The record-union., 1893-04-22
THREE DECISIONS.
They All Affirmed the Judgments Of
Lower Courts.
Filed by the Supreme Court in Colusa
Sierra and Fresno County
Cases.

The Supreme Court filed its decisions
in three cases in Deputy Clerk Govan's
Office yesterday.
The case of Mary Gray VS.. A. S. Nc
Williams appellant was an action
brought in Colusa County to remove and
abate nuisance. An embankment or
levee had been erected by defendant
upon his own land, but which held back
and caused water to flow upon the land of
plaintiff, and the action was to recover
damages for injury caused thereby.
Plaintiff had judgment, from which and
from an order denying a motion for a
new trial defendant appealed.
The case is reviewed at great length by
the Supreme Court, which, in conclusion,
affirmed the judgment and order of the
lower court.
A SIERRA MINING CASE.
The case of w. S. Packer ct al. VS.. Phil
Doray ct al. respondents was an action
brought in Sierra County to quiet the
plaintiffs title to certain failing mining
claims, called the "Alturas Mining Com
pany's claims," situate in Slate Creek,
and partly in Sierra County and partly in
Plumas County. The claims described
extend up'and down the creek about o.
900 feet and contain an area of about ll2
acres.
The defendants deny that the plaintiffs
are, or ever were, the owners or in pos
session of that portion of the claims de-
scrlbed, commencing at the upper end
thereof and extending down the creek
about 10000 feet; and they allege that as
to such portion of the claims they are,
and were, at the time of the commence
ment of the action, and long prior thereto,
the owners and in possession thereof /:
and as to the balance of the claims de-
scribed in the complaint they disclaim
having any estate or interest in the same.
The case was tried and the findings
were that neither the plaintiffs, their
grantOrs nor predecessors, ever owned or
possessed, or were entitled to the possess
sion of the mining ground described in
the answers of the defendants. and that
at the time OF the commencement of the
action the defendants were the owners Of
and in the actual possession of all the
mining ground described in their answers
and claimed by them.
Judgment was accordingly entered that
the plaintiffs take nothing, that their
action be dismissed, and that the defend
ants recover their costs From this iudp-
ment and order denying a new trial the
plaintiffs appealed.
The Supreme Court affirms the iudg-
ment OF the lower court.
ONE FROM FRESNO.
In the case Of A. L. d. Scott VS.. G. r.
G. Glenn lrespondent), the action was
brought in Fresno County, and arose
from contract of sale of real estate. Suit
was commenced to recover the sum of
$500 paid to respOndentand one Meux as A
partial ayment under the terms of the
contract, and is based upon an alleged
default upon the part of said respondent
and MeuX to carry out the terms of said
contract.
Glenn answered the complaint. DENY
ing the allegations thereof, and set out a
cross-complaint alleging tender of the
deed, demand, and refusal of the paw
Inent of the balance due, and asked iudg-
neut against Scott and his covendees
under the contract for the balance due.
and that the realty be held to satisfy such
judgment.
The cross-complaint was denied. Meux
as covendor assigned his interest to
Glenn, and judgment went in favor of
defendant upon the main case, and also
in his favor upon the cross complaint,
and plaintiff appealed.
The supreme Court affirms the iudg-
ment and order of the lower court.