The herald., 1897-05-25

enC, vs.. samuel meyer ct ol., oelenOauts
end appellants, the supreme court has
reversed the judgment and order Of ths
lower court. The plaintiff. claiming IT,
tie to certain property, and out of pos
session, brought action to quiet title
ard secure possession. Judgment was
given against defendant and he ap-
pealed from the order denying a new
trial.
I In 1876 defendant became owner of a
tract Of land fronting IS feet on Main
street and extending in depth to the
center of the block, about 165 feet. j..
G. Downey, plaintiffs intestate, at the
same time was owner of IS feet OH
Spring street. and also extending back
to the center OF the block. The two lots
abutted on each other in the rear. When
defendant entered into possession under
his deed, in 1876, he took possession Of
some so feet in depth Of the rear por-
ton of Downey's lot. and this small
tract constituted the land in dispute.
TO RECOVER FEES
In the suit of C. ]. Perkins, plaintiff
and respondent, VS.. the West Coast
Lumber company. defendant and appel
liant. on appeal from San Bernardino
county, the supreme court has affirmed
the Judgment of the trial court.
The action was one to recover for pro-
fessional services as an attorney under
a special contract, made June 4, 1888
and for moneys paid out for the de-
fendant at its request. This contract
was terminated March 1, 1890. After
deducting payments and an account
against plaintiff for lumber, the court
found there was due the plaintiff $1879.75.
with interest from the commencement
of the action. and from the judgment
entered the defendant appealed.
THE WRONG PARTY
In the suit of James W. Wilson ct al.
appellants, VS.. Henry w. Carter, re-
spondent. the supreme court has af-
flrmed the judgment Of the lower court.
A demurrer 20 plaintiffs amended
was sustained, without leave
to amend. and fiEal judgment was or
tered for defendant 1t was alleged that
plaintiffs owend lands situated in an
irrigation district in Los Angeles coun-
ty; that defendant, prior to March ..
1895, was the collector of the district
that on February Is, 1895. he offered the
lands of plaintiffs for sale to enforce
an unpaid assessment levied upon the
district for the year 1894, and that the !
plaintiffs bid it in in order to prevent |
the purchase by strangers; on March s.
1895, defendant ceased to be collector |
and his successor resold to divers per- |
sons at public auction plaintiffs lands !
and issued certificates of sale. 1t was
sought to have the sale and certificates
adjudged null and void, and that plain /
tiffs be declared owners of the lands,
discharged of the lien of the assess
ments.
TIL court held that if judgment had
PASSED for plaintiffs it would have de-
.ermined nothing. for the reason that
10 person to be affected was before the
court. The only defendant who
vas affected is no longer an
officer Of the district; and the
district itself is not Joined, and no pur-
haser of plaintiffs lands is made n
)arty.
SENTENCE SUSTAINED
The decision of the supreme court in
he case Of J. ]. McCarty, lvicted in
department one of the superior court Of
this county of being concerned in tn at
empt to burglarize the First National
bank, was received yesterday.
The court holds that no error was
committed by the court in allowing de-
tective Auble to remain in the court
-oom during the examination Of wit
neslses, and that the exclusion of wit
lesses during the time in which the evil
lence was being placed before the jury
vas a matter largely in the discretion
# the tria! court, ard that no abuse Of
he discretion is disclosed by the record. :
The supreme court also holds that the |
burglary mrle't have been committed
ometime between and IL o'clock, and
Consequently, being matter peculiarly
within the province of the jury. there f. !
10. reason to disturb the finding of |
-erdict for burglary in the first degree.