The herald., 1893-08-19
THE SUPREME COURT.
A COUPLE OF OPINIONS HEcEIvED
YEsTERDAY.
An Important Case in Ventura County
Receives Final Decision--Aceva-
vado's Appeal Receives =
Decisive Negative.

/ The supreme court has affirmed the
Judgment Of the superior court OF Ven.
tura county in the case OF Jules Saulque,
appellant. w. Buents Durable, respond
ent, in accordance with an opinion re-
ceived for filing yesterday by Deputy
Clerk Sesnon.
The plaintiff appealed from a iudg-
ment Of non-suit entered against him,
and from an order denying his motion
for q new trial. The action was for
forcible detainer of tract of land con-
tanning about 400 acres in Ventura
county.
The complaint alleged that at the
time. of the defendants entity and for
i've days prior thereto, the plaintiff was
in peaceable and actual possession Of
the whole ranch and entitled to it; that
August rs. 1891. while he was tempora-
rily absent, the defendant unlawfully
entsred and took possession and also
alleged demand for possession from
the defendant and his refusal.
The answer denied the allegations
made. and pleaded right to enter and
departure the stubble under license
from the owner Of the ranch.
The plaintiff Saulque made an agree.
nent with 7. w. Dixon, who occupied
and farmed the ranch on ehares June 10,
1891, by which Dixon rented him the
stubble on the Sturgiss place, compris-
ing the 400 acres, at the rate of $500 for
the whole place.
Saulque testified that July 18th he
went on part of the land with flock
OF sheep and kept them there three
days and then took them away; that
August Sd he went back without the
sheep and put some watering troughs
upon the land; that August 26th he
again returned and found some one had
moved his troughs and put them out on
the county road, and he also found the
defendant on the land with sheep. At
the last named date the grain had been
cut but was still lying In "dumps" and
had not been threshed.
Mr.. Dixon testified that he was living
on the farm, farming it on shares; that
one-half of whatever he got was his !;
that he gave the defendant, who had his
sheep on other land, the right to water
them at the we'll near the house, but
gave him no other right.
The court holds that the plaintiff did
not show such possession as would have
supported verdict in his favor and that
the non suit was properly granted.
The grain not having been removed,
the right to enter given by the contract
had not accrued. The occupancy of the
90 acres not in grain for three days in
July was not such az the statute con-
templates as a basis for go harsh q
remedy as that of iorcible detainer. 1t
ie concluded that an examination of the
whole record discloses DO prejudicial
error, and the judgment and order ap-
pealed from are affirmed.
AcEvEDo's APPEAL KNOCKED OUT.
:, A brief opinion was also received af
firming the judgment and order in thb
case of People We. Acevedo. The d.
fendant was convicted of burglary ard
appealed from Judgment denyingia
motion for a new trial. The court ssys
that various assignments of error were
reI1eu upun to tuDtify r.-~-s-a, h-ts.p
on careful examination of the record
they find nothing that demands a re-
trial of the case.
Albert Acevedo, Amos and Geor9 Alb
bott were charged with the robbeF of a
Chinese druggist, All Sic, September 5,
1891. His store was on March&sault
street, and ON the night in qjestion
some persons made a hole in tlb back
room. They stole chest containing
nearly $500 in money and bamboo
opium pipe. The chest was talen to a
corn field on Macy street, where it was
broken open and looted. Acefdo was
convicted and sentenced to fveBears at
Folsom.