The herald., 1894-09-04
BASEBALL THAT DID NOT PAY
Marco Hellman and His Ven-
ture Out Temple Street.
The Supreme Court Revises the Judg-
ment Against Him.
A Big Batch of Opinions by the su.
prems Court - Kern County
Constable who Will
Be Happy.

The supreme court has decided the
case OF the Temple street Railway COM
pany, respondent, vs.. Marco Hellmsn
ct al, appellants. in accordance with an
opinion received for filing yesterday by
Deputy Clerk Sesnon.
The case is one that has been in
course OF litigation for q long time, and
arose out of Marco Hellman's attempts
to run a baseball club.
The action was brought to recover
Judgment for money alleged to be due
on promissory note for $500. payable
in two years, with interest at 10 per cent
per snnum. In consideration for the re-
ceipt of the note, Hellman agreed to
discontinue playing baseball at the
First street grounds, and within go days
establish and for two years maintain
frst-olass baseball park ON tract OF
land adjacent to the plaintiffs' line OF
which he had become the lessee. He
further agreed to give at the new
grounds not less than 104 games OF base
ball or other equivalent entertainment
each year. provide suitable sccommoda-
tions for the public and pay to the rail-
road company monthly 10 per cent OF
the gross receipts for admissions.
The other defendants in order to in
duce the company to enter into this con-,
tract and execute its promissory note to
Hellman, became his sureties on bond
in the sum of $1,000.
Hellman failed to complete his pre-
psrations to open the new grounds in
60 days and executed new contract OF
indemnity to the plaintiff. The grounds
were finally opened, but after only Civ
ing about q dozen entertainments the
enterprise was abandoned.
The plaintiff began suit and recovered
judgment for $6737. 80, and the appeal
WAS taken therefrom and an order deny
ing q motion for new trial.
The supreme court, after a thorough
diccussion Of the points raised, holds
that the plaintiff was entitled to recover,
but that the Judgment was for too large
q sum. The utmost amount the plain
tiff should have recovered. it saye. was
$4,000. that is, $500 principal and two
years. interest, $1100. The superior
court added to these sums 1880, or a
quarters interest. which plaintiff paid
on the note. 1t also appeared that
plaintiff received from Hellman at vari-
ous times S207.50. which should be de-
Quoted from the full amount. The court
therefore reverses the judgment for the
error in awarding too large an amount,
but does not deem it necessary to order
new trial. The superior court 10
directed to modify it's judgment by re-
ducing the amount from $1,000 to
| $639250.
The judgment and order appealed
from in the case OF J. i. Adams. re-
apopdent, Us. David Burbank, appellant,
10 affirmed by the court 1t was an
action on mechanios' liens.
In the case of Eschus, ct OIL, respond
ents, vs. Los Angeles Consolidated Elec-
trio Railway company, appellant, the
| judgment and order appealed from are
affirmed. The plaintiffs brought the
action to recover damages for the cutting
off of their access to lot at the corner
| OF First and Figueros streets, and recov-
cred judgment for 1928.
| The judgment of the superior court is
affirmed in the case OF Amos E. Jeffer-
son ct al, appellants, vs. R. Z. Hewitt
ct ux., respondents. The action WAS
brought by the aesignees of O non-nego-
table note to recover from the makers
the amount alleged to be due thereon.
The note was for $4,000 and was given to
the Santa Ana, Fairview and Paciic Rail
road company in payment for so shares
OF its capital stock. On the first trial
judgment was given for defendants
and the plaintiffs appealed. The judg-
msnt WAS reversed and the cause re-
mandsd for new trial. The case was
again tried and judgment given for de-
iendants. The principal contention was
that the evidence did not justify the
judgment, but the supreme court holds
that it did, and sustains the decision.
The judgment and order are also
affirmed in the case OF f. f. Skelly,
plaintiff and appellant, vs.. Westminster
School District of Orange county, de-
fendant and respondent, and j. W.
Morrison, intervenor and appellant.
The action was brought to recover 1894,
alleged to be due for work and materi-
als.
In the case of W. H. Marquis, re-
spondent, VS.. city of Santa Ana, appel
liant, judgment of the superior court is
affirmed. The defendant refused to pay
plaintiff any salary for the second year
OF his incWpabency as city assessor, and
he thereupon sued for it. Judgment
was rendered in his favor. The supreme
court sustsins this decision.
Judgment OF the superior court is also
affirmed in the case Of j. E. Koetz, re-
spondent, We. Simon Goldbaum, appel
liant. 1t wss an action on q fzemissory
note. M
The judgment Of the superior court ia
affirmed in the case of Orr vs. the county
OF Kern. the court saying it was not tho
intention of the amendatory act of the
legislature OF March SO, 1898, to make
any change in the existing law relating
to the fees OF constables in Kern county.
The judgment of the superior court ia
also affirmed in the case of the Pacific
Coast Railway company, appellant, VS..
George w. Ramage, tax collector, re-
spondent. The contention was that the
assessment OF g certain wharf was double
taxation, but the supreme court eus-
tains the judgment of the lower court
that it was not.