Donelly v. Curran
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Twelfth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Daingereield, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 1, Ross, J.:
This is an action for the recovery of a certain roan horse, which was stolen from the plaintiffs.
The defendant claimed to have purchased the horse here in controversy from one Charles Jones, and denied that the horse so purchased by him was the plaintiffs’ horse. At the trial, the defendant gave some testimony, without objection on the part of the plaintiffs, to the effect that Chas. Jones was a man of good character. The jdaintiffs, in rebuttal, offered “ the record with a plea of ‘ guilty ’ to an indictment of Charles Jones, alias George Jones, in the Municipal…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mitchell v. SellmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Walkup v. PrattCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1820
- Grafton Bank v. WoodwardSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1830
3Cited by5 opinions
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- People v. DyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Oyler v. DautoffOregon Supreme Court · 1899