*1 187 14, 1968.] Aug. In Bank. 11965. No. [Crim. Respondent, PEOPLE, v. THOMAS Plaintiff THE Appellant. RUSSEL, Defendant and JOHN Legislature say given tity discounts, has purport does not prices, posting department power their prices, with fix hut deal referring merely to court was and maintenance. It seems that statute, of the Alcoholic was section 38e which at that time terms 758, 2159), (Stats. p. then, Beverage 1937, ch. did as Control Act 25006, statute, Code section does Professions its successor Business and require now, prices posting fixed which are wholesalers and posted. prices to the adherence as interpretation principle Appellants point also weight, agency it is enforce entitled to statute made which must Equaliza Express, Ltd. v. State Board as tion, Motor stated California 1063]; 237, Department Cal.App.2d Mauro v. 133 240 P.2d [283 Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d 381, 505]; Hygiene, [24 Mental 207 387 and Peck’s Cal.App.2d Liquors, Superior Court, Inc. 784-785 Cal. [34 interpretation give Rptr. 735], agency But cannot administrative powers by law. Where substantial tive construction is erroneous it does not statute even which arc not conferred the administra interpretation govern though subsequently change. re-enacted without statute Beverage (Louis Stores, Department Control, Inc. v. Alcoholic 758].) Cal.Rptr. Cal.2d 759-760 371 P.2d filing 105(a) Legislature, required by The mere of rule Code, not, simply legis- section of the Government does because no followed, Legislature. Appel- action lative constitute a ratification pointed Legis- lants have not within the instance record where the presentation, petition lature has had before clear demand or legislative action, way other, prohibition quantity one or the dis- counts wholesale sales of beer. *2 Prantil, Russel, pro. and Frank G. per., Thomas John Appeal, for Defendant appointment the Court under Appellant. - James, Lynch, Attorney General, William C. B. Thomas Deputy Attorney General, Genard, and Gerald H. Assistant Respondent. Attorney General, for Plaintiff and SULLIVAN, J. charged by Defendant indictment committing count of lewd and lascivious acts one age years (Pen. body Code, of a child under the of 14 §288; I) (Pen. §285; Code, count two counts of incest 3) prior felony charged counts 2 and he with three ; was also pleaded guilty prior convictions. He and admitted the jury felony May 24, 1966, a was unable to convictions. On verdict, reach a and the court declared a mistrial and dis- charged jury. August 23, 1966, retrial, after On charged guilty found counts of incest as defendant of two counts 2 and 3 of the indictment.1 After it had been deter- *3 by appropriate proceedings that mined defendant was not (Welf. mentally & 6300 Code, disordered sex offender Inst. § prison seq.), et defendant was sentenced to the state for the prescribed by appeals judg- term law.2 Defendant from the ment.3 (cid:127) principal confronting issue us is or not the whether refusing in trial psychiatric reversible error to admit court committed relating to the mental and emotional complaining We have that condition of the witness. concluded it did. Russel, witness and the natural Roxanne indictment, charging defendant with violation of sec Count 1 of the prosecutor Code, was dismissed motion tion 288 of the Penal prior to retrial. consecutively count 2 run 2It was ordered that sentence on parole then that sentence sentence for which defendant was on count 3 run on concurrently imposed count with the sentence on 2. ably represented the retrial and Court 3Defendant was Appeal before the Diego. Prantil, Esq., granted G. had Prank of San After we (cid:127) hearing response Prantil, petition prepared a requested in to a Mr. defendant attorney appointed represent that no him in this- court. granted request permitted proceed propria We persona, that defendant in - argue pointing permitted;to him first out to that not be he would (cid:127) orally. Accordingly, thq- the case on matter was US submitted ^9 (cid:127) n argument. briefs without oral
daughter defendant,4 years age was 13 at the time of the act of years charged incest (April in 1965) count and was 14 age at the charged time of the act of incest in count 3 (February 14, 1966). She testified on direct examination at undesignated second trial that on an April in date defendant, who had recently family returned to the home after an absence of two and one-half years, called her into his performed bedroom and there an act of sexual intercourse her; during with following the ten months this date de- performed fendant such acts with her week; about once a always such acts in occurred the absence of defendant’s wife (Roxanne’s stepmother) ; that in all defendant had sexual intercourse with her on fifty separate some occasions; that the last of such acts occurred February 14, on 1966; and that on following day this act away she ran from home, and on day, stepmother the next after her had located her at the house of a friend, stepmother she told police her and the defendant’s conduct. cross-examination,
On the defense established Roxanne had testified at the trial engaged that her had father in sexual first “approximately intercourse four times” but no more than ten times. On redirect examination she testified that she had lied trial earlier because she was “embar- admitting many rassed in how actually times it occurred. . . .’’ Roxanne also testified on cross-examination that imme- diately the last February after act of sexual 14, intercourse on presence she her father’s threatened to reveal his conduct; brought and that she had charges order to hurt her father. Roxanne further testified that she had never boys age dated her own and that she did not entertain boys April at her home at time after 1965.5 There was medical well-developed Roxanne had “a mari- ’’ vagina, engaged tal which indicated that she had acts of sexual intercourse. theory defense, developed through
It was the supplemental propria persona, 4In his brief filed in this April declaration, forth defendant has set as an exhibit his originally apparently support *4 petition corpus, in filed of a for habeas to daughter. the effect that Boxanne Bussel is not his natural This matter below, testimony was not raised and fact defendant’s trial both admits paternity many alleged newly and contradicts facts filed declara reasons, paternity. tion. For these we do not consider here the issue of knowledge 5Both defendant and his wife testified to their Roxanne had boys. testified, however, never dated or entertained Defendant that Rox during day months, anne was home alone the the summer and that he possibility and his wife had mentioned to one another that she was boys entertaining at the house. wife, his that Roxanne’s accusa- defendant her to defend- a reaction on and were tions were false personal regulation social and conduct of her ant’s strict disciplinary practices. his stern days commencement August 12, five before On hearing Robert before the Honorable W. a was had retrial, trial, presided at first defendant’s Conyers, had who psychi- undergo a requiring to an Roxanne motion for order determining whether her purpose examination for atric veracity. Judge condition affected mental or emotional (1) subject Conyers granted motion to five conditions: court, apparently was a juvenile of which Roxanne that the order; (2) time, approve the that the trial date ward at the (3) examination; dis- delayed that the not be because examination; attorney as to the time of the trict advised be present attorney might “during (4) district that the report a attorney. of the examination be history taking”; and August 16, 1966, made available to the district On juvenile hall Dr. David examination was conducted at R. Rubin. 17, 1966, began August the retrial before the Honorable On following day, prior Hewicker, to the
John A. and on proof an offer of testimony, commencementof defendant made findings appearing, It upon the of the examination. based prepared report to however, that Dr. Rubin had not a written prosecutor in accordance with the be made available to order, the court reserved its conditions of the examination proof report ruling until such should be on the offer of following, August prepared. day next On testify behalf, Friday, appeared Rubin defendant’s Dr. report yet prepared it was had not his written but he then secretary report arranged should his to a that he dictate its prosecutor's office so that the court could make ruling Monday. on apparently prepared accordingly and report was The was prosecutor over the weekend. On Mon- made available Roxanne, together report with a August 22, 1966, the on day, prepared as defendant’s own had Dr. Rubin condition, ruling presented for its the court mental record, which is set forth relevant proof. The offer of clearly indicate whether the footnote,6 does not part in attorney]: his Honor ... I would ask [defense 6“Mií. Prantil testimony. materiality reports [Dr. Bubin’s] to show these rend Court.) Mr. one this? Which (Hands Court: document *5 192 report time, Roxanne at this but in- the on "read any argument hearing on court, after the event psychiatric prosecutor, refused to admit evidence as to mental condition.
Roxanne’s concerning is set report of Dr. Roxanne forth The Rubin full in the footnote.7 daughter, Roxanne. There is one is on his [defendant’s] Prantil: This very I think fair and are material they reports her on him. are on to this and one these? Have read prosecutor]: you The Court [to ease. I read them. The you Mr. have Court: Do Hanscom [the prosecutor]: Hanscom: First of all, think material? Mr. with they respect are object don’t material and I I strenuously I think are and Roxanne, they (Ballard (1966) v. Court People think under versus Ballard Superior 410 P.2d 18 159, Cal.Rptr. 302, 64 Cal.2d 171-177 A.L.R.3d [49 it is that clear is discretion of the Court. we 1416]], quite up If going jury, have a come in and the heck with psychiatrist say are might as well a The panel psychiatrists. only we have issue possible can would be his idea of whether she tell and he truth, doesn’t say can’t the truth. Mr. does. Yes, she tell Prantil: he Mr. His Hanscom: goes think anywhere I don’t to the issues and report, he talked to the girl twenty minutes, for and on the of that he basis made his report. We hour had her in here for an and the Court and heard her. If twenty enough, I minutes is then don’t understand what counsel cross-examined for hour So I her an for. don’t think it is material at all and I don’t think the Court has to let in. The Court: As to Roxanne I am not going something? it in. Mr. say to let Prantil: I May case Ballard to do examination
has to trial and prior Ballard case other cites allowing for cases complaining authority examination of a chief concerning allowing witness her veracity, that evi type dence is The Court : I admissible. have read the Ballard case I and think it is so discretionary, forth. As far as this is I concerned, don’t think concerning it is . . . [Further admissible. discussion Dr. Rubin’s concerning defendant’s mental condition] Mr. Prantil: As far Dr. Rubin’s is I did concerned, understand, your Honor, allowing concerning are not me you to ask him questions con versation him and right. between Roxanne Russel? The Court: That is Mr. And Prantil: no statements she made to him? The Court: That ’ ’ right. jury. That invades province May 7“To Whom It Concern: This patient was examined at Juve- nile August Hall presence Farmer Sharon 16, 1966. The following of this results examination are included in the report. “Subjective: According to information supplied the patient she engage was forced to in sexual intercourse by her father once week per for approximately months. She stated on all occasions against activity was her but will nevertheless she submitted. Recently, however, she complained her mother who took action. The patient’s telling for get reason her mother was stated, “So I could my father trouble.” She also “I doing remarked, told her so he would sorry girl thought it.” The further change remarked “I that, he would when got he out of but he prison was too happy.” She explained that her release from Juvenile Hall discouraged she had depressed been expected her father to be same when he was released from Chino visiting She also prison. that on complained her father at the prison she ‘ ‘ ’ ’ him found too happy. girl “The was then “Do asked, tell you the truth all the time?” She getting “No, I lie replied, from keep trouble.” In response to the “Have told question, you truth to everyone in Juvenile Hall?” she pages Superior Court, supra, 64 Cal.2d In Ballard 1416], Cal.Rptr. 302, A.L.R.3d 171-177 P.2d involving violations, admis sex that, held eases and emotional as to the mental sion of purpose im witness for the condition of determined peaching credibility is a matter to be legal discretion, and *6 through trial the exercise sound legal of sound also in (2) may, trial court the exercise submit to a a witness discretion, order “if the circum purpose this examination for p. 176; necessity” (64 at indicate therefor Cal.2d stances a ease, seq.). In the instant 18 1433 et see Annot. A.L.R.3d psychi propriety of however, are we not concerned circumstances, defendant’s atric examination under subject granted, to cer was motion for such an examination performed. in fact conditions, examination was tain and the of discretion an abuse Instead here must decide whether we upon being presented an court, with when the trial occurred proof upon examination and con the ordered offer of based examination, sisting of that of a written contemplated by to admit refused proof. offer of concept judicial explicated have discretion We elaborated, probation thing.’’ replied, "The "Not about She then one important Attorney explained it for me how was officer and the District ’ ’ testify it in court. to about tomorrow away recently patient run from "The also mentioned that she had facility it at La to return to Juvenile Hall because she ‘liked Verne ’ better there ‘ ‘ Objective patient : fails to Mental evaluation of this reveal psychosis paranoiac indication of evidence of nucleus. No hallucina- pattern Intellectual level be tions or delusional was evident. seems to some overlay average. depression degree obvious, An was well as instability agitation. impression The overall that of marked emotionally and defensiveness. girl appears problem This "Discussion: have a serious emotional impulsive unpredictable tendency an marked to lose and behavior as well as a reality. my opinion contact with distort and It is that she is at distinguish reality times unable between what occurs and product phantasies. part by of her own This is confirmed admis- deliberately sion that she lies when she it feels is convenient for her. necessary "If it were to delineate a cause for her mental 1 illness tempted disordered, would be to relate to her unstable abnormal I childhood. feel that mistreatment her father intensified her emotional problem. young girl requires psychotherapy "This immediate and intensive if accomplished. rehabilitation is to be "Impression: Psychopathic personality depressive component ’ ’ predominance phantasy. Bubin, "David E. M.D.” 194 variety in a of factual contexts. occasions innumerable (see p. Obviously 27 term is a and elastic one C.J.S. broad judgment 292) equated sound with “the which we have (Lent according to the rules of law.” v. court, exercised be 71].) 422 P. We have also (1887) 404, Tillson 72 Cal. [14 placed “only limitation that the law had that the declared judicial is, discretionary power that it the exercise (Clavey (1891) 413, 87 v. Lord Cal. 419
must not be abused” may that “it diffi observing the same time 493]) P. at [25 judicial exactly is meant abuse of dis cult to define what “ ‘In . said: (Idem.) cretion. . . However have of its dis is abused whenever the exercise sense discretion reason, all exceeds the bounds of cretion the court ” being (State Farm considered.’ etc. circumstances before Superior 428, 47 (1956) Ins. Court Cal.2d 432 Co. v. [304 Chaplin (1946) Cal.App.2d 669, 13], quoting Berry v. P.2d Baking v. ; P.2d also Katz see Continental Co. 453] [169 Cal.Rptr. 761, 439 P.2d (1968) Cal.2d 889] cited.) and cases therein judicial po The courts have never ascribed discretion early Bailey without In the case of tential restraint. Taaffe page pains this 29 Cal. court took judicial following delineate limits of discretion terms: *7 ‘‘ capricious intended, however, is not a or The discretion arbi guided impartial discretion, an and trary discretion, but con legal principles. in its It is trolled exercise fixed not gratia, legal ex discretion, mental to be exercised but a discre tion, conformity spirit in law, to be exercised of the impede and in and a manner to subserve not to or defeat the justice.” ends of substantial pressed Similar standards were ex (1942) Cal.App.2d 184, in Gossman v. Gossman 178], quoted Davis P.2d where the court from Ry. Boston Elevated Co. 235 Mass. 496-497 [126 “ imports N.E. as ‘The word the exercise of 841] follows.: discriminating judgment within the bounds of reason. Discre judicial in discretion, tion this connection means a sound en lightened by intelligence learning, and controlled sound principles courage law, firm combined with the calmness swayed mind, partiality, by sympathy of a cool free from not warped by prejudice by any nor nor moved kind of influence overwhelming passion save alone the to do that which is ” just.’ foregoing authorities, particularly pas- and clear, sages quoted Bailey Gossman, quite make from must discretion be that all exercises think, we princi- guided by legal judgment and grounded in reasoned particular at issue. ples policies appropriate matter con- briefly some of the outline We shall here undertake concern- discretionary determinations siderations relevant to psychiatric bear- ing production admission of credibility. ing on (which is in a opinion In we set forth footnote our Ballard ’’ " dangers part margin)8 of the quoted in some relevant impeach credi psychiatric evidence to involved in the use of indi bility. of the considerations suggested, As there each point in weighed at some is cated a factor to be pro relative to the of its determinations the course overall observed, must It be admission of such evidence. duction and pertain part for most some of these factors however, that upon passing at the time determinations undertaken peculiarly examination, some are relevant while motion for products an when the or undertaken to determinations sought to be introduced into evidence. examination are dered passes upon a motion for the court When question complaining witness, the before of the examination light totality revealed, whether, in circumstances is knowledge general proper necessary or it is the trier of its in order to aid fact assessment be utilized most credibility. must rest on the This decision an condi judgment as to whether emotional mental court’s body laymen which a either would be una tion involved to relate terms of effect to or would be unable to detect ble (See generally credibility. McCormick,Evidence the matter of (3d Wigmore, 1940), (1954) §13, pp. 28-29; 7 Evidence ed. Opinions 10-14; Juviler, Psychiatric to Credi- 1918, pp. § may relevant; tion between placed L.Rev. consuming Psychiatric cloud rather evaluate erally Credibility 59 Yale L.J. 8“10. involve accepted; 648; ... of Evaluation than many dangers: McCormick on 1324.)” A techniques Witnesses: costly. psychiatrist’s psychiatrist clarify than the psychiatrist (See of (64 *8 issues; used and A Cal.2d generally Suggested Approach, juror; difficulties Menially Evidence, and the testimony psychiatrist; may psychiatrist’s theories advanced testimony may Juviler, p. jury; Abnormal supra, be too fn. Psychiatric partisan may [1954] credibility testimony may 10.) Witness, supra, much supra, be arise in better may psychiatrists distracting, reliance 100; Comment, [1960] Opinions as to of a not be communica position may witness not [1950] time- may gen Cal. be bility Approach (1960) Suggested A 48 Cal. Witnesses: 660-661.)9 L.Rev. has upon ordered When such an examination been sought court, it is be however, and evidence based considerations introduced, the court must address itself to dealing Thus, specific offered. evidence necessary, proof and, if must be determined from the offer of examination, sought to be intro from voir if the dire evidence upon issue, wit, bears matter at duced the particu complaining witness—by showing of a the effect upon ability to tell lar mental or emotional condition must be examined addition, truth. In the evidence offered repre ensuring knowledge which with a view to that the jury; evidence effectively sents can communicated to lay fact-finding is of no to a studded with arcane terms benefit a body. Further, court should make determination is the basis of the evidence whether the examination which acceptance techniques general and was scientific utilized opinion. thorough Finally, a reliable sufficiently to facilitate preserving with a view the evidence should be examined expert opinion is integrity jury as the finder of facts: jury in order to inform the of the effect admitted this area ability condition of the witness of a certain medical truth—not in order to decide for the whether to tell the telling patricular truth was or was not the witness Psychiatric Opinions as to (See generally Juviler, occasion.10 supra, Credibility Suggested Approach, A Witnesses: 648.) Cal.L.Rev. emphasized, however, that the considera It is to be only in suggested undertaken the course tions above can be sought introduced as thorough to be review of the Further, proof. we are in the offer of it is set forth reasoning underlying the court’s conclusion view appear to some such evidence should admission of as to the degree appellate review of that in the record order many involved in the court’s deter factors are other 9Of course there Among them are considera examination. to order an mination of whether witnesses, time, expense, as well as the convenience tions of court’s techniques accuracy pro and methods own assessment posed utilized in the examination. to be imply the factors above noted do not intend to indicate 10We guides and standards which the court’s discre the exclusive constitute closely hedged Judicial discretion about is to be exercised. too tion point its exercise at some ceases be discretion. We standards attempt suggested by only general here a brief elucidation of outlines opinion. Ballard our *9 discre- court’s only to of the abuses conclusion, which reaches 159, 174- supra, Superior Court, 64 Cal.2d (Ballard v. tion 175), may be facilitated. of trial court’s the instant case our review In the bearing on Roxanne’s psychiatric admit refusal to credibility little to reveal does hampered by is a record which underlying that discretionary of determination the basis the aas the record concluded, however, ruling. We have question of the permit our resolution whole is sufficient have resolved occurred, we an abuse of discretion
whether that of defendant. question favor the of examination the outset that Dr. Rubin’s We observe at had a full trial on the merits was after Roxanne ordered jury and mistrial disagreement in a a declared resulted n —-andthat Judge Conyers, had made who the order was above, that first As we have indicated presided at the trial. repre- propriety questioned, is here order, of which not the Judge Conyers that re- on the of sents a determination opinion necessary proper in order course to the assessing trier fact in the of to aid the Although under complaining the order is now witness. require worthy reappraisal, our attack and does not to reach a ver- first trial failed comment the concerning the dict must have had some reservations lity credibi- him- Judge Conyers the witness and that may self have shared them. ordering psy appreciate, nevertheless, We the the that, as we step, examination was the first chiatric but testimony pointed
have the such out, based examination was admissible to extent determined the legal judge presiding at the the exercise of a sound retrial utility necessity, Of discretion. “its ascertain prosecutirx’ depend upon pos ment must its condition picture (Bal presented ture in the whole trial court.’’ Superior supra, 174-175.) Court, lard v. 64 Cal.2d suggested, scrutiny proffered As we have employed by judge making evidence to be the trial such properly determination is such concerned considerations credibility, as the of the evidence on issue of relevance probability of effective communication of the substance expert opinion jury, adequacy the examination provide opinion, tendency of a the basis reliable and the the evidence decide rather than inform. Finally, having objective in mind rationale and danger of Ballard charge sex offense cases that the
may against rest on the credibility of the child the bare denial of defendant, think that the discretion of judge liberally should be exercised favor of the defend (See People ant. Cal.App.2d 82, Newton Cal.Rptr. 727].) As above, we have indicated defendant offered to prove through of Dr. Rubin matters which were *10 report outlined in his prepared in prior accordance with the Judge Conyers. order of Applying report (see to that fn. ante) guidelines the above, which we have elucidated we ob opinion serve first that it bearing directly upon outlines an credibility the complaining although of Secondly, the witness. report the might utilizes certain technical terms which be un lay familiar to persons, dowe not consider this a serious problem in the circumstances because the doctor could well have clarified language difficult from It the stand. also appears upon that report the examination which was the only twenty minutes, based consumed but, if even psychiatric opinion assume that reliable in cannot be found twenty-minute examination, the course of a we do not believe that especially in justify exclusion, this factor itself was sufficient length
in view of the fact that the of the examina during tion brought could have been out cross-examination. Finally, prefigure we think it clear that the does not usurp jury’s which would tend to the function deciding body; factual issues reserved to that rather it con templates testimony properly which would seek to inform the might of mental and emotional conditions which have an ability effect the the witness to tell the given truth on a occasion. (fn. We 6, ante) colloquy have set forth above the place took ruling at the time of the court’s have observed place that the court’s failure the record its reasons for ruling appeal the has task rendered our a difficult one. As transcript reveals, gave suggestion the the there no as to beyond ruling comment, the basis of its its when asked wheth- 1 1Immediately prior ruling prosecutor the stated to the court only twenty that the examination had lasted minutes. The record does prosecutor’s point. not disclose source of information on this It ’ appears, however, Judge Conyers pursuant representative that order a prosecutor present examination, of the is to be assumed representative provided question information to him. relating of Rox- to his examination doctor testimony by the er province of invades the that “That admitted, anne would be pro- antecedent Although grammatical jury.” remark, of the the context is made clear “That” noun inadequate to reason is that the indicated concluded we have interpretation regardless grammatical justify exclusion the use placed upon If “That” denotes it. cases, Ballard sex our per se on issues evidence is within such evidence admissible clear that makes decision If “That” denotes court. sound discretion pro- bar, kind in the ease at psychiatric evidence knowledge in al- the ease was priety resort to granting the motion for examina- ready by the determined specific psychiatric “That” evidence denotes tion. If proposed by already proof, noted that we have the offer usurp a character as to specific was not of such evidence credibility. independent judgment on the issue of jury’s apparent that the remarks court which It thus underlying ruling might its do not reasons be construed ruling question. might for the It afford a sufficient basis argued addition, however, im- reasonably that the court expressed by pliedly prosecutor adopted the reasons ruling. fairly immediately prior reasons, Those sum- given psychia- (see 6, ante) marized fn. are: *11 independent judgment of the trists tends to overwhelm the jury; report outlining contemplated does (2) the credibility it not state that Roxanne not relate because does truth; the examination unable tell the contemplated only which twenty evidence was to be based consumed enough as to minutes. We have said above the first and reason, As to be third of reasons. for second seems these suggested psychiatric bearing upon have evidence can only inability truth; if a total to tell the if it states surely very so, this there would little were credibility. evidence received on issues given appears It thus that neither the reason the trial prosecutor prior court, nor the reasons advanced impliedly adopted by court, ruling and were sufficient to exclusion of the in the warrant outlined proof.12 addition, In we have offer of been unable to conceive itself, formed 12The the basis of the offer of written hearsay proof, prove is of course and cannot be admitted the truth of exception therein unless is shown fall within an matters asserted hearsay stipulation. rule or is admitted ruling. proper other for basis We therefore conclude ruling excess of the court’s discretion judgment premises, and that must be reversed. remaining contentions, Defendant’s which we have exam- providing purpose for the necessary guidance ined upon retrial, wholly are either without merit deal with likely matters to recur. judgment is reversed. J., Traynor, Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., C. J.,
Burke, concurred. McCOMB, J. judgment I dissent. I would affirm the expressed by Presiding reasons Mr. Brown in Justice prepared by opinion him Appeal, for the Court of Fourth (People Russel, Appellate Division District, One 4 Crim. 13, 1967, filed nonpublieation). December certified for Aug. 19, 1968.] A. No. 29418. In Bank.
[L. RUSSELL, Estate THELMA L. Deceased. GEORGIA HEMBREE, NAN RUSSELL Plaintiff and Appellant, QUINN, Respondent. v. CHESTER H. Defendant