Baker v. Hope

49 Cal. 598
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1875·No. No. 4,384·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baker v. Hope, 49 Cal. 598 (Cal. 1875).

49 Cal. 598 (Baker v. Hope) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Moore
166 F. 663 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)
Hoagland v. Canfield
160 F. 146 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1908)
Pennington v. Caughey
78 P. 227 (California Supreme Court, 1904)