The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-05-14
THE SUPREME COURT.
Judgment Reversed and Affirmed in
the Court of Last Resort.

The Supreme Court yesterday affirmed
the judgments in the cases of Milo Patton
and James A. Foster. administrators of the
estate OF James II. Patton, deceased. VS..
David Thomson, Pedro German VS.. II.
Brown. John Jordan VS.. Thomas J. Fay.
and reversed the judgments in the cases
of John Burns VS.. Ida ". Scooffy, David
r. Griffin VS.. Ida NJ. Scooffy. Abuer ID.
Jacobs vs.. J. Il. Walker, NJ. j. C. Calvin
VS.. Gualala Mill Company and the People
VS.. Charles Bonney.
The case of Barns vs. Scooffy ct a.. was
an appeal by Mansfield Lowell and Lallah
5. Hghton. two Of the defendants. from
a judgment in favor of Burns. who sued to
establish his right to purchase from the
State half section OF sch oil land in Del
Norte County and to have like ap-
pIications of the defendants declared
invalid. Default was entered against
Lailah S. Highton because her attorney
had failed to file her answer within the
statutory time. While her attorney was
engaged in drawing her answer hereceived
telegram that his brother had been shot
and dangerously wounded. He at once
went TO his relief. Commissioner Searles,
who wrote the opinion reversing the judg-
ment. says: III the case was not one of
cnmmendable neglect it was at least case
of exeusable neglect. IL there are in the
profession men who. upon learning that n
brother has been dangerously wounded by
an attempted assassin, and who upon
being called upon to 60 TO his relief with a
carriage and doctor, fail to do SO and
subordinate the duties of humanity and
the ties of kinship to the urgency of pro-
fessional engagements, they are probably
few in number, and 1t is to be hoped their
number will decrease"
The case of Griffin vs.. Ida NJ. ScOoffy
was in the same category.
The case oil Jacobs VS.. Walker was q
contest in regard to the right to purchase
State land. Jacobs was The appellant. 1t
was his second appeal. On the first appeal
the court noticed that the findings sus-
tanned the jugment in all respects, except
as to the matter OF interest, and it was ad-
judged that the case be reversed aud re-
manded for further proceedings. The
lower court did not understand what the
further proceedings could be, and refused
to retry the case. but simply struck out
certain interest which the findings did not
show could be legally charged. aud re-
fused 10 receive further evidence which
would show that the interest was author
lied. The trial court understood the
Supreme Court to hold that new trial was
to be had on one issue only. The Supreme
Court in its last Judgment holds that when
a new trial is ordered without limitation 1t
must be understood, as it always has been,
that a new trial Is In order in the VIII ole
case.
In the case OF M. C. Calvin VS.. Gualala
Mill Company the court holds that the YER
dict in favor OF Calvin for S775 damages
was not justified by the evidence. The
action was for the recovery of damages
caused by the destruction OF tan bark by
fires caused by the negligence of the ill
company.
Bonney was burglar, and will get a
new trial because the Judge before whom
he was convicted refused to charge the
jury that the testimony of an aeeomplice
ought to be viewed with distrust, and the
evidence of the oral admissions of party
with caution