La Societe Francaise v. 15th Dist. Court..127 | Brown v. Murray.. Linden Gravel Mining Co. v. Sheplar....100 Mitchell v. Board Supervisors Stanislaus .267 Boland v. Grayson... 68 236 Brandow v. Whitney et al.. .240 .213 Burke v. Cushing et al. 18 ..122 Burke v. 12th District Court.. .221 Burroughs v. Strader.. ..256 .182 Cadd v. Clark... ..103 .278 Canada Life Ass. Co. v. Freeman.. 78 .279 Osgood v. El Dorado W. & D. G. M. Co.. 116 Dameron et al. v. Davis et al 222 ume. In Volume, I-since March 30th,- -we have reported 193 decisions of our Supreme Court, with appropriate Statements of Facts, etc., being every written opinion, and nearly every unwritten decision rendered-and absolutely every one rendered since the commencement of the July term, to date. Also, 26 important land decisions, and much other interesting and valuable current Legal matter, sparing no time, pains or space to render our work a really valuable and indispensable adjunct to the libraries of the Bar and Bench of our State. on important legal subjects, contributed expressly to the RECORD; and the most important land decisions, as affecting our State. We shall welcome contributions and sug gestions from all quarters, for we fully believe in the mutual benefit principle as applied to a good Legal publication. We shall continue to send to all onr old subscribers, until otherwise arranged for, and shall welcome as many new ones as can come. ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS,-In this num ber we publish an original papar, from the pen of an able jurist of Iowa;—"Suits by and agaiast foreign Corporations," contributed expressly to the RECORD; and it is our intention, in future to give, from time to time, contributed articles upon leading Legal topics, as our space will permit, with a due Court Decisions, and other current indispenallowance for tde prior claims of the Supreme sable matter. And our columns are always open to the discussion of all legal points and subjects, by our Subscribers and critical fniends. And we feel that our labor and efforts, although under some discouragements, have been well appreciated and repaid by the warm sympathy and support so generally shown us; and we now enter on our new volume with far brighter prospects than ever before; and can safely assure our largely increased and extended patronage of a continued increase of the improvements to the RECORD that we have of late initiated. Our Index is being very carefully prepared, and will be issued at once, and forwarded to all subscribers except such as have already sent us their numbers for binding, or may do so before it can reach tory of the case.--and the decisior in full, them. We shall continue, in future, as in the past, to publish :-1st. Every decision of our Supreme Court, as soon as possible after rendition ;-and then, as much other of the most valuable legal matter accessible, as is possible, including, also, some valuable papers THE "QUACKERY ACT." This week's Decisions embrace the "Habeas Corpus" Case of Dr. E. J. Fraser President of the "California State Medical Society of Homeopathic Practitioners"-which was tried as a test Case of the Act of the Legislature of 1875-6 regulating the Practice of Medicine in the State,- --as amended at the last session -through the efforts of the New Homeoprthic Mediial Society.—We give a brief his HASTINGS DEBATING SOCIETY.-A number of students of the Hastings Law College have organized a Debating Society, and as a token of esCollege, and a slight acknowledgment of gratitude teem for S. Clinton Hastings, the founder of the to him, have given it the name of the Hastings Debating Society. The following offieers were elected last evening for the ensuing term of three months: M. J. Sullivan, President; P. F. Dunne, 1st Vice President; E M. Moit, 2d Vice President; H. C. McPike. Recording Secretary; J. E. Hamilton, Corresponding Secretary; George A. Young, Treasurer; PF. Dine, J. I. Boland, F. A. Woodworth and E. W: Hawley, Directors. The Society is to hold its regular meetings on Saturday evenings at Pioneer Hall, and the following question was proposed for their first debate: Resolved, That California has a right to exclude Chinese from her borders." The next meeting will take place on Saturday evening, October 5th.-Bulletin, September 28th. 66 Half a Million Dollars at Stake. There is a case now before the Supreme Court, which has been argued and submitted, involving the title to a school lot, but practically to school lots and engine lots worth any where from half a million to a million of dollars. Not to put too fine a point on it, there appears to be an organized attempt to take possession of a large number of lots for private account, which had been selected under the Van Ness Ordinance, the title to which has never been doubted until recently. There are at least eighteen school lots and ten engine lots, the titles to which depend upon the issue of the suit in the case of The Board of Education vs. Patrick Donahue et al. Donahue is a squatter who has jumped one of these school lots, and now defies the Board of Education or any one else to put him off. When John Hagan was Superintendent of Streets, he cleared this lot and others of squatters. He put Donohue off without ceremony as an interloper having no right to But it is a fact that Occupy the lot. Donohue has slipped on to the lot from which he had been ejected, and has since occupied it. A suit was brought by the Board of Education, a quasi corporation which is empowered to sue and be sued, to get possession of this lot. The present Superintendent of Streets has not thought it worth while to clear the lot of the squatters as his predecessors had done before him. This suit was tried before Judge Wheeler of the Nineteenth District Court, without a jury. The Judge made the following findings all of which were against the Board of education and in favor of Donahue. From the evidence introduced at the trial of said cause, I find the following facts: First-The plaintiff is a corporation, created under the laws of the State of California, as is alleged in the complaint. Second-At the commencament of this action the defendants were in the possession of the land and premises described in the complaint. Third-The plaintiff was not, at the commencement of this action, or at any other time seized or entitled to the possession of the tract or parcel of land described in the complaint. Fourth-The defendants never ousted or ejected the plaintiff from the said land and premises, or wrongfully or unlawfully withheld the possession of the said land and premises from the plaintiff. And, as conclusions of law from the foregoing facts, I find : First-That the plaintiff is not entitled to have or recover from the said defendants the possession of the said land and premises. Second-That the defendants are entitled to a judgment herein against the plaintiff, and that they have and recover from the plaintiff their costs incurred herein. The lot in question is situated on Mission street near Hermann, and is a fifty-vara within that district covered by the Van Ness Ordinance. Under that ordinance, the number of school lots selected was 28, and these were mostly fifty-vara lots. The number of lots for fire purposes selected was 25, most of which are of the same size. The lots were selected from outside lands, together with a number of public squares, as so much of the domain which the city reserved from private sale for public use. The work was done by three Commissioners, namely: Charles H. Gough, Michael Hayes and John Hoff, the latter being City Surveyor. They made a map of the reservation, and also accompanied the same by a report which more particularly designated these reservations. In process of time it was ascertained that this report was lost, and we believe also that the original map was lost, or perhaps, to get nearer to the truth, the evidences of title were spirited away or stolen. However, in 1856 another map was adopted by the city which bas since been recognized as the official map. A copy also of the Commissioners' report was substituted, and it was supposed that the evidences of title were sufficient. On the official map the original color of the school lots was brown ; but this color has faded out, so that it now requires pretty sharp eyes to recognize that particular designation. It appears that on the trial of this case in the District Court, Judge Wheeler refused to admit parol evidence to show what the original documents contained, and of what the originespecially evidence al report of the Commissioners contained, which was explanatory of the map, and which, taken as a whole, was |