The record-union., 1894-09-29
LATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Cases From Trinity to San Bernardino
Settled.
A Trespass Action Which Was Prac-
tically Settled by q De-
murrer.

The Supreme Court has rendered de-
cision in the case of Merritt and Gwin,
appellants. vs.. Hill and Lauffer, re-
spondents, Trinity County case, in
which $1,000 damages were claimed from
| defendants because their cattle had eaten
the iced of eight sections of land owned
by plaintiffs, which was not alleged TO be
lnclosed. Defendants demurred on the
ground that the complaint does not state
cause OF action, and the demurrer being
sustained and plaintiffs declining TO
amend their complaint, judgment passed
for defendants and an appeal was taken.
The Judgment is affirmed.
he COLLECTED THE TAXES.
A Kings County case is also decided
that of Kings County, respondent, VS.. J {.
Sub. Johnson, appellant.
1t was an appeal from a judgment
awarding peremptory writ of mandate,
entered upon an order oVerruling de-
murrer to the petition, the defendant de-
Ginning to answer. Defendant was lax
Collector OF Tulare County and atfiant
was lax Collector OF Kings County, and
demand was made upon defendant TO
transfer to plaintiff list OF the unpaid
taxes Tor 1892 on property within the
boundaries of Kings County.
Defendant refused to do so and collected
the taxes himself, TO the amount OF 81. 800.
SUIT was brought to compel him to fur
nlsh the list, and an alternative writ of
mandate issued commanding him to fur
nlsh the list and turn over the taxes col
lected. His demurrer was overruled and
the peremptorY mandate issued. The
Supreme Court modities the judgment so
as TO connne II TO requiring him to fur
nlsh the list OF unpaid taxes, saying the
money must be paid by another process.
BONA FIDE WORK.
The Nevada County case of Hamilton
Mccormick, plaintiff and appellant, VS..
George w. Baldwin, Jr., defendant and
respondent, has also been decided.
1t was an action in ejectment, the prop
erty IN dispute being quartz mining prop
erty, designated as the Oracle Consoli-
dated q. NJ. Claims, including three dis
tinct mining locations adjoining each
other. Appellant claimed that he had, on
the first two days of January, 1888, done
few hours work Oh each of the loca-
tlons in order TO hold them. The court
below held thst it was not done with the
bona hde intention OF doing the necessary
remaining amount OF work during the
year, and gave judgment for the defend
ant, from which Mccormick appealed.
Ihe judgment and order are affirmed.
WIDOW WINS.
An Amador case, that of Mary L.
Dougherty, administrators of the estate
OF George w. DOugherty, deceased, ap-
pellant, VS.. Mary Dougherty and Ciphas
a. Dougherty, respondents.
Dougherty, who was a married man,
| privately conveyed to his mother his
homestead and several lots he being in
debt. After his death his widow, as ad-
mlnlstratrix, commenced suit to compel
q reconVeyance by his mother of the
| property, and the court below rendered
! Judgment tor defendants and she ap-
| pealed.
The judgment is reversed.
Lawyers FEE.
A decision is also rendered in the case
| of Owen VS.. Meade, a Fresno case, in
! which Owen, as assignee of one Grady,
| sued TO recover 81 900 fee which Grady
claimed as due him by agreement if he
won a case for Meade against the county
| OF Fresno, with interest on the claim
The court below gave judgment for the
| plaintlH, which the Supreme Court re-
| verses.
! MUST EXAMINE WITNESSES.
A decision has also been rendered in
the Iehama County case Of Lange VS..
! Braynard ct al.
The action was originally commenced
against the defendants, G. P. Braynard,
| William Nagle and 2. NJ. CIeghorn. in
order to subject some land in question to
a judgment previously recovered by
| plaintiff against Braynard, it being al
legged that he had transferred it in order
TO defraud the plaintiff. The land was
transferred to r. 3. Nagle previous to the
hearing of the suit, and on the trial he
was made party to the suit. although he
objected on the ground that he had had no
opportunity of cross-examining the wit
nesses IN his own behalf His objections
were overruled and judgment given
against him, and he appealed.
The judgment and order are reversed.