The Forged San Miguel La Peralta Grant, 1728

On March 2, 1893, Juan María Armijo (E1a), Simona Armijo (E1a1) and Anselmo Armijo (E2a) petitioned the Court of Private Land Claims (CPLC) for approximately 400,000 acres of land in Bernalillo County known as “La Peralta.” The petitioners claimed that on January 12, 1728, their ancestor Antonio José Armijo had petitioned Governor Bustamante for the grant, which the governor granted on January 15th. Ten days later, Armijo supposedly took possession of the grant, whose boundaries were: 1) on the north, by Nacimiento or head of the Colle Canyon; 2) on the south, el Cerro del Oso; 3) on the east, the lowest declivity of the easter side of the mountain; and 4) on the west, the Guacamalla Canyon. The petitioners stated that Armijo and his legal representatives had remained in lawful possession of the land until the present time but were unable to furnish the original grant papers, as one of Armijo’s descendants had taken them to Texas. Instead, they filed what they said was a true copy of the original grant.

The trial began on September 25, 1894. Juan Armijo (E1a) testified regarding his family, the origin of the grant, how long they had lived on the grant and the history of the grant document. The provenance and authenticity of the grant document became the central focus of the proceedings. Armijo stated that he had seen the original grant document one time around the year 1847 when his father Juan Ignacio Armijo (E1) had attempted to have a certified copy of the document made by Miguel Montoya, justice of the peace, as the original was in poor condition. Armijo stated that he had been present when the copy was made, and his lawyer endeavored to show that the copy was a faithful reproduction of the original.

US Attorney Matt G. Reynolds objected to the introduction of the alleged copy into evidence as it was impossible to know whether the content of the original document had been accurately transcribed. Since the original was in a mutilated state, it was possible that portions of the copy contained language that Montoya had introduced himself. Also present at the hearing was Mr. John H. Knaebel as counsel for claimant Mr. Joel P. Whitney under the Cañada de Cochiti land grant, under review by the court, which conflicted with the Peralta land grant. Mr. Knaebel introduced his own objections to the grant document, stating that a Mexican justice of the peace did not have the power to certify an official document, as he did not have the same authority as an alcalde mayor did under the Spanish government. In an attempt to establish the document’s chain of custody, Juan Armijo said that his father Juan Ignacio (E1) had died in 1868 and had given the copy to Simona Armijo (E1a1),[i] who was Juan’s daughter (and Juan Ignacio’s granddaughter). Simona then gave him the copy. He had received it when he was living in La Loma Parda, in Mora County.

The original grant copy is not located among the land grant case files, only a typed transcription in Spanish and an English translation. There is language in the document that suggests it was a forgery. For instance, Andrés Montoya, the presiding official, makes the act of possession in the name of the ‘municipality,’ a term of administrative governance not in use in New Mexico in the early 18th century. The proper language, such as that used by this same official in the act of possession for the Cañada de Cochiti grant, was ‘in the name of His Majesty.’ It was also unusual in that there were no witnesses to the act of possession. Lastly, Montoya declared himself to be an ‘alcalde,’ whereas his correct title was ‘alcalde mayor.’ He supposedly signed the document with that title, ‘alcalde’ but on the Cañada de Cochiti grant document he had signed with his military title, ‘captain.’

On cross-examination by Mr. Knaebel, Armijo testified that he was unsure if the justice of the peace charged with making a certified copy of the original document, Miguel Montoya, had written the entire copy himself. Montoya and another man had worked together to make a copy, so Armijo was unable to say which portions of the copy each of them had written. He also said he had not witnessed Montoya sign the document. The proceedings then turned to the alleged will of Antonio José Armijo. Mr. Knaebel objected to its introduction as irrelevant and secondary evidence. Mr. Reynolds also objected to the fact that the will was signed José Antonio Armijo, while the grantee’s name on the grant paper copy was written as Antonio José Armijo.

The will contains several oddities worth noting. Although purportedly written on March 8, 1820, the paper appears to be a more modern sort, torn from a notebook with ruled pages in blue and red ink. Armijo states that he is 112 years, 10 months and 26 days old, a strangely precise age that strains credulity. He then states that he and his wife Rosa Aragon had five children (four boys and one girl) naming them as: Juan, Seledon, Miguela (Micaela) and Antonio, in addition to an adopted son Ignacio, son of Juan. This does not match the genealogical records for the family, which show they had seven children: María Manuela, Mariano Ambrosio, Francisco Solano, José Manuel, Juan, Bernarda de Jesús and María Michaela. All but Bernarda have marriage records, indicating they lived to adulthood, so at the very least we would expect Manuela and Mariano to appear on the list, while Solano was perhaps the ‘Seledon’ referenced. The inclusion of an ‘Antonio,’ is a mystery as there are no supporting records for anyone with that name. Again, the document has no other witnesses and is signed only by José Antonio Armijo and Joaquín Montoya, alcalde, in the same handwriting.

The plaintiff’s attorney stated that they had no other evidence to offer and then, perhaps understanding that his case was unconvincing, withdrew the offer of the papers. The Santa Fe New Mexican reported on September 26, 1894 that the court had entered an order dismissing the Peralta grant claim, which greatly simplified the remaining petitions related to the Cañada de Cochiti. In a report to the US Attorney General dated February 19, 1895, Mr. Reynolds wrote that upon cross-examination of the witness during the trial, the title papers were shown to be forgeries, counsel for the plaintiffs withdrew from the case, the court rejected the claim and the case was dismissed.[ii]

Note: the source of the information regarding the history of the grant can be found in the New Mexico State Archives, Land Grant Case Files, Court of Private Land Claims Case No. 161.

[i] The court transcript recorded the name as, ‘Senona,’ most likely referring to his daughter Simona.

[ii] La Peralta Grant (Juan María Armijo), Thomas B. Catron Papers, Center for Southwest Research, University Libraries, University of New Mexico, Image 15. Available at: https://nmdigital.unm.edu/digital/collection/catron/id/12090