The record-union., 1894-03-16
A BATCH OF DECISIONS.
Public Administrator Bronner Loses
His Suit.
A Variety OF Cases From Different
Counties-Some Peculiar Land
Claims Decided.

The Supreme Court has rendered a de-
cision in the case of the estate OF Richard
Hickman, deceased, George +. Bronner.
Public Administrator. appellant, VS.. VIC
tor Jahant, executor, respondent.
Hickman died, leaving his estate to his
wife, Elizabeth, and appointing Jahant
as executor of his will. Jahants petition
for letters of administration showed that
Mrs. Hickman had died and that there
were no heirs in Sacramento County, the
next of kin and their residence being un-
known.
Bronner, as Public Administrator, filed
contest, claiming that he was entitled
to administer, the legatee being dead ana
there being no known heirs. Judgment
was given against him and he appealed.
The Judgment is affirmed.
DESCRIPTION NOT SUFFICIENT.
The case of the People. respondent. VS..
HoraceI Whitaker, appellant, has also been
decided.
Appellant was convicted of obstructing
public highway and sentenced to three
months Imprisonment in the County
Jail, and appealed from the judgment and
OTQ0I Q6u(1uR NOW bALoAs
The records OF the Board OF Supervis-
ors show that road was declared opened
from a certain point to Drum Valley by
the Elan route" with no further de-
scription. The Supreme Court noIds
that such description amounts TO notnlng,
and that as the existence of the alleged
public highway depends on this order OF
the board, they are satisfied that no pub
lie highway is shown by the evidence,
and thus the most material element 10
constitute the otfense charged IN the IN
formation is not proven.
1t is ordered that the Judgment and or
der be reversed and the case remanded.
CAN SEE NO ERROR.
A Tehama case is also decided-that OF
the People (respCndenD VS.. David Davis
(appellant).
Davis was convicted of an assault with
a deadly weapon upon one Charles
Schmidt, and appealed from the judg-
ment and order denying new trial. he
claimed that he was prejudiced by the
conduct of the District Attorney and by
numerous alleged erroneous rulings OF
the court.
The Supreme Court decides that it can
see no prejudicial error and afflrms the
Judgment and order.
MIXED UP LAND CASE.
The case Of the People. respondent, VS..
W. VI 1uOuldS, dppolldnb, oil OOL dQO
County case, is also decided, an appeal
having been taken from an order refus-
ing to set aside and vacate judgment.
The State sold the west half of section
36 10 Thomas in 1875, and commenced
action against him TO fOrclose the certiti-
cate of sale in 1880, and judgment was
entered against him in that year. In
1875 Thomas sold and conveyed the land
to the Ell Dorado Slate Company, but this
conveyance was not recorded till August,
1892, nor was the Register of the State
Land Office notified OF it. In January,
1887, the State sold the northwest quarter
of the northwest quarter of the section to
one Rieg, who sold it in February, 1888,
to Mothersole and Pennie. and they
recorded their deed in April of that year.
They claim to have been in the actual
possession and occupation of it ever
since their purchase and TO have eX-
pended $4,000 on it, having no knowl-
edge or notice of any claim to it by the
El Dorado Slate Company, while at the
same time the Slate Company knew OF
their possession and improvement.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
OFFER TO SELL NOT BINDING.
A decision is also rendered in the case
of Jushua Chadbourne ct al, respondents,
vs. the Stockton Loan and Savings So
ciety, appellants, San joaquin County
case.
defendants appealed from a judgment
and order denying new trial. The ac-
ton was based on an offer to sell certain
lands on certain conditions. The condi-
tions were not complied with and the
court holds that the simple offer to sell
was not binding.
The judgment and order appealed from
are reversed and a new trial granted.
WENT BY DEFAULT.
In the case of j. A. Richter, respond
ent, VS.. Fresno Canal and Irrigation COM
pany and the Fresno Milling Company,
intervenor, appellant, the plaintiff had
judgment in an action to abate an al
legged public nuisance. The Fresno Mill
ing Company, intervenor, appealed from
the judgment and order denying new
trial.
AS the respondent did not appear, either
by filing brief or by oral argument, the
court concludes the points on appeal well
taken and reverses the order and judg-
ment.