The record-union., 1891-01-20

by counsel and ruling by the court were made:
MI Nicol-I object, upon the ground that
no proper foundation has been laid to i'm
peach his testimony.
Mr.. Budd-If it was not after he had testi-
fed, he cannot be impeached in that way.
MI Campbell-It was after.
THE Court-Answer the question.
"Mr. Budd-Plaintiff excepts.''
the witness then testified to u statement by
Mcfarland. made after he had testified before
the Jury, inconsistent with his testimony be-
fore the jury.
Counsel for appellants contend that the ad-
mission OF Prestons testimony was error.
l think, however, that the objection, as
modified by Mr.. Budd, who appears to have
been the leading counsel for paintiffs, was no
objection to proving what Mcfarland said
after he testified before the jury; and
the objection must have been so understood
by the Court and counsel for defendant.
4. The deposition OFF w. TullocS, Assessor
of Stanislaus County, was offered in evidence
by defendant, to show how many cattle We're
assessed TO Clavey i'll 1874. The plaintiffs OBJ
lected to questions numbered z, s, 81 10 and
IL. Their objection was sustained as to 8
ana 10 (tol. 411l but was Overruled as to z,
and IL. Those questions were as follows:
mo. z. State whether or not the assess
l nent list OF that year contains certain cattle
belonging TO the said Ciayey?
mo. s. State just what the assessment
book shows with reference TO these cattle, with
regard TO number. value and quality?
NO IL. State whether or not the 124 head
OF cattle above referred to include all the cattle
which We're assessed to William Clavey in
1S74?p
The answers to these questions appear to
have been read by the witness from Page 9 2
OF the assessment roll of 1S74, showing that
LA head of cattle and no more had been as
sessed TO Clayey that year. and that ~ "a
head of stock cattle had been removed to Ttl-
olumne County,"
The grounds of the objections were that No.
was Incompetent, irrelevant, and not the
best evidence the same as to No. g and also
that it does not appear who made the assess
inent, or that Clavey signed or had anything
TO do with it; and, that No. IL did not ask for
the best evidence.
1t is claimed by appellants counsel that the
court erred i'll overruling their objections to
the questions numbered z, S and IL.
Ii there was error i'll any OF these rulings ii
was harmless. The evidence objected to
moro than 124 head of cattle ut the time of
the assessment in 1874; and, therefore, could
not have been applied 10 any other issue than
that as to the number of cattle delivered 10
defendant. 1t had no bearing whatever upon
the issues as to settlements and could not
have influenced or contributed 10 the findings
upon these issues. These findings are control
ling, and dispose of the case in favor of the re-
spondent without regard 10 the number of
cattle delivered.
D. Several other exceptions to rulings of the
Court were taken, but they appear to be either
grounded upon misrepresentation of the facts
or unimporfant in view of the settlements
found.
! think the Judgment and order should be
affirmed. VAN CIIEF C.
We concur:
FOoTE, G..
HAYNE, G.
THE COURT.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opin-
ION the Judgment and order are affirmed.