No. 19531-3

In the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco
State of California

Juan M. Luco, Plaintiff

vs.

Robert S. Baker, Arcadia Baker, and California Star Oil Works Company Defendants

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Filed June 30, 1887

Now comes Robert S. Baker, one of the defendants in the above entitled action, and on his own behalf, answers the amended complaint filed herein, and

I. Admits that the said California Star Oil Works Company is a corporation created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and has its principal place of business in the City and County of San Francisco, in said State of California, and has been such corporation since the 7th day July, 1876, but alleges that said corporation has also an office where it transacts business, located at Newhall in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

II. Denies that, on the 8th day of August, 1865, Pio Pico, Robert S. Baker, Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon, Juan Foster and Francesco P. Foster, discovered, located or claimed for mining purposes a certain tract of land of about one hundred and sixty acres, yielding petroleum or mineral oils, situate, lying and being in the San Fernando Mining District, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

Denies that on or about the 8th day of August, 1865, or at any time before or since said date, this defendant ever authorized Pio Pico, Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon, Juan Foster, Francesco P. Foster, or either of them, or any other person, to claim him to be a discoverer or to locate in his name, or jointly with him, or to associate his name with theirs, or any other person’s in any location as a discoverer, or to claim for him or in his name, or to associate themselves with him in any discovery, location or claim, or to locate or claim for mining purposes, or for any purpose whatever, a certain tract of land, or any tract of land whatever, of about one hundred and sixty acres, or any number of acres of land, yielding petroleum or mineral oils, or any mineral, or any land whatever, situate, lying and being in the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or in any other County, or in any other State, or in any other Mining District.

Admits that a notice of a location was recorded in the Recorder’s Office of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, as appears from said Record, on the 7th day of February, 1866, a copy of which is attached to plaintiff’s amended complaint, and made a part thereof, and marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” for which the names of Edward F. Beale, Robert S. Baker, Sanford Lyon, Juan Foster and Francesco P. Foster appear as locating seven claims on what is called the Pico lead; but alleges that the same was recorded without his knowledge and without his consent, and that he was not aware that said document was so recorded until a long time after the recording of said instrument, and alleges that he had, prior to the recording of the aforesaid instrument, marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” purchased for a good and valuable consideration from one Jesus Hernandez and one Ramon Perea, a certain tract of land which had theretofore been discovered, located and claimed by the aforesaid parties for mining purposes, the said tract containing about one hundred and sixty acres, which said land yielded petroleum and mineral oils and the same was situate, lying and being in the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and that said claim so purchased as aforesaid, from the parties aforesaid, had been, prior to the recording of the said document, marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” located and recorded in the Recorder’s Office of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, on the [blank] day of [blank] 1865, and recorded in the County Recorder’s Office of Los Angles County on the 22nd day of May, 1865.

Denies that said persons, to-wit: Pio Pico, Robert S. Baker, Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon, Juan Foster and Francesco P. Foster, or either of them, immediately thereafter, or ever or at all, took possession of said mining claim, or worked the same, or ever worked the same in accordance with the local mining laws of said District, or of the Mining Laws of the United States, or ever or at all worked the same, or ever did any work under or by reason of said pretended discovery, or location, or claim, or at all, or by virtue of any right or pretended right under said notice of said location, marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” or at all, except as hereinafter expressly alleged and admitted.

Denies that said parties or either of them, their successors, grantees or assigns, or any other person or persons, ever or at all under them or through them, have ever or at all owned or possessed said mining claim set forth and described in plaintiff’s amended complaint, except as hereinafter expressly admitted.

Denies that the said location and mining claim was generally know as the “Pico Oil Springs Mine,” except as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged.

Denies that said location and mining claim was generally known or ever known as the “Pico Oil Springs Mine” until it was so named by this defendant’s grantors as hereinafter alleged; but alleges that there was a tract of land in said Mining District, and within the boundaries of defendant’s claim, and the claims referred to in plaintiff’s amended complaint, known as and named the “Naphtha Oil Springs,” which was so named and called in 1865, prior to any claim or pretended claim by reason of the discovery, location or claim under or by virtue of the location alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A;” and that said springs were named thereafter “Pico Oil Springs” in honor of Andreas Pico, long since deceased; and defendant alleges on information and belief, that said Springs were so name by Jesus Hernandez and Ramon Perea, defendant’s grantors, and not otherwise.

III. Denies that on or about and during the months of March and April, 1877, or at any other date or time, or ever, or at all, this defendant represented to the said Pio Pico, or any other person, that he, said Pico’s, interest in said Oil Springs Mining Claim could be managed, controlled or used to their mutual advantage more successfully, if the title to the same was held by one person.

Denies that he ever requested the said Pico to convey to him his interest, or any interest in said Pico Oil Springs Claim other than as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged.

Denies that he ever had at any time or at any place a personal conversation of any kind or character with the said Pio Pico wherein or whereby he made any representations to said Pio Pico of any kind or character regarding the transferring of the Pico Oil Springs Claim to himself by said Pico, or in reference to any transfer of any oil claim, or ever had any conversation with said Pico regarding the subject matter, except as hereinafter expressly alleged and admitted.

Denies that he promised to said Pio Pico that if said Pico would convey to this defendant his, said Pico’s, interest in said Pico Oil Springs Claim, he, this defendant, would bestow the same care or attention on the interest so conveyed to this defendant as he did upon his own interest therein, or would make or return to said Pico all or any of the profits or proceeds arising from the working, use or other disposition of the interest so conveyed to him, this defendant, and to which said Pico consented, otherwise than as hereinafter expressly admitted.

Admits that on or about the 21st day of May, 1877, the said Pio Pico conveyed to this defendant by deed of grand, bargain and sale, all his right, title and interest of, in and to the said Pico Oil Springs Claim, and that the same was duly acknowledged and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, but denies that said conveyance so made by said Pico was made in pursuance of any understanding or agreement except as hereinafter admitted and alleged.

Denies that said conveyance so made by said Pico to this defendant was made without any consideration; denies that said conveyance so made by said Pico to this defendant was made in trust, that the same be held by this defendant to the use, benefit and behalf of the said Pio Pico, or any other person, except as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged.

IV. Denies that simultaneously with the execution and delivery of the said deed made as aforesaid, this defendant made, executed, acknowledged or delivered to the said Pio Pico a declaration of trust, wherein or whereby he covenanted and agreed to and with the said Pico that he would bestow the same care and attention upon the interest of the said Pico so conveyed to him as aforesaid as he did upon his own interest in said Pico Oil Springs Claim; or that out of the profits and proceeds arising from the use, working or other disposition of the said Pico Oil Springs Mine, he would pay over to the said Pico his proportionate share, or any share, of whatever might be realized therefrom, except as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged.

Denies that, soon after the execution of said deed, and of the said declaration of trust as aforesaid, it was discovered that a clerical error existed in the said deed from the said Pico to said Baker, in this, that the grantee was written “the part of the first part” instead of “the party of the second part,” as it had been intended; or for the purpose of correcting said error, or in order that the title and record thereof might stand as it had been intended, the said Pio Pico, on the 14th day of June, 1877, at the request of said Baker, made a deed of conveyance of the same property described in the deed of May 21st, 1877, to this defendant, the same grantee as in the previous deed as aforesaid, without any consideration whatever; admits that the two deeds are identical in the parties, in the property conveyed; denies that they are identical in form, and admits that in the last deed a clerical error was corrected. Admits that, on the 14th day of June, 1877, at the request of this defendant, the said Pio Pico made a deed of conveyance of the Pico Oil Springs Claim, being the same property described in his deed of May 21st, 1877, to this defendant, and admits that said deed was duly acknowledged on the 16th day of June, 1877, and was duly recorded in the County Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County in Book 54 of Deeds at page 430, and the “Plaintiff’s Exhibit D,” attached to plaintiff’s amended complaint herein, is a correct copy thereof.

Denies that under and by virtue of the mining laws of the United States said defendant and others, his associates, interested in the said Pico Oil Springs Mine, the grantees of the original locators and claimants of said claim, procured to be issued and that there was issued to them, a United States Patent for the said Pico Oil Springs Mine, dated the 14th day of September, 1880, except as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged.

Alleges the fact to be under and by virtue of the mining laws of the United States this defendant and Edward F. Beale, said Beale being the only person interested in said Pico Oil Springs Mine with this defendant at said time, this defendant being the grantee of one Jesus Hernandez and one Ramon Perea, and said E. F. Beale being the grantee of this defendant, (the said Hernandez and Perea aforesaid being the original locators and claimants of said claim), that this defendant and said E. F. Beale by reason of said grants and said location aforesaid and not otherwise, procured to be issued to them, this defendant and the said E. F. Beale, a United States Patent for the Pico Oil Springs Claim, dated the 14th day of September, 1880.

Admits that the same was recorded in the Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County in said State in Book No. 3 of Patents, page 224.

That he has no knowledge, information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegation that the premises surveyed and patented by the United States as aforesaid, are the same that were claimed and located by E. F. Beale, R. S. Baker, Sanford Lyon, Pio Pico, Juan Foster and Francisco P. Foster as aforesaid and known as the “Pico Oil Springs Mine,” and therefore denies the same.

Denies that on or about the 12th day of April, 1876, this defendant and his associates other than the said Pico, leased for the term of three years a part of the said Pico Oil Springs Mine, to-wit: the on thousand feet thereof described by metes and bounds in the lease, to one Ruben Denton, who afterwards, to-wit: on or about the 5th day of May, 1876, assigned or transferred the said lease to the California Star Oil Works Company, one of the defendants herein; or thereupon the said Company entered into possession of the premises so leased as aforesaid, and bored and sunk various and sundry wells thereon, or extracted therefrom large quantities of petroleum or mineral oils, to-wit: 1,200 barrels per month from the said 21st day of May, 1877, or from that date, or during the continuance of said lease, to-wit: up to the 15th day of August, 1882, except as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged.

Denies that by the terms of said lease this defendant or his associates, or either of them, except as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged, other than the said Pico, were to receive one-eight part of all the petroleum or mineral oils extracted from the leased premises.

Denies that one-seventh part of all, or any part whatever, of the petroleum or mineral oils so extracted by the said Company belonged to the said Pico.

Denies that the said Company retained or still retains, or ever retained all that part or portion, or any part of portion of the petroleum or mineral oils so extracted or ever extracted by the said Company belonging to the said Pico.

Denies that said Pico ever had any interest in any oil or petroleum ever extracted by any person from any claim whatever through or by the authority of this defendant.

Admits that he, this defendant, has never rendered any account to said Pico and never delivered to him any account of any petroleum or oil taken by said defendant, or his assigns, out of or from the said Pico Oil Claim; but alleges that said Pico was never entitled to the rendition of any account or to any accounting on account of any petroleum oil taken by this defendant or by any person, extracted out of or taken from said claim.

Alleges that said Pico, nor any person for him, ever or at all, ever made any demand or asked for any accounting until this suit was instituted.

Denies that said Pico has any share in or to any oil extracted from said Pico Oil Claim.

Admits that they have failed to pay him, the said Pico, the value of any oil taken from said Oil Claim or any part or portion thereof.

Denies that said Pico in entitled to receive any pay for any oil or petroleum taken or extracted from said Pico Oil Claim.

Denies, except as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged, that afterwards, to-wit: on or about the 15th day of August, 1882, this defendant and the California Star Oil Works Company, being at all times well advised of all the circumstances, alleged in Count IV of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, or well knowing that the said defendant held the said interest of the said Pico in trust as aforesaid, or conspiring or confederating together to cheat or defraud the said Pico out of his interest in the said Pico Oil Springs Mining Claim or out of his proportionate share, or any share of the products thereof, agreed that this defendant or his associates holding the legal title to the said Pico Oil Springs Mine, should convey the same to the California Star Oil Works Company by deed expressing upon its face a mere nominal consideration, but covertly and secretly there should be delivered to this defendant and his associates, grantors named in said deed, in payment for said conveyances, a large sum of money sand a large number of shares of the Capital Stock of said Company; or that afterwards, and on or about the 5th day of August, 1882, or in pursuance of said agreement, or for carrying out the fraudulent purposes, aforesaid, or any fraudulent purpose, this defendant or his co-tenant conveyed by deed of that date the entire Pico Oil Springs Mine.

Admits that this defendant and E. F. Beale conveyed by deed their entire interests in and to the Pico Oil Claim to the California Star Oil Works Company by grant, bargain and sale deed, as it was patented to them by the United States; and avers that the consideration of $5.00 as expressed in said deed, was the true money consideration for the conveyance of said property.

Admits that they were to receive in addition to the $5.00 aforesaid, and did receive three-sevenths of the capital stock of said California Star Oil Works Company.

Admits that said deed conveying said interest was and acknowledged on the same day and recorded in the County Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County, in Book 103 of Deeds at page 255.

Denies that the consideration expressed in said deed was untrue and did not express the true consideration thereof, except as hereinafter expressly admitted and alleged, or was fraudulent or deceptive, or was intended to or did deceive the said Pico, but alleges that the money consideration expressed in said deed was the true money consideration, and that, in addition to the said $5.00 so received, this defendant and E. F. Beale, the joint owner of said claim with this defendant, were to receive and did receive three-sevenths of the capital stock of the said California Star Oil Works Company.

That the consideration expressed in said deed was not so expressed with any fraudulent intent or purpose nor in any deceptive manner, or for any deceptive purpose, or was the same intended to or did it deceive the said Pio Pico.

This defendant further alleges upon information and belief that said Pico knew at the time, or soon thereafter, that the aforesaid deed was made, executed and delivered that defendant and his co-tenant, E. F. Beale, to the said California Star Oil Works Company, and that he well knew at the time that the said transfer was made that the same had been made, and that this defendant had receive his proportionate share for said claim from said California Star Oil Works Company.

Denies that on the day said deed was made, executed, and delivered, or ever or at all, the said California Star Oil Works Company delivered to this defendant, or to any other person for him, or for his use, or to his co-grantor named in the aforesaid deed, or at all, $150.00 in cash or any other sum in cash other than the $5.00 heretofore alleged as the money consideration for the said deed.

Denies that afterwards for the purpose of concealing the said transaction from the said Pico, or ever or at all, or for more effectually carrying out the said fraudulent designs, or for any purpose whatever, this defendant, or without consideration or for consideration, transferred or assigned so much of said stock of the said Company as was the proportionate share of the said Pico, or any share or any stock of the consideration received for the conveyance aforesaid for the Pico Oil Springs Mine, or at all, to Arcadia Baker, wife of this defendant, and his co-defendant herein, or to any other person or persons; but alleges that he never at any time transferred, assigned or set over to Arcadia Baker, wife as aforesaid, his co-defendant herein, or to any person or persons, and shares or share of the capital stock of the California Star Oil Works Company for any purpose or purposes whatever.

Denies that said Arcadia Baker, co-defendant herein and wife of this defendant, ever held, owned or controlled or had in her possession to his knowledge, any share or shares of the capital stock of the California Star Oil Works Company received by this defendant or hi co-grantor, or from any other person for or in consideration of the aforesaid deed herein admitted as executed and delivered to the said corporation, or for any consideration, or at all.

Denies that his co-defendant and wife, Arcadia Baker, ever owned, controlled, or had in her possession, and share or shares of the capital stock of the California Star Oil Works Company at any time.

Denies that his co-defendant, Arcadia Baker, wife of this defendant as aforesaid, ever heard or knew any of the transactions or circumstances related or alleged in the plaintiff’s amended complaint until said amended complaint was served upon her, except that she knew this defendant owned certain interests in an oil company.

Denies that she ever knew or had any knowledge of any of the circumstances regarding the transfer of stock to this defendant or his co-grantor by the Star Oil Works Company.

Denies that he ever or at all held in trust for Pio Pico or for any other person or persons, any stock of the California Star Oil Works Company, or any stock or property whatever.

Denies that Arcadia B. de Baker, wife of this defendant, ever had in her possession any stock received from her co-defendant R. S. Baker, or from any other person or source, held in trust or otherwise, by this defendant for the said Pio Pico or in trust for any other person whomsoever.

Admits that, since the conveyance to the said California Star Oil Works Company of the aforesaid Pico Oil Claim and the receipt of the shares of stock herein admitted as received by this defendant, that this defendant has received dividends upon each share of stock held by him, as awarded and regularly paid by said Company.

Denies that his co-defendant, Arcadia B. de Baker, ever received any monthly dividends, or any dividends upon any share of shares of stock of the California Star Oil Works Company, or any other Oil Company, amounting in the aggregate to a large sum of money, or to any sum of money whatever; but alleges that the said Arcadia B. de Baker never received any dividends of money or other property as dividends upon any share or shares of stock of the California Star Oil Works Company or of any oil company.

Denies that the exact amount of money received by this defendant as dividends upon the capital stock of the California Star Oil Works Company, as hereinbefore admitted, cannot be ascertained by the plaintiff unless by reference to and an examination of the books and papers of the said corporation Company, co-defendant herein, alleges that such information could at all times be ascertained from this defendant by any person entitled to such information.

Denies that ever or at all he has committed any fraudulent act or acts as in plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged and averred, or ever or at all committed and fraudulent act or acts.

Denies that his acts relating to said oil claim did not become known to the said Pico until the month of February, 1884.

Denies that this defendant has been guilty of any fraudulent acts or transactions in relation to the subject matter named and alleged in the plaintiff’s amended complaint, but alleges that said Pio Pico well knew all the transactions in connection with the said Pico Oil Claim at the time the said transactions each and all took place, or soon thereafter, and well knew at the time that this defendant transferred his said interest to the said California Star Oil Works Company that this defendant had so transferred the same, and alleges he well knew if he had any right or claim against this defendant for or on account of such transfer the same would be paid, or if he had any right to a knowledge of said transaction he could upon demand obtain all the facts regarding the same.

The defendant upon information and belief denies that said Pio Pico, on the 9th day of March, 1886, or at any time by an instrument in writing for a valuable consideration, or for any consideration whatever, duly sold, or sold, assigned or transferred all his right, or any right, title or interest of, in and to the said Pico Oil Springs Mine, and the proceeds or any proceeds thereof then due or to become due, and belonging to said Pico, to Juan M. Luco, the plaintiff herein.

Denies that, on the 9th day of March, 1886, the said Pio Pico had any interest, right, or title of, in or to the said Pico Oil Springs Mine, or the proceeds thereof, to transfer, sell or assign to the said Juan M. Luco, or to any other person.

But on information and belief this defendant alleges that, on and before the 9th day of March, 1886, said Pio Pico conspiring and confederating with on Juan M. Luco, who claims to be a citizen of Chile, the plaintiff herein, for a fraudulent purpose, and with a fraudulent intent and not otherwise, agreed that it should be understood between them that the said Pio Pico has transferred to the said Luco, either verbally or by writing, a certain fictitious and fraudulent claim without consideration and not otherwise, and for the express purpose of demanding money from this defendant which they well knew this defendant did not owe, and of instituting a suit or suits against this defendant with a fraudulent intent and for the express purpose of extorting money or a sum of money from this defendant, and that if they could succeed in their fraudulent intent and purpose, would divide the same so received between them, less the costs of suit and attorney’s fees, for instituting said suit.

And upon information and belief defendant alleges that said pretended and fictitious assignment was made to the said Juan M. Luco for the purpose and intent that as said Juan M. Luco claimed to be a citizen of the Republic of Chili and not a citizen of the United States, he could thereby maintain a suit against these defendants in the United States Circuit Court, and thereby put those defendants to greater cost and expense and inconvenience in defending said suit and thereby accomplish the fraudulent intent and design for which said suit was instituted as hereinbefore alleged of extorting money in settlement of the same.

And defendant further alleges that since the commencement of this suit the said Pio Pico has offered to dismiss the same for a very small consideration.

For a further and separate defense defendant herein alleges:

That on or about the 22nd day of May, 1865, one Jesus Hernandez and one Ramon Perea, discovered and located a claim of a certain tract of land of about 160 acres for mining purposes yielding petroleum or mineral oils, lying and being in the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

That the notice of said location was duly recorded in the Recorder’s Office of the said San Fernando Mining District of Los Angeles County on the [blank] day of [blank] 18 [blank] and was also recorded in the Recorder’s office of Los Angeles County on the 22nd day of May, at 11 o’clock A.M., Book No. 1, page 278.

That the said Jesus Hernandez and Ramon Perea, the persons locating said mine as aforesaid, named the same the “Pico Oil Springs Claim,” and, on the 22nd day of May, 1865, sold, assigned, transferred and by deed conveyed to this defendant all their right, title and interest in and to the aforesaid mining claim. Immediately after the purchase from the aforesaid Hernandez and Perea this defendant took possession of said mine and worked the same in accordance with the local mining laws of said District and of the mining laws of the United States, and their successors, grantees and assigns have ever since worked, owned and possessed the same.

That said location and mining claim was known and described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a rock fourteen inches long by six feet wide and two inches thick in top of lode some twelve chains Northwesterly from Naphtha Springs in Petroleum Ravine; thence South across a deep abyss to a saddle of the summit of a high ridge to a stake and stone; thence East to a live oak tree fifteen inches in diameter duly marked in a little plain in the Petroleum Ravine aforesaid; thence North over high peaks on the North of said Ravine to a stake and stones on the North slope of said hills or peaks; thence West across and up the aforesaid Petroleum Ravine to place of beginning; being about forty chains square and including Naphtha Spring, being the same for which the United States issued to this defendant and his co-tenant Edward F. Beale, a patent as hereinafter alleged.

That said described tract of land contained 160 acres. That the Naphtha Spring herein mentioned are the Springs mentioned and named in plaintiff’s amended complaint as and called Pico Oil Springs.

This defendant further alleges that on the [blank] day of [blank] 1865, he transferred and gave to Sanford Lyon a one-tenth interest in and to said claim above described for and in consideration of the information which the said Lyon gave to this defendant of the existence of said petroleum oil location of said Hernandez and Perea. That thereafter the said Sanford Lyon transferred to Christopher Leaming one-half of the interest so conveyed to the said Lyon by this defendant.

That on the [blank] day of [blank] 1865, this defendant conveyed one-half of the remaining interest in and to said claim to Gen. Edward F. Beale. That this defendant and his co-tenants hereinbefore named, their successors, grantees and assigns hereinafter named, have, ever since the 22nd day of May, 1865, owned and possessed said claim.

This defendant denies that Pio Pico, Juan Foster, or Francesco P. Foster or any other person for them or in their interest, had all or any possession of said mining claim, or ever worked or caused to be worked in accordance with the local mining laws of the said District or the mining laws of the United States, or ever or at all worked the same or ever advanced or paid out in, upon or about said claim any money or thing of value whatever.

Denies that any person or persons, ever or at all took or had possession of said petroleum oil mining claim, or any part thereof, other than this defendant and his co-tenants their grantees as hereinbefore alleged.

Alleges that thereafter a well known as the Sanford Lyon well was sunk for oil upon the said oil claim and other developments were made upon said claim for the purpose of working said claim and the obtaining of oil therefrom. That said was sunk at or near the place known as the “Naphtha Springs,” the said Springs being identical with the Pico Oil Springs named in plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Defendant further alleges that thereafter, on or about the 12th day of April, 1876, he and his co-tenants Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon, and Christopher Leaming leased to one Ruben Denton, for the term of three years certain oil property within the location hereinbefore set out in this answer, and which will more fully appear by reference to a copy of said lease, “Defendant’s Exhibit A” hereto attached, and made a part of this answer.

That this defendant and his co-tenant aforesaid, Edward F. Beale, had theretofore consented and given their permission to their co-tenant Sanford Lyon to put down a well within the boundaries of said property (so leased as aforesaid to the aforesaid Denton) and that this defendant and his co-tenant Beale had entered into an agreement with the said Sanford Lyon whereby it was agreed that said well so to be put down by the said Lyon should be held and owned by him in lieu of the one-tenth interest in said oil claim theretofore given to him by this defendant.

And defendant further alleges that the said on-tenth interest of the said Sanford Lyon in and to the aforesaid claim had been theretofore by verbal agreement, segregated from the interest of this defendant and his co-tenant, the said E. F. Beale, with the view and for the purpose of allowing the said Sanford Lyon to have and control the aforesaid well which was sunk upon said claim.

That, after the making and execution of the aforesaid lease to the said Ruben Denton, as hereinbefore alleged, the said Sanford Lyon did, on the 2nd day of July, 1878, sell and convey to this defendant, be deed, all the right, title and interest of, in and to the aforesaid well and mining location which had theretofore been granted to him by this defendant, and which the said Lyon had in the same.

That on or about the 2nd day of July, 1878, the said deed was recorded in the County Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County, in this State, in Book 63 of Deeds, page 214.

Defendant further alleges that during the term of the aforesaid lease, hereinbefore set out, a certain litigation occurred between certain parties and this defendant, and his co-tenant Edward F. Beale, regarding the aforesaid Oil Claim and that during the pendency of said litigation the said parties so opposed to defendant and Beale, purchased and obtained and caused to be assigned to them what purported to be the interest held by said Juan Foster and Francesco P. Foster in and to a pretended location of an oil claim, the said claim being the same location and claim set out in plaintiff’s amended complaint and marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.”

That this defendant, hearing of this pretended claim, caused an examination of the books and records in the County Recorder’s office of this County, and of the records of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District to be made, and then and there learned for the first time of the pretended claim referred to in plaintiff’s amended complaint, and alleged and set out in plaintiff’s amended complaint as “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” and ascertained therefrom that this defendant’s name with his co-tenants, Edward F. Beale and Sanford Lyon, had been signed to this pretended notice of a location of an oil claim and that the same had been recorded in the Recorder’s Office of the said San Fernando Mining District on or about August 8th, 1865, as appeared from said Records.

Defendant alleges that his, E. F. Beale’s and Sanford Lyon’s names had been coupled with the name of Pio Pico, Juan and Francesco P. Foster in said pretended notice of location. That said pretended location is the same as that set out in plaintiff’s amended complaint and marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A;” and defendant alleges that his name, as also the name of Edward F. Beale and Sanford Lyon had been theretofore used and signed to said document without the knowledge, authority or consent of either this defendant, or of said Beale or Lyon.

And defendant further alleges that soon after such discovery, while in conversation with an acquaintance, to whom he related the fact of such discovery, he stated to him that a fraud had been practiced upon him by Pio Pico, Juan Foster or Francesco P. Foster, or all of them combined. Thereupon the said friend informed this defendant that the said Pico disclaimed having been a party to said location, or that he ever authorized any person to affix his name to any paper or document claiming a location of said petroleum oil mining claim.

That soon thereafter the said Pio Pico sent word to this defendant, by and through Charles Forbes, Esq., business manager of this defendant, that said Pico had heard of the accusation which this defendant made against him in regard to said location, and that he, the said Pico, desired to disabuse this defendant’s mind of any such thought as that he had made or caused to be made any location whatever to said claim; that he had never made any location himself or authorized any person to make such location in his interest, but that other parties had attached his name, without his knowledge, to said notice claiming a location of said mining claim. That he was not aware who the parties were who had thus signed his name and attempted to make said location; that he had never done any work upon the said claim, nor authorized any person to do any work for him, nor had he been to any expense whatever regarding the same.

That if the parties in litigation with this defendant should attempt to use the aforesaid assignment of the aforesaid Fosters against him, the said defendant, to this defendant’s detriment or injury, and his, the said Pico’s, deed would do any good, he, Pico, would gladly transfer to this defendant any claim or interest he might have in said mining claim by reason of said location, and if it should result in said litigation that the aforesaid location, set out in plaintiff’s amended complaint as “Exhibit A,” was a legal one, and that he, the said Pico, had any rights under it, he would then ask defendant to protect such interest or to pay him something therefor; and at the same time, in pursuance of said understanding and conversation, the said Pico then and there made and executed a deed, dated May 21st, 1877, which deed is attached to plaintiff’s amended complaint and made a part thereof and marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit B,” whereby and wherein he conveyed all the rights and privileges he, the said Pico, of whatsoever nature may have in or to said oil claim or land to which he was then entitled under the laws of the State of California, as well as to all his right, title and interest in or to a certain oil claim known as the Pico Oil Springs situate in the San Fernando Mountains, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, located in the San Fernando Oil District in said County and State, and delivered the same to said Forbes, with instructions to said Forbes to communicate to this defendant the conversation aforesaid, and deliver the aforesaid deed to this defendant.

That this defendant is informed and upon information and belief states the fact to be that the said Forbes then and there stated to the said Pico that he, the said Forbes, was satisfied that they, the said Pico and the said Fosters, had no legal subsisting claim, right or interest in or to any of the aforesaid property or oil claim, but that he, the said Forbes, would communicate to this defendant the aforesaid conversation and ask defendant that in the event it should thereafter be made to appear that the said Pico had any interest in or to said property by reason or by virtue of the aforementioned location referred to in plaintiff’s amended complaint and marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” to protect or pay him something therefor.

Defendant further alleges that thereafter and upon the day of the execution and delivery aforesaid of the aforesaid deed by said Pico, this defendant stated to the said Forbes that he would not accept said deed unless it was distinctly understood by said Pico that this defendant should not be held responsible in any way for or on account of any interest which Pico might claim in said property, unless it should be determined in said litigation that the claimed location of August 8th, 1865, heretofore referred to, was valid, and that he would not recognize, uphold or maintain any claim of the said Pico under, through or by reason of said pretended location, and that under no circumstances would he attempt to maintain said claim in any way, but should resist in the Courts and elsewhere the same, as it was illegal and a fraud upon him and his co-tenants, Edward F. Beale and Sanford Lyon, and that he should attempt to and believed he could prove the same to be a fraud and that he would not in any way undertake to defend the same; but if his antagonists should succeed in the courts or in the Land Department of the United States in establishing against him said location through and by virtue of said assignment of the said Fosters, or by virtue of said location that said claim was a good and valid one, it being the same interest under which Pico claimed title, then with such an understanding and agreement he would accept and retain the aforesaid deed, but not otherwise.

And defendant alleges upon information and belief, that the said Forbes returned to the said Pico and communicated to him the said statement made by this defendant hereinbefore recited, and that thereupon the said Pico agreed that this defendant should receive and retain the deed with such understanding, and that thereupon the said Forbes prepared and wrote out the said instrument marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit C,” and attached to and made a part of plaintiff’s amended complaint herein, for this defendant to sign, and for the purpose and with the intent of carrying out the mutual understanding of the said Pico and this defendant, and that thereupon and in pursuance of such understanding, said Forbes inserted in said instrument the following, to-wit: “But in no event nor in any wise shall the said Robert S. Baker be held liable or responsible, but shall be saved harmless by the said Pico, his assigns or successors.”

And thereupon the said Pico returned to this defendant the said deed executed by him as aforesaid and the same was then and there delivered to this defendant. This defendant thereafter executed on the same day and thereafter delivered to the said Pico the aforesaid instrument marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit C.” And this defendant alleges that said Pico was informed as to the conditions upon which he, the defendant, would accept said deed, which were as hereinbefore alleged, and that the said Pico directed that said deed be re-delivered to this defendant, and that he would accept said instrument executed by this defendant as aforesaid, upon the express conditions hereinbefore recited, and not otherwise.

And this defendant alleges that said Pico accept the said instrument executed by the defendant, marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit C,” upon the express conditions as hereinbefore alleged, and not otherwise; and that said Pico was informed by said Forbes, who wrote the same, of all the facts and conditions upon which this defendant would accept said deed at the time Pico signed, executed and delivered the said deed marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit B.”

That the language hereinbefore quoted as contained in said instrument executed by this defendant, had been added to said document by the express direction of this defendant for the express purpose of limiting the said defendant’s liability thereunder according to the terms and conditions state by this defendant, as hereinbefore alleged.

And the defendant further alleges that he accepted said deed upon the express conditions hereinbefore alleged and not otherwise, and that he was informed by said Forbes, who wrote said instrument, and he believed and understood at the time he executed and delivered said instrument, and accepted the said deed marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit C,” that the language hereinbefore quoted as contained in said instrument executed by said defendant, was sufficient to protect him from all liability unless it should be fully determined by the courts or by the Land Department of the United States, that said claim of said Pio Pico was a good and valid one, and that said Pico had some interest in said claim by reason thereof as against the claim under which this defendant claimed.

That within a short time after the execution and delivery of the aforesaid papers, this defendant consulted one of his attorneys regarding the value and legal effect of the deed of Pico and of said instrument so executed as aforesaid by this defendant, and he was then and there advised by his said attorney that the deed was of no value, as the said Pico had no right, claim or interest in or to said oil claim, and that the instrument executed by him was ambiguous and uncertain in its terms, and he, the said attorney, advised the cancellation of the same.

That thereupon this defendant, acting upon said advice, sent Mr. Forbes, his business manager aforesaid, to said Pio Pico, and upon information and belief alleges, that said Forbes informed said Pico that said defendant had been advised not to accept and retain said deed, and the said Pico had no interest whatever in or to said mining claim, but that he would re-convey the interest conveyed by him, the said Pico, to this defendant by virtue of said deed; that the instrument which defendant had signed, executed and delivered to him, the said Pico, was ambiguous and uncertain, and that defendant desired to cancel the same.

That thereupon, as defendant is informed and believes, and so alleges the fact to be, the said Pico informed the said Forbes that he himself was of the opinion that he had no claim to said land under the so-called location of Pico, Baker, Lyon and the Fosters, but that as his brother Andreas Pico was largely indebted to the defendant, as he was also himself, if the defendant was willing to cancel all obligations held by this defendant against him, Pico, and his said brother, and call all financial matters as between himself, his brother and this defendant, settled, he, the said Pico, would, without further charge, make a deed conveying any and all interest he might have in or to said Oil Claim known as the Pico Oil Springs, and thereby and for said consideration cancel the said instrument executed by the defendant on the 21st day of May, 1877, and which is set out in plaintiff’s amended complaint as “Plaintiff’s Exhibit C.”

That thereafter the said Forbes returned from said Pico, and informed this defendant of the aforesaid proposition made by the said Pico.

That thereupon this defendant accept the said proposition, and agreed that all indebtedness between himself and the said Pico and his brother Andreas should be considered cancelled and paid, for and in consideration of the execution and delivery of the aforesaid deed and the cancelling of the aforesaid agreement executed as aforesaid by this defendant.

And thereupon, for and in consideration as hereinbefore alleged, and not otherwise, the said Pio Pico made, executed and delivered to this defendant his deed dated June 14th, 1877, set out in the amended complaint and marked as “Plaintiff’s Exhibit D,” for the express purpose of cancelling the instrument theretofore signed by this defendant and delivered to the said Pico as aforesaid, and for the purpose of conveying any and all interest which Pico might then have in or to the Pico Oil Springs Claim, and for the express purpose of rendering the aforesaid instrument theretofore signed and executed by this defendant, and set out in plaintiff’s amended complaint as “Exhibit C,” null, void and of no effect.

Defendant denies that said deed was made, executed and delivered to correct a, or any mistake made in a former deed executed on the 21st day of May, 1877, but alleges that the same was made and delivered for the express purpose as hereinbefore alleged and set out and not otherwise.

Defendant denies that he ever by any deed executed by the said Pio Pico at any time, received any interest, or derived any benefit, direct or indirect, therefrom.

That a contest was had in the United States Land Office by this defendant as against those claiming under and through the aforesaid location, under which the said Pico now claims an interest, and that a decision was rendered therein whereby it was decided that this defendant and his co-tenant Edward F. Beale were the rightful claimants and owners as discoverers and locators of the said Mining Oil Claim, and thereupon, on the 14th day of September, 1880, the United States Government granted and issued to this defendant and his co-tenant Edward F. Beale, a patent for the aforesaid Oil Claim.

And the defendant further alleges that then and there said Land Department of the United States decided that this defendant; Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon, Pio Pico, Juan Foster and Francesco P. Foster were not the discoverers or locators of the one hundred and sixty acres of land yielding petroleum or mineral oils situate, lying and being in the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under of through said notice of location set out in plaintiff’s amended complaint as “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.”

And defendant alleges that he and his co-tenant Edward F. Beale made application through the proper Land Department of the United States for a patent by virtue and upon the fact that they were the grantees of Jesus Hernandez and Ramon Perea, and the discoverers and the locators of said oil claim and entitled to a patent thereon.

And defendant alleges that opposition was made and filed in the Land Office of the United States by persons claiming through, under and by reason of the pretended location of August 8th, 1865, heretofore referred to as “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” and attempted to defeat this defendant’s and E. F. Beale’s claim to the said oil claim. And said United States Land Office thereupon rendered its decision deciding that the said pretended location, marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A,” was of no force or effect and that the aforesaid persons or their grantors did not take possession of said mining claim or do any work required by the local mining laws of said San Fernando Mining District, or the mining laws of the United States, and that they were not the owners, nor were they possessed of the same, nor were they entitled to the possession thereof.

And defendant alleges that said Pico never had at any time any right, title or interest in or to the aforesaid mining claim alleged and set forth in plaintiff’s amended complaint herein.

And this defendant further alleges that on or about the 12th day of April, 1876, the said Ruben Denton assigned an undivided on-half interest in and to the lease referred to and alleged to have been executed by this defendant and his co-tenants Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon and Christopher Leaming, to on A. J. Bryant.

That on the 5th day of May, 1876, the said Ruben Denton and said A. J. Bryant, sold, assigned and transferred all their right, title and interest in and to the aforesaid lease to the California Star Oil Works Company.

Defendant has no knowledge, information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegation that the said California Star Oil Works Company extracted large quantities of petroleum or mineral oils from said claim between the 21st day of May, 1877, and the 15th day of August, 1882, and that the said California Star Oil Works Company, between the dates aforesaid, extracted and took out 1200 barrels of oil per month, or a barrel, or any large quantity of oil, or any oil, and therefore denies the same.

Defendant has no knowledge, information or belief sufficient to enable him to answer the allegation that the said California Star Oil Works Company, between May 21st, 1877, and August 15th, 1882, extracted or took out oil from said claim, and therefore denies the same.

Defendant denies that between the 21st day of May, 1877, and the 15th day of August, 1882, any oil or money was received by or paid to him or any person for or on his account by reason of said lease, made as aforesaid to Ruben Denton; but alleges that during said time aforesaid he did not receive, directly or indirectly, any oil or money from any persons, company or corporation, for rent of for the use of said oil claim, or for or on account of any oil, mineral or anything extracted from said claim, or taken therefrom under the terms of said lease, or by reason of any lease, or between said dates, or otherwise or at all.

Denies that said Pico had any interest, direct or indirect, in or to the said petroleum or mineral oil taken out by the aforesaid California Star Oil Works Company between the aforesaid dates, or by reason of said lease, or at all.

Denies that the California Star Oil Works Company ever or at all retained or now retains any part or portion of the petroleum or mineral oil so extracted by the said California Star Oil Works Company belonging to the said Pio Pico, or that they ever extracted or took out from said mine any oil any portion of which belonged to or was the property of the said Pio Pico, or in which he had any interest, direct or indirect.

Defendant alleges that the California Star Oil Works Company never knew from this defendant at any time before the making, executing and delivery of the said deed whereby and wherein this defendant and his co-tenant, E. F. Beale, conveyed the title of the aforesaid mineral oil claim to the aforesaid California Star Oil Works Company, of the execution by this defendant of the aforesaid instrument attached to plaintiff’s amended complaint and marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit C,” as this defendant believed that he and his co-tenant, E. F. Beale, were the only persons owning or having any interest, right or title in or to said mining oil claim, and so represented the fact to be to said California Star Oil Works Company.

Defendant further alleges that said instrument, “Plaintiff’s Exhibit C,” was not recorded in the County Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County until July 14th, 1886, therefore, upon information and belief, defendant denies that the California Star Oil Works Company ever knew or had any information, knowledge or notice at or prior to the transfer of said oil claim by this defendant and his co-tenant to the aforesaid California Star Oil Works Company, as hereinbefore admitted and alleged.

That the said Pio Pico or any other person owned or claimed any interest, direct or indirect, either by themselves or through or under this defendant, either by reason of said instrument or otherwise.

Defendant alleges that the conveyance by him and the said Edward F. Beale to the California Star Oil Works Company as aforesaid, was done openly and without concealment, and denies that it was done covertly, or secretly, or that any of the acts or transactions concerning the said transfer were ever done with a view of preventing said Pico from knowing all or any of the facts in the case or with a view of cheating or defrauding the said Pico or any person or persons whomsoever.

Defendant denies that he ever or at any time confederated or conspired with the California Star Oil Works Company, or with any other person or persons, to cheat or defraud the said Pico, in any way or manner, out of the Pico Oil Springs Mining Claim, or out of any part whereof, or out of any other property or thing.

Defendant admits that he and his co-tenant hereinbefore named, held the legal title to said oil springs mine, but denies that there was ever or at all any agreement or understanding by and between him and his co-tenant, Edward F. Beale, or between him and any other person or persons, and the California Star Oil Works Company, or with any other person or persons, that the deed conveying their said interests in the said mining claim to the said California Star Oil Works Company should express upon its face a mere nominal sum, for any fraudulent object or fraudulent purpose whatever, or for the purpose of preventing the said Pico from knowing the true consideration for the same.

Denies that there was ever at any time any agreement, secret or otherwise with the said California Star Oil Works Company, or with any other person or persons, that there should be delivered to this defendant, and to his associates, grantors named in said deed, in payment for said conveyance, a sum of money or any sum of money except the $5.00 named as the consideration in said deed, for and in consideration of the deed of said claim, executed by this defendant and Edward F. Beale to said California Star Oil Works Company.

Defendant admits that in addition to the $5.00 the consideration named in said deed, he and his co-tenant received as additional consideration for said deed certain shares of stock from the California Star Oil Works Company, as hereinbefore alleged and admitted, and no other or different consideration therefore.

Denies that at any time or place, with any fraudulent intent or purpose, or with a view or intent of carrying out any fraudulent purpose or design, he or his associates ever made a conveyance by deed or otherwise of the entire or any part of the Pico Oil Springs Mine as patented.

Denies that the consideration expressed in said deed was fraudulent or for the purpose of deceiving, or that it did deceive the said Pico or any other person.

Alleges that said Pico knew at the time of the transfer, or soon thereafter, that this defendant had transferred all of his interest in said oil claim to said California Star Oil Works Company.

Defendant alleges on information and belief that the said Pico was often in this defendant’s office at and after the date of said transfer, and held conversation with Charles Forbes, business manager for this defendant and well knew that this defendant had sold and transferred all the interest held by this defendant in and to the aforesaid oil claim to the said California Star Oil Works Company, and alleges, on information and belief, that said Pico held conversation from time to time with the said Forbes about various matters and circumstances connected with this defendant’s business, including the subject of the transfer and sale of defendant’s interest in and to the aforesaid mining claim, and could have ascertained if he had so desired, any and all the facts regarding the same, as this defendant had no reason to object or motive to conceal or suppress any facts connected therewith from said Pico or any other person.

But defendant alleges on information and belief that soon after the aforesaid transfer by him and his co-tenant of their right, title and interest in and to the aforesaid oil claim to the California Star Oil Works Company, the said Pico held a conversation with said Forbes, this defendant’s business manager, as aforesaid, in which h was informed that this defendant had transferred all his interest in and to the said mining claim to the California Star Oil Works Company. That this conversation took place about the year 1879, and that the said Pico then and there made no objection to such transfer, or claimed any right, title or interest in or to any of said property, or things received in consideration of said transfer by this defendant, so transferred to this defendant as aforesaid, or ever has since claimed any interest thereto until the beginning of this suit.

Defendant denies that he has ever or at all been guilty of any fraudulent act or acts or transactions with or in regard to any business or financial dealings with said Pio Pico, or in which the said Pico had any interest, direct or indirect; but defendant alleges that he has at all times and in all his dealings and intercourse with him, the said Pico, treated him honestly and truthfully, as he likewise has all other persons with whom he has had any dealings or business relations.

Wherefore, defendant having fully answered each and every allegation made and contained in plaintiff’s amended complaint, prays to be hence discharged with his costs herein expended.

Wells, Van Dyke & Lee
Attorneys for Robert S. Baker

Subscribed and sworn by Robert S. Baker on June 14, 1887