Barker v. Hope (1875) · DecisionDepot

Barker v. Hope

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Feb 1, 1875 No. No. 4384Published

Before: Crockett, McKinstry, Rhodes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's jury instructions were proper, specifically regarding the judicial notice of a fence pole as a heavy club and the characterization of the defendant's admission.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the nature of a fence pole and the defendant's admission of the act.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the district court properly asserted judicial knowledge of the fact that a “fence pole” is a “heavy club””

“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.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from First Judicial District, Santa Barbara County.

McKINSTRY, J. — We think the first instruction given by the court below is not obnoxious to the criticism to which [878]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.

We concur: Crockett, J.; Rhodes, J.

Barker v. Hope

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief