Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-29
THE HIGHER COURT.
THREE DECISIONS FILED YESTERDAY
IN APPEALED CASES.
Reversal of the Judgment in SANDER
Case-An Order of the Yolo
Court Annuiled.

The following Supreme Court opinions
were filed in the Office of Clerk ]. D. Spen-
Ger in this city yesterday:
Barkly (sppellant) VS.. Copeland. This
case was appealed from Tehama county,
and the action brought was to recover DAM
ages for slanderous words spoken by the
defendant, in falsely charging the plaintiff
with being interested with one Russell
Speegle in the larceny of certain cattle, the
property of Thomas Polk, end with receiv-
ing the same. knowing them to have been
stolen by Speegle.
The defense set up was justification, on
the ground that the language spoken was
true, and certain facts in mitigation were
also pleaded. The jury found verdict for
the defendant, and from the judgment
thereupon rendered the appeal is taken.
The first ground of error relied upon BY
the appellant was that the Court erred in
striking out, on the defendants motion,
the answer of Witness Laura Vaudeville,
in reply to question put by the plaintiff S
counsel, in an endeavor to show that GER
tain parties had tried to get her to swear to
certain things. The question was answered
before the objection was made, but the
Court struck out the answer upon the state
ment that the defendants counsel did not
have time to object.
An exception to the ruling was taken by
the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court says
there is nothing in it. 1t was the Courts
duty to give the opposite side chance to
object. The proper thing for the plaintiffs
counsel to have done would have been to
object to the question after the answer had
been stricken out. He did not do this.
Other questions on cross-examinations
were asked of Laura Vaudeville, the wit
ness for the defendant, and other witnesses,
and different rulings were made.
The Supreme Court finds an error in ad.
hitting certain portions of the evidence,
which had very material effect on the jury.
The judgment and order are reversed.
Barkly (appellant) VS.. Copeland. This is
an appeal from an order refusing TO retax
bill of costs presented by the defendant.
who had succeeded in the action.
The Supreme Court says the Court should
have retaxed the defendants bill of costs
and struck therefrom the item of 1853 40.
For these reasons the order appealed from
is reversed and the Court below directed to
retax the bill of costs as indicated.
YoLo COUNTY CASE.
Moore (petitioner) vs.. Superior Court of
Yolo county. This is an application for g
writ of certiordri 10 test the jurisdiction of
ing former order of the same Court in a
probate proceeding. This same order was
appealed from, and it was held that the
order was not appealable.
The Supreme Court says: I'VE are quite
certain that the last order was made with
out authority of law, and was a nullity.
The former order was not void on its face.
1t was final as to The right of the widow of
the deceased, and the petitioner, as to
which Of them should manage the property
under the provisions of the will. The
time within which such an order could be
vacated must be held TO be limited by Sec.
ton AIS of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court had no jurisdiction, after the ex-
piration of six months, to vacate the order
made on mere motion for that purpose.
the order not being void on its face. The
order must be annulled, and it is so or
dered