Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-03-02

rendered and entered in this action,
on the ground that the Court in its
findings fraudulently found: That
the Judge on each one OF said findings
based his opinion against the evidence
and against the records of Los Angeles
county, which proves his decision
gwen as against himself, and against
the honest witness, and against the
defendants probity and reputation,
and against Constitution and against
law in all ways in this State.
And take notice that he also ap-
peals to the Supreme Court of the
state OF California from the order
made and entered herein refusing to
grant a new trial of this action, on
the ground of newly discovered evid-
ence, which was discovered after the
trial of this action as designated by
nine sffidavits as evidence in the case,
and also fourteen documents corrobor-
atory OF the evidence which are annex
ed to said affidavits, and defendants
affidavit is not fled by his attorney,
either by intent or neglect. Said af-
tidavit having been made for the in
formation of the attorney.
And take notice that the defendant
also appeals to the Supreme Court to
vacate and set aside said judgment on
the ground that said Judgment was
obtained by fraud, and corruption of
the law in all respects; that by pre-
meditated intention Of said plaintiff to
try to defraud the defendant, and
take away certain documents from the
hands of the defendants attorneys,
and also from the Court and try to al
ter, defraud and destroy said docu.
ments belonging to the defendant in
this action.
And take notice that the defendant
appeals to the Supreme Court to set
aside and vacate said judgment, on
the ground that the Superior Court
kept the custody of the agreement in
controversy between CASTOR Oxarart
and Eugene GARNER, and also took
custody of twenty-five other docu-
ments, some of which were corrobora-
tive evidence to the document in
question, and the Court left to the
plaintiff said documents to study
them long time before the COM
mencement of the trial of this action !;
and the Court refused to this defend
ant, assigns and his attorney to give
said documents to inspect or to take
copies thereof at the time needed, be-
fore and after the pleadings, as
against the Constitution. (Section l,
Article 19.)
And take notice that the defendant
appeals to the Supreme court to set
aside and vacate said judgment, on
the ground that the Judge of this
Court, His Honor, H. X. S. O'Mel-
veny, presiding as Judge. is not quail.
ified to act as such, being an inter
ested party in said property, and also
in the controversy which constitutes
the cause of action. Consequently,
according to section 10, Code of Civil
Procedure, the Judge, the said
H. K. S. O'Melveny, is dis
qualified, and defendant entitled
to revoke his said judgment in
this cause. And that under Section
Nv OF the new constitution, Article 13,
this defendant as a citizen of the
United States and resident of the
State of California for more than
twents-five years just past, has
right, the same as any other citizen
of the United States to revoke said
judgment against him, and to accuse
said Judge, on revocation, and de-
prive him of his function to act ary
more in his duties as Judge within
the State. And also that the Court
has aided and abetted other officers
of the law and other citizens, and also
the plaintiff to defraud said de-
fendant, and act corruptively against
law, and the professional dignity
Of the bench, under the constitution
of the State Of California. And that if
the fraud was not committed inten-
tionally it was committed by incapac-
lity on the part of the Judge in all
ways, thus being disqualified as such
in the mind of the defendant.
f. GARNER.
LIS Angeles, CAL, February 27,
1888.
(Endotsed) Simon F. Gless vs. Fu-
gene GARNER. Notice Of Appeal.
Dated 9th February, 1888. Superior
Court, Los Angeles, Cal. Recorded
copy February 9th, 1888. M. v.
Biscailuz and Chapman & Hendrick,
Attorneys for Plaintiff. Filed Febru-
ary 9th, 1888, Chas. H. Dunsmoor,
Clerk, by F. B. Tanning, Deputy.