61 Cal. 148 | Cal. | 1882
The objection to the introduction of the bill of sale in evidence, on the ground that there had been no proof of its delivery, was properly overruled. (C. C., § 1,055).
For the purpose of proving the due execution of the bill of sale the witness Allen was asked: “ Whose signature is that at the bottom of the instrument?” and he answered: “That is
We think that the witness Howard was shown to be sufficiently skilled in the unwritten law of Mexico to render him competent to testify to what it was.
It does not appear to us that there is any error in the rulings of the Court upon the motions to strike out testimony, and we can not reverse the judgment on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, because, in our opinion, it is clearly conflicting upon all the material issues in the case.
Judgment and order affirmed.