The Guerra brothers at Los Ojuelos — Dionicio, José María, and Juan Nepumoceno.
My great great grandfather José María Guerra, the grandson of Eugenio Gutierrez, was the first of the Guerra-Cañamar family to successfully settle the 8,856-acre Los Ojuelos tract in 1857.
José María’s father Isidro and grandfather Eugenio had previously tried to settle the land, but had been deterred and discouraged by Indian raids, and they subsequently returned to Guerrero Viejo (Revilla).
José María settled Los Ojuelos with his brothers Dionicio and Juan Nepumoceno. They raised sheep and cattle and used the springs there to irrigate crops that sustained the settlement. A town of about 400 eventually grew up around the ranch of stone houses.
My grandfather Pedro Armengol was born there. He would later meet my grandmother in Los Ojuelos — Leandra Castaño Barcena, a Webb County school teacher who traveled by buckboard.
José María ran the ranch store; Dionicio saw to the education of the children; and Juan managed the cattle and sheep operation.
The land on which our family hardware business would later be established in Laredo in 1946 was said to have been acquired in a trade for sacks of Los Ojuelos wool.
My father, José María Guerra, often recounted the story of how the Guerras lost Los Ojuelos — a ranch in an area that would later hit both oil and wind energy pay dirt.
Dad’s version of the story of the loss of the land had a bad gringo (his word) as an antagonist, a man who came into the community and menaced women and rustled cattle. My father said the Guerra brothers — the first José Maria, Juan Nepumoceno, and Dionicio — drew straws to see who would dispatch the unwelcome Americano. The one who got the short straw did the deed and the Texas Rangers investigated.
According to my father, an in-law, Eusebio García, married at that time to one of the Guerra sisters, talked the Guerra brothers into putting the ranch in his name until the trouble blew over. They did, and according to my father, he never gave it back.
Without documentation, it’s always been hard to discern what the true story was. As it turns out, my father’s account was rooted in a real event.
A couple of years ago on a late night Google search, I came across five pages of Volume 35 of The Southwestern Reporter, which follows here. I found a story that in many ways paralleled my father’s version and shaded in a wealth of information.
There was an Americano, and his name was Theodore Sanders, a woodcutter who provided Fort McIntosh in Laredo with firewood at $3 a cord.
He was caught red-handed with a rustled and recently slaughtered Los Ojuelos cow. When lawmen came to Sanders’ ranch, his ranch hand Pablo Longoria still wore the bloodied clothes from the slaughter and admitted to the theft about five minutes before Sanders would be shot. The hide with a Los Ojuelos brand was found, and the four quarters of beef were located hanging in an out building.
Longoria was arrested.
Sanders, 29, was confronted and shot at his gate just after daybreak by members of a posse on horseback who had traveled there to serve a warrant for his arrest for theft.
My great-grandfather José María and his brother Dionicio were in the posse that included lawmen. José María and Dionicio would be held accountable for Sanders’ death.
Sanders brandished a carbine and reportedly took the first shot at a member of the posse. By another account, he was restrained when he was shot. He would die a few days later.
In one assessment of Sanders’ character, it was said he had once been a bad, thieving man, a “thieb” according to the warrant, but since he had moved onto a small ranch near Los Ojuelos, he had become a decent father and husband who provided for his wife and children.
The intent of the posse had been to arrest Sanders, and not to kill or injure him. Though they had a warrant, it was not spoken of or shown to Sanders before the shooting.
In the end, the Guerras wound up paying Sanders’ widow Patrocina about $9,000, a vast sum in 1891 that today has a value of about $230,000.
The account in The Southwestern Reporter evokes yet another scenario for how Los Ojuelos was lost — did they lose it to a clever in-law or to the $9,000 they had to come up with?
My father’s sanitized account has endured for decades. I’ve repeated it to my own child and to others. My father’s account seethed with injustice and the disgrace of losing so vast a ranch to the sleight of hand of the in-law and the menacing man who met a bad end.
Now that I’ve read the account in The Reporter, I understand that when my father was telling us this story as children, he was recounting for us a murder story in which either his own grandfather or great-uncle pulled the trigger on a man’s life a century and 26 years ago.
For all the times my father told me the story over the decades of my life, I never failed to hear the plangent note in his voice, that something so valuable had been lost, something more than land.
The Southwestern reporter, Volume 35
By West Publishing Company
PAGES 51-55 verbatim
GARRETT, C. J. This is an action brought by Patrocenia Sanders and her minor children against Jose Maria Garcia, Dionicio Guerra, Tiburcio Guerra, Jose Maria Guerra, Cayetano Ochoa, and Antonio Zapata to recover damages of them for the wrongful killing of Theodore M. Sanders, the husband and father of plaintiffs. The suit was brought in the district court of Webb county on August 22, 1891; but the venue was changed to Nueces county, where the case was tried by jury on November 29, 1894, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $9,000, apportioned $4,000 to the widow and $2,500 each to the two children. Theodore Sanders was shot and fatally wounded by the defendants at his ranch in Encinal county on April 27. 1891. He died on the 9th of May following. Complaint had been made to the defendant Jose Maria Guerra, who was a justice of the peace, against Sanders, for theft of a cow. He issued a warrant for the arrest of Sanders, which he placed in the hands of the defendant Tiburcio Guerra, who was a deputy sheriff. Encinal was an unorganized county attached to Webb county for judicial purposes. The warrant has been sent up for inspection by this court. It is on a printed form. The word Intended to indicate the offense is iu manuscript, and appears to be “thiebs,” and the attempt to state that Sanders was accused of some offense against the laws of the state and to name the offense reads, “is charged with thiebs.” Otherwise it is regular in form, but bears no data. The defendants and others were summoned by the deputy sheriff as a posse to execute the warrant. They went armed to the ranch of Sanders, before daylight on the morning of the 27th, but waited until about sunrise before they attempted to make the arrest. When Sanders saw them approaching, he took his carbine, and met them at the gate, where he was shot. The testimony conflicts very materially about the circumstances of the killing. The defendants all resided near Sanders, the most of them living on the ranch called “Los Ojuelos,” about three miles distant from Sanders’ ranch, and of which the defendants Dionicio Guerra and Jose Maria Guerra were owners. The defendants Jose Maria Garcia and Dionicio Guerra were stock raisers, and had suspected that Sanders was stealing cattle from the ranch. Jose Maria Guerra, who was the justice of the peace, had requested his neighbors to watch around the ranch of Sanders, to see if they saw anything wrong. The facts show that there were considerable talk, suspicion, and feeling against Sanders as a bad neighbor, and as guilty of theft of cattle. On the evening of April 26th one Pablo Martinez reported to Guerra, the justice of the peace, that he had seen two employees of Sanders driving a cow into his inclosure. Guerra took a complaint from him against Sanders for driving the cow, as he expressed it in his evidence, and told him to go and see what they did with the animal. Martinez went with a companion at night, and returned, and reported that he saw Sanders and the two employees kill the cow. Guerra then sent for the deputy sheriff, Tiburcio Guerra, and told him that an accusation had been made against Sanders for the killing of the cow, and that he would make out a warrant for his arrest. The officer objected to going alone, as Sanders was a desperate man, but said he would go if the others would go with him. So he cited persons there on the ranch to go with him. All of the partywere Mexicans, and the warrant was written by a person who understood the English language imperfectly. Sanders lived upon his ranch with his wife and one child, the younger child being posthumous. He had in his employment three Mexicans— two men, Victor Perez and Pablo Longoria; and a boy, Victor Servin —who lived in jacales, or huts, near the dwelling house. When the posse approached the house, Sanders and his wife had arisen, and both were inside. Perez was just outside the yard inclosure, in the field, harnessing a horse. The posse met Pablo Longoria at the pasture gate, about 100 yards from the house, and there arrested him. He was detained there by two of the party. Defendants’ testimony as to the immediate facts of the killing is that when they approached the gate to the inclosure at the house Sanders came out with his carbine in his hand; that the sheriff, who had the warrant in his hand, told him he had a warrant of arrest for him, and Jose Maria Garcia told him they came as friends, while the justice of the peace told him to restrain himself; that Sanders cried, “Get away, you sons of bitches!” and called to Perez to come to him quickly, and when one of the party started to intercept Perez, Sanders shot at him; that he also shot at Laurel, another one of the party, who attempted to seize his gun, and that then the crowd shot at him. Some witnesses stated that Sanders’ second shot was at about the same time with the shots from the posse. On the part of plaintiffs the evidence was that no warrant was exhibited; that Jose Maria Garcia, when the party came up to the gate, said, “Mr. Theodore, we want to speak to you as friends;” that Sanders went, and opened the gate with his right hand, and stood in front of the gate, when Jose Maria Garcia said, “Kill him;” that they seized him by the arms, and shot him; that Sanders did not fire, or attempt to fire, because they caught him by each arm; and that he had his carbine in his left hand. This evidence is considered sufficient to support the verdict, and the conflict of evidence is determined by this court in favor of the verdict. Deceased’s mother was living at the time of the trial. He was 29 years of age, in good health, and was a hardworking-man. At the time of his death he was supplying wood on a contract, and had delivered about 300 cords in four months at $3 a cord. He had before that had a contract to supply the government post at Ft. Mcintosh with wood. He had about 20 acres of land in cultivation on his ranch. He provided his family with everything needed, and was kind to them. There is no evidence to show what profit there was on the wood. While the preponderance of the evidence shows that Sanders had stolen and slaughtered a cow that belonged to a person living on Los Ojuelos ranch, there is no evidence to show that he was about to escape, or that he would probably attempt to flee the country. Witnesses for the defendants testified that after Sanders was shot they searched the premises, and found in an outhouse the four quarters of a recently slaughtered beef, and in some weeds nearby a fresh hide, which by the brand and color showed it to be the hide of the cow which Pablo Martinez said he had seen driven into the inclosure the evening before, and showed the ownership of the animal. Only the hide was taken away. Longoria was sent to Laredo under arrest. The evidence showed that Sanders had had some reputation as a bad and desperate man before he moved onto his ranch. He had bought the land from the state, and had lived on it about six years. Before his purchase two of the defendants had two small fields on it, and it had been used by the owners of Los Ojuelos ranch.
Appellants, by their second assignment of error, complain of the action of the court in excluding evidence offered by them “that the mother of deceased was living; that during the lifetime of deceased he had contributed towards her support, and that she had reasonable expectations that he would continue to do so had he lived,” in order to show that she would have been entitled to recover a part of the damages if she had been joined as a party to the suit. But the record does not support the assignment. The suit was originally brought in the name of the wife and children alone, and they did not ask a recovery for anyone else; but, after the venue had been changed, the mother, Refugia Sanders, obtained an order of the court allowing her to make herself a party to the suit, and by a pleading relinquished her right to damages to the widow and children, and joined the plaintiffs pro forma, and adopted their petition. The defendants demurred to this pleading that the said Refugia Sanders had no interest whatever in any judgment that might be obtained, because it appeared that she had, as therein alleged, transferred the same; that whatever claim she may have had was barred by the statute of limitations; and that her suit could only be instituted in the county of Webb; and that said pleading showed on its face that she was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The court sustained all of these exceptions, and dismissed Refugia Sanders from the suit. The bill of exceptions shows that the question asked of the witness Patrocenia Sanders was, “Did said Mrs. Refugia Sanders, mother of your deceased husband, ever release any interest she might have had in this suit to you or your children?” And when objection was sustained to the question defendants offered to show that no such release had ever been made, which, on renewed objection, the court refused to allow them to do. It thus appears that the defendants were estopped from raising any further objection that Mrs. Refugia Sanders was a necessary party to the suit, and, while evidence of the facts set out in the assignment of error was probably admissible to lesson any recovery by the plaintiffs, yet the bill of exceptions, when examined, shows that very different matters were sought to be proved. It was shown by the evidence that the mother was living. The assignment cannot be sustained. Defendants offered the testimony of the defendant Jose Maria Garcia to prove that the sheriff and posse, while proceeding to the house of the deceased to arrest him for theft, and to recover the stolen property, met Pablo
Longoria, who had come from the direction of the deceased’s house, and was one of the parties who had assisted deceased in stealing the cow which he was charged with stealing, and there had a conversation with the said Longoria, wherein Longoria, whose clothes were bloody, first denied the killing of the cow at Sanders’ house, and, upon being closely examined, admitted the fact that he had assisted the said deceased in killing and skinning the cow, and that the skin and meat would be found on the premises, which conversation occurred about five or six minutes before the killing of Sanders — relevant to show that said defendants were attempting in good faith upon reliable information to arrest the said deceased and to recover the stolen property, and as the declaration of a co-conspirator, made before the consummation of the conspiracy, and as a part of the res gestae, and to show the intention of defendants to arrest, and not to kill or injure, the said deceased, and that no conspiracy had been entered into by the defendants for such purpose. But the evidence was excluded upon the objection of plaintiffs. Afterwards Longoria testified in the case, and on cross-examination denied that his clothes were bloody when arrested, that he had helped to kill a cow, and that he had any knowledge of a cow having been killed; whereupon defendants again offered the above testimony of Jose Maria Garcia, which the court admitted, but limited its effect to impeachment only. The evidence was properly excluded. It was too remote to affect the issue involved in the case, and not admissible for any purpose. If the plaintiffs’ testimony is true — and to give proper effect to the verdict of the jury it must be taken as true —I t is sufficient to sustain the finding that the killing by the defendants was wrongful, although they may have had in their hands a valid warrant, because the testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses Mrs. Sanders and Perez shows that there was no warrant exhibited, and that nothing was said about a warrant, but that Sanders was seized by the arms while he was at the gate, and shot, without his having made any attempt to resist arrest or to do violence to the posse. If the story of defendants is true, a deadly assault had been made upon them by the deceased; but how far they would have been aggressors in going armed upon the premises of deceased, and attempting to arrest him without warrant of law, even in such case, need not be inquired into. They claim authority of law (1) by the warrant of arrest, (2) under article 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and (3) under article 343 of that Code. As to the first, a warrant for the arrest of a person must state that the person is accused of some offense against the laws of the state, naming the offense. Code Cr. Proc. art. 233. The warrant in the hands of the deputy sheriff stated that the deceased was charged with “thiebs.” This is certainly not in compliance with the requirement of the Code, It was not stated that the deceased was charged with an offense, and no offense was stated. The warrant was void. Defendants cannot claim protection under article 229 of the Code, because that article authorizes arrest without a warrant on information of a credible person only when “the offender is about to escape, so that there is no time to procure a warrant,” and does not apply to the facts of this case at all. Finally, under article 343, it is plain from the evidence that the action of the defendants was not taken for the purpose of preventing the consequences of theft by seizing the property which had been stolen, and bringing it, with the supposed offender, if he could be taken, before a magistrate. The facts do not authorize an arrest under that article. Hence there is no view of the case in which the evidence of Longoria was competent. Neither would it have been proper to admit the testimony of the witness Pierce also to impeach Longoria as to his denial of statements said to have been made to the sheriff while in jail at Laredo, to the same effect as detailed by Garcia. What has been said disposes also of the objection to the instruction by the court to the jury that the warrant was void. No error is found in the charge of the court, as contended under the ninth assignment of error. The defendants were given the benefit by special instructions of every defense set up by them. Upon the measure of damages the following instruction was given to the jury by the court, which was correct, and was applicable to the evidence in the case: “If you believe from the evidence that the defendant wrongfully assaulted the husband of plaintiff, and inflicted upon his person gunshot wounds which resulted in his death, as alleged, then you may allow such damages as you may think will compensate the plaintiff and her children for the pecuniary loss sustained by them on account of his death, not exceeding, however, the amount claimed.” The amount of the Judgment does not appear to be excessive. The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
