Barker v. Hope

California Supreme Court

Barker v. Hope

1 Cal. Unrep. 877

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1875

DocketNo. 4384

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 877 (Barker v. Hope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barker v. Hope, 1 Cal. Unrep. 877 (Cal. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

McKINSTRY, J.

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

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

McKINSTRY, J.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-hope-cal-1875.