Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Bartlett v. City & County of San Francisco 63 Cal. 156

← Cases

Bartlett v. City & County of San Francisco

63 Cal. 156 Court Department Two. Decision date 1883-02-15 English

Contents

Majority

p. 156
Department Two.
February 15, 1883.
J. H. BARTLETT et al., Respondents, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Appellant.

Headnote

Mob—Destbuciton of Pbopebty—Evidence.—In an action to recover damages for the destruction of property alleged to have been burned by a mob, evidence was given on the part of the plaintiffs as to the disturbed condition of the city of San Francisco at and about the time of the fire, and particularly the excitement existing in regard to the Chinese, riotous’ meetings, and demonstrations on the subject accompanied with acts of violence, the inability of the city authorities to maintain the laws and enforce order, the formation of a committee of safety, and the means adopted to protect property, and preserve the public peace. This evidence was admitted against the objection of the defendant. Held, that the evidence was relevant, and that the objection was properly overruled.
Instruction—Refusal to Repeat.—It is not error to refuse to repeat an instruction already substantially given in clear and distinct terms.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
William Oraig, city and county attorney, for Appellant.
Gray & Haven, and Ghielcering & Thomas, for Respondents.

There are many exceptions to the testimony in this case, reserved by the defendant. They were fully argued, and we have since considered them. We think the testimony related to the condition and circumstances of the city at or about the time of the fire by which the property was destroyed, to recover damages for which this action was brought, and that such testimony was relevant.

It was argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. We are of the opinion that this contention is untenable. An exception was reserved to the refusal of the court to give

p. 157
an instruction asked by the defendant. On an examination of the charge of the court we are satisfied that the instruction was substantially given in clear and distinct terms. It was not error to refuse to repeat it.

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