After such proofs upon this point as were accessible had been made, the proceedings had ceased, and for several months there had been no prospect of any further progress being made. During this time, one Yonti, who had undertaken to recover possession of the lot at his own expense for a share of it, had the management of the case, and had employed an attorney to conduct the litigation. Yontz became unable, pecuniarily, to proceed further with the case, and informed Donner of the fact, whereupon the latter induced his brother-in-law, S. O. Houghton, to attempt to prosecute his claim to some final result. Mr. Houghton applied to the court to be substituted as attorney in the case, but resistance was made by the attorney of Yontz, and the application was denied. Houghton 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