INVESTIGATION OF DISPUTED PEDIGREES. 445. 



purports to be the original of this document before me, and I 

 must therefore depend upon my memory and upon what Judge 

 Halsey, as attorney for Mr. Brodhead, has printed as the con- 

 tents. In giving the list of animals I will follow the order of the 

 "document" and place before each one, for convenience of refer- 

 ence, the number attached to that animal in Mr. Welch's original 

 inventory. 



lo One gray mare, by Grey Eagle, out of Mary Morris. 



16. One sorrel mare, Hope, by Glencoe. 



17. Sovereign filly, oat of Grey Eagle inare, four years old. 

 8. Vandal filly, out of bay Grey Eagle mare, four years old. 



18. One two-year-old filly, by Bob Johnson, out of bay Grey Eagle mare. 



19. One two-year-old filly by Lexington. 



20. One yearling colt, by Lexington, out of Grey Eagle mare. 



21. One two-year-old filly, by Kinggold, out of Hope. 



In looking over this list there are several points suggested for 

 remark and they all have a bearing, more or less direct, on the 

 question at issue. The list seems to have been prepared, if pre- 

 pared by Mr. Swigert, very hurriedly and without sufficient re- 

 gard to completeness or accuracy. He started off, possibly to 

 make a careful list, as he gave the color of the two-year-old mares 

 at the head and then dropped all purpose of completeness and 

 gave no colors nor descriptions to those that followed. He gives 

 No. 21 as a filly when it was a colt, and so appears in the inven- 

 tory, was sold as a colt with pedigree at San Jose, January, 1865, 

 and again, with the same pedigree, at The Willows, February, 

 1866. Under ordinary conditions the statement of the breeder 

 should be conclusive against all others, but in this case the evi- 

 dent hurry and absence of descriptions have destroyed the value 

 of the whole list, in great degree, as evidence that could be ac- 

 cepted with safety. We must, therefore, look for something 

 in the way of evidence more deliberative and descriptive in its 

 preparation, and this we find in the joint work of Mr. Swigert and 

 Mr. Welch, as embodied in the inventory. When the descrip- 

 tions of the animals were taken, both men were equally interested 

 in accuracy and completeness, both were present, and probably 

 the animals were before them. Hence my infinitely greater con- 

 fidence in the deliberative work of the two, as found in the in 

 ventory. 



The one point about which all this hubbub has been raised is 

 the so-called "Lexington filly/' that appears as the sixth in the 



