The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-07-24
WILL BE RECLAIMED
THE SAN BERNARDIN0 COUNTY
SUPERVISORS SUSTAINED.
The Supreme Court Affirms the JudE-
ment OF the Lower Court-fhs 'Fh
Kialto Irrigation Com
pany Case.

The opinion of the supreme court,
affirming the judgment of the San Ber-
nsrdino county superior court In the
case wherein the county was reclassified.
was received at the Los Angeles Office
yesterday.
The case was entitled Abe N. Kumler,
appellant, VS.. The Board Of Supervisors
OF San Bernsrdino county, respondent.
The appellant made application to the
superior court for q writ Of certiorari to
annul an order of the board Of super
visors reclsssifying the county, to which
the court sustained demurrer and dis
missed the proceedings.
The order of Redistribution was made
January 18th last. 1t WAS alleged that
the population of the county was in
1890, according to the census, not greater
than 10000; that the board In making
the order disregarded the federal census,
and the population shown thereby, and
attempted to classify the county on the
basis of the population it contained
when the order was made. and that in
doing so it exceeded its Jurisdiction and
acted without any authority OF law.
1t was claimed for the appellant that
the order was made lie in conflict with
the constitution because it delegates to
the board of supervisors power which
can be exercised only by the legisla.
ture.
The supreme court holds that there ID
nothing in this point; that the section
docs not delegate power to classify but
simply in effect authorizes and directs
them to find out and determine how
many people are left within the bound
aries OF the old county after the new
county lie created, which is merely find
ing fact and ia not legislative act.
The court further holds that it ia not
O local CIR special law.
II wac further claimed that the board
OF supervisors in determining the popu-
lation was limited to an inquiry as to
what WAS the population within the
present boundaries of the county in
1890, as shown by the census of that
year. The court holds that the popula-
tion of the county at the time OF it's cren-
ton, and not its population az ascer-
tanned by the federal census, was the
proper basis upon which to determine
Its classification. The same rule would
be applicable to an old county under
like conditions.
The supreme court also affirms the
Judgment of the superior court in the
case OF the Rialto Irrigation district.
plaintiff and respondent, vs.. j. r.
Brandon ct al, defendants and appel
lapts.
The plaintiff was an irrigation district
formed under the law Of 1887, known as
the Wright act, with its location in Ban
Bsrnardino county. In constructing it's
IL. -, Law nj lfpa
across the lands OF the defendants. Tho
of way, snd judgment went for plaintiff.
the damages being assessed. The APP
peal WAS from the judgment and order
denying new trial.
The supreme court holds that the ap-
peal was without merit and the demur.
rer properly overruled. The argument
was that the act provides only for the
construction OF ditohes and canals, and
that this does not include pipe lineej
but the court holds that the language Ia
broad enough to cover pipe lines; alao
that it was not error to admit the decree
of the superior court confirming the
regularity of the proceedings fof the
organization of the district, and that
the evidence was sufficient to sustain
the findings.
An opinion was also recsived in the
case OF Bar bara Childs, respondent. vs..
F. D. Lantermsn ct al. and Roy s. Lam
termar, appellants. The plaintiff
brought the action to quiet her title to
certain lands in Los Angeles county,
making Roy 3. Lanterman. the appel
liant, one of the defendants, and upon
trial judgment Was rendered for plaintiff.
A motion for q new trial was denied.
The defendants appealed from the judg.
ment and order, but they were affirmed
by the supreme court. After the remit
titur was fled in the superior court,
March 8. 1893, motion was made on
behalf of Roy 3. Lantermsn to set aside
the judgment against him. and strike
out the answer filed on his bshalf, on
the ground OF his infancy at the time.
This motion was denied, and the pres.
emit appeal was from that order. The
supreme court, in affirming tho judg.
ment, says that by his own acts the ap-
psllant submitted himself to the juris.
diction Of the court and ID bound BY it,