The record-union., 1896-06-07

vile upon ner cnllQren ana MS credit
ors can stand in no better attitude than
himself.
Is. F., No. 234-Department One-Filed
June 5, 1860
E. H. Morgan, respondent; E. Rig
hetti and r. Righetti, copartners, etc,
defendants; E. Righetti, appellant. At
firmed
The common law rule that in an ac-
ton against two or more defendants
upon an alleged joint contract or liza
| bility, the Judgment was required to be
against all the defendants, or in favor
of all, has been changed by Section 145
OF the Practice Act, afterward adopted
as Section 57S. c. c. P, providing
Judgment may be given for or against
| one or more defendants, and it may,
when the justice of the case requires it,
determine the ultimate rights of the
parties on each side, as between them
selves"
| Is. F., No. 152-Department One-F'iled
June 5, 1860
William Vanderhurst, respondent; J..
w. Tholcke ct al, appellants. Action
to enjoin the authorities of Salinas
City from cutting down or removing as
an obstruction and a nuisance GER
| tain shade trees standing and growing
on the sidewalk in front of plaintiff S
| house. Reversed.
| The authorities of Salinas City had,
under the charter, power to cause the
removal of anything constituting an
obstruction to the streets and side
walks, and to abate it as a nuisance,
| since anything which is an obstruction
to the free use of a public street con-
stitutes public nuisance. In an in
stance where the thing may or may not
in its nature or circumstance consti-
tute an obstruction, the determination
of the city authorities, in the absence
of fraud or oppression, or circumstances
| disclosing a manifest abuse of their
discretion, is conclusive, and not open
| to question by the courts.
| (No. 10, 5,S9S-Departmen Two-Filed
June 5, 1850
| A. M. Benham, respondent; M. W.
Connor, appellant. Promissory note.
Affirmed.
Section 446, C. C. P, provides that
when the complaint is verified the an
swer must also be verified.
When the material averments Of a
sufficient complaint are not denied by
the answer judgment for the plaintiff
on the pleadings may be properly rem
dered.
| Grim, No. 9S-Department Two-Filed
| June 5, 1860
| The People, appellant: N. Gusti, re-
| spondent. Sale of liquor to an Indian.
Appeal from sustaining Of demurrer
| to the information and order Of dis
charge. Reversed, with directions to
| lower court to overrule demurrer.
When a statute enunciates a series
| Of acts, either of which separately or
all together, may constitute the offense,
all of such acts may be charged in a
single count, for the reason that not
withstanding each act may, by itself,
| constitute the offense, all of them to-
gether do no more and likewise consti-
tute but one and the same offense.
| Grim, No. 105-Department Two
Filed June 5. 1860
| People, respondent; P. J. Faust, ap-
pellant. Sale of liquor to an Indian.
Affirmed.
| The name Of the purchaser need not
| be averred in an indictment for retail
ing liquors without license, although
! on principle the name Of the vendee
| should be specified, Il known, or the
| fact that he is unknown should be al
| legged.
| The offense denounced by the statute
consists in furnishing intoxicating
| liquor to ANY Indian" not to those of
a special description, as minors, habit
ual drunkards, etc.; so that a defendant
need not be apprised of the purchasers
| names as a means of ascertaining
whether they belonged to an inter
| dicted class of Indians; and as to the
use of the judgment as bar to another
prosecution, since the identity of the
offense involved in plea of former ac-
| cuittal or conviction rests ultimately
ir parol proofs, even when the indict-
ments are alike, little aid in this regard
| would be furnished by designating the
Indians by name.
The act of selling liquor to two In
dians constitutes a single offense.
Is. F., 249-Department One-Filed
! June 5, 1860
| M. J. Smeltzer appellant; George 8.
| Miller, Auditor of Monterey County, re-
spondent. Action by taxpayer to en-
| join Auditor from allowing claim for the
publication of delinquent tax list. Re-
versed.
| The contract for the publication of the
delinquent tax list must be awarded
to the lowest bidder. Where there has
been no advertisements for bids. and no
bids made for the publication, the pub
! Usher has no valid claim against the
county.
| The duty Of preparing the delinquent
| tax list for publication, and of causing
| it to be published, devolves upon the
Tax Collector; but he cannot provide
| for its publication unless it has been let
ID the lowest bidder by sealed proposals,
after ten days public notice, and he has
no authority to let such a contract, be-
cause the publication is part Of the