JAMES GROVER
DWIGHT GROVER
DEED
12/8/1865
DEED
4/20/1866
LOUIS P. BATES JAMES GROVER
REBECCA BATES
ABBIE BATES
AURA R. BATES
MARTHA B. PACKER
CHARLES w.
PACKER
RICHARD E. HYDE THa-!AS FALLON
SHERIFF •s DEED
5/19/1866
LUISA JUAN
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
BOOK 8 PAGE 28
BOOK 8 PAGE
245
BOOK 8 PAGE
302
359
�Action
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Date G rantor Grantee
THCMAS FALLON
Recorded
AGREEMENTS
BOOK No, 1
PAGE 178
AGREEMENT
8/22/1866
AGREEMENT
8/22/1866
DEED
4/10/1867
HENRY W. PECK
DEED
4/10/1867
DEED
4/18/1867
AGREEMENT
4/18/1867
ANTONIA and
HENRY W. PECK
BENJAMIN F,
BAYLEY
BENJAMIN F.
BAYLEY
AGREEMENT
2/14/1872
FREDERICK A,
HIHN
JAMES TAYLOR
DEED
2/14/1872
FREDERICK A.
HIHN
JAMES TAYLOR
DEED
11/28/1877
AGREEMENT
6/16/1881
ROGER HINCKLEY
JOHN SHELBY
CARMEL FALLON
BOOK 24 PAGE
FREDERICK A,
588
HIHN
JOHN T. PORTER AGREEMENTS
BOOK No, 2
ALVIN SANBORN
PAGE 361
JOHN B. BROWN
WILLIAM P,
DOUGHERTY
DEED
1/14/1884
THa-iAS FALLON
DISED
2/21/1884
TIMOTHY
HOPKINS
DEED
5/26/1886
A.C. BASSETT
TIMOTHY
HOPKINS
MARY FRANCIS
SHERWOOD HOPKINS
MARY FRANCIS
SHERWOOD HOPKINS
360
BENJAMIN F.
PORTER
GEORGE K.
PORTER
BENJAMIN F.
PORTER
THa-iAS FALLON
BENJAMIN F.
BAYLEY
BENJAMIN F.
BAYLEY
ANTONIA PECK
ANTONIA PECK
AGREEMENTS
BOOK No. 1
PAGE 181
BOOK 9 PAGE
339
BOOK 9 PAGE
341
BOOK 9 PAGE
352
AGREEMENTS
BOOK No, 1
PAGE 209
AGREEMENTS
BOOK No, 15
PAGE 62
BOOK 19 PAGE
537
BOOK 40 PAGE
169
BOOK 40 PAGE
374
BOOK 49 PAGE
99
�INDEX of
Person a I I t I es
A
Acension, Fray Antonio de la, XIX
Alemany, Joseph Sadoc (Archbishop)
46, 69, 70, 80, 84, 88, 89, 107,
127, 129, 130, 144, 153, 160, 180,
181, 187, 191, 195, 196, 197, 201,
226, 232, 233, 239, 240, 254, 288,
317, 318 and APPENDIX H
Alvarado (Governor), 6
Alvisco, Francisco, 22, 23, 31, 56,
57, 82, 85, 94-99 and APPENDIX H
Amador, Pedro Antonio, 6, 26
Amador y Noriega, Maria Antonia, 3,
5, 6
Amaya brothers..• see Amaya, Casimero
and Dario, Amaya and APPENDIX H
Amaya, Casimero, 190, 191, 195, 201,
219, 222, 226, 249, 254, 261, 275,
277-280, 299 and APPENDIX H
Amaya, Dario, 190, 191, 195, 201,
219, 222, 226, 249, 254, 261,
277-280, 299 and APPENDIX H
Amezquita, Ventura, 4
Andrews, William Otis, 103, 104, 112,
148, 156, 157, 171-173, 175, 179,
180, 181, 193, 194, 196, 206-208,
214, 217, 221, 222, 226, 256, 268
and APPENDIX H
Anthony, Elihu, 136, 244
Anthony, William, 293
Anza Expedition, 6
Anza, Juan Bautista de, XXII, XXIII,
3, 4, 6
Arcan, John B., 293
Archer, L., 266
Atienza, Julio de, 3
Averon, Guadalupe (born Maria Guad
alupe Lodge.,.married Joseph Averon)
11, 21, 37, 45, 48, 61, 62, 70, 72,
75, 76, 85-87, 106, 110, 120, 171174, 180, 181, 197, 212, 213, 217,
219, 233-235, 250, 253, 254, 256,
261, 267-269, 271, 275-277, 279,
281, 293, 295, 310, 312, 313, 341,
342, 343 and SUPPLEMENT
Averon, Joseph, 11, 61, 70, 72, 75,
85-87, 106, 157, 171-173, 180, 181,
212, 217, 226, 233, 234, 250, 253,
256, 268, 293, 295, 313, 341, 342,
343 and SUPPLEMENT
Avila, Jose Joaquin de, 4
187-189, 194, 197, 198, 220, 226,
231, 234, 237-241, 244, 249-254,
261, 265, 275, 277-279, 286, 289,
293, 296, 297, 299, 319, 335-337
Bates, Louis P., 296
Bates, Rebecca, 296
Bayley, Benjamin F., 300-302, 315, 337
Beans place, 146
Belden (Judge), 302
Bennett, James Fitz John (J,F.J.), 136,
239, 240
Bernal family, 4
Bernal, Guadalupe, 337
Berryessa, Maria Gabriela, 4
Berryessa family, 10
Blackburn, William, 23, 31, 94, 97, 98
Blain, A.w., 243
Blanding, William (U.S. District Attor
ney), 124
Beckius, Godfrey M., 265, 275-279, 285,
289, 293, 318
Bolcoff, Candida (born Candida Castro)
70
Bolcoff, Jose Antonio, 5, 7, 18, 63,
70, 141, 143, 146
Boledo, Joaquin, 180, 181, 195, 197,
226
Borica, Diego de (Governor) 26, 113
Boutilliere de Castro, Martina, XXII,
3 4
Bra�y, Francis R., 140, 165, 177,
180-184, 188, 194, 198, 222, 223,
226, 231, 233, 237-241, 244, 249252, 254, 261, 264, 265, 275, 277282, 290, 293, 294, 297, 299, 319
and APPENDIX H
Branda, Adolphe F,, 104, 112, 153, 162 1
163, 176, 196, 207-209, 216, 222,
224, 225 and APPENDIX H
Briones, Rosalia (Rosario), 6, 8
Brown, John B,, 302, 303
Buchanan, James (President), 176
Buelna, Joaquin (Jose), 8, 321
Burnett, Wesley, 164, 238, 239 and
APPENDIX H.,.Wesley Burnett & Co.
Burnett, William P,, 164, 238, 239
and APPENDIX H, ••Wesley Burnett & Co.
Burrell, James B., 244
Burrell, Lyman John, 56, 113, 156, 180,
181, 188-190, 194, 201, 205, 220,226,
227, 233, 234, 245, 250, 251, 254,
261-263, 275, 277-279, 299, 335,
336, 337 and APPENDIX H
Bache, Alexander D,, 28
Baldwin (Supreme Court Justice), 157
Bartlett, Samuel A,, 136
Bassett, Algernon c. , 304
Bates, Abbie, 296
Bates, Aura R ,, 296
Bates, Joel, 55, 87, 106, 122, 123,
140, 158, 166, 174, 177, 180-184,
Cabrillo, Juan Rodriquez, XIX, XX
Cahoon, Benjamin, 197, 223, 231, 264,
265, 290, 294 and APPENDIX H
Cahoon, Edwin, 265
Cahoon, Lucy Ann, 265, 294
Cambustan, Enrique (Henry), 24, 61, 83,
84, 135, 163, 164, 180, 181, 194, 195
B
C
361
�INDEX of
Personal1t1es
Cambustan, Enrique (Henry) continued
APPENDIX H
Carlison (head surveyor), 149
Carson, Johnny, 330
Carson, Kit, 29
Casalegno family, 265
Castilla Margarita, 341, 343
Castro, Ana Josefa, 3, 4
Castro, Maria Antonia Dionisia, 6
Castro, Maria Antonia Jacinta, 7
Castro, Maria de los Angeles••• married
Joseph Ladd Majors, 5, 7
Castro, Candida•••married Jose Antonio
Bolcoff, 5, 7, 18
Castro, Carlos Antonio, 4
Castro, Maria Encarnacion, 4
Castro, Francisco, 7
Castro, Francisco Maria, 4
Castro, Guadalupe, Jose de, 5, 7, 8,
81, 82, 327
Castro, Ignacio Clemente, 4
Castro, Maria Isabel, 4
Castro, Joaquin Ysidro, XXII, 3, 4
Castro, Jose Ignacio, 7, 8
Castro, Jose Joaquin (Martina's brother)
5, 8, 30, 35, 311, 312
Castro, Jose Joaquin (Martina's father)
xv, 3-8, 16, 18, 28, 36, 60, 311
Castro, Jose Mariano, 4
Castro, Jose Rafael Antonio, 6
Castro, Jose Ygnacio, 6
Castro, Juan, 8
Castro, Juan Bautista, 8
Castro, Juan Jose, 5, 7, 18, 81-83, 119,
149
Castro, Kenneth M., 4, 12, 332
Castro, Maria del Carmen Martina, 4
Castro, Martina (born Maria Martina Cas-·
tro y Amador•••married Simon Cota•••
Michael Lodge•.•Louis Depeaux), XV,
XVII, XX, 3-12, 15-40, 54, 69-76,
79-81, 83, 84, 87, 89, 90, 93-99,
103, 105-107, 109, 110, 115, 119-122,
124, 127, 128, 130, 133, 135, 143,
144, 153, 154, 157, 158, 163, 164,
173, 174, 176, 187, 191, 195-197,
200, 201, 205, 206, 209, 211, 232,
235-238, 244, 249, 266, 297, 299,
308-317, 319, 324, 325, 329, 331336, 339, 341, 342
Castro, Rafael (born Jose Rafael de
jeseus), XV, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 21,
38, 83, 96, 134, 140, 141, 142, 143,
149, 158, 173, 324, 327
Castro, Maria Rafaela Inocenia, 6
Castro, Maria Ygnacio Angela de Fuegencial, 8
Castro, Ricardo, 8
Cermeno, Sebastian Rodriquez, XX
Charles III (King), XX
Chase, Joseph, 266, 283
Chase, Stephen, 266, 283
Cinquantin, 325
Clarke, David, 179
362
Clark, Donald Thomas, 26, 52, 315
Clements, Albert, 332
Clements, Annie, 332
Clements, Daniel, 332
Clements, Edward, 332
Clements, Ellen, 332
Clements, Josefa (born Maria Josefa
Lodge,,.married Lambert Blair Clem
ents}, 6, 11, 12, 21, 35, 45, 47,
75, 85, 86, 199, 210, 212, 226, 250,
324, 332, 333, 342 and SUPPLEMENT
Clements, Lambert Blair, 11, 34-36,
40, 45, 47, 85, 86, 110, 111, 123,
191, 192, 210, 212, 226, 235, 236,
239-242, 244, 250, 324, 330, 332,
333 and SUPPLEMENT
Clements, Leon, 332
Clements, Louisa, 332
Clements, Robert, 332
Coe, Cyrus, 143, 180, 181, 191, 195,
196, 197, 218, 226, 232, 233, 253,
254, 257, 284, 288, 294, 295, 296
and APPENDIX H
·Cohen, A.H., 308, 338
Columbus, Christopher, XIX
Cota, Jose Maria (see Cota, Simon)
Cota, Manual Antonio, 10
Cota, Maria de la Soledad, 6, 10
Cota, Maria del Carmen Juana Josefa
Adelayada (see Fallon, Carmel)
Cota, Maria Luisa (see Juan Luisa)
Cota, Martina, (see Castro, Martina)
Cota, Martina Castro (see Castro,
Martina)
Cota, Nicanor (see Lajeunesse, Nic
anor)
Cota y Romero, Simon (see Cota, Simon)
Cota, Simon, 5, 8-10, 12, 311, 321,
324, 329, 332, 334, 339, 341, 342
Courtis, Irene, 135, 198
Courtis, Thomas, 135, 144, 167, 171,
173, 175, 176, 179, 180, 181, 187,
188, 190, 191, 195-198, 200, 2011,
217, 218, 226, 227, 232-236, 249,
253, 254, 257, 268, 284, 288, 294296, 299, 300, 319, and APPENDIX. H
Crosby, Nathaniel, Jr,, 332
D
Daubenbiss, John, 29, 136, 236, 244,
254, 263, 266, 277, 279, 283, 299,
and APPENDIX. H
DeCordova, Fred, 330
Delany, Charles, 70
De Massey, 325, 326
Depeaux, Louis, 11, 30, 33, 35-38, 40,
43-45, 47, 53, 56-58, 60, 61, 65,
69-72, 80, 84, 105-111, 116, 120,
121, 125-128, 130, 135, 153-155,
163, 164, 195, 196, 232, 233, 235,
236, 238, 254, 309�313, 334, 342 and
APPENDIX. H
Depeaux, Martina (see Castro, Martina)
�INDEX of
Personal1t1es
Dcpeaux, Martina Castro (see Castro,
Martina)
Dillon, Brian D., 316, 317
Doug herty, William P., 302, 303
Dunnan, Samuel, 191, 242, 244, 265
Dye, Job, 321
E
Elsmore, B.G., 295
Evans, Georg e w. , 114, 191, 193, 210,
211, 221, 224, 226, 233, 254, 263,
266, 275, 277, 278, 283 and APPENDIX
H
F
Fag es, Pedro, XXII, 3
Fallon, Alfred, 331
Fallon, Annie, 330, 331
Fallon, Carmel (born Maria del Carmen
Juana Josefa AQelayada Cota,,.used
stepfather• s sire name [Carmel]
Lodg e •••married Thomas Fallon)
9, 10, 12, 21, 29, 31, 45, 56, 6062, 87, 94, 97, 106, 179, 180, 194,
195, 213, 217, 219, 234, 250, 253,
254, 256, 257, 261, 268, 275-277,
279, 285, 293, 294, 299, 302, 303,
304, 310, 324, 329-334, 339, 341,
342 and SUPPLEMENT
Fallon, Carmen, 171, 173, 175, 182
Fallon, Thomas, 9, 12, 31-37, 40, 45,
47, 48, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60-62, 74,
79, 86, 87, 94-97, 106, 109-111, 115,
120, 121, 156, 171, 173-175, 179,
180, 182, 194, 198, 199, 213, 217,
226, 234-237, 250, 251, 253, 256,
257, 268, 285, 293, 296, 298, 302304, 310, 317, 324-326, 329-334
and SUPPLEMENT
Furley, Benjamin, 150, 180, 181, 192,
196, 221, 226, 232, 234, 235, 256,
261, 262, 275-277, 279, 280, 282,
286-288, 294, 299 and APPENDIX H
Farnham, Luther, 275, 279, 299
Feliz, Juan Jose, 6
Ferinand (King ), XIX
Fig ueroa, Jose (Governor), XV, 6, 12,
16-18, 85, 329
Fisher, Georg e, 79
Fleisig , Isaac, 311
Fourcade, Albert, 324, 325, 328
Fourcade, Charlotte, 324
Fourcade, Eliza, 324
Fourcade, Jean Richard (see Juan Ricardo)
Fourcade, Jose, 324
Fourcade, Josephine, 324
Fourcade, Luisa (see Juan, Luisa)
Fourcade, Maria Luisa (see Juan, Luisa)
Fourcade, Maria Luisa Juan (see Juan,
Luisa)
Fourcade, Mig uel, 324
Fourcade, Rosewall, 324
Fremont, John (Captain), 29, 329
G
Galvez, Jose de, XX, XXI
Gerber, John, 241
Girein, Francisco, 64
Girky, Star, 8
Gluyas, Georg e K,, 55, 122, 123
Gonzales, Juan, 64
Green, Benjamin P., 103-105, 112, 144,
145, 156, 162, 171, 173, 175, 177,
180, 181, 191, 196, 199, 206-209,
218, 226, 233, 256, 268 and APPEN
DIX H
Greg ory, Durrell s. , 36, 47, 48, 52,
53, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 81, 84,
85, 90, 106, 163, 171, 176, 193,
212, 250, 317, 330 and APPENDIX H
Grover, Dwig ht w. , 295, 343
Grover, James Lyman, 295, 296, 343
Grover, Stephen Frealon, 295, 343
Grover, Whitney, 295
H
Hames, John, 29, 31, 53, 58, 62, 87,
90, 93, 98, 136, 165, 225, 244, 298,
313 and APPENDIX H
Hammond, Gervis, 47, 48, 257, 309
Harriman, W.D. 300
Hartnell, William, 21, 23, 31, 33,
94, 95, 97, 325, 329
Haslam, David J., 172, 181, 236, 241,
265, 266, 281, 284, 293
Healy, L,B,, 114
Hecox, Adna, 29
Herrick, Wilson K., 55, 122, 123
Hester, Craven P., 52, 55, 87, 106,
129, 135, 148, 150, 165, 176, 180,
182, 192, 196, 199, 207, 221, 222,
226, 232-235, 256, 261, 262, 275,
276, 277, 279, 280, 282, 286-288,
294, 299 and APPENDIX H
Hihn, Frederick A. , XVII, 34, 61, 84,
86-89, 105, 106, 112, 134-136, 140143, 146, 148, 153, 156-158, 162-165,
167, 171-184, 187-201, 206-217, 231237, 239-242, 244, 245, 249, 250,
252-254, 256, 257, 261-271, 275-290,
293-302, 307-314, 315, 318, 319, 323,
328, 331, 333, 334-338, 339, 341
Hihn, Frederick c., 180, 181, 200,
226
Hill, Henry, 29, 32, 244
Hinckley, Rog er Gibson, 145, 146, 158,
166, 180, 181, 188, 196, 197, 199,
207, 222, 223, 226, 231, 235, 239,
244, 249, 256, 275, 277-282, 299,
302 and APPENDIX H
Hoffman (U.S. District Jud g e) 124,
126, 165
363
�INDEX of
Person a I It I es
Holcomb, Nathaniel, 135, 136, 141,
146
Holmes, H.B., 180, 181, 226
Hopkins, Mark, 304
Hopkins, Mary Francis Sherwood, 304
Hopkins, Timothy, 304, 331
Houstan, Sam, 329
Hoy, Jones, 47, 48, 56, 57, 61, 87,
106, 146, 191, 192, 210, 211, 221,
226, 249, 283, 333
Hoy, W,M,, 114
Hyde, Richard E,, 296, 298
I
I, Belden & Company, 53
Ingoldsby, John (Reverand), 55, 65,
69, 70, 72, 80, 86-89, 103, 104,
106-109, 111, 119, 121, 122, 125127, 129, 130, 133, 134, 138, 141,
144, 148, 149, 153-160, 162, 165,
167, 173, 175, 176, 178, 187, 190,
191, 195, 196, 205-209, 215, 218,
222, 227, 231-234, 236, 239, 240,
249, 250, 253, 254, 256, 261, 268,
284, 288, 293-296, 299, 309, 310,
312, 317-319, 334, 338, 339 and
APPENDIX H
Ireland, William, 144, 145, 171, 173,
174, 177, 196, 199, 207, 208, 209,
217, 222, 225, 226, 234, 257, 268
and APPENDIX H
Isabella (Queen), XIX
J
Jesuits (the), XX, XXI
Jetter (attorney), 308, 314
Jimeno, Manual, 21-25, 82, 83, 95,
96, 97
Johnson, Sidney L., 200
Jones, William Carey, 33
Juan, Albert (see Fourcade, Albert)
Juan, Charlotte (see Fourcade, Charlotte)
Juan, Eliza (see Fourcade, Eliza)
Juan, Jose (see Fourcade, Jose)
Juan, Josephine (see Fourcade, Josephine)
Juan, Luisa (born Maria Luisa Cota.
•• married Jean Richard Fourcade
alias Ricardo Juan••• also called
Maria Luisa Fourcade or Luisa
Fourcade), 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 32,
45, 48, 52, 60, 73, 74, 85-87, 106,
133, 134, 157, 163, 171, 173, 174,
177, 180, 181, 190, 194, 195, 201,
212-217, 219, 224, 226, 233, 234,
250, 253, 254, 256, 261, 267-269,
271, 275-277, 279, 281, 282, 286,
289, 290, 295, 297-299, 310, 324328, 334, 339-342 and SUPPLEMENT
Juan, Miguel (see Fourcade, Miguel)
Juan, Ricardo (alias for Jean Richard
Fourcade), 9, 21, 22, 31, 34, 36,
36il
40, 45, 48, 52, 60, 82, 83, 85-87,
97, 106, 110, 119, 125, 133, 143,
144, 157, 163, 174, 179, 188, 190,
194, 201, 212, 213, 215, 216, 224,
233�236, 240, 249, 250, 253, 256,
261, 268, 296, 298, 299, 318, 319,
323-328, 330, 334, 339, 341 and
SUPPLEMENT
Juan, Rosewall (see Fourcade, Rosewall)
Juan, Ricardo Fourcade (see Ricardo
Juan), 171, 173, 177, 180, 181, 195,
214, 217, 226, 243
Juarez, Estefana, 110
K
Kimbro, Edna, 329
King, Robert, 110
Kirby, Charles, 234
Kirby, George H., 79, 87, 106, 140, 171,
173, 175, 180, 181, 189, 194, 197,
206, 217, 226, 234, 237, 239-241,
244, 250-252, 261, 268, 286, 288290, 293, 297 and APPENDIX H
Kitteridge, Francis M., 136, 180, 181,
194, 198, 226, 238
Knox, George T. 70
Koch, Margaret, 265, 317, 329
L
Lajeunesse, Andrea, 242, 321
Lajeunesse, Carma, 321
Lajeunesse, Francisco (Francois) alias
Francisco Young, Francisco Moss and
Don F. Mozo, 9, 21, 34, 36, 40, 45,
48, 52, 54, 60, 64, 79, 87, 106,
110, 112, 121, 178, 205, 206, 216,
217, 226, 234-237, 239-243, 251,
252, 268, 283, 289, 297, 298, 321323, 336 and SUPPLEMENT
Lajeunesse, Francisco (Jr.), 242, 321
Lajeunesse, Juan, 321
Lajeunesse, Louisa, 242, 321
Lajeunesse, Maria, 321
Lajeunesse, Mary, 242, 321
Lajeunesse, Nicanor (born Nicanor
Cota,,.married Francisco Lajeunesse
alias Young or Moss), 9, 10, 12, 21,
45, 48, 52, 54, 60, 64, 79, 87, 106,
112, 121, 171, 173, 175, 178, 190,
205, 206, 216, 217, 220, 225, 226,
234, 235, 237, 239, 240-243, 245,
251, 252, 257, 268, 283, 289, 297,
298, 321-323, 334, 336, 337, 339,
341, 342 and SUPPLEMENT
Lajeunesse, Simon, 242, 321
Lajeunesse, Thomas, 243, 321, 322
Lawrence, Henry w., 105, 173, 175, 179,
180, 181, 191, 195, 196, 207, 218,
227, 232, 233, 253, 254, 257, 268,
284, 288, 294-296
Linscott, James, 295
Littlejohn, Benjamin, 339
�INDEX of
Personal1t1es
Littlejohn, Caroline, 339
Littlejohn, David, 339
Littlejohn, Dolphina, 339
Littlejohn, Emily, 339
Littlejohn, Helena (born Maria Helena
Lodge••• married Joseph [Jose]
Littlejohn), 11, 21, 45, 48, 72-75,
87, 106, 134, 171, 173, 174, 178,
180, 181, 197, 214, 216, 217, 219,
224, 233, 234, 235, 253, 254, 256,
261, 267-269, 271, 275-279, 281,
288, 293, 298, 299, 310, 313, 328,
339, 340, 342 and SUPPLEMENT
Littlejohn, John, 339
Littlejohn, Josefina, 339
Littlejohn, Joseph (Jose), 11, 45, 48,
87, 106, 134, 171-173, 178, 180,
181, 226, 233, 234, 253, 256, 268,
293, 298, 313, 328, 339, 340 and
SUPPLEMENT
Littlejohn, William, 339
Livingston, Earl, 314
Llebaria, John Francis (Juan Fran
cisco), 46, 55, 65, 69, 70, 80-82,
86-89, 103, 107, 111, 125, 127, 129,
130, 133, 144, 153, 155, 158, 159,
160, 187, 191, 195-198, 200, 201,
218, 227, 232, 233, 236, 239, 240,
254, 288, 317, 318 and APPENDIX H
Lodge, Carmel (see Fallon, Carmel)
Lodge, Carrie Electa, 10, 35, 62, 71,
73-76, 115, 177, 307, 329, 335, 340,
342, 343
Lodge, Dolores, 21, 342
Lodge, Elijenia, 21, 342
Lodge, Ennis, 33
Lodge, Felix, 341
Lodge, Frank, 341
Lodge, Joaquin, 21, 342
Lodge, Julia, 341, 343
Lodge, Louisa, 341, 343
Lodge, Maria Antonia (see Peck, Ant
onia)
Lodge, Maria Guadalupe (see Averon,
Guadalupe)
Lodge, Maria Helena (see Littlejohn,
Helena)
Lodge, Maria Josefa (see Clements,
Josefa)
Lodge, Martina (see Castro, Martina)
Lodge, Martina Castro (see Castro,
Martina)
Lodge, Michael ·(Martina's husband),
XV, XVII, 9-12, 15, 17, 24, 29, 31,
32, 43-45, 54, 58, 173, 174, 244,
311, 321, 324, 325, 329, 332, 334,
339, 341, 342
Lodge, Miguel (Michael or Mike),,,Mar
tina•s son, 10, 11, 21, 37, 69-73,
75, 110, 125, 163, 164, 171, 173,
175, 191, 194, 217, 235, 243, 268,
309, 310, 313, 314, 323, 329, 334,
335, 337, 341, 343
Lodge, Miguel Antonio (see Lodge,
Miguel)
Lodge, Michael III, 341
y Lopez, Maria.Ramona de la Luz
Carrillo, 52
Luz, Garcia, 10
Luz, Josefa, 9-12, 52
Mc
McEnery, Thomas, 12, 29, 62, 329, 334
McKee, Samuel B., 176, 187, 199, 205,
218, 232, 243, 257, 262-267, 281,
282, 284, 285, 294, 301, 302, 314,
318, 322
McRiernan, Charlie (Mountain Charley),
63, 86, 87, 113, 127, 129, 133, 134,
135, 136, 138 140, 142, 143, 156,
171 and APPENDIX H
M
Macondray, Frederick W,, 163, 164,
171, 173, 175-177, 179, 180, 181,
193, 196, 200, 209, 215-217, 221,
225, 232, 233, 255, 257, 267-271,
275-277, 279, 283-285, 293, 294,
299, 330 and APPENDIX H
Macondray, L,S, (Mrs.), 285, 293
Macondray, William, 215, 221, 267,
268, 270, 271, 275, 279, 281, 284,
285, 299
Majors, Joseph Ladd, 5, 7, 56, 85,
86, 87, 106, 144, 146, 163, 178,
191-193, 210-212, 216, 221, 224,
226, 249, 250, 264, 266 and APPEN
DIX H
Majors, Maria de las Angeles de
Castro, 73, 192, 310
Majors, Robert H,, 337
Makinney (attorney), 308, 314
Malone, Annie (see also Fallon, Annie)
330, 331
Malone, John, 330
Mandenlly, J,W,, 158
Mayor, Juan Jose Crisostomo (Spanish
for Joseph Ladd Majors), 7
Micheltorena, Manual (Governor), 21;
22-25, 28, 31, 54, 57, 61, 82, 83,
85, 95, 96, 98, 324
Miller, Christian, 180, 181, 195,
197, 198, 226
Moraya, Lieutentant, XXIII
Morgan, c,, 70
Moss, Elisha (see Moss, Francisco),
121
Moss, Francisco (alias for Francisco
Lajeunesse), 321
Moss, Nicanor (see Lajeunesse, Nic
anor)
Mountain Charley, 46, 86, 87, 113,
127, 129, 133-136, 138-140, 142,
143, 156, 171
365
�INDEX of
Personal1t1es
Mozo, Don F, (Spanish for Mr, Fran
cisco Young,,see Lajeunesse, Fran
cisco), 321
Murphy, James, 191
Murphy, John M,, 114
N
Nichols, Benjamin Cahoon, 140, 165,
177, 180-184, 188, 194, 198, 222,
223, 226, 231, 233, 237-241, 244,
249-252, 254, 261, 264, 265, 275,
277-280, 282, 286, 290, 293, 294,
297, 299, 319 and APPENDIX H
Noble, Augustas, 52, 103, 104, 124,
125, 134-136, 140-146, 148, 149,
156, 166, 171, 173-175, 177, 179,
180, 181, 183, 194, 196-200, 206,
207, 209, 215, 217, 221-223, 231,
233-235, 238, 239, 256, 257, 267,
268, 269, 271, 275-277, 279, 281,
283-285, 293, 294, 299 and APPEN
DIX H
0
Ord, Judge, 32, 33, 95, 96
Otis, James, 215, 221, 267, 268, 275,
279, 281, 284, 285, 299
p
Packer, Charles W,,·296
Packer, Martha B,, 296
Palacios, Martinez, XX
Palau, Fray Francisco, XXII
Parrish, Joshua, 56, 87, 106, 140,
148, 171, 173, 174, 179, 194, 213,
217, 254, 267, 268, 269, 271, 281,
330 and APPENDIX H
Parsons, George, 136
Parsons, Henry F,, 69, 80, 87, 106,
140, 156, 180, 181, 194, 197, 198,
199, 200, 226, 249 and APPENDIX H
Peck, Alice, 334
Peck, Antonia (born Maria Antonia
Lodge,,,married Henry Winegar Peck)
10, 11, 21, 37, 45, 47, 48, 55, 69,
70-73, 75, 87, 106, 110, 125, 156,
164, 166, 171-176, 179-181, 189,
191, 194-200, 213, 217, 219, 222,
223, 232, 234, 235, 237-239, 250,
251, 253, 254, 256, 257, 261, 262,
267, 269-271, 275-279, 281, 284,
293, 297, 299-302, 307, 310, 312,
313, 315, 318, 334-338, 341, 342
and SUPPLEMENT
Peck, Francis, 334
Peck, Henry Winegar, 11, 45, 47, 48,
55, 86, 97, 106, 110, 114, 123,
125, 142, 148, 156, 157, 162, 164166, 171-176, 178-183, 189-191,
194, 196, 213, 217, 219, 220, 222,
223, 225, 231, 232, 234, 237-243,
3G6
250, 251, 253, 254, 256, 261, 262,
267, 269-271, 275-279, 281, 284,
293, 297, 299, 300, 301, 302, 307,
313, 314, 318, 319, 323, 334-338,
341 and SUPPLEMENT
Peck, Mary Elizabeth, 8, 30, 71-73,
307-314, 328, 338, 340 and SUPP
LEMENT
Peck, Sarah, 334
Peckham, Robert F,, 32, 40, 57, 58,
60, 61, 87, 105, 108-111, 115, 116,
119, 120-122, 125, 126, 128, 130,
133, 135, 141, 153-155, 157, 160,
162, 167, 175, 176, 178, 179, 183,
187, 192, 199, 200, 233-237, 253,
256, 257, 261, 262, 281-287, 293,
296, 301, 335, 337 and APPENDIX H
Perez, Cornelio, 64 and APPENDIX H
Per Lee, Theron Rudd (T,R.), 37, 45,
69, 72, 120, 317 and APPENDIX H
Plum, Charles, 104, 171, 172, 175, 191,
195, 196, 207, 217, 226, 232, 233,
253, 254, 257, 268, 284, 288, 294,
295, 296, 298, 299 and APPENDIX H
Pope Alexander VI, XIX
Porter, Benjamin F,, 86, 133, 143, 144,
163, 171, 173, 175, 178-181, 190,
193-195, 197, 211-215, 217, 221, 224,
225, 226, 249, 250, 253, 254, 256,
257, 267-269, 271, 285, 286, 293,
297, 298, 302, 311, 313, 319, 327,
328, 340 and APPENDIX H
Porter, Edward, 293
Porter, George K,, 157, 171, 173-175,
178-181, 190, 193-195, 208, 214,
217, 221, 233, 235, 249, 254, 267271, 275-277, 279, 281, 283-285,
293, 294, 302, 340 and APPENDIX H
Porter, John Thomas, 191, 242, 244,
302, 303 and APPENDIX H
Portola Expedition, 6, 316
Portola, Gasper de, XX, XXI, XXII, 3
Provines, R,R,, 266, 283
Pyle, W.R., 311
R
Ramirez, Miguel, 18
Rawson, Asa W,, 136, 180, 181, 194,
198, 226, 238
Real, Fray Antonio, 16
Reed, Balo, 32, 325
Reed, J,S., 171, 173, 175, 217, 226,
268
Reynolds, John, 179
Rice, Henry, 114, 136
Rivera y Moncada, Fernando Javier, XXII
Robinson, W,W,, 316
Robles, Jose Antonio, 15, 16, 18, 23,
57
Robles, Rafael, 18
Rodgers, Robert c. , 107-109
Rodriquez, Francisco, 6
�IND EX of
Person a I I t I es
Rodriquez, Jose Antonio, 6
Rodriquez, Jose de la Cruz, 64
Rodriquez, Ricarda, 7
Romero de Cota, Gertrudis, 10
Romeo, Maria Josefa, 4
Rose (attorney), 200
Rowland, Leon, 12, 36, 37, 317, 321,
332
Rufner, Joseph, 265-270, 318
Ruida, Ventura, 243, 322
Ryder, Charles H., 301
s
Salasan, Jose Maria, 16
Sanborn, Alvin, 302, 303
San Mig uel (Saint), XVII, 341
Savag e, Richard, 146, 166, 180-184,
188-190, 196, 197, 223, 226, 231,
233, 235, 237-239, 244, 250, 252,
261, 265, 275, 277, 278, 279, 290,
293, 294, 299 and APPENDIX H
Sawyer, J., 299
Scarboroug h, James, 88, 89, 103, 104,
106, 109, 127, 143, 144, 156, 176,
187, 191, 195-197, 206, 215, 226,
233, 234, 254, 256, 257 and APPEN
DIX H
Schultheis family, 113
Scott, Hiram, 138
Scrivner, J.J., 308, 338
Serra, Father Junipero, XX, XXI, 3
Shackleford, Montg omery B., 48, 52,
54, 55, 60, 64, 79, 87, 106, 189,
205, 206, 225, 234, 237, 240, 251,
257, 289, 322 and APPENDIX H
Shelby, John Lafayette, 145, 146, 158,
166, 180, 181, 188, 196, 197, 199,
207, 222, 223, 226, 231, 235, 239,
244, 249, 256, 275, 277-282, 299,
302 and APPENDIX H
Sinclair, pruitt, 47, 48, 57, 61, 85,
86, 87, 105, 106, 163, 165, 171,
172, 173, 175, 210, 212, 213, 216,
217, 224, 225, 226, 250, 268, 298,
333 and APPENDIX H
Skerin, Joseph H., 256, 257, 294
Slade, Mary E,J., 104, 173, 175, 179,
180, 181, 195, 196, 207, 218, 227,
232, 233, 253, 254, 257, 268, 284,
288, 294, 295, 296
Sloan (Attorney), 266
Sloat, Commodore, 61, 62, 342
Smith, Jane, 60, 309
Soberanes family, 4
Soberanes, Jose Maria, 3, 4
Stampley, O.K,, 108, 191
Stearns, John P., 177, 180, 181, 189,
194, 197-199, 226, 237-244, 250252, 261, 286, 293, 297 and APPEN
DIX H
Stevens, Stanley, 36, 315
Stevenson, Charles P. 105, 212
Straton, Otis, 244
T
Taylor, James, 86, 140, 171, 190, 193,
195, 197, 205, 212, 213, 221, 224227, 233, 245, 250, 251, 254, 262,
263, 275-277, 279, 289, 299, 302
Tomlinson, Ambrose, 321
Towne, John w., 265, 275-279, 285,
289, 293, 318
Tracy, Peter, 37, 38, 40, 45, 48, 52,
54, 55, 57, 64, 69, 79, 80, 86, 87,
106, 109, 110, 115, 119-125, 127129, 133, 140, 154, 156, 166, 177,
189, 198, 199, 201, 205, 206, 234,
237, 238, 240, 251, 253, 257, 289,
322, 333 and APPENDIX H
Tuttle, David, 265-270, 318
u
Uribe, Jose Mig uel, 4
Utter, J.F., 308, 311
V
Vandenberg , Dr, John P,P, (Van Den
Ber g h, John P.P.,M,D., 60, 87, 106,
112, 134, 171-174, 177, 179, 190,
205, 206, 216, 217, 225, 231, 232,
266, 268, 283, 297, 318, 322, 323
and APPENDIX H
Vizcaino, Sebastian, XIX, XX, XXI
w
Waddell, Jeannie Hudson, 199
Waddell, William W,, 199
Walker, Joseph••• party, 321
Wallis (surveyor headman), 149
Wanzer, James o., 266, 284, 294, 295
Warner, Captain, 71
Watson, CharJ�s, 192
Watson, John H., 52 and APPENDIX H
White, Henry c., 244
Whitney, J.R,, 302, 303
Willson, Charles H., 144, 146, 171,
173, 175, 178-180, 182, 191-193,
197, 200, 210, 211, 217, 221, 224,
226, 268 and APPENDIX H
Willson, r.c., 191
Willson, J.C. 119
Wilson, F,H., 123
Wilson, Israel c., 240, 241
Wilson, John, 52, 53, 56, 58, 60, 65,
80, 81, 84, 86, 88, 89, 93, 95, 96,
98, 103, 104, 106-110, 116, 119, 121,
122, 124-129, 133-135, 138, 140-144,
146, 148, 149, 153, 155-158, 160,
165, 167, 176, 180, 181, 187, 191,
195-198, 206, 215, 218, 226, 231,
232, 234, 236, 253, 254, 256, 257,
367
�INDEX of
Personal1t1es
284, 288, 294, 295, 299, 317,
341 and APPENDIX H
Wright, Selden S,, 200, 284, 285, 294,
295
Wright, Thomas W,, 48, 52, 54, 55, 64,
79, 87, 97, 106, 123, 143, 149, 166,
189, 205, 206, 234, 236-238, 240,
244, 251, 253, 257, 265, 267, 268,
269, 275-279, 285, 289, 293, 318,
322, 328 and APPENDIX H
Wulf, Bill, 315
y
Yale, Gregory, 153
Young, Francisco (alias for Lajeunesse,
Francisco), 9, 34, 171, 173, 321
Young, Nicanor (see Lajeunesse, Nic
anor)
Younger, Charles B., 73, 86, 146, 199,
200, 205-227, 231-235, 237, 245,
249-254, 257, 261, 262, 264-270,
280, 283, 288, 293, 295, 296, 300,
308, 309, 311-314, 318 and APPENDIX
H
Younger Jr., Charles B,, 199
z
Zamorano, Augustin v. , 18
Zuniga y Azevedo, Gasper de, XIX
INDE X of
Places & Things
A
ACT of Secularization, 6
ACT Concerning Conveyances, 34, 205,
317, 322 and APPENDIX B
ACT Concerning the Right of a Husband
and Wife, 34, 190, 206, 317, 322 and
APPENDIX B
Alamenden Quicksilver County Park, 149
Alaska, XX
Alseca-Lorraine, France, 343
Alta (or Alto) California, XX, XXi,
XXII, 3,6
Amaya Gulch, 114, 136
Aptos area, 285, 302
Aptos Ranch (see Rancho Aptos), 149
Archives at Monterey, 21, 23, 31, 32,
95, 96, 324, 329
Arroyo de la Ballena (Bates Creek),
48, 64
Article of Agreement, 35, 38, 47, 108,
109, 110, 111 and APPENDIX B
Augmentation Suit (Hihn vs Peck), 187190, 192-199, 201, 231-239, 249-254,
256, 257, 261-266, 279-282, 285290, 293, 294, 297, 299, 300, 336
B
Baja California, XX, 46
Baja de los Pinos (Pine Tree Bay), XIX
Baja Missions, XXI
Bates Creek, 26, 48, 52, 54, 55, 64,
158, 160, 166, 252, 253, 255, 288
Bates (Joel) Gravesite, 252, 253, 255
Bates Mill Road, 253, 255
Bates (sawmill site), 55, 122, 123,
158, 166, 187, 253, 255
Bay Avenue, 267, 271
Bean Hill 26, 28
Borregas Gulch, 26, 134, 143, 149, 158,
271, 296, 340
368
Branciforte County, 33, 34
Branciforte, (Villa de), 6-8, 10, 12,
15, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 61, 83, 94,
113, 317 and APPENDIX A
Burrell Fire Station, 114, 136
Burrell School, 190
Buzzard Lagoon, 304
C
Cabrillo College, 20, 133, 214, 340
Cabrillo College Drive, 267, 271
Calaveras County, _31, 32, 328
California Battalion, Fremont, 329
Camp Capitola, 331, 335
Camp San Jose, 331
Capitola Avenue, 267, 271,, 343
Carmel, XXII
Carmel Mission (Mission San Carlos
Borromeo de Carmelo), XXII
Carmel River (Rio Carmelo), XIX, XXI
Carson Hill "Gold Strike", 31
Casalegnos, 265
Cherryvale Avenue, 139, 255
China Ridge, 26
Chuchita, 26, 28, 37, 46, 57, 59, 70,
83, 127
la Chuchita including la Loma Prieta,
54
Commodore Sloat•s Flagship, 61, 62,
342
Complaint- Hihn vs Peck (Augmentation
Suit), 181-183, 190, 336
Complaint- Peck vs Hihn (Rancho Soquel
Suit), 172-176, 190
Contra Costa County, 98, 115, 119,
129
Corralitos Creek, 165
Cosumnes River, 325
County Cork, Ireland, 10, 12, 37, 332,
334, 339, 341, 342
�INDEX of
Places & Things
County Road, 178, 253, 267
County Road to Watsonville, 139, 214
Cuatro Legues, 26
D
Decatur (U.S. Warship), 106, 107, 109,
125, 127, 135
Drakes Bay, XX
E
East Branch Soquel Creek (see Soquel
Creek east branch)
F
Fallon Wagon Road, 298, 302
Forest of Nisene Marks State Park, 26,
304
France, 324, 328, 342
Franciscan Trail, 113, 315 and APPEN
DIX A
Fuerte, Sonora, Mexico, 4
G
The Gap (Patchen Pass), 136, 138
Glen Haven Road, 253, 255
Graham Grade, 138
Grizzley Bear vs Charles McKiernan, 63
Grover Gulch, 52, 54, 55, 166, 253,
255, 343
H
Hames Road, 26
Hames Sawmill Suit, 58
Hawaiian Islands, 71, 106, 341
Hester Creek, 139
Highland Way, 114, 136
Highway 1 (One), 267, 271
Highway 17, 112, 113, 138
Hihn vs Peck (see Augmentation Suit)
Hihn•s Lane, 267, 271
Hilman Ranch, 71, 72
Hinckley Creek, 26, 114, 115, 136,
139, 145, 160, 166, 281, 282
Hinckley Gulch, 265, 281, 282, 302
Hinckley & Shelby Sawmill, 145, 146,
158, 166, 188, 189, 197
Hiram Scott•s home, 138
Hogsback Ridge, 145
Holcombs place, 141, 146, 149
Holy Cross Cemetery, 343
Honolulu, 111, 332
Horasitas, Mexico, XXII
Humboldt County, 261
Ingoldsby
Supreme
318 and
Ingoldsby
I
vs Juan Suit (in the State
Court) 157, 158, 162, 167,
APPENDIX D
vs Ricardo Juan Suit, 105,
106-111, 115, 116, 119-123, 125130, 133, 153, 154, 155, 160, 162,
176, 187, 198, 288, 318, 334, 339
and APPENDIX D
Interlocutory Decree for Augmentation
Suit (Hihn VS Peck) 263, 318 and
APPENDIX C
Interlocutory Decree for Rancho Soquel
Suit (Peck vs Hihn) 264, 318 and
APPENDIX C
Invilados, 6
J
James Creek (also Jones Creek), 171
K
Kamchatka, Russia, 7
Kearney Street, 95, 96
Kennolyn Camp, 343
L
Laguna del Sarjento (also Sargento),
26, 28, 37, 46, 54, 57, 59, 70, 83,
113, 127, 133, 134, 135, 138, 148
Laguna del Sarjento la Chuchita, 23
Laguna del Sarjento y la Chuchita incl
uding la Loma Prieta, 24, 28, 37
Lake Tahoe, 329
Land (Claims) Commission, 47, 53, 54,
56, 57, 59-61, 63-65, 69, 79-85,
93-99, 103, 124, 126, 162, 316, 341
and APPENDIXES A and I
Laurel Glen Road, 265
Lexington Reservoir, 26
Little Panola, Contra Costa County,
98
Littlejohn Bridge, 340
Little john "Place", 340
Loma Prieta, 26, 28, 37, 46, 57, 59,
70, 87, 127, 149
Loma Prieta de la Sierra Azul, 83
Lorna Prieta School, 171
Los Gatos Creek, 113, 135, 138, 139,
171
Lot "A" ·(Rancho Soquel), 269, 271,
300-302
Lot "B" (Rancho Soquel), 269, 271,
300-302
Lot "C" (Rancho Soquel), 269, 271,
300-302
Lot "D" (Rancho Soquel), 269, 271,
300, 302
Lot "E" (Rancho Soquel), 269, 271,
300, 302
Lot "F" (Rancho Soquel), 269, 271,
300, 302
Lot "G" (Rancho Soquel), 270, 271
Lot "H" (Rancho Soquel), 270, 271
Lot uru (Rancho Soquel), 269, 271, 340
Lot "K" (Rancho Soquel), 269, 271, 340
369
�INDEX of
Places & Things
Lot "L" (Rancho Sequel),
Lot "M" (Rancho Sequel),
Lot "N" (Rancho Sequel),
Lot "0" (Rancho Sequel),
Lot "P" (Rancho Sequel),
Lot "R" (Rancho Soquel),
Lot "S'' {Rancho Soquel),
Lot "T" (Rancho Soquel),
Lot "V" (Rancho Soquel),
Lot "W" (Rancho Soquel),
Lower California, 46
Lagunita Drive, 253, 255
270,
270,
269,
269,
269,
270,
270,
269,
269,
269,
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
Mc
McKiernan Toll Road, 139
M
Main Street, 139, 253, 255
Mare Island Navy Yard, 106, 107
1802 Market Street, 331
Martinez, Contra Costa County, 115
100 Merchant Street, 108
Mexico, XIX, 69, 70, 71, 191
Mexico City, XIX, XXII
Millpond Lake, 282
Mission Delores, XXII, XXIII
Mission Neustra Senora Doleres- sime
de la Soledad, 4
Mission San Carlos, 3, 4
Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo,
XXII, 4, 324
Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Monterey,
XXII
Mission San Diego de Alcala, XXII
Mission San Francisco de Asis, XXII,
XXIII
Mission San Gabriel, 4
Mission San Juan Bautista, 33
Mission Santa Barbara, 4
Mission Santa Clara, XXIII, 3, 4, 6,
Mil�ion Santa Cruz, 16, 17, 26, 113,
317 and APPENDIX A
Mission Soledad, 7
Mokelumne River, 325
Monterey, XIX, XXII, XXIII, 10, 12,
33, 321, 324, 325, 329
Monterey Bay, XIX, XX, XXi, 7, 87, 135,
340
Monterey Presidio, XXII, 4, 10, 321,
324, 329
Moody Gulch, 113, 135, 138
Morrell Cutoff (Sequel Turnpike), 139,
289
Morrell Road, 289
Mount Bache, 28
Mount Herman, 8
Mount Thayer, 26, 28, 46, 70, 83, 127,
149
Mount Umunhum, 26, 28
Mountain Charley Road, 138, 139
370
Mountain de la Yesca, 23
Mountain Home, 190
Mountain House (Mountain Charley's
Home and Hotel)
Mountain Ridge known as Palo de la
Yesca, 22
Mountain School (original location),
164, 165, 231, 264
N
National Archives, Washington D,C,,
107
New Brighton, 331
New Melones Dam, 32
New Orleans, 62
New Spain, XX, XXII
Nobles Gulch, 271, 343
Noble's Lane, 267, 271
Northwest Passage (Strait of Anian),
xx
0
Old San Jose Road (see Soquel San Jose
Road)
Old Santa Cruz Highway, 46, 113, 138,
139
Olive Springs Quarry Company, 145
Olive Springs Road, 340
p
Pablo de la Yesca, 54, 57, 83, 85,
138
Palmer Cook Company, 95
Palo de Yeska, 142, 149
Palo de la Yesca, 22, 26, 28, 44, 54,
164, 341
Palo de la Yeska Ranch, 141
Palo Yeska (Punk Tree), 141, 146,
149, 341
Palo Yeska Ranch, 141
Palo Yeska Rancho 141
Paris, 324
Partition Decree for Augmentation
Suit (Hihn vs Peck), 264, 318 and
APPENDIX C
Partition Decree for Rancho Soquel
Suit (Peck vs Hihn), 264, 318 and
APPENDIX C
Partition of the Ocean, XIX
Partitioning Commission for Augmen
tation Suit (Hihn vs Peck), 265,
318 and APPENDIX C
Partitioning Commission for Rancho
Sequel Suit (Peck vs Hihn), 266,
318 and APPENDIX C
Partitioning Report by Charles B,
Younger (Rancho Soquel), 213-218,
262, 264
Partitioning Report by Younger,
�INDEX of
Places & Things
Tuttle and Rufner (Rancho Soquel),
266-271
Partitioning Report by Charles B.
Younger (Soquel Augmentation),
218-227, 262, 264
Partitioning Report by Wright, Towne
and Bockius (Soquel Augmentation),
275-279, 285
Patchen Pass, 112, 136, 138
Patent for Rancho Soquel, 176
Patent for Soquel Augmentation, 176
Pecho Rancho, 328
Peck vs Hihn (see Rancho Soquel Suit)
Pink Tree, 26, 28
Port of Monterey, XXI, 324
Porter Gulch, 133, 143
Porter Street, 255, 267, 271
Portland, Oregon, 332
Prescott Road, 52, 166, 253, 255
Presidio, Monterey, XXII, 4, 10
Presidio, San Francisco, XXIII
Presidio, Tubae, Mexico, 3
Pre-Statehood Records, 8
Punta Ano Nuevo, XIX
Punta de Pinos, XIX
Probate Court- San Francisco County,
163, 164, 167
a
Quicksilver Mines, 149
R
Rancherios (Rancherias), XIX
Rancho Aptos, 6, 21, 134, 143, 158
Rancho Arroyo del Rodeo, 7
Rancho Buena Vista, 3
Rancho de las Animas,4
Rancho los Careros, 339
Rancho de los Correltos, 59
Rancho of Hames & Daubenbiss, 59
Rancho Refugio, 7, 144, 193, 210
Rancho San Andres, 6-8, 60, 308
Rancho San Augustine, 7, 133, 144, 193,
210
Rancho San Miguel, 57, 59
Rancho Soquel Suit (Peck vs Hihn),
176-179, 183, 190, 191, 194, 196,
197, 231-233, 249, 253, 254, 277,
261-264, 266, 281, 283-285, 297, 299,
300, 335, 336
Rancho Zayante, 7
Redwood City, 72
Redwood Lodge, 148
Redwood Estates, 113, 150
Ricardo Gulch, 328
Ricardo Lane, 267, 271
Ridge de la Yesca, 24, 26, 28
Rio Carmelo, XIX, XXII
Russians, xx, XXI, XXII
Ryder Road, 26, 28
Ridgedale Road, 255
Royal Presidio in Monterey (see Mont
erey Presidio)
Sam
San
San
San
San
s
Houstan, 329
Antonio (ship), XXI
Carlos (ship), XXI
Diego, XXI
Felipe _de Sinaloa, Mexico, XXII,
XXIII
San Francisco Bay, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII,
107, 332
San Francisco Mountain, 282
San Francisco Presidio, XXIII
San Joaquin River, 325
San Jose (ship), XXI
San Gabriel, XXII, XXIII
San Luis Obispo, 328
Sandwich Islands, 71, 106, 107, 341
Sanjon de las Borregas, 15, 17, 21,
59
Sanjon of the River Soquel, 15
Santa Barbara, 10
Santa Clara Turnpike Company, 135, 136
Santa Cruz Gap Joint Stock Company,
112, 135
Santa Cruz Gap Turnpike, 112 7 115, 135,
138, 334
Santa Cruz Mountains, XXII, 26, 28,
329
Santa Cruz Road, 139
Santa Cruz Turnpike, 136, 139, 141
Santa Rosalia Ridge, 145
Savage Mill, 166, 188, 189, 197, 231,
265, 294
Sawmill (Lodge), 20, 29
School Land Warrants, 47-52, 54, 55,
64, 79, so, 86, 96, 97, 110, 121,
122, 123, 129, 148, 150, 155, 156,
166, 177, 187, 188, 197, 199, 201,
237, 238, 251-253, 257
Scott, Hiram homesite, see Hiram Scotts
home
Scotts Valley, 133, 138
Sierra Azul, 26
Sierra Azul de la Loma Prieta, 26
Sierra la Yesca, 96
Sierra Nevada, 125, 127, 129, 329
Sinaloa, San Felipe de, Mexico, XXIII
Sinaloa, Villa de, Mexico, 3, 6
Skyland Ridge, 148
Sonora,Mexico, XXI
Soquel Cemetery, 26, 28, 44, 55, 252,
255
Soquel Creek east branch, 114, 115, 171
Soquel Creek west branch, 139
Soquel Drive, 133, 139, 178, 214, 253,
255, 267, 271, 340
Soquel Road, 139
Soquel San Jose Road, 139, 255, 265
Soquel Turnpike, 114, 115, 134, 135,
138, 139, 141, 149
Soquel Water Company, 302
371
�INDEX of
Places & Th• ng s
Southern Pacific Railroad Company's
Coast Division, 304
Spanish Ranch, 114, 115, 136
Spignet Creek, 145
Spignet Gulch, 282
Stake at the Spot of the Palo de la
Yesca, 26
Stanislaus River, 31, 32, 325
Stetson Road, 139
Stockton Insane Asylum, 73-75, 115,
343
Strait of Anian, XX
Sugarloaf Mountain, 145, 281, 282
Sulphur Springs (resort), 282
Summit (area), 56, 63, 112-115, 138
156, 334
Summit Road, 26, 46, 113, 138, 139,
171, 190, 289
Summons- Hihn vs Peck (Augmentation
Suit), 180, 181, 190, 336
Summons- Peck vs Hihn (Rancho Soquel
Suit) 171, 172, 176, 190
Sutter•s Mill, 30
T
Tannery (Brady & Nichols), 264
Tannery (Juan & Porter's), 133, 143,
144, 163, 178, 327, 328
Tannery Gulch, 133, 143, 144, 296
Taylor Gulch, 139, 289
Texas, 62
Toll Roads, 113
Tract 1 (Augmentation), 276, 277
Tract 2 (Augmentation), 276, 277, 297,
328
Tract 3 (Augmentation), 276, 277, 288
Tract 4 (Augmentation), 276, 277, 296
Tract 5 (Augmentation), 276, 277, 289,
293, 295, 297, 328
Tract 6 (Augmentation), 276, 277, 289,
293, 295, 297, 328
Tract 7 (Augmentation), 276, 277, 296,
343
Tract 8 (Augmentation), 276, 277, 285,
293, 294, 296, 298, 302, 303, 303,
304, 330, 331
Tract 9 (Augmentation), 276, 277, 298,
302, 303, 330
Tract 10 (Augmentation), 276, 277,
281, 282, 300-302, 338
Tract 11 (Augmentation), 276, 277,
300-301, 338
Tract 12 (Augmentation), 276, 277
Tract 13 (Augmentation), 276, 277
Tract 14 (Augmentation), 276, 277
Tract 15 (Augmentation), 276, 277
Tract 16 (Augmentation), 276, 277,
300-302, 337, 338
Tract 17 (Augmentation), 276, 277,
289
Tract 18 (Augmentation), 276, 277,
288
Tract 19 (Augmentation), 276, 277,
288
372
Tract 20 (Augmentation), 277, 278,
280
Tract 21 (Augmentation), 277, 278, 283
Tract 22 (Augmentation), 277, 278, 283
Tract 23 (Augmentation), 277, 278, 283
Tract 24 (Augmentation), 277, 278
Tract 25 (Augmentation), 277, 278, 302
Tract 26 (Augmentation), 277, 278, 294
Tract 27 (Augmentation), 277, 278, 294,
296
Trinity County, 126
Tubae, Mexico, XXII
Tubae Presidio, Mexico, 3
Tunnel (between Hinckley and Soquel
Creeks), 145
Turnpike, Santa Cruz (see Santa Cruz
Turnpike)
Turnpike, Santa Cruz Gap (see Santa
Cruz Gap Turnpike)
Turnpike, Soquel (see Soquel Turnpike)
u
United States Warship Decatur, 106, 107,
109
Upper California, XXI, XXII, 3, 4, 6,
46
V
Valencia Creek, 28
Valparaiso, Callao, Mexico, 332
Villa de Branciforte (see Branciforte
illa de)
Villa de Sinaloa, Mexico, 3
w
Watsonville Mill & Lumber Company,
302, 303, 330
Weaverville (Trinity County), 126, 127
Wesley Burnett & Company, 164, 165,
188, 224, 238, 239, 251, 264, 335337
West Branch Soquel Creek (see Soquel
Creek west branch)
y
Yesca (or Yeslrn), 28, 44, 94-96, 330,
341
Yesca, Palo de la, 22
Yuba River area, 46
Zayante, 321
z
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Castros of Soquel
Subject
The topic of the resource
Castro Family
Ranchos
Description
An account of the resource
With an introduction by Stanley D. Stevens, June 1, 2019.
Appendix A: Boundry descriptions & Palo de la Yesca, the Franciscan trail, Frederick A. Hihn, the Land Commission 1852-1857, School land warrants, Soquel -- an early history, Villa de Branciforte & Mission Santa Cruz. Appendix B: Acts, deeds & Mexican treaty. Appendix C: Partitioning decrees. Appendix D: Ingoldsby vs Juan appeal.
Appendix E: Rancho Soquel partitioning suit, Peck vs Vandenberg & Hihn appeals in the Third District and the State Supreme Courts. Appendix F: Rancho Soquel partitioning suit Peck vs Courtis appeal in the Third District and State Supreme Courts. Appendix G: Augmentation partitioning suit Hihn vs Brady & Courtis appeals in the State Supreme Court. Appendix H: Biographies. Appendix I-1: Land Commission testimony for Rancho Soquel. Appendix I-2: Land Commission testimony for the Soquel Augmentation Rancho.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Powell, Ronald
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-229
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Santa Cruz (County)
Soquel
1850s
1860s
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994?
Biography
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local News Index
Description
An account of the resource
An index to newspaper and periodical articles from a variety of Santa Cruz publications.
It is a collection of over 87,000 articles, primarily from the <em>Santa Cruz Sentinel</em>, that have been clipped and filed in subject folders. While these articles of local interest range in date from the early 1900's to the present, most of the collection and clipped articles are after roughly 1960. There is an ongoing project to scan the complete articles and include them in this collection.<br /><br />Also included are more than 350 full-text local newspaper articles on films and movie-making and on the Japanese-American internment.<br /><br /> In addition, this is an online index for births, deaths, and personal names from <em>The Mountain Echo.</em> The complete print index is available at the library. For more information see <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/134957#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0">The Mountain Echo</a>.
Most of the indexed articles are available on microfilm in the Californiana Room or in the clipping files in the Local History Room at the Downtown branch. Copies of individual articles may be available by contacting the Reference Department - <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/contact/">Ask Us.<br /><br /></a>
<p></p>
While there is some overlap between this index and <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/historic_newspaper_index/">the Historic Newspaper Index</a><a> (approximately 1856-1960), they are different databases and are searched separately.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Notes
Additional notes
See also Juan Daubenbis; Daubenbiss; John Daubenbiss
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LN-19685
Title
A name given to the resource
Summer crops
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875-05-29
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>Santa Cruz Sentinel</i> 1875-05-29: page 3 column 1
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1870s
Language
A language of the resource
en
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
NEWS
DOCUMENT
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ranchos
John Daubenbis
T. J. Weeks
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local News Index
Description
An account of the resource
An index to newspaper and periodical articles from a variety of Santa Cruz publications.
It is a collection of over 87,000 articles, primarily from the <em>Santa Cruz Sentinel</em>, that have been clipped and filed in subject folders. While these articles of local interest range in date from the early 1900's to the present, most of the collection and clipped articles are after roughly 1960. There is an ongoing project to scan the complete articles and include them in this collection.<br /><br />Also included are more than 350 full-text local newspaper articles on films and movie-making and on the Japanese-American internment.<br /><br /> In addition, this is an online index for births, deaths, and personal names from <em>The Mountain Echo.</em> The complete print index is available at the library. For more information see <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/134957#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0">The Mountain Echo</a>.
Most of the indexed articles are available on microfilm in the Californiana Room or in the clipping files in the Local History Room at the Downtown branch. Copies of individual articles may be available by contacting the Reference Department - <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/contact/">Ask Us.<br /><br /></a>
<p></p>
While there is some overlap between this index and <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/historic_newspaper_index/">the Historic Newspaper Index</a><a> (approximately 1856-1960), they are different databases and are searched separately.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LN-19611
Title
A name given to the resource
Sues for Refugio Ranch
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1865-02-04
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>Santa Cruz Sentinel</i> 1865-02-04: page 3 column 1
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1860s
Language
A language of the resource
en
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
NEWS
DOCUMENT
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roads and Streets
Ranchos
Thomas Courtis
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local News Index
Description
An account of the resource
An index to newspaper and periodical articles from a variety of Santa Cruz publications.
It is a collection of over 87,000 articles, primarily from the <em>Santa Cruz Sentinel</em>, that have been clipped and filed in subject folders. While these articles of local interest range in date from the early 1900's to the present, most of the collection and clipped articles are after roughly 1960. There is an ongoing project to scan the complete articles and include them in this collection.<br /><br />Also included are more than 350 full-text local newspaper articles on films and movie-making and on the Japanese-American internment.<br /><br /> In addition, this is an online index for births, deaths, and personal names from <em>The Mountain Echo.</em> The complete print index is available at the library. For more information see <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/134957#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0">The Mountain Echo</a>.
Most of the indexed articles are available on microfilm in the Californiana Room or in the clipping files in the Local History Room at the Downtown branch. Copies of individual articles may be available by contacting the Reference Department - <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/contact/">Ask Us.<br /><br /></a>
<p></p>
While there is some overlap between this index and <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/historic_newspaper_index/">the Historic Newspaper Index</a><a> (approximately 1856-1960), they are different databases and are searched separately.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Notes
Additional notes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LN-18581
Title
A name given to the resource
Social news
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896-04-23
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>Santa Cruz Daily Surf</i> 1896-04-23: page 3 column 2
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1890s
Soquel
Language
A language of the resource
en
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
NEWS
DOCUMENT
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ranchos
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local News Index
Description
An account of the resource
An index to newspaper and periodical articles from a variety of Santa Cruz publications.
It is a collection of over 87,000 articles, primarily from the <em>Santa Cruz Sentinel</em>, that have been clipped and filed in subject folders. While these articles of local interest range in date from the early 1900's to the present, most of the collection and clipped articles are after roughly 1960. There is an ongoing project to scan the complete articles and include them in this collection.<br /><br />Also included are more than 350 full-text local newspaper articles on films and movie-making and on the Japanese-American internment.<br /><br /> In addition, this is an online index for births, deaths, and personal names from <em>The Mountain Echo.</em> The complete print index is available at the library. For more information see <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/134957#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0">The Mountain Echo</a>.
Most of the indexed articles are available on microfilm in the Californiana Room or in the clipping files in the Local History Room at the Downtown branch. Copies of individual articles may be available by contacting the Reference Department - <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/contact/">Ask Us.<br /><br /></a>
<p></p>
While there is some overlap between this index and <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/historic_newspaper_index/">the Historic Newspaper Index</a><a> (approximately 1856-1960), they are different databases and are searched separately.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Notes
Additional notes
Ranchos
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LN-23468
Title
A name given to the resource
Rancho San Vicente sold to A. P. Stanford
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1865-05-08
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>Santa Cruz Sentinel</i> 1865-05-08: page 2 column 1
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1860s
Language
A language of the resource
en
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
NEWS
DOCUMENT
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ranchos
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local News Index
Description
An account of the resource
An index to newspaper and periodical articles from a variety of Santa Cruz publications.
It is a collection of over 87,000 articles, primarily from the <em>Santa Cruz Sentinel</em>, that have been clipped and filed in subject folders. While these articles of local interest range in date from the early 1900's to the present, most of the collection and clipped articles are after roughly 1960. There is an ongoing project to scan the complete articles and include them in this collection.<br /><br />Also included are more than 350 full-text local newspaper articles on films and movie-making and on the Japanese-American internment.<br /><br /> In addition, this is an online index for births, deaths, and personal names from <em>The Mountain Echo.</em> The complete print index is available at the library. For more information see <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/134957#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0">The Mountain Echo</a>.
Most of the indexed articles are available on microfilm in the Californiana Room or in the clipping files in the Local History Room at the Downtown branch. Copies of individual articles may be available by contacting the Reference Department - <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/contact/">Ask Us.<br /><br /></a>
<p></p>
While there is some overlap between this index and <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/historic_newspaper_index/">the Historic Newspaper Index</a><a> (approximately 1856-1960), they are different databases and are searched separately.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LN-22999
Title
A name given to the resource
Rancho Refugio case
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1859-12-02
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>Pacific Sentinel</i> 1859-12-02: page 2 column 1
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1850s
Language
A language of the resource
en
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
NEWS
DOCUMENT
Subject
The topic of the resource
Land Titles
Ranchos
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local News Index
Description
An account of the resource
An index to newspaper and periodical articles from a variety of Santa Cruz publications.
It is a collection of over 87,000 articles, primarily from the <em>Santa Cruz Sentinel</em>, that have been clipped and filed in subject folders. While these articles of local interest range in date from the early 1900's to the present, most of the collection and clipped articles are after roughly 1960. There is an ongoing project to scan the complete articles and include them in this collection.<br /><br />Also included are more than 350 full-text local newspaper articles on films and movie-making and on the Japanese-American internment.<br /><br /> In addition, this is an online index for births, deaths, and personal names from <em>The Mountain Echo.</em> The complete print index is available at the library. For more information see <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/134957#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0">The Mountain Echo</a>.
Most of the indexed articles are available on microfilm in the Californiana Room or in the clipping files in the Local History Room at the Downtown branch. Copies of individual articles may be available by contacting the Reference Department - <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/contact/">Ask Us.<br /><br /></a>
<p></p>
While there is some overlap between this index and <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/historic_newspaper_index/">the Historic Newspaper Index</a><a> (approximately 1856-1960), they are different databases and are searched separately.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LN-20894
Title
A name given to the resource
Rancho owner killed
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1883-12-15
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>Santa Cruz Sentinel</i> 1883-12-15: page 3 column 5
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1880s
Language
A language of the resource
en
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
NEWS
DOCUMENT
Subject
The topic of the resource
Deaths
Ranchos
Charles McLaughlin
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local News Index
Description
An account of the resource
An index to newspaper and periodical articles from a variety of Santa Cruz publications.
It is a collection of over 87,000 articles, primarily from the <em>Santa Cruz Sentinel</em>, that have been clipped and filed in subject folders. While these articles of local interest range in date from the early 1900's to the present, most of the collection and clipped articles are after roughly 1960. There is an ongoing project to scan the complete articles and include them in this collection.<br /><br />Also included are more than 350 full-text local newspaper articles on films and movie-making and on the Japanese-American internment.<br /><br /> In addition, this is an online index for births, deaths, and personal names from <em>The Mountain Echo.</em> The complete print index is available at the library. For more information see <a href="https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/134957#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0">The Mountain Echo</a>.
Most of the indexed articles are available on microfilm in the Californiana Room or in the clipping files in the Local History Room at the Downtown branch. Copies of individual articles may be available by contacting the Reference Department - <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/contact/">Ask Us.<br /><br /></a>
<p></p>
While there is some overlap between this index and <a href="https://www.santacruzpl.org/historic_newspaper_index/">the Historic Newspaper Index</a><a> (approximately 1856-1960), they are different databases and are searched separately.</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
LN-22998
Title
A name given to the resource
Rancho Butano case
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1861-11-14
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>Pacific Sentinel</i> 1861-11-14: page 2 column 2
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1860s
Language
A language of the resource
en
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
NEWS
DOCUMENT
Subject
The topic of the resource
Land Titles
Ranchos
-
https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/files/original/5c047d3bc0816db5c80628f842240412.pdf
88867c15ba86cb038d369d3a7236115f
PDF Text
Text
Rafael Castro's Rancho Aptos was Oldest Land Grant
to Remain Under Mexican Ownership
By Jim Johnson
Castro Family Was Among Few to Retain Land Grants When Yankees Took Over California
Santa Cruz County, like California, underwent a massive transformation in the mid-19th century as the Mexican
government turned over control of the territory to the United States. Within a few decades, California communities, like
Santa Cruz, were transformed from traditional Mexican-style villas to Yankee-dominated towns.
Many of the old, original Spanish-Mexican families, dubbed Californios, lost their land in California during this time,
because the records regarding these huge land grants were often found to be incomplete or inaccurate by American
authorities.
But, Rafael Castro of Rancho Aptos was among the lucky land owners, managing to retain his claim to the land grants he
had secured years earlier from Mexican authorities by keeping copies of his records. Rafael's status as a community
leader, he had served as alcalde or mayor, and his education, rare in those times among the large Californio landowners,
helped him keep his property.
"[The] Ranchos that went before him were unable to prove their titles," Aptos Museum Director John Hibble said. "His
ranch was the oldest to successfully prove its title."
Rafael was a proud man who refused to speak English. He would emerge as a traditional Californio island amidst a
swirling American river spurred on by the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. His sister Martina was considerably less
fortunate.
Even though she retained her claim to her vast Rancho Soquel lands just to the north of her brother, her holdings were
all gone in a matter of years. Most of Martina's land was first divided among her children. Most of her daughters had
Yankee husbands.
Shortly afterward, buffeted by lawsuits and the onset of mental instability, she sold her remaining land and spent her
last years living with one of her daughters.
The Last of the Californio Aristocracy
The Castros were natural targets in the transmuting California of the mid-1800s. They represented everything that
California had been up to that point in its history, a Mexican state dominated by large landowners from the Californio
aristocracy.
1
�The Castros had been a leading family in the Santa Cruz area for years before they received their huge chunks of land
from Governor Jose Figueroa in 1833. Mexico had just gained its independence from Spain in 1812, and the Act of
Secularization (1833) had just replaced the Catholic Church's authority with that of the Mexican government.
Rafael, who had served in the Mexican Army, received about 5,500 acres running from the Sanjon de Borregas or Lamb's
Gulch near where Cabrillo College is today, to the outskirts of La Selva Beach.
The grant ran from the sea to about two and a half miles inland. He received another 1,100-plus acres in 1840.
Martina and her second husband, Michael Lodge, an Irishman who became a naturalized Mexican citizen, were granted
about 1,700 acres running from the Sanjon de Borregas to the Soquel River in 1833. In 1844, she was granted a huge
32,000-plus acre addition, which stretched up to Loma Prieta, known as the Soquel Augmentation.
Bad Blood with the Yankees
There was also some bad blood between the Castro family and the Yankee population. Clusters of Yankees were already
living in the Santa Cruz area in the early 1800s. In 1836, a contingent of the Yankees, led by Isaac Graham and known as
rifleros, had actually joined a small army of Californios led by Jose Castro, a cousin of Rafael and Martina, in an effort to
establish California as a free and sovereign state.
Graham and his Yankee rifleros were promised land in exchange for their help. But Graham and his rifleros, along with
other Yankees around the state, believed their Californio compatriots never lived up to the bargain and made threats. In
answer, Jose Castro ordered the Yankees arrested and taken to San Blas for trial.
The Yankees were returned without facing charges, but the seeds of discontent had been planted. In the early 1840s,
Yankees began arriving in California in increasing numbers, a development noted by the Mexican Congress with concern.
By 1846, Americans had occupied California and an American flag was raised over Monterey. As the Mexican-American
War rocked California (1846-48), Yankees moved into local government and were elected to the posts of mayor. In 1847,
Santa Cruz alcalde William F. Blackburn, a Yankee, was named acting Governor of California.
In 1848, Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the war and turning California over to the U.S. that
same year, gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill and the Gold Rush was on. Yankees poured into the new U.S. territory. In
1850, California was admitted to the Union. Under state and federal control, a Land Commission was set up to review
land ownership.
First the state, then the federal government, required all landowners to provide proof of ownership.
"Unless they had copies of their own records, the records at Sacramento or San Francisco had a way of not being
complete," Hibble said.
Without copies of their records, and not understanding much English, Mexican landowners were forced to hire lawyers
to represent them in an attempt to reclaim their land. In exchange, the lawyers charged them half to a third of their land
for their services.
Castro Made Money Off the Invading Forces
According to Hibble, most large landowners lost their land through the process. Though Rafael had the foresight to keep
copies of all records regarding Rancho Aptos and didn't need to hire a lawyer to keep his land, he watched as his fellow
Mexicans lost their land and were mistreated by the newcomers. Until his death in 1878, Rafael bitterly resented the
Yankee invasion and resisted being assimilated into the new culture.
"He got to see his heritage treated very poorly," Hibble said. "The Yankees mistreated the Californios, called them
greasers or lynched them. He was bitter when he died."
2
�But, Rafael also made money off the Yankees. He leased them his land and allowed them to build on it for various
business endeavors, with the provision that at the end of the standard 10-year lease he would retain all buildings on his
property. Because of these contracts, Rafael acquired a lumber mill, a gristmill, a sawmill, and the Aptos Wharf.
Rafael also made a tidy profit from selling large parts of his land in 1872 to sugar king Claus Spreckels, who bought most
of what is now Rio Del Mar from the aging Mexican don.
Although Rafael's sister Martina also rented her land to Yankees, such as Frederick Hihn and Benjamin Porter, she was
one of the Californios caught in the Yankee current. She lost her second husband and three of her children in the Gold
Rush.
Martina's Misfortunes
Michael Lodge and Martina had gone to the Stanislaus River to ply for gold. Martina returned after three of her children
fell sick and died. Lodge never returned and was presumed murdered in a dispute over gold. Martina, who could not
read or write in English, found herself poorly equipped to deal with the Yankees.
Several of her daughters married Yankees, including Thomas Fallon, a veteran of the Texas War for Independence and
the Mexican-American War. In 1849, Martina, at 42, married Louis Depeaux, a man 16 years younger than she was. It
was rumored that Depeaux was actually more interested in Martina's daughters than in her.
Then, in the early 1850s, with her Rancho Soquel land grant before the Land Commission, Martina was sued by several
of her daughters and their Yankee husbands, led by Fallon, for most of her land. Soon afterward, Depeaux left without
telling Martina where he was going.
Martina eventually gave each of her remaining eight children one-ninth of her Rancho Soquel. She kept an 1,100-acre
parcel and her home near where the Soquel Cemetery sits today. Martina's Rancho Soquel lands would be the subject of
court battles for the rest of the 19th century and into the early 20th century.
Meanwhile, Depeaux returned, and he and Martina sold her remaining Rancho Soquel land to Catholic Father John
Llebaria and Rev. John Ingoldsby for $2,000, and the Soquel Augmentation for $500 to Archbishop Joseph Alemany and
Ingoldsby, in 1855. Martina had planned to go to Mexico after the sale but decided to go to the Hawaiian Islands
instead.
During the trip, Martina said she stated hearing voices and having hallucinations. In 1856, she returned to California and
spent several months in the Stockton Insane Asylum. After her release from the asylum, Martina spent her last years
with her daughter Guadalupe in Capitola until her death in 1890.
Sources
© Mid County Post. This article originally appeared in The Mid County Post, September 28, 1999–October 11,
1999, p. 12. It is reproduced here by permission.
The content of this article is the responsibility of the individual author. It is the Library's intent to provide accurate local history
information. However, it is not possible for the Library to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a
variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in a local history article are incorrect and can provide documentation,
please contact the Webmaster.
3
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Santa Cruz History Articles
Description
An account of the resource
Original articles by library staff and by local authors and material from historical books.
Articles on Santa Cruz County history, many with illustrations, are available here.
The Santa Cruz Public Libraries is grateful to our local historians and their publishers for giving permission to include their articles. The content of the articles is the responsibility of the individual authors.
It is the library's intent to provide accurate information. However, it is not possible to completely verify the accuracy of individual articles obtained from a variety of sources. If you believe that factual statements in an article are incorrect and can provide documentation, please contact the library.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Document
A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text.
Original Format
If the image is of an object, state the type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
AR-024
Title
A name given to the resource
Rafael Castro's Rancho Aptos was Oldest Land Grant to Remain Under Mexican Ownership
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Johnson, Jim
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<i>The Mid County Post</i>, September 28, 1999-October 11, 1999, p. 12.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Santa Cruz Public Libraries
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
9/28/1999
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
En
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
ARTICLE
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Copyright <i>Mid County Post</i>. Reprinted with permission.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Castro Family
Castro, Rafael
Ranchos
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Aptos
Santa Cruz (County)
Biography