Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-08-16
DECISIONS OF INTEREST,
Rendered Recently by the Supreme Cour

1senaereu IeCeutly Dy tne supreme tourt
The Supreme Court has decided, in the
case of the People VS.. Greenlaw, originally
commenced by the late d. Z. Callahan to
test the legality of the election of the pres
ent Treasurer of Sacramento county and
! other county officers, that the judgment OF
the Superior Court in favor of the defend
ant should be affirmed, on the authority OF
Staude VS.. Election Commissioners.
In the case of the County of Los Angeles
VS. the City of Los Angeles, the Supreme
Court has decided matter relative 10 fees,
fines and forfeitures in Justices Courts
which is as important here as in Los
Angeles. The Court holds that " if the
fine or forfeiture was imposed or incurred
without costs, or with costs which were
not collected, it is the duty of the Justice
to collect the costs out of the fines or for
FIXTURES paid to him, and TO report the
amount of his fees 10 the City Treasurer
| and pay it in TO the city treasury, as re-
quired by the statute of 1880, and pay over
the residue into the county treasury, as re-
quired by Sections 1857 and 1870 of the
Penal Code. But if the fine was imposed
or the forfeiture incurred with costs, and
the fine or forfeiture with costs were paid,
then the entire fine or forfeiture is to be
paid into the county treasury, and the fees
of the Justice are TO be paid into the city
treasury" The Court also says that u city
must refund to the county all money re-
ceived by it through mistake of its of
ficers in the performance of their
duties which should, under the law
have been paid into the county treasury.
The case of Walther VS.. the The Mutual
Life Insurance Company is one from Sac
ramento, but is of general interest The
decision is as follows: This is an action
on Il policy of insurance on the life of
plaintiffs husband. The policy contained
the statement that the company does not
insure against self-destruction in any FORM
it also required proofs of death to be fur
nished, including statements from attend
ing physicians, householder and the
undertaken. On the trial of the case, the
plaintiff, after proving the fact of death,
offered in evidence, for the sole purpose of
showing compliance with the requirement
OF the policy, preliminary proof of the
death of deceased which had been furnished
to the company by the plaintiff, consisting
of the proceedings of the COroner's inquest
held upon the body of deceased. state
ment by the plaintiff together with state
ments by attending physicians, the under
taker and householder. 1t appeared from
the evidence of the physician given before
the Coroner, that the deceased died
from the effects of prussic acid; the
verdict of the Coroner's jury was that
the cause of his death was prussic
acid administered by his own hand with
suicidal intent. No evidence was offered
contradicting the above The Court below
found that there was no evidence sufficient
n ShnU that tho HnsnaSol
eide, and found that the allegations of the
answer that he committed suicide were un-
true. This finding was based evidently on
the proposition that as the plaintiff offered
the papers referred to solely for the pur-
pose of showing that she had complied
with the requirements of the policy as to
preliminary proof, they would not be con-
sidered for any other purpose. This was
error. When the papers were in evidence
they were before the Court, and showed on
their face that the deceased had committed
suicide, and for the purposes of the trial
they were prtDl0 tdcic evidence of that fact.
and should have been SO considered. In
Surance Company VS.. Newton ~ Wall. 50.
Doubtless the plaintiff would have been
permitted to overcome, if she could. the
presumption raised by the papers, by evil
dence that the death was from natural
causes, but no proof as to the cause of death
was offered save that above noted. Judg-
ment and order reversed and cause re-
manded for new trial
In the case of Albert N. Johnson, who
sued Sacramento county for work done as
Stenographer, which claim the Supervisors
refused to allow, Department Two of the
Supreme Court has given decision in IA
vor of Johnson, the order requiring the
Supervisors to allow the claim being con-
firmed. The decision is as follows: "This
was proceeding by mandamus to compel
the payment of Judgment which the peti-
toner had recovered against the county.
The defense set up is that the payment of
the judgment will result in mourning in
debtedness and liability exceeding the in
come of the county for the then current
fiscal year, and that the Beard has no au-
thority to provide for the payment of such
excess from the revenues of the ensuing
fiscal year. If such defense had existed,
the proper place to inteTpOSc it would have
been in the action in which the Judgment
was rendered. For aught that appears, that
defense may have been there interposcd by
answer, and the issue tried and decided adj
versely to the county. The order appealed
from directed that the respondent be re-
CURED to allow and pay the amount of the
judgment. The order to allow is correct.
but the Board Of Supervisors does not pay
demands. The Treasurer is to paw. and it
may be that when the warrant shall be
presented there will not be sufficient money
in the proper fund for the year. The order
Is modified by striking out the words and
pay, and i'll all other respects it IS af-
ti11npd "