The record-union., 1892-11-30
APPEALED CASES.
Two Decisions Filed Yesterday by the
Supreme Court.
A Sierra County Judgment Sustained, l.,
and One Rendered in StanlsIaus
Set Aside.

decision in Deputy Clerk Govan's office
in the case of David Moore VS.. Miles
Schofeld and w. S. Chapman respond
ents). The cause was from Sierra
County. The appeal was from the judg-
ment roll, which, however, included a
bill of exceptions, settled at the time the
decision was made, under Section 649 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
The action was brought to recover
s., 400, alleged to be due from the defend
ants upon a contract made by them with
plaintiffs whereby they agreed to pur-
chase certain shares of stock in a mining
corporation upon terms agreed upon.
There was also cause of action set up
for moneys laid out and expended for the
use of defendants. 1t was therefore a suit
founded upon an alleged joint obligation
on the part of two defendants.
After suit was brought Schofield died,
and his administrator was substituted in
his place. Chapman made default, but
the administrator OF Schotield answered,
denying each material allegation OF the
complaint, placing his denials on the
ground that he had no information or be-
lief on the subject sufficient to enable him
to answer.
AT the trial plaintiff called as a witness
the defendant, w. S. Chapman, whose
default had been duly entered, and offered
to prove by him the contract set forth in
his complaint. 70 this evidence the de-
tendant administrator objected, on the
ground that the same was incompetent,
1t appearing that the witness was a party
to the action, and therefore incompetent
to testify to any fact which occurred prior
to the death of Schotield. The objection
was sustained, and an exception taken.
Plaintiff then offered himself as a wit
ness for the same purpose, but similar
exception was interposed and sustained.
Plaintiff having no further evidence
by which to prove the alleged contract,
which was not in writing, judgment was
entered in favor of the administrator of
Schofeld, and in favor of plaintiff as
against Chapman.
After reviewing the case at length, the
Supreme Court affirmed the decision OF
the lower court.
a JUDGMENT REVERSED.
In the case OF the people VS.. Curran
appellant, from Stanislaus County, the
defendant and one Fitzpatrick were
charged jointly with the crime of grand
larceny. Separate trials were demanded,
and Curran was convicted, and from the
judgment and order denying his motion
for a new trial he appealed.
In this decision the Supreme Court
says: I'VE have carefully examined the
evidence set forth in the bill of excep-
tions, and find nothing which sustains
the verdict. 1t is not a case of conflicting
evidence. The testimony tends to show
that Fitzpatrick and another stole twenty
nine sacks of wheat and stored it in a cabin
belonging to the defendant. Curran.
There is not a Scintilla of evidence which
connects the defendant with Fitzpatrick
or the person who assisted him in steal
ing the wheat. 1t is not shown even that
he had any acquaintance with either OF
them. The wheat was stolen on the
evening of the 18th of July, 1891, and
placed IN the cabin of the defendant"
A summary is then given of the evil
dence in the case, and the decision ends
by saying:
"A conviction-especially a conviction
of a felony-ought not to be permitted TO
stand on mere conjecture. The prosecu-
ton is bound to make out case. 1T is
difficult to see how the jury, under the
instructions of the court, could sav that
they were satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the defendant. un-
less there was evidence before them
which is not contained in the record be-
fore us. That evidence is deemed salts
factory which ordinarily produces moral
certainty or conviction in an unpreiu-
diced mind. Such evidence alone will
justify a verdict"
The Judgment and order were reversed.