Majority
p. 590[No. 5449.] JOTHAM BIXBY, et al., v. H. K. W. BENT, et al.
Headnote
Tbanslation of a Dooombnt not Admissible in Evidence.—A translation of the expediente of a Mexican grant of land, unaccompanied by the original, or a certified copy of the same, is not admissible in evidence.Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles.
In June, 1846, the Mexican nation granted to Juan and José Loreto Sepulveda, the rancho Los Palos Verdes, lying in the present county of Los Angeles. Said Juan and José Loreto, in 1852, in Avriting, declared that they held the title in trust and for the use of José Diego Sepulveda, Ygnacio Sepulveda, and Teresa Sepulveda, jointly Avith
p. 591
themselves, and that each of the five were entitled to equal shares in the rancho. The grant was confirmed on the tenth day of December-, 1866, but no patent had been issued when this suit was tried. In 1844, said José Diego Sepulveda, and one Johnson, executed a deed of exchange, wherein J osé conveyed to J ohnson an undivided one-fifth of Los Palos Verdes, and Johnson conveyed to said José his interest in the rancho Yucaipa. Johnson took possession of the rancho Palos Verdes, and Sepulveda took possession of Yucaipa. This action was commenced in 1874, for a partition of the rancho Palos Verdes. The deed between Johnson and Sepulveda contained full covenants of warranty. José Diego Sepulveda was dead, and, on the trial, his heirs claimed that Johnson had acquired no interest in the Palos Verdes by the deed of exchange, because he did not own Yucaipa, and therefore Sepulveda got nothing by the deed. For the purpose of showing that Johnson'did not own Yucaipa, they offered in evidence the translation of the expediente of the rancho San Bernardino, another Spanish grant, with evidence that Yucaipa was within the boundaries of Ban Bernardino. The plaintiffs objected because not accompanied with the original expediente or a certified copy thereof. The original was on file in the office of the surveyor-general of the "United States for California. The court overruled the objection. The plaintiffs appealed.
Brunson, Eastman & Graves, and Thorn & Ross, for the Appellants.
Hartman Haley and J. G. Howard, for the Respondents.
The court below permitted the defendant to put in evidence the translation of the San Bernardino expediente, not the original, nor a certified copy, nor an examined copy, but a mere translation.
This was error, requiring the reversal of the judgment. Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed.