Feliz

The claim in this case was rejected bv the board of commissioners for want of proof of the genuineness of the grant, and because the grant itself contained no description of the land to identify it or enable a surveyor to determine its locality. On looking at the evidence before the board, we find no proof even of the signature or the governor to the original grant. The expediente from the archives was neither-produced nor accounted for, but the evidence was confined to the point of occupation and cultivation by the grantee. Since-the appeal has been taken, evidence of the genuineness of the signature of Governor Micheltorena has been offered, and a duly certified copy of the expediente on file in the archives has been offered in evidence and admitted by the district attorney. In. the original grant the signature of the secretary is wanting, but though this circumstance might suggest a doubt as to the-genuineness of the document, we are not. aware that the signature of the secretary was a legal requisite to grants of this description. The grant was made on the-ninth of November, 1844. By the testimony of James Black and Jesus Pifia, taken in this court, it appears that the…