*1 July, 1906.] Kimball v. McKee.
and modified so as to as “Now, therefore, read follows: it is ordered, adjudged and "Union, decreed that the Stablemen’s Local No. 8760 of Francisco, Finn, San T. F. White, T. J. and all and herein, each defendants and of their each officers, members, agents, clerks, attorneys, be, and servants hereby they enjoined and are interfering and restrained from with, harassing obstructing plaintiff or or in the conduct of any its places business at of its of said business No. 432 Pine Street, Street, No. and Sutter No. 965 Sutter Street city county Francisco, California, by and of San state of causing any agent agents, representative or or representatives, any or picket pickets, person any persons, or or or to be vicinity stationed front of or in the immediate of said places placard having of business, transparency with a or figures alleged complaint herein, the words and in the or placard transparency (having figures) or of or words import, from, places similar business, and at said inor thereof, vicinity front or thereof, by in the means immediate pickets or transparencies, otherwise, threatening in- or or timidating any person persons desiring transacting or or plaintiff, being employed transact business with said or place places plaintiff.” said And as thus amended judgment will and modified stand affirmed.
Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Sloss, Angellotti, Henshaw, J., J., J., Beatty, J., and concurred. C. July 12, In F. No. 3421.
[S. 1906.] Bank. A. KIMBALL, Respondent, McKEE, Appellant. J. v. F. A. Survey—Judicial Public Lands—Government Motice.—The courts judicial making surveys take notice of rules for subdivisional public lands, numbering desig- uniform method and nating subdivisions, that, the sections and their smaller and under regulations land laws the United States and - office, public plat made and field no sales of lands are until in which notes of the sub divisional approved public matter of lie been returned office, by surveyor-general’s record in the office and surveyors required to copies thereof; certified and that lettered, posts properly or monuments mark the section corners with bearing of accurate field-notes distance to show v. witness-trees from section and corners country. natural features of the Id.—Object Record Field-Notes—Relocation of Corners preservation *2 Purchasers.—The of the of the field-notes plat public with as the matter of surveyor- record in the office the of general purchasers is to the of public patents enable lands whose approved describe the as plat, land delineated on the as well as successors, correctly their to relocate the section and corners, where, by design, accident or placed the artificial monuments by surveyor the official destroyed. have been removed or by — Id.—Boundaries Courses and Distances Controlled Monu- fixing ments.—Courses and distances are controlled the of by monuments, boundaries visible unless there are other sufficient former; especially to the circumstances corroborate this is visible, permanent true the where boundaries themselves navigable such bank a river or shore an ocean. as the of the of Trespass — — Survey of Incorrect Private Verdict Id.—Action against trespass, an of of Evidence.—In action where the verdict jury private survey, the plaintiff upon for was based a which the manifestly was incorrect and not accord with the field-notes of government survey, appears and. the the that true location of the trespass plaintiff, belonging on not to the the asserted was lands against, be must held the evidence. verdict Resurvey.—In determining the bound- of Id.—Evidence—Field-Notes resurvey of of a land, the field-notes a patent public aries a for of a by surveyor-general as township, the of the certified by plats office, the copy which are identified on file issued, and which be- patent as the was the field-notes on which properly admitted patent, legal part a came in effect making the any of reason for evidence, showing the without resurvey. Accepted Survеy—Presumption.—Prior issuing of to the ID.—Last surveys, as make number of patent government could presumed accepted survey is direct; last might its officers contrary issued, where the patent' be on was to the one appear. does not Id.—Testimony testimony of Landmarks.—The as Location to upon the placed of landmarks as to observed location witnesses properly admitted. by plaintiff was premises claimed Survey.—When Defendant—Details Id.—Cross-Examination location of plaintiff as as a witness to defendant was called by placed a reference to stake township corner with a by cross-examined surveyor, properly could not be plaintiff’s he survey, and of plaintiff’s merits of details of as to the counsel surveyor. government another made Survey. Trespass with Plaintiff’s of Place Id.—Identification testimony of a is admissible witness —The correctly pointed belonging land he out the plaintiff for the that July, 1906.] according survey, testified to plaintiff to to Ms to witness who trespass "being plaintiff’s alleged
the commission of the as pointed out. so Trespass—Accu- Plea Id.—Cross-Examination of Witness to Survey.—It racy place appearing the witness .to accuracy trespass anything claimed to know about accuracy him surveys, question concerning put to on cross- said properly examination was excluded. Impeachment.—"Upon cross- Id.—Irrelevant Bekark Court as to ques- examining repeated a witness, such where defendant’s counsel in- times, court, tion and in several answer statements him, appearing that right sisted to cross-examine it not impeach court, "You have seeking him, he a remark right him,’’ irrelevant, prejudicial. impeach no and not Id.—Testimony Survey—Cross-Examina- of Plaintiff—Corners plaintiff merely seeing tion.—Where the corners set testified surveys, pointed them out to a witness he had trespass, properly not be cross-examined as to could accuracy survey. *3 Experts—Argumentative Id.—Conclusions of Witnesses not Ques- calling for the conclusions of tions.—Questions witnesses who are experts accuracy surveys, and the location in of land re- thereto, argumentative lation questions and properly excluded. Surveys.—The Id.—Instruction properly court as to the instructed jury finality as to the the last upon corrected which the patent public for based, land was and that if plaintiff's the therewith, duty accorded it was the jury of the to find for the plaintiff, and fix the amount damages. of Ms APPEAL from an Superior order Court Mendo- County denying cino a new Mannon, Judge. trial. J. M. The facts are stated in opinion of the court.
MeGarvey Bledsoe, & for Appellant. Hirsch, MeNab & and Seawell & Pemberton, Respond- for .ent.
BEATTY, C. J.This is an action of trespass in which the charged having defendant with stripped the bark from a large growing number trees land, described 1, 3, 4, 31, as lots in 5 south, range 2 east, meridian, Humboldt and the quarter southwest quarter southeast of section 30 of the same township. The portion accompanying map shaded position shows the as well as in relation to each other rela- lots their these principal objects natural township lines and the tion to the portion noted on monuments delineated and artificial survey, to which reference map determining construing patent had must be plaintiff, as in interest land. The successor location of unquestioned owner of the lots patentee, is the original described, and the serious delineated land thus real boundaries on is as their in the case question bark; words, stripping of Whether, other ground. upon plaintiff’s land or denied, was done is not adjoining in an of the said section other subdivisions convincing jury plaintiff The succeeded section. land, was awarded upon his trespassed had defendant appeal thousand dollars. of five damages in the sum superior over- court order of the is from the defendant trial. new ruling motion *4 July, 1906.] in Department, was first submitted where the
The cause opinion was affirmed. The order of the lower court then very generally satisfactory full and dis- rendered contains alleged rulings supe- errors in the cussion of numerous оbjections evidence, upon and in rior court the instructions trifling exceptions, given jury, and with a few herein- to the noted, readopted points. is here as to those The rehear- after indeed, granted only because we ing, desired consider carefully jury question more whether the verdict of the evidence, question state the more supported or to correctly specifically, land was located whether oppor- his ease. upon which he rested With tunity examining comparing the voluminous and record, confusing in the somewhat evidence contained argument point, are con- light of the additional we by plaintiff, the location contended for vinced that correctly made, depends, was not and that which his case wholly jury unsupported. respect the verdict government public causes them disposing of its lands In square, miles townships into six bounded laid off to be by parallels of the east and west and lati- lines on meridian This, least, is the and south. ideal on the north tude faulty owing location of lines township, but seacoast, in this causes, both as proximity toor convergence of meridian lines—as all case, and to thirty-six' contains sections each never cases—a they supposed which to be square, into exactly a mile surveys, making the subdivisional how- The rules divided. understood, and there is uniform method of ever, are well designating the sections and their smaller numbering and judicial the courts take subdivisions, all of matters township, corner of the is at the southwest notice. Section 32, and so on to section 36 at the east is next on judicial notice that under also take We corner. southeast regulations of the land States and United the laws plat made until the and field- lands are public no sales office township in which the subdivisional *5 Kimball officially certified, deposited in local land which, duty surveyors office. We also know that it made the surveys employed to make subdivisional to mark the these posts lettered, properly section with or other corners monu- ments, quarter-section lines and also the intersection of with lines, preserve especially the section and more accurate surveys showing field-notes of their the natural features of country, streams, ridges, shore, such as mountain the ocean soil, fertile, barren or or whether wooded nature bearing meadow; distance and of witness-trees quarter-section corners, etc. plat, are, township preserved like the These field-notes surveyor-general public record, as their the officeof the purchasers of public is to enable the lands (cid:127)principal correctly quar- relocate the section and and their successors within the when accident corners or ter-section surveyor design placed the official the artificial monuments destroyed,—a very occurrence, common removed have been decisions of as records of this court and the other courts abundantly prove. case, plaintiff came so when conclu-
And collecting by stripping was tanbark sion that the defendant necessity employing himself under the trees, found surveyor to find corners of section private evidence offered him at the trial is situate. The surveyor) of the official shows that (the map and field-notes corners, corners, well as the as these monuments, properly lettered at the by posts or other marked many of them identified the dis- survey, and time as well as bearing witness-trees their relation tance and Gulch, as ocean, the stream known Whale shore dividing high ridge that stream from the crest of and the in the record that search no evidence There is ocean. witness-trees, which, posts or if the corner was made question to the true ended the location found, would assuming proper that the effort was land. But witness-trees, and that it posts corner find the made to trace most alternative fruitless, obvious ordinary high with the line of intersection line to its being corner the southwest shоre,—that on the ocean tide from that 1.80 chains east measure township,—then July, 1906.] v. McKee. *6 twenty
and thence chains north for the southeast corner of plaintiff’s land, eighty thence chains on the same course for corner, the twenty northeast thence for chains west its north- corner, west shore, along thence thence the south to the ocean point shore a then corner, to due west of the southeast close that.
This, surveyor indeed, precisely (Chap- is what man) do, very a seri- undertook to hut did not do. There is question case, he ous in the whether ever found the line township places which on it in bounds the the south. He disregard sur- plat field-notes utter vey, which he in his hands and assumed to follow. But had conceding may true for the moment that he have found the boundary township, tracing it of the his method of south his the shore of ocean and views as what constitutes peculiar. township plat and the field- ocean are most surveyor show trend of the ocean notes of the official that the many is for miles north and shore from northwest southeast line; of the at a south of the that east ocean shore 86,20 intersects a small creek distance of chains this line (Whale empties into the ocean Gulch) which flows south and point. south Between this stream and about one mile rising very at high ridge from the shorе a is a ocean gently angle chains, 25.80 more steep for a distance of descending thence some- chains further and about fourteen to Whale on the ocean side Gulch. abruptly what than less Chapman, in the intersection order to find shore, into Whale where over Gulch line with the ocean went pointed him out to an “Old Settler” who he discovered 32. This cor- line of section post the south quarter-section field-notes, ought to plat and which, according to the ner, Gulch, of Whale twenty-five chains west been found stream, “old settler” but the of that at distance east some trees which blazes” on “old a line indicated showed him corner, quarter-section he to be the assumed him to what led quarter- located process remarkable having by this field-notes, he plat and of the official in defiance corner field-notes for upon the same immediately back falls They tell him that locating shore. ocean there- shore, and chains east 61.80 is -west distance go course, has he fore, v. McKee. corner to find himself on the accordingly goes beach. He exactly-on due west to ridge the crest of the divides the Gulch, watershed of the ocean from that of Whale and, having distance, that, measured the happy finds coincidence, just he is 61.84 chains west of the settler” “old сorner, knows, therefore, or, shore, that he ocean strictly accurate, .Here, be beyond that he is four links it. again, forgets him field-notes, ridge which tell that this is at least 25.80 chains east of the shore line on the southern township (and summit, judged its angle eight of ascent, sea-level). about hundred feet above'the He is not, however, this, plants daunted trifle like but post to mark the township right corner of southwest *7 on the “crest of the ocean” or the of the ocean” “cone according to his own picturesque terminology. varied and Having point, easy. fixed this the rest of his task is He has only twenty to measure east, chains north and 1.80 chains to find the plaintiff’s land; southeast corner of thence north eighty chains, twenty chains, west south to the intersection aof liné, meander line somewhere east of the shore thence with its to point meanders a west of the southeast corner due do, and east till he point. proceeds closes on that This to he and the result he is has located the eastern slope ridge in Gulch, Whale when the field-notes of the surveyor only show that not those subdivisions of sec- tion 31 plaintiff, section, extending belonging but the whole twenty east, chains slope further are on the western ridge, looking And, course, portion down the of ocean. no of it shore, any touches the ocean nearer ocean or comes the ridge. shore than a 1.80 summit of chains east of the the by assuming Chapman discrepancy Mr. that reconciles this township the shore line of the coincident with the meander is gratuitiously assumes measured, line it was and he along ridge. of that the meander line was run the summit the any is There the whole record credible evidence show run, that the meander line was so and in the absence testi- beach, mony along presumption the is it was run the that not, by if passable, and, if the beach was some other method surveyor correctly to locate the line of that would enable the high tide,—that public the ordinary being the line which surveys that north- There is no the beach extend. evidence July, 1906.] while point, impassable at line is
ward the line as affirmatively appear it that south does the and that passable, is far as the mouth of Whale Gulch west measured government surveyor (Perrin) who same south measured line, also 31 north of the of section Gulch, as and that his measurements far Whale is not itself along Besides, meander line the beach. correctly measuring and shore line. It a means of line to the survey itself extends locating the shore line. within high included ordinary tide, the land all to be so shown passes patentee of the subdivisions line therefore, owns Kimball, township plat. bounded Mr. can Nothing half his claim. ocean shore on the south gov- boundary. him Not even stop short that natural If, line. him the actual shore ernment can come between he has made therefore, prevail, Chapman’s Mr. is to mile extending a half plaintiff present strip of land line along wide as distance between shore and as dividing ridge ordinary high tide and summit of the doing between the ocean Whale Gulch. And deprived plaintiff’s on the east of has coterminous owner length. I strip equal width and mile a whole claim support is no said there credible evidence along was run the summit that the meander of the seashore ridge. was, contrary, There on the conclusive evidence Chapman’s hands, make that Mr. at the he chose to time *8 assumption, He field-notes of that it was not so run. had the township Perrin, ran line the shore to the who the meander line as far township line and eastward from the ocean the had also the the corner in section 34. He Foreman, field-notes of the official subdivisional who made township township, whose field-notes the Perrin’s,—one (Perrin) correspond exactly 'line with measur- west, (Foreman) measuring ing from other commencing at end notes, east. take Now, Perrin’s of his for the sole meander which run ocean, locating township line at its intersection with the they read as follows:—
“East, post 4 сorner, Tp. s., E., 2 H. M. set 5 R. high. long, base, 2 ft. 4x4 in rock 4 ft. ft. mound of 444 v. McKee. Cor., fractional see. from which cor. I run East
(cid:127) on south see. 31. degs. 17
Varia. 35 min. East.
Ascending steep rocky sides. post
21.80 4 Set ft. 4x4 long, in mound of rock 8% ft. high, base 2 ft. cor., Sees. 31 and 32 land rough and broken. rocky.
Soil 3rd. rate,
February 14th, 1876.
East, Boundary on south Sec. 32. degs.
Vari. 17 35 mins. East. Ascending steep rocky side Top 4.00 grassy slide and enter opening Ridge 18.00 bears N. & W. S. E.
19.00 Enter dmish
26.00 timber. leaning 40.00 in., Mark Madrona 10 dia. for sec. cor. from which dia., a madrona 8 ins. bears N. 18 deg. W., 46 Iks. dist. a tan oak 8 dia., ins. bears S. degs., W. 37 Iks. dist. deep gulch 64.40 Stream 10 links wide course South.” Etc. will
It be that to mark observed the southwest corner of post at, of, he not corner, sets but east this, sufficiently for reason obvious. Set at the line ordinary high tide, it been exposed would have tide, every spring with wash of its mound of stones would by the have been obliterated first storm. Set east of the corner exactly of intersection of indicated the shore and township. lines—the true southwest corner of the Having corner, proceeded lay thus established he out duty If township line to the eastward. he understood his (and presumed public know, officer but to duty), commenced his perform, his he measurement at the line, is, indeed, proper which construction of true shore that corner of the fractional section notes; coincides township. is, with southwest corner Wherever one clearly necessarily is, the notes show that ran the other post not from the the corner and he set on east from *9 the corner. if it conceded he the line east of But that post, corner, at the it and not would at commenced Chapman’s Mr. worse for deductions. Instead much the be so July, 1906.] v. McKee. bringing the true shore line nearer to the of summit
ridge, put by just it farther away, would it the distance post. point between the corner and the From whichever he it was chains he found that 21.80 measured common and least four farther, corner of sections chains any field-notes, on construction of his to summit liberty Chapman locating takes the ridge, where ocean shore, stones, he found some scattered which and where the remains of mound Perrin concludes are erected township. Enough corner of the mark southwest has been absurdly said, I how "think, to demonstrate fallacious were the locating by Chapman for line the shore means resorted ocean,—a itself,—how grat- natural monument that locates along the meander was traced assumption his that uitous ridge lofty top quarter sides of a more than a of a beach, inconsequential from the how that fact would mile had a fact. have been if it been
Having guide part for the location of that of the town- no Foreman, except the field-notes of Perrin and which ship line conspicuous exactly agreed natural such monuments as high ridgе, shore, of a ocean Gulch, the summit Whale these, starting-point, search for a all his he discards settler, than pointed out an old more of a stake favor place of mile from the indicated the natural quarter identified, not than a line monuments, and otherwise mark trees,”—a any kind of not mentioned “old blazes on field-notes, given any or surveyor’s explained sig- and not testimony by his own that of other nificance witness. will settler” corner be shown when genesis of this “old survey, the York evidence which consider we come to corroborating Chapman, for introduced extremely frail appear to be an foundation it will it. At it has been reared that structure by adopting it as the say Chapman, basis sufficient plaintiff's a location of land which survey, has made of his every of the official important feature utterly falsifies duty discrep- instance its An it was his to follow. line, on is the distance accord- mentioned ancies before it) (he measure not take the trouble to ing did estimate He the seashore. testifies Gulch and Whale between ridge down post from his than five'chains not more *10 KimbaijL 446 v. McKee. only ocean,
to the and ten opposite chains the direction Gulch, making to”Whale the total distance fifteen chains. plat approved Foreman’s field-notes and the show the true distance to be 86.20 chains. If his estimate of the distаnce is approximately correct, even his must line have been run within quarter a mile of the mouth of Whale Gulch—-three of. quarters a mile south of the platted of true line as on the township map. however, It is probable, greatly that he ridge underestimated distance from the summit of the ocean, the shorter absurdity the distance the less the making of the summit the ocean shore. plaintiff’s And all other witnesses on this his estimate, exceeded placing one the distance at twelve hundred feet or over. If this witness Chapman’s correct, survey plaintiff’s was locates land a quarter away ocean, of a mile which official survey boundary; Chapman is the western if correct township line was located far much too south.
I Chapman’s survey have thus far discussed with ref- sole (Perrin’s Foreman’s) erence to the field-notes guided. true, have He professes had, been it is surveyor (Glover), survey field-notes of another but since his they altogether 33, of east section did not touch section 32, possibly Chapman 31 or section could aided proceedings. stage completed at this But after he of had measuring survey setting it of off and along boundary sides, posts at corners and he made party quarter for another to locate southeast in that ran some 34, connection lines and made from one which are some measurements of Glover’s corners supposed plaintiff. he made for to corroborate considering part plaintiff’s case,
For the give proceedings necessary a brief outline of the it is surveyors employed at different times in the three official south, range east, meridian, 5 2 Humboldt survey of history townships. surveys adjoining and two these the township plats, the face of plainly written compiled, copies from which in the field-notes plaintiff. in evidence Bearing which were introduced townships off the east of laying in mind that the Hum- range meridian, 1 naturally east were base and those boldt 2, range and that before those marked out meridian July, 1906.] v. bounding range 1 on the east necessarily became the west- range
ern appears that this common bound- ary was established of S. W. Foreman By in 1874. his survey, it was length found that the township line from the northeast south, corner of range east, to the Pacific Ocean was three hundred and- eighty-five chains, or, words, ninety-five in other chains short miles, plat six shows that the established common *11 corner townships of the two (the on the shore line southeast corner of 1 and 2) just southwest corner sixty-five of was chains south of the southeast corner of section 24 of town- ship range 5 south, 1 east, Humboldt meridian.
In 1876, surveyor another (George Perrin) H. was em- ployed complеte to survey subdivisional of township 24 north, range west, 19 Mt. Diablo base and meridian. The north boundary of this tier of townships the Mt. Diablo system quite did not with coincide boundary south of township. 5 south of system. the Humboldt It seems that space there was a between them, and that Perrin in- was structed to locate the south line of township south, range 5 east, the, 2 system of Humboldt survey order to close his of township north, range 24 19 west system of the Mt. Diablo upon that line. adopted by The method him locating boundary southern township south, range of 5 east, 2 was to extremity start from the southern its western at its intersection with the shore line of the ocean, and mean- point ninety-five der that line ato chains starting- south of his point. perfectly This was a method, correct and, since his measurements seem carefully made, to have been would have ¡yielded if, a correct result unfortunately, he had mistaken proper starting-point. He commenced his meander line twenty little more than chains south and a little less than forty right chains point, east from the and in consequence placed township quarter line a of a mile too far to the south, and a half added mile to the west border of the town- ship. survey subsequently The subdivisional made shows this. By map reference to it will be seen that western tier (18, 19, 30, etc.) thirty-eight of sections are and a fraction a milе in west, chains over width from east to common 19 east, coinciding corner of sections and 30 2 instead of common east, with the corner of sections 24 25 in This 20.60 chains south it. mistake Perrin’s seems much has been the occasion of which have confusion He, proceeded however, error, since arisen. unconscious of his lay extremity line from township off the the southern quarter-section meander line as far east as the corner survey 34, of section is the field-notes heretofore reference has been made. year completion survey after of Perrin’s
About township line, as far corner in section as surveyor. (J. Glover) 34, another R. seems to have been em- survey ployed to continue that and establish range township south, far line as as the southwest corner done, events, At is 5 east. all that what assumes surveyor- appears by copy his field-notes certified general. But there no evidence that subdivisional sur- It vey was ever based on this line. years survey, after that Foreman was six Glover's survey of employed make the subdivisional this town- resurvey This he ship and to its east and south boundaries. did, adopted approved, and the land and his field-notes, a plat compiled from his sold reference to a puts completely *12 They either conform to Foreman’s notes out of case. thеy in the superfluous, In the case do not. former only purpose serve of further incompetent, latter sufficiently confusing inquiry is confused without an which plat field-notes and the official that them. It is to Foreman’s guidance relocating of for the lost corners we must look only did survey, and whatever Glover not the subdivisional consideration, if it be, out of the conflicts may, but must left by survey superseded what did. His with Foreman corroborating resurvey. could, most, of have the effect It way, cannot be allowed to latter in some collateral but put question is not where Glover the town- contradict it. The it, finally ship line, where Foreman established but field-notes, that is his and the official only evidence we of east, meridian, range south, 5 2 Humboldt plats west, meridian, north, range Mt. Diablo township 24 boundary. These line is the common 'township of which that as to with Perrin’s field-notes perfect correspondence show line—noting at the same distances portion western July, 1906.] v. seashore, quarter-section Gulch, Whale section and corners,
and witness-trees. survey Chapman
To return now to the quarter southeast of section and the measurements based upon he that, which claims to have confirmed the correct- plaintiff's testimony ness of his location of land: His shows starting-point he as the selected of that a corner words, described in In prefers Glover’s field-nоtes. other superseded survey corner established to all the con- spicuous survey, landmarks noted in later and the -that, surveyed correctly conclusion if he from the point so selected, correspondence there is no between Glover’s survey—a very probable Foreman’s supposition grounds; locating on other for Glover’s method the east line, Perrin’s (Glover’s) end of as described field-notes testimony Riley, and the of the witness was not such as to inspire much confidence in the result of his labors. plaintiff’s first made for the of locating
land approval after the survey, was made Foreman’s.official county surveyor Richard York, of Mendocino County, Stewart, original patentee plaintiff’s grantor. Evidence of York’s location of the land was intro- corroborating the purpose Chapman’s duced for survey. York, himself, witness, was not as a called and his field-notes— county surveyor’s should have been on file in the office— produced; Howard, but Breeden and who as chain- men making assisted in survey, testified recollection as to the made, manner which was and that the location practically York was identical with Chapman’s testimony location. But their also showed that survey corresponded Chapman’s only with because, like exclusively Chapman’s, it based an erroneous lоca- ' tion corner of section 32. York’s locating method of corner was start from the southeast corner of at a distance four and a half miles *13 east, chain that distance on a which the course witnesses are unable to state. As to whether it due was west only course, or approximating competent there is that no evidence; competent and there is likewise no evidence that he from township. started the southeast corner of the Neither pretends Breeden nor be know surveyor, Howard or to a CXLIX Cal.—29 Cal: [149 v. knowledge they point Ms that the from which com own was the true southeast corner menced their chain measurement on the township. says: Howard “We started east 36; they [meaning, suppose, I called York] 36, line; know; post I we found a at corner from don’t bluff,” we ran west clear to ocean—the etc. that course testimony upon this is the same effect as Breeden's he Howard’s, expressly state that did except that he does not post from knowledge that the which York know of his own however, Fairly construed, was line. started hearsay. was testimony pure essential fact as to this all the allowing objection, and measurement But, passing this township, corner the true southeast was made from locating at near the end of the corner the mode of nоthing is contrary to law. There better measured course was courses and authority or than the rule that statute settled fixing boundaries visible are controlled distances are other sufficient circumstances monuments, unless there 2077, (See Proc., Code Civ. sec. the former. corroborate 858, 48].) 450, Pac. 75 Pac. Grunsky, 141 Miller v. when boundaries' themselves especially true this And navigable of a visible, as the bank such permanent locating ocean. As to the mode or the of an river shore admits 32, Breeden, who corner of section they except ran distances remember the exact that he cannot says they got when corners, they or found set where object there, a stake or some part of 32 “we found a having a was; found stake know what it we I don’t says: “They found corner,” etc. Howard appearance of stake, they thought prove to be a would there that stub you before, it so rotten years stake had been burned there, then we went on west set a stake could not tell—we claim.” we located Mr. Stewart’s 31 and and then story. nor Howard Neither Breeden the whole This tells guide him. If had field-notes to whether York knows Glover’s, inferred may be any, they probably had he Chap itself with co-ordinates the fact that his Certainly, if he had corner. man’s from Glover Perrin’s,—and the with notes,—identical Foreman’s disregarded follow, entirely liberty he *14 July, 451 1906.] Kimball v. McKee. him quarter-section that the corner of 32 marked, section was by stake, by a but a leaning madroño tree ten inches in diameter, by and bearing distance and of two witness- trees—a madroño oak; being nearly and instead of a quarter of a mile Gulch, east Whale it was more than a quarter of a it, mile west of being and that instead of nearly one hundred chains from it ocean shore was 61.60 imposing chains from that then, landmark. Here, was a corner alone, located course and distance absurdly and out of relation to a fixed boundary, unmistakable natural every and to monument and landmark called for in the field- survey. notes of the official A location of lost corners a survey utterly from a corner so is worthless; established it is survey a contrary (Code to law. Proc., 2077.) Civ. sec. survey, therefore, York’s corroborating instead of Chapman’s, merely explain serves to Chapman’s furnishes, mistake. It intimated, genesis as above of the “old settler” corner. For Howard replaced testifies that fragment the rotten stake; of a stake with a new acquired that no soon doubt among neighboring reputation being settlers the what purported it proper to be—the quarter-section mark of that pointed corner. As such it was to Chapman out who made it survey the bаsis regard mountain, stream, of his without or ocean. Champagne,
Plaintiff also called as a witness a Mr. who had survey as a making acted chainman for one Sandow plaintiff’s years His land about two before the trial.
assumed start from quarter-section corner between sec- 21, practically tions and resulted location same Chapman’s. Champagne knowledge If knew of his own quarter-section where the 20 and 21 corner between sections testimony was, support would lend some faint say case, he does not that he knew the corner—he saw a but tree, explain corner marked stake and but does not it to how it was identified as the corner which Sandow took be; testify, having, stated, himself as it is Sandow did not country. Champagne’s testimony, standing itself, left the really very it whether started would leave uncertain Sandow from the while corner between the fact coincides with those of York and strongly prove Chapman tends that he must have started surveying corner him in from another York established location, corner, from his erroneous from a Glover or 32. quarter-section corner But whether surmise correct, not, is certain that the Sandow cannot *15 vitality fatally impart to one so variance with at natural Chapman’s monuments as is. boundaries and is corner of section 31 southwest southwest corner thаt is marked of township, of the and intersection To township line with shore ocean. locate subdi- survey corner, should start from visions of that section that place, in if a from that corner locates them one and survey starting line, at the shore with their west corner, nearly quarter-section two miles from an interior dis- tant nearest corner of section which locates the from the entirely place away in same subdivisions a different from shore, the ocean cannot be said to raise a substantial conflict. is place, township corner a monument of For, in the first corner, and, place, higher grade any interior the next than shore of the ocean—which natural as the monuments—such mistaken, always pre- being are incapable moved or monuments, especially to artificial ferred to artificial at distances. monuments remoter forgotten evidence, I the wit- have not In this review the Burg merely forgotten Perrin. acted Burg, and I have not ness from the Glover Chapman making for as axman above, nothing. Perrin counts which, explained corner, completion Chapman’s ground after the taken on was correctly seeing he had lo- whether for the ground twenty-live went on the He township line. cated the and, field-notes, looking at survey, his without years after the ridge, concluded from the summit stаke at Chapman’s very placed it was at or topography his recollection post point—where had set a the same near—practically and the southwest corner his meander end mark the given on his examina- direct This evidence township. flatly contradicted his say was own tion, is needless his cross-examination he and on quoted, field-notes, as above testimony where his differed again over over admitted if, at fault. So that recollection his field-notes his from post recollection, his at the end of he set from testified as he corner of the town- the southwest mark line to meander July, 1906.] v. McKee.
ship, that line must have ended at least 25.80 chains west of directly ridge, top it, instead of Chapman’s where post set, run, been I and must have as have assumed it was along run, or near the beach. The of Perrin, evidence so far supporting directly against is Chapman, him, for at last field-notes, nothing he swears Chapman confutes they completely more than do—corroborated as are in every particular by Foreman’s notes. important topographical
An frequent feature which ref- erence has been made is Whale Its Gulch. distance from the its ocean and relation section and corners extensively have been foregoing commented dis- evidence, it would nоt be proper cussion to omit all reference iterated and reiterated assertion of counsel for respondent, apparently Chapman’s based on Mr. testimony, that neither Perrin nor Foreman mention or refer to Whale Gulch surprising their field-notes. It somewhat that coun- *16 easily sel should have been so misled in so simple matter; a Chapman’s basis of claim that notes do not men- Gulch, tion Whale is that do not mention it They name. it—Perrin, both mention as a stream in a deep gulch, ten links south; Foreman, vñde, course as gulch a small creek in a run- ning All in case, east. the evidence Chapman’s including testimony, own shows stream, that this small or creek, was Gulch, nothing Whale else. The map of the ad- joining township the south shows it at the same distance township from the ocean on line that Foreman places it in south, range east, 5 2 meridian, Humboldt and also point shows its course from that to its mouth in the ocean. photographs put The also evidence plaintiff, and taken point from a Gulch, near the mouth Whale corroborate the They gulch map. show the relation of the to the ridge, and Chapman’s necessary It give stake. was not a name to gulch field-notes, in the even if acquired it had a name surveys, at dates of the which does not appear. - fact has been mentioned that Pеrrin located the town- twenty ship line a fraction over chains too far south. It that it can now correctly be understood be not to relocated. resurvey appears adopted that Foreman For it Perrin’s survey upon subdivisional based his it. He line and must have early stage at an subdivisional discovered the fact 454 south, satisfy himself township line was too far and to
that the error, carefully he source of the retraced the meander discovered, show, as his ocean, and field-notes line of the starting point Perrin in from the “a” instead error of point “A” when he undertook to locate on the seashore ninety-five “A,” which marks the chains south of southeast south, range east, 1 corner of 5 Humboldt meridian. He, however, on the resumed subdivisional completed byit which he line—and clos- had started—Perrin’s adjoining township, adding, as ing on the eastern line of the shows, nearly a map half mile to the western surveying. His which he was field-notes plat— n exactly with correspond 31—-which the official of section at common corner of 31 show that he commenced sections township line 21.80 east the sea- 32 on the chains shore, forty chains, he ran north between sections along slope, post and there set marked and 32 southwest sixty trees—at chains entered and stone witnessed two mark the chaparral, eighty post chains he set a dense marked, 29, 30, 32, properly common corner sections bearings. trees—giving distances and and witnessed four mountainous, soil along the land this course as He describes open chap- rate, prairie, mile in balance dense third first half arral, scattering oak, His notes as to the next and madroño. : follows running ocean, read as west to course less than a “As line ends the ocean mile I run bet. secs. 30-31
W. on true line degs. 42 min. E. Var.
Steep descent sq., ins., in long 4 4 ins. 24 post Set a ft. 40. in sec. stone mound ground stone for Cor. with mkd % face. S. N. ft. mkd. 4x2 in limits. tree No No. 3 on station the Pacific ocean
50.35. Intersect long post 4 ft. 4 set a 30 and in sec. meanders cor., to fractional ground for ins., in the 24 sq., ins. 2 on E. S. 30 on N. S., R E. secs., mkd., T. mound of stones faces; raises on S. S. 31 post. around in limits.
No trees
July, 1906.] v. McKee. slope steep W.
Soil 3rd rate grass partly dense partly open chaparral.” land and clearly These notes show that whole of the section was surveyed ridge, slope on the west its that on south boundary the section line was 21.80 chains its and on north boundary 50.35 chains from the ocean. Plaintiff’s east line twenty section, is chains west of the east line of the and the relocating south half his west line In is the seashore. corners of this section these notes and their calls natural disregarded not in a quarter- monuments are to be favor of post Gulch, placed, appears, County in Whаle as it Surveyor in disregard every utter in the York call survey,—and upon no better as to its proper evidence location than a chain course measurement of a four and a half miles length point in to be from assumed the southeast corner of township by pretend not surveyors, witnesses who do to be testimony upon essentially hearsay. and whose is urged respondent conceding It is counsel for that even Chapman’s survey, plaintiff's an error in and that land is location, ought west of his the verdict not to disturbed, be in peeled because there is evidence the record that defendant slope ridge. the trees on the western There is such evidence; appears growth it also while but of tan-oak ridge very abundant, east of the there are but few trees along scattered certain ravines on the west slope, and the verdict for five thousand proof dollars based of a large quantity stripped of bark from the trees Whale verdict, therefore, supported by is not Gulch. The the evi- comparatively trifling dence as to the amount cut on the slope. west ruling errors principal upon objections" of the court admitting testimony
to evidence consisted Breeden, Champagne Howard, and as to the York and surveys, Sandow preliminary they without sufficient evidence that were made correctly starting-points. located Minor errors need In foregoing be noticed detail. view of the discussion likely repeated are not to be on retrial of the issues. denying
The order a new trial is reversed cause remanded. Harrison, J., J.,
Henshaw, Lorigan, J., concurred. *18 KtmbaTííí v. McKee. 456 evidence there is sufficient I think SHAW, I dissent. J. court. in this applicable rules under the to sustain the verdict act, Har- being unable to Justice. McFarland Note.—Justice appeal court justices of the district rison, of the one pro tempore, herein district, participates appellate the first of the constitution. 4 article VI pursuant to section of One, Department rendered following opinion is the The certain readopted on November, the 4th of opinion:— foregoing points by the to recover the defendant plaintiff sued SHAW, J.The belonging to upon real estate alleged trespass damages for an strip- consisted of complained of trespass plaintiff. The upon growing oak trees large number of from a ping tanbark premises. gov- complaint consisted of four in the described The land other, and consti- contiguous each subdivisions ernment south, and one length from north mile in tuting a tract one part except width, southernmost mile in of a fourth cut off one corner thereof. thereof, where the Pacific Ocean lay 31, township in section tracts southernmost The three meridian, east, and were described range 2 Humboldt south, section, corresponding being the lots said 1, 3, and of as lots quarter, and the fractional the northeast half of the west quarter The southeast thereof. quarter northwest quarter of the southwest the south- northerly constituted tract principal upon The contention section 30. quarter of east of the land with reference to location trial arose over large part survey, evidence government placed at the of the monuments corners location relates to the surveyors topography described government survey. appeal The of the official from field-notes in the motion for a new trial. denying the defendant’s the order taken exceptions rulings Many objections and rejection evidence, the admission court the lower alleged require errors which' a reversal and these order. patent under a derived title plaintiff
The United patent to John L. Stewart. issued describes the States mentioned, and refers to the plat above subdivisions July, 1906.] *19 by office general land survey land returned
the of said was plat copy of this surveyor-general. A certified the survey of the official that in It shows evidence. introduced surveys of dif- separate of township question in consisted the surveyors by township, made different of the parts ferent by surveyed S. W. boundary was The west different times. south 24, 1874; part of the Foreman, contract of June under Perrin, contract by under boundary surveyed H. was G. boundary the south January remaining part of 26, 1876; the of November contract surveyed by Glover, under was J. E. resurveyed boundary was 1876; and the whole of the south of the minor subdivisions of the sections and and the lines of Janu- by Foreman, under contract township surveyed were survey that the ary 13,1883. appears It from the evidence a con- boundary done under part the was Perrin of a south being south, survey township immediately tract for a of the meridian, and range Diablo township north, west, 24 19 Mount by Perrin referred many of the so-called corners established “closing corners’’ in called the evidence what are survey township him 24 to that town- joining Chap- Mr. ship survey plaintiff’s A was made 5. accuracy of his man, plaintiff’s depends on the case corners location of and other the southeast corner of on the location of township the south line from which The defend- land was determined. boundaries about one Chapman placed ant claims the boundaries principal of the fourth of a mile from location. their true One survey questions in or not Foreman’s the case was whether Perrin’s, and of the was identical with south according location Chapman whether or found the true Chapman in his at- patent. of the intendment of the tempted the field-notes to follow the lines as shown survey. Perrin The Foreman rather those of the than record, given in issuing patent is not time of the of the it, but it is manifest at least our attention is not called making all the the evidence it was issued after on the official surveys acceptance thereof as shown and the plat. of sur- objection of the field-notes the introduction
veyor showing resurvey of the southern Foreman field-notes These properly overruled. Cal. v. surveyor-general copy were certified as a of the field- office, plats notes of Foreman on file in his and the official sufficiently identify them as field-notes on legal effect, patent They, therefore, became, was issued. part (if rights patent pre-emption no or homestead appear here) intervened, and none which constituted plaintiff’s title, properly in evidence. admitted necessary (Chapman 487.) Polak, It was not any resurvey. making show reason for the Prior to the issuing patent government could make number might direct, accepted the last surveys, as its officers presumed patent to be the one which the issued, appears. the contrary unless objections
The various made to the admission in evidence *20 survey the the action of the field-notes of the Glovеr and of allowing in of court references to be made to the field-notes by already disposed Foreman are remarks made concern- the ing surveys. They authenticity each constituted the of these part survey the was township of the of the in which land situated, locating proper it is and for the the land in they to either or them as would aid refer to both of so far fixing the landmarks and boundaries. witnesses, Howard,
Two Breeden and testified that York, county surveyor, present were assisted one Richard eight years making survey question, in in some of the land Objection references to was made to these before the trial. survey ground compe- was no upon the of York the that there made, survey that, such was nor if any tent evidence that correct. If these witnesses had made, it accurate or survey York, prove perhaps been called to the from their error, an but it is manifest would have been They purpose. testimony that this was not the whole testify to certain landmarks which to with relation asked survey they were in of the and which were found 'the course person, describe as other competent as to observe and testimony, so far as it was part the of this -of their in fact that these landmarks to some material, consisted the survey corresponded with those mentioned the extent by Chapman, plaintiff’s land last-mentioned testimony as to the Their was introduced evidence. eight the trial years beforé of the landmarks some existence (cid:127) July, 1906.] v. Chapman. by later It corroboration
was some they were with the to familiar show admissible also according theory to question the land lines of by as location, their fixed is, with plaintiff,—that necessary a foundation for familiarity was as Chapman. This concerning damage done testimony by Howard further stripping of the bark from the timber by the plaintiff’s land thereon. by plaintiff, as witness was called
The defendant township boundary of the testify that if the south to the fact comer between sections from established was extended west by Mr. 35, pass near to the stake established would surveyor, as the corner southeast Chapman, plaintiff’s situated, in which the and to sec- fact corner between additional was a well-known corner tions 20 and 21 the same Upon and marked well-known visible monuments. cross- counsel, he was a num- examination the defendant’s asked facts, opinion questions ber of which called or for concerning affecting the of the two facts, respective merits alleged Perrin surveys, that been made Mr. hand,
south one and claimed be location the defendant conclusive land, Chapman plaintiff and that made Mr. for the on the which, hand, according plaintiff’s claim, other established the as to which the corners so cover the land trespasses. These questions defendant committed the were ob- *21 jected cross-examination, proper to as not and excluded by was error in the court. There no this. While some of the questions put preliminary to the defendant on examination- surveys, plainly object to these was not the in-chief referred it testimony plaintiff him the purpose or elicited from except prove any to facts the two above mentioned—the loca- from corner 34 with tion of a extended west the of section stake, respect Chapman the well-known character to and comer sections 20 21. The quarter-section between right, upon con- defendant had not the the cross-examination go cerning facts, an cross-examination these to into extended respective surveys. Two with reference to details objected description a questions to called for these Chapman was place stake of set as the sontheast where the v. McKee.- comer of objects and of the which were visible from point. If any dispute concerning there had been the. might location stake, of this properly evidence have been admitted, but as matter of any fact there nеver was question concerning doubt dispute it. The was not as to the actual location of this ground, stake place but as to the where it should have been according located to govern- the official survey. ment The exclusion of this testimony, if errone- even ous, injury. no could caused substantial
Complaint is made of the action of the in allowing court testify a concerning survey witness to one Sandow. objection competent The was that there was no evidence of survey, such proper prove and that was not its ac- curacy itsor existence testimony those who assisted making in testimony, however, it. The competent for the purpose for which it was introduced. The witness assisted Mr. making survey, Sandow in and saw and the land- observed marks located Mr. Sandow. Some of these were mentioned original government survey. also He subsequently the, plaintiff’s making surveyor, Chapman, assisted Mr. resurvey land, relocation that occasion many saw of the same landmarks. The corner from which making Sandow started in quarter-section was the corner between sections which was the same corner which the well- plaintiff himself testified was well-known and The marked comer. witness testified to the courses and dis- tances, thence, observation, by run under own San- dow, dispute, testimony land and his tended to show that the measurement corner, correct and course from that according government survey, would locate the land place substantially by Chapman’s as that same established and, survey, consequently, it would tend to corroborate accuracy Chapman’s survey, it corre- show that sponded with the corner which the defendant saw, testified was well established. He testified to what he and not.to statements made It was therefore com- Sandow. petent testimony. and relevant testimony Burg properly of the witness admitted identifying subsequently for the testified Pryor concerning by Pryor. testify com- was called *22 trespass complained of, pre- mission of the and he stated July, 1906.] Kimball concerning which particular way that the
liminary Burg belonging as the land him out to pointed testified Chapman. according to the plaintiff, Burg correctly that he therefore, prove proper, It was Pryor. As the witness the witness pointed the land to out accuracy of anything about the Pryor pretend know did concerning the same was put him surveys, question argument concern- good deal is said correctly excluded. A Pryor had questions after ing remark made the court attorney. The by defendant’s repeated several times been some statements attorney, in answer to defendant’s witness,” to right court, said, “I to cross-examine right impeаch him.” no said, court “You have not think the action complained of. We do This is the remark of the case. require a reversal of the court was so serious as to im- endeavoring at that time to It is was not true that counsel court, prop- if it was peach witness, and the remark cannot erly down, irrelevant. We appears taken to have been de- perceive harm to the how it have done substantial could fendant’s cause. court to concerning refusal of the complaint made
permit plaintiff the extended cross-examination of the by Chapman survey made respect with to the details of a In which he his examination- witnessed is without foundation. saw Mr. plaintiff merely testified that he in-chief the had Chapman land, he afterwards set the comers of his and that George Howard, who sub- pointed out the same corners to one concerning trespass complained of. The sequently testified given for the reason properly cross-examination was excluded Burg,— regard witness to the cross-examination of the testimony-in-chief, namely, not, had in his that the witness Chapman any knowledge accuracy of the sur- claimed proving vey, he was not for the and that called accuracy. its given by
There was in the the court no error instructions request plaintiff. complained The instructions Were as follows:— n charge you government of the 1. “I that the United States change new and correct an older can make a thereby gov- remains erroneous while the land affected land; acceptance by depart- the land and after the ernment *23 462 Kimball v. McKee. correcting survey,
ment of the latter the becomes the author- and official one.” ized charge you any
“I3. that comer or monument established by survey was, Perrin in his of 1876 so far as the land situated concerned, twp. range east, superseded in 2 M. is south, H. corresponding or monument or by the corner established used by survey if 1883", survey Foreman in his the latter dis- agrees with in relation thereto.” the former charge you
4. “I that while it is true that the United States government surveys of its lands change or correct the can government lands, remain may as while the same it see fit purchasers, last they disposed of settlers or after department accepted by, the land surveys for, unchangeable; final purchase, is disposal before the or private parties thereafter undertakes any surveyor, who for corners, as lines or should endeavor to re-establish or relocate surveyor footsteps nearly in the possible follow place government survey and accepted who made the last ’’ by placed him. where corners and lines ease, all the evidence in the you find from 5. “If should survey 1883, did not use the same in in that Foreman established Perrin comers run and the same location of or which were not run and corners 1876, yet as all the lines in only, Foreman all, but by Perrin at or established regard question govern without survey Foreman must line on the south he used the same or not whether by Perrin.” was used township, which , in the ease that the all the evidence you find from “If 7. surveyed by Foreman that surveyed by Perrin and township respectively that the lines thereof surveyed by them were so in the must be followed yet of Foreman overlapped ’’ surveyed him. township from the evidence that you if find charge you that “I 11. lines of lands sub- surveyor, fixed Chapman, the with the Foreman stantially in accordance plaintiff, A. in favor of J. bring in a verdict duty your (cid:127) damages in accordance with amount Kimball, fix the given.” heretofore instructions in evidence was introduced plat which
The official fact It established the or contradicted. impeached way any original survey part controversy that beyond July, 1906.] resurveyed by township 5 Perrin boundary of
south survey by case, Fore- being 1883, and this Foreman concerning identity of disputes in all control man would subsequently government patent in the included the land any purchaser settler was no evidence There issued. question between rights land in in the acquired had the evidence surveys. probable from It is two time overlapped by Perrin 24 made survey of 5 made Foreman extent the to some in his defense the defendant cannot avail fact 1883. But this *24 township in any land claim does not action. He to this survey. His con- any defense survey or other Perrin under the the land which attempt show that entirely in an sisted patented was not the land of its bark stripped the timber From the evidence predecessor, Stewart. plaintiff's to the controversy the fact that the subdivisions no over there can be surveyed and were the subdivisions to Stewart patented survey survey 1883. That is by by the Foreman located control the location of the land one which must therefore the survey any respect in that conflicts question. "Wherever in by township Perrin of the made previous with the survey must be considered as thereof, the Foreman the south surveys respect with having superseded previous all to the any plaintiff of the did not at in 5. The land boundary of the in the southern point touch entirely by Its location controlled it was situated. by interior subdivisions as lines of the established
corners and survey. purpose which the Perrin sur- the Foreman establishing in the location of the vey serve land was could by Foreman, made and to in of a check aid that latter. The ascertaining true location of the true location lines, ascertained, however, when Foreman establishes of the of the township, of the interior subdivisions re- the location any discrepancy may gardless that exist between said lines township as of the the south established and resurvey admit that if we should of that Perrin, even controlling. boundary by was not We do Foreman not think complained of assume the existence the instructions that conclusively established which is not uncontradicted fact surveys regarding law evidence, or United complaint is made that government. Some the instruc- States People v. Feld. given request at the of the defendant are tions inconsistent plaintiff. Upon examining given by those them, with how- inconsistency ever, think that the exists. we do not Objections questions were sustained to a number of put by plaintiff’s the defendant cross-examination witnesses witnesses, upon ground in the examination of his own proper Many questions that were not form. of these for the of the witnesses were called conclusions who not ex- concerning accuracy surveys perts situation respect thereto, with or location of the land were incom- argumentative petent form, were those reasons. Others rejected properly necessary for that reason. It is not prolong opinion discuss errors this character. The principle questions improper of such fоrm are is well established.
The last made the defendant is evidence justify it, is insufficient to the verdict. We have examined in support and are satisfied that there was abundant evidence presented question squarely case. The Chapman plaintiff whether indi- controversy. the correct location of the land There cated did, was evidence sufficient to show that it contradic- was, as it tory evidence, such would have been suffi- scarcely *25 alone, cient, justify contrary if taken conclusion. The order is affirmed. Angellotti, J., Dyke, J., and concurred.
Van July 13, In No. 1270. 1906.] [Crim. Bank. PEOPLE, Respondent,
THE FELD, Appellant. JOSEPH Law—Appeal—Order Beeusing op Judgment.—An Criminal Arrest refusing judgment a motion in order arrest not appealable, upon appeal and can be reviewed judgment. op Id.—Murder—Support Verdict—Conflicting Evidence—Presump- tending support tion.—Where there was evidence a verdict of against guilty degree defendant, of murder in the first it must be support given the verdict assumed evidence for the true, notwithstanding prosecution conflicting evidence to the notes approved, and that the. returned have been lie patented the lands describe purchasers issued to patents approved plat—which on the remains a they are delineated surveyor-general, copies in the officeof record public
Notes
notes circumstance which Glover’s
notes consulted, told if They, had been would them.