The record-union., 1896-09-19
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

SYLLABI.
IS. F., No. 160-Department One-Filed
September 10 1860
Kelly, ct AL, respondents; Lember
ger, ct al, appellants. Mechanics
lien Affirmed.
The statute does not require the
claimant to state the name Of the ac-
tual owner, at the risk Of losing his
lien, but makes his statement Of the
name Of the reputed owner as effective
as that Of the true owner. The state
ment Of the same name as owner and
as reputed owner does not deprive the
claimant Of his lien, and, as he is only
required to state the name Of the owner
or reputed owner, 'if known" he may,
if he does know the name, perfect his
lien without naming any owner
Grim. No. 95-Department Two-Filed
September Is, 1860
People of the State Of California, re-
spondent; w. A. Sanders, appellant.
Forgery. Reversed and cause remanded
for new trial.
If the evidence Of another crime is
necessary or pertinent to the proof of
the one charged, the law will not
thwart justice by excluding that evil
dence, simply because it involves the
commission Of another crime.
The prosecution introduced evidence
tending to show that the party whose
name was alleged to have been forged
could not have signed the draft, as he
was dead on the date the draft bore.
Part Of this evidence was to the effect
that on the day in question the defend
ant was seen driving alone. To con-
tradict this, the defendant declared
that he knew the alleged deceased
the party whose name was alleged to
have been forged, to have been driving
in company with other men over diff
ferent road on that day. To prove this
he sought to introduce the evidence Of
an acquaintance who would say that
he saw the defendant at that time and
could identify him and his conveyance;
that he saw another vehicle in COM
pany with that of defendant, and that
each vehicle contained two men, and
so to prove by general description, if
not by exact Identification, that the
man riding with the defendant was the
man alleged to be dead at the time.
Held, that in refusing to admit such
testimony the trial court worked great
hardship and injury to the defendants
cause.
Defendants failure to testify upon
any particular point should not be
commented on in argument.
Is. F., No. 115-Department Two-Filed
September 10, 1860
Ernest Peycke and julius Peycke,
appellants; D. Keefe ct al, respond
ents Recovery of balance of money
advanced Order setting aside judg-
ment against defendant reversed and
defendants appeal dismissed.
Pending an appeal the trial court has
no Jurisdiction to allow an amend
ment to any pleading.
The Superior Court cannot deprive
the Supreme Court of jurisdiction of
an appeal from judgment by amend
ing the judgment while the appeal is
IS. F., No. 153-Department Two-Filed
September Is, 1850
Lizzie F. Dunn ct al, appellants;
Catherine Dunn ct al, respondents.
Suit to annul mortgage and Judgment
of foreclosure. Affirmed.
Insane persons may be sued and
Jurisdiction over them acquired as of
other persons. A judgment entered
against an insane person without the
of q guardian, though
irregular, is not void. It may be va
Gated In a direct proceeding, If no in
nccent purchaser has acquired rights
under It; but public policy forbids that
as to such persons the validity of the
judgment shall be questioned.