Baker v. Hope
Before: McKinstry
Synopsis
Pleadings in Trespass.—If the complaint charges that the defendant maliciously and violently assaulted the plaintiff and struck him on the head •with a heavy club, and the answer admits that the defendant struck the plaintiff with a “fence pole,” it is an admission that the defendant struck the plaintiff substantially as charged, but not an admission of the alleged malice accompanying the blow.
Judicial Knowledge.—The Court will take judicial knowledge of the fact that a “ fence pole ” is a heavy club.
By the Court, McKinstry, J.: We think the first instruction given by the Court below is not obnoxious to the criticism to which it is subjected in appellant’s brief. The District Court properly asserted judicial knowledge of the fact that a "fence pole” is a "heavy club;’’ and when the Court said : " The defendant admits that he struck the plaintiff substantially as charged,” it was a statement of an admission that he struck with a heavy club, and not of the alleged malice accompanying the blow. Nor do we think the other points made by the appellant are well taken.
Judgment affirmed.
Neither Mr. Chief Justice Wallace nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)