The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1894-03-30

-" AONO1u, OOU AAOOo NOAcAtJ " WY vi
the record itself, People Lee, 112 II.
lib. But in certifying copy, if he
includes Herewith the fact of filing,
the name of the person presenting the
instrument, the date, and the book and
page of record, he is just so far stating
facts which are not: part of the rec
ord, strictly, but are gathered from
memoranda, noted in the book and
from the book itself. These facts it is
conceded, may be certified by the Aud
itor in connection with his copy, and
we are unable to see why they may not
be equally as we'll certified upon the
original instrument as upon the copy.
In Sylvester Coe, @ M Co so Cal $40,
it was held that the mere endorsement
upon lien notice was prima facie ev-
idence of the filing and date of re-
cording. Jewell v Darlington, l w T,
COL, held the contrary. But here we
have a formal certificate under the
hand and seal of the officer, and if the
fact of record can be proven by the
certificate in one case, there is no good
reason why it cannot in another. 1t
is the seal which makes the verify.
Z. Each of the lienors produced a
time check containing statement of
his account with the Washington I'm
provement Company, delivered to him
by that company, and appellant OBJ
jects to their competency as against it,
on the ground that the admission
thereby made was hearsay. These
checks were good as prima facie evil
dence of the amount due, as against
the company which made them, and
for the purpose of foreclosing lien
they must be taken to the same extent
against the appellant.
s. Each plaintiff demanded that a
reasonable attorneys fee be allowed
him, but alleged no particular sum to
be reasonable. Proof was taken by
the testimony of attorneys as to what
would be proper fee in each case and
the court allowed twenty dollars. I'm
der the circumstances we do not think
the allowance excessive.
.. The decree of foreclosure was
framed SO as not to respond to the
pleadings, proof Or findings. Each
llenor showed, and the findings adj
Judged, that he had assisted in produc-
ing certain logs, of which the marks
and quantity in feet were given. But
the decree did not set out the logs nm
on which the several recoveries could
be had, but merely made reference to
the logs described in the lien notice
Under such a direction, the officer
could not proceed with any degree OF
Intelligence to perform his duty. This
would be especially the case when, as
here, the writ was to be directed to
the Sheriff of County other than
that In which the decree was entered
10. While the conclusions OF the
Court below as to the foreclosure are
sustained, when proof shall have been
made OF the County where the logs
were cut. we cannot uphold the judg-
ment rendered against the appellant.
Ihe law under which these liens were
nled gave right of action to one
holding loggers lien, against third
person who should injure, impair, de-
stroy or render difficult, uncertain or
impossible of Identification the logs to
which the lien pertained, for his da-
images to the amount secured by the
lien. &. S. Sec 1894. But that right
was maintainable only in an action
separate from the foreclosure suit.
The Court below, however, appar-
emily adopted the view that, as the
act of 1898 changed the mode of pro-
cedure SO that these damages could
be recovered in the foreclosure action