n then applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of
mandate to compel the judge of the court before which the suit was
pending, to order his substitution as attorney of record for Donner.
This writ was granted by the Supreme Court, and in January, 1861, Mr.
Houghton became the attorney of record. This suit had been brought
by Green McMahon, who had been appointed Donner's guardian for that
purpose, and after a full examination of the case, Mr. Houghton
dismissed it, and immediately commenced another in the name of George
Donner, who was then of age. In the following year, February, 1862, it
was brought to trial before a jury, and after a contest which lasted ten
days, a verdict was rendered in favor of Donner.

The squatters appealed to the Supreme Court of the State where the
verdict of the jury was set aside, a new trial ordered, and the case
sent back for that purpose. This new trial was procured by means of an
amendment of the law, regulating trials by jury in civil cases.
This amendment was passed by the Legislature, at the instance of the
squatters, after the verdict had been rendered. A new trial was had in
1864, before a jury, and resulted in another verdict for Donner. The
first trial had attracted much attention, and was frequently mentioned
in the newspapers of San Francisco, and thus several persons who were
present when the grant was made had their attention called to the
controversy, and to the difficulty encountered in proving a delivery of
the grant. They communicated to Donner the fact that it was delivered
for him to William McDonald, the man with whom he lived at the time.
They also narrated the circumstances attending the delivery of the
grant. This information, however, came too late for the purposes of the
trial. Prior to the second trial, the written testimony of all these
witnesses was procured and in readiness for use when required, but it
was never required. Mr. Houghton and the attorneys whom he had called
upon to aid in the case, determined to rest its decision upon another
ground. They concluded to insist that, as it was a grant issuing from
the government through its instrument, the Alcalde, who was invested
with authority for the purpose, no delivery of the grant was necessary,
and that none was possible, as the entry on the record book of the
Alcalde was the original, it bearing his official signature and being a
public record of his official act. This was a bold attack upon the rule
which