The San Francisco call., 1896-01-16

ton and asserting that the Supreme
Courts instructions were not properly car
ried out.
Mr.. Hayward was in the courtroom yes
terday, and he leaned forward at his cor
ner of the attorneys table, listening at
tentively to every word that was said.
About thirty of the leading members of
the San Francisco bar were present.
Lawyer Wood argued for an hour that
the judgment already given was not final.
1T is claimed :" he said, that this court
as a court of equity works out relief ac-
cOrding to the circumstances OF a case.
NO distinction can be shown in California
between a case at equity and q case at law
and this court cannot take such a position
without usurping the privilege of the
Legislature.
we claim that this is not case of
equity, but strictly case of law. There
are Just two points in the litigation: that
too much was charged for the milling, and
that the ore was not properly miled,
at is purely, simply and entirely mat
ter of judgment; there are no equitable
considerations.
"The Judgment was entered at time
VIXEN the case was not determined, when
1t had been untried, and the judgment is
not final adjudication"
Attorney ". 7. Baggett, opposing the
appeal, said:
The questions presented by this appeal are:
Flrst-Dfd the court order and direct the
entry OF the Judgment for the time and for the
amount for which it stands entered?
Second-If SO, had this court the power or
jurisdiction to make such order and direction?
Discussing the first question. the counsel for
appellant admits that this court did order and
direct the entry of the judgment for the specific
amount for which this judgment is entered,
but did mot direct the entry, Immediately or
otherwise, OF any separate judgment on the
issue as 10 the milling charges and a subse-
quent trial OF the other Issues" They claim
that the action OF this court on the former ap-
Ton tnat issue) to be incorporated III the final
judgment in The cause to be entered after the
| trial and determination of the other issues"
80 the question is narrowed to q Considera-
ton OF whether, by the order and directions of
this court, the judgment should have been
entered at the time 1t was entered or, as appel
lantS claim, incorporated in the final judg-
ment in the cause after the trial and determi-
nation OF the other issues"
The language is plain. unambiguous and in
enter judgment as OF the date of its former
judgment" Does not this indicate the date of
the judgment? If the Judgment for this
S21O, 1877 so is to bear date of the former judg-
ment, June II, 1892, it must be construed rs
entered on that date. II it is by the order of
this court 70 be held as entered as Of the date
OF June IL 1892, is it not then direction that
it should be actually entered upon the filing
1892?
NOW cOulu lHe court enLer judgment Tor
S210, 1877 SO as of the date of June IL, 1892,
and incorporate the same in the final judg-
ment In the cause to be entered after the trial
and determination of the other issues" which
has not vet been done?
To incorporate such judgment in the judg-
ment to be rendered after the trial and de
termination of the other issues would be
entering the judgment as of date long subse-
quent TO the time directed by the court and if
the amount was Incorporated" in the judg-
ment entered after the trial of the other issues
I a a q " 81 II nj fOr fnray,
sum from that directed by the court in the
event additional damages are found.
There can be no question in our minds as to
what this court intended And after all the
power of this court to make such order and
direction as 1t made on the former appeal is
the object of appellants attack, disguise IL as
they may. They were displeased, of course,
with the Judgment OF this court
They must have understood then, as they
claim to understand now, that q Judgment lad
been ordered to be entered for $210 1877 so as
OF the date OF June II, 1892, with interest II ON
that date, and they had thirty DAYS in which
to file their objections to the judgment of the
court. They did file their application for re-
hearing, but nowhere suggested the matters of
which they complain.
The jurisdiction OF this court is gone forever
as to the judgment entered on that hearing
No objection to any error want of jur isdic-
tion ever be interposed in any form or
manner to the full and complete execution of
that Judgment according to its plain meaning.
But this court does possess ample power 10
make such order and direction was made in
any judgment which in its opinion the facts
as found by the trial court indicate would meet
the ends of justice.
By the constitution and by the statute this
court has been given ample power to direct
the entry OF any Judgment upon the hearing