The record-union., 1891-01-19
CHESTER, Appellant,

III QSiIuTftT 10 iIle tiliSWtT
The motion was properly denied. If the
action be considered as an action of ejectment,
there is a specific denial of plaintiff IS alleged
right of possession. II may be that the denial
Is too general, and that it would not stand the
test on demurrer for uncertainty, but ii is
sufficient to raise an issue as to some portion
of the property and to defeat motion for
Judgment on the pleadings assuming that
such a motion would be good under any cir
cunlstances in an action of ejectment.
The prayer OF the complaint is that the de-
PENDANTS be required to set forth their claims
that said claim be adjudged to be invalid, and
plaintiffs title declared TO be good; that
plaintiff be restored to possession and defend
ants be debarred forever from asserting any
claim to the land, and .'for such other and
further relief as shall be meet in the premises
and costs of suit
Upon the allegations of the complaint and
TINS prayer the court would not have given
judgment without evidence, if there had been
no answer at all filed.
The judgment Is affirmed.
We concur:
MCFARLAND, ].
WORKS, j.
THoRSroN, j.
Filled January IA, 1871
Appeal from superior Court of San Luis
Obispo County,. n. Gregg, Judge.
For appellant, w. H Spencer.
For respondent, w. b. billiard.
DEPARTMENT TWO.
c. j. BRUMLEY EFT AL. execu-1
tors, etc. Respondents, NJ ees
ROBERT FLINT, Appellant
In December, 1887, one Chester II. Brumley
leased from the owner 16 $500 acres of grazing
land for the year 1SSS. Between January i
and February z, 1883, the defendants cattle
wrongfully entered upon a portion of this
land, and ate up, trod down and destroyed the
grass and feed growing thereon. In May, 1SSS,
the said Brumley died, and thereafter the
plaintlns We're dniy appointed ted, and qua1liified
such executors, brought this action to recover
damages for the alleged trespasses OF defend
ants cattle In the sum of 81 900. The case was
tried before the court, without "a jury, and by
the judgment the plaintiffs were awarded the
sum of S325 and costs of suit. From this
Judgment and an order DENYING q new trial
the defendant appeals.
l. At the trial c. j. Brumley was called as a
witness for plaintiffs, and, after stating that
he was the son of Chester r. Brumley and one
OF the plaintiffs, proceeded to testify fol-
lows:
81 knowth land described in the complaint
and have known it for the past fifteen years;
II is grazing land. know defendants cattle
they are branded with star. | saw defend
ants cattle on the land described III the com
plaint many times during January and Feb
Tuary, 1SsS-eight, nine, eleven or twelve
hundred of them-and they We're trespassing
on the land. There We're many fresh rain
waterpools on the land and the cattle ranged
there. The ground was wet dun ing these
months, there having been u hc.bvy snow
storm and much rain, and the catt e injured
and damaged the pasture greatly by treading
it down and eating it. For the dast i've years
have been in the cattle business near this
land"
The witness was then asked by plaintiffs,
counsel to state what amount Of damage in
his estimation, was done by the cattle during
the time they We're trespassing upon the lana.
The defendant objected TO the question .'upon
the ground that the same was incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial as asking for n
conclusion which the court was TO arrive at
from the facts given in testimony; and further
as not the proper way to prove Camages." The
court overruled the objection, and the defend
ant reserved an exception. The witness then
answered:
THE damage from eating up, freading down
and destroying the grass on the land by de-
fendants cattle during the time you mention
$780,"
aforementioned was erroneous, because the
witness had not been ''shown to possess the
requisite knowledge OF the value of the prop
erty claimed 10 have been injured by defend
ants cattle;' and in support CT this position,
Reed VS.. Drais, 81 Cal. 491, is cited.
1t is not claimed that the answer to the
question, If given by conn setent witness,
would have been incompetent, irrelevant or
1mmateriai, and upon that question we are
not called upon to express an ooinion. 1t will
be observed here that the OBJ iection was not
that the witness was incompett nt, for want of
sufficient knowledge, to testify as to the dam
ages, but only that 1t was not the proper tooy
to prove damages.
The general rule is, that 50 party obecting
TO the admission of evidence must specify the
ground OF his objection when the evidence is
offered, and will be considered as having
waiyed all objections not so S Decified." People
vs.. MuIillllt,, 10 Oal. oJS.l
1t is true that general objection is suffi-
cienf, If the evidence objected to is absolutely
lnadmissa6le for any purpose. Nightingale
entitle the objection to notice, ..the party
should have laid his finger on the point at the
time" Martin VS.. Travers, IL Cal 243;
Cochran VS.. OKeeie, 81 Cal. 55S.)
Conceding therefore, without deciding that
the witness not shown to possess the
requisite knowledge to enable him to testify
rs 10 the damages, still we do not think the
point made can be considered here for the
reason that that objection to the question was
not taken.
conflict with what has been said In that case
as shown by the record, a witness was asked
% give the value OF certain land and the tes-
lmony was objected to and excluded by the
court, 'on the ground that the witness had not
SHOWN himself competent to testify on that
point" In affirming the Judgment the court,
among other things said: There is no doubt
that witness acquainted with the value of
property may give an opinion as to such val
ue, but he must first be shown to possess the
requisite knowledge, and then, although such
knowledge is not the result OF any peculiar
skill in a particular pursuit or branch of busi-
ness, or department OF science he may yet be
heard. Where, however, the knowledge is
wanting the opinion should be rejected We
think, therefore, the court did not err in re-
fuSing to admit the testimony"
2. II is claimed that the evidence was insult
hcient TO justify the decision of the court that
plaintiffs were damaged III the sum of 1925
by reason of the trespass But the evidence
was conflicting as to the number of cattle that
committed the trespasses, and as to the damage
done by them. On the part of the plaintiffs
the evidence tended to show that they were
entitled to larger sum than was awarded to
them. The fact that the deceased Brumley
paid as rent for all the leased premises only
$1,000, and, some time after the trespass sub
leased them for 81 500, is not controlling. We
cannot say, therefore, that the Judgment
should be reversed or modified because the
damages allowed were excessive.
we think the Judgment and order should
be affirmed, and SO advise. BEIcHER, c.
We concur:
NANCLIEF, C.
HAYNE, c.
THE COURT
For the reasons given in the foregoing o,1ln-
Non the Judgment aud order are affirmed.
Filled, January II, 1S91.l
IN BANK.
ossaesS' oaenaaS ar \. No 1921.
BY THE COURT
January II, 1891.
In submitting this case for decision respond
ents argued but a single point raised by their
demurrer to the appellants complaint
We considered that objection and de-
Gided II correctly.
IN their petition for u rehearing other OBJ
Jec,ions TO the complaint are called to our at
tention. But we have decided-fnd with man
lest propriety-that we will not grant n re-
hearing In order TO consider points not made
III the argument upon which the case was or
respondent whose demurrer has been
sustained by the Superior Court ought TO
fairly present in this court every objection
upon which he relies.
We cannot be expected to scrutinize the
cord for the purpose Of discovering points
" dch counsel have not taken the trouble 10
ecify.
Rehearing denied.
Filled January II, 1s91.l
IN BANK