The record-union., 1891-11-28
THE HIGHER COURT.
1t Filed Decisions Yesterday in Three
Appealed Cases.
One is From San Joaquin, One From
Calaveras, and the Other From
Butte-The Points Settled.

The Supreme Court yesterday filed in
the Deputy Clerks Office in this city its
decision in the case OF w. q. Burke, adj
ninistrator (appellant), VS.. b. w. Bours
and others. The case was appealed from
San Joaquin County, and was an action
IN ejectment. Bours claimed to be in
possession, under a perfect, equitable
title, and the appeal was taken by Burke
from the judgment upon bill OF excep-
tions.
The Supreme Court orders that the
judgment be reversed and the cause re-
Inanded for new trial.
A CALAvERAS BOND CASE.
A decision was also filed in the case of
Charles Sutro and others (appellants) VS..
A. NJ. Rhodes, which was appealed from
San Joaquin County. An Act was passed
by the Legislature of 1868, entitled "An
Act in relation to the funded indebted
ness of Calaveras County, and to provide
Tor the funding of unpaid claims against
said county," By this Act Fund Com
missioners were created, and the Board OF
Supervisors were authorized to have pre-
pared, executed and issued bonds of the
county in denominations of Sl00 and $500,
Dnt mot TO exceed in all SID, ,000." The
bonds were to be signed and sealed in a
certain prescribed manner, were to ma
ture and bear interest with interest cou-
pons attached) as specially provided in
the Act, and a record of the number, date
and amount of each bond issued was to be
entered upon the journal of the board.
The bonds were negotiable IN form, be-
ing payable to a party named, or holder.
Under this Act bonds were executed
and issued in form as provided therein TO
the amount of S115,000; and afterwards
additional bonds, similar in form to the
first ones, and executed in the same man
ner, were issued to the amount of about
$40, ,0G0 more. Nine of these latter "oVer-
issued bonds, each of the par value OF
$500, were sold by Rhodes to Sutro and
others for $4,675, and the latter brought
action to recover the money, averring in
the complaint that at the time of the sale
the defendant falsely represented TO
plaintiffs that the bonds were good. The
court below rendered judgment for the
defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed.
In an exhaustive opinion the Supreme
Court affirms the judgment, Justices
Beatty and Paterson explaining Sepa-
rately why they concur in the main opin-
ion, which was written by Justice Nc
Farland. Justice Garoutte dissents from
the opinion of the others.
REVERSAL IN BUTTE CASE.
The case of w. A. Cowan VS.. A. Abbott
and William Gregory (appellants), ap-
pealed from Butte County, was also de-
cided. It seems that Cowan sued the de-
PENDANTS as mining partners to recover
for services alleged to have been rendered
as Superintendent of their mine He
averred first in his complaint that he per-
formed labor which was reasonably
worth s., $50, of which amount A bbott and
Gregory only paid $3.50. He also claimed
that by an express contract he was to
take charge of their mine and pump out
the water so that it could be worke and
thereafter manage and work it and re-
Ceive the usual salary paid to mining
engineers. In case he succeeded in keep
ing the water out for one year he was to
receive bonus of 81 900.
The defendants, answering separately,
denied specifically each allegation, ex-
cept that they admit Cowan did some
work for them, but not as a mining Su-
perintendent.
The Supreme Court says the facts in
contest seem to be four in number, as fol-
lows: First, the value of plaintiffs serv-
ices; secondly, whether the defendant
made the express contract alleged by the
plaintiff; thirdly, whether there was an
express agreement, as claimed by the de.
1endants, fixing PLAINTIFFS compensation
at 81 per day and board fourthly, whether
he had been fully paid.
The court says: 1.-THE jury had the right,
upon the evidence to find for the defend
ants upon the last two issues, and the
court erred in refusing to instruct the
jury that, if they so found, plaintiff was
not entitled to additional compensation
For the error mentioned, the order should
be reversed and new trial had"