Cronise v. Garghill

Writ of Error to the County Court of Sacramento County;

This action was originally commenced on the 4th day of May, 1850, before B. E. Washington, Esq., Recorder of the City of Sacramento, by W. H. Y. Cronise against J. G, Garghill, under the Statute against Forcible Entries and Unlawful Detainers, to recover possession of a lot in the City of Sacramento, alleged to be unlawfully withheld from the possession of the plaintiff by the defendant, and [121] praying relief in the * premises, and restitution, with damages assessed, according to the provisions of the Statute, in such case made, etc. On the 13th of May, 1850, the defendant appeared and excepted to the jurisdiction of the Becorder. On the 18th of May, on affidavit of defendant that a fair trial could not be had before the Becorder, the proceedings were transferred to the Court of Justice Sackett, and by agreement of parties, the case was set for trial on the 25th day of May. On that day, plaintiff and defendant, by their attorneys, appeared. Defendant first pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court, which plea was overruled. He then pleaded the general issue, and went to trial. On the 27th day of May, 1850, the Justice entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the possession of the premises, and $1,350 treble damages under the Statute, and costs of suit. Defendant appealed to the County Court, which, on hearing and argument, affirmed the judgment of the Justice, with ten per cent, damages, costs of suit, and rent from the 31st day of May, 1850, at the rate of $100 per month, with the delivery of the possession of the premises to the plaintiff, and awarded a writ of possession and execution for the damages. Defendant moved the Court for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was denied, and the plaintiff's attorney placed in possession under the writ. On the 28th of December, 1853, on the petition of defendant, the Supreme Court awarded a writ of error to the County Court, to bring the record and proceedings before this Court for revision. Various errors were assigned, but the only two considered appear in the opinion of the Court.