The following order will be entered herein:

The judgment in the above-entitled case is reversed, and the cause remanded to the Superior Court of the County of Santa Cruz, with directions to strike out the demurrer to the complaint, and remand the cause to the Justice's Court, from which it was transferred to the late District Court for the county aforesaid, as it came from said Justice's Court, that the plaintiff may have an opportunity to amend the complaint in said Justice's Court, in accordance with what is said above.

STATE LANDS.

[No. 6,449.- Department One.]

JAMES LANE v. PAUL PFERDNER

APPEAL from a judgment for the plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, in the First District Court, County of San Luis Obispo. FAWCETT, J.

Charles E. Wilson, and McD. R. Venable, for Appellant.

W. J. & William Graves, for Respondent.

The COURT:

Upon the authority of Lane v. Pferdner, 56 Cal. 122; judgment and order affirmed.

[No. 10,551.- In Bank.]

L. M. KALLOCH v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Henry E. Highton, and T. B. Shapter, for Plaintiff.

Alexander Campbell, Jr., for Defendant.

The COURT:

Application for a writ of mandamus. Upon the authority of Kalloch v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 56 Cal. 229, writ denied.

[No. 10,553.— In Bank.]

I. M. KALLOCH v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Henry E. Highton, and T. B. Shapter, for Plaintiff.

Alexander Campbell, Jr., for Defendant.

The COURT:

Application for a writ of review. Upon the authority of Kalloch v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 56 Cal. 229, writ denied.

[No. 10,554.- In Bank.]

I. M. KALLOCH v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

Henry E. Highton, and T. B. Shapter, for Plaintiff.

Alexander Campbell, Jr., for Defendant.

The COURT:

Upon the authority of Kalloch v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 56 Cal. 229, writ dismissed and petitioner remanded.

!

APPEAL from a judgment, and order denying a new trial, in the Twentieth District Court, County of Santa Clara. BELDEN, J.

The seventh finding referred to in the opinion is as follows: “7th. That the plaintiff George W. Blackford has occupied and taken the rents of 33.16 acres of said land, since the 1st of September, 1774, being two years' rents, amounting to $265.28."

Black & Stephens, for Appellants.

T. H. Laine, for Respondent.

THORNTON, J.:

In this action, which was for a petition, defendants answered, and also filed a cross-complaint.

The cause came on to be tried on the cross-complaint and the principal action, which were separately tried. Judgment was entered for the partition of the land asked for by plaintiff in his complaint. The cross-complaint was dismissed at the hearing for want of equity. Findings were filed as to the principal action and the cross-complaint. The defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and appeals are prosecuted by the defendants from the judgments of the Court for a partition and on the cross-complaint, and from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

The evidence sustains the findings, and there was no error in denying the motion for a new trial.

It is objected, that the Court did not find on all the issues. This position is untenable. As to the plea of the Statute of Limitations, the complaint and answer taken together show that there was no substantial issue raised by the plea, and the Court

did substantially find on it. (See 7th finding in the partition suit.)

We find no error in the record, and the judgment and order are affirmed.

MYRICK, J., and SHARPSTEIN, J., concurred.

[No. 6,884.- Department One.]

S. V. TREADWAY ET AL. v. J. G. JAMES ET AL.

DAMAGES - NONSUIT.

APPEAL from a judgment for defendant, and an order denying a new trial, in the Fifth District Court, County of San Joaquin. BOOKER, J.

After the decision, the respondents filed their petition for rehearing in Bank, and the application was denied.

J. H. Budd, and L. T. Carr, for Appellants.

W. L. Dudley, and P. S. Wilkes, for Respondents.

THORNTON, J.:

The plaintiffs in this case showed that they were entitled to at least nominal damages. Their cattle, when in a very poor condition, and in a dry season when there was no food for them except at a distance, were excluded by the defendants from land where the plaintiffs had a right to have them, from which a cause of action arose, and by which they suffered some damage. The nonsuit was improperly granted, and the judgment and order denying defendants' motion for a new trial are consequently reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

SHARPSTEIN, J., and MYRICK, J., concurred.

APPEAL

[No. 10,511.- Department Two.]

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL WELCH.

RECORD.

APPEAL from a judgment, and an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of the County of Inyo. HANNAH, J.

The COURT:

The appeal in this case was taken from the order of the Court below denying defendant's motion for new trial. There is no bill of exception, no statement, no affidavit in the transcript. The order is therefore affirmed.

[No. 7,285.- In Bank.]

G. H. SMITH v. D. M. KENFIELD.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

The affidavit of plaintiff stated that the defendant refused to draw his warrant for any sum whatever, on the ground that there was no law fixing any salary prior to July 1, 1880.

The COURT:

The writ of mandate in this case must be denied. The plaintiff was appointed reporter of the decisions of this Court by the Justices of the present Court. The appointment was made under § 21 of article vi. of the Constitution, which is in these words: "The Justices shall appoint a reporter of the decisions of the Supreme Court, who shall hold his office and be removable at their pleasure. He shall receive an annual salary not to exceed $2,500, payable monthly."

The application is for the writ of mandate to compel the allowance to the plaintiff of a greater sum as salary than $2,500.

The plaintiff is appointed under the Constitution, by officers created by the Constitution, and in this Constitution there is an express inhibition of a salary to the plaintiff as reporter exceed