PEO. defendant cannot be permitted to make an objection for the first time on appeal to admissions of declarations. People v. Applegate, 5 Cal. 295, affirmed in People v. Shear, 7 Cal. 140; and in People v. Vick, 7 Cal. 166, that the court of sessions has no appellate jurisdiction. People v. Aro, 6 Cal. 207, affirmed in People v. Hood, 6 Cal. 238; in People v. Wallace, 9 Cal. 31: in People v. Lloyd, 9 Cal. 56; and in People v. Steventon, 9 Cal. 275, that an indictment must contain facts sufficient to constitute an offense. People v. Ball, 14 Cal. 101, referred to in People v. Green, 15 Cal. 513, as being different in the facts. People v. Beatty, 14 Cal. 566, affirmed in People v. Cuintano, 15 Cal. 329; in People v. Moice, 15 Cal. 331; and in People v. Arnold, 15 Cal. 479, relative to impanneling a jury for trial. People v. Beeler, 6 Cal. 246, affirmed in People v. Payne, 8 Cal. 344; and in People v. Demint, 8 Cal. 424, that in criminal cases it is error to charge a jury orally. People v. Bell, 4 Cal. 177, affirmed in Merced Mining Co. v. Fremont, 7 Cal. 133; in People v. Fogg, 11 Cal. 359; and in McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 46, that a mandamus will lie to an executive officer who has no discretion. People v. Board of Delegates of the San Francisco Fire Department, 14 Cal. 479, affirmed in Lowe v. Alexander, 15 Cal. 301, relative to writs of certiorari. People v. Bond, 10 Cal. 563, affirmed in People v. Tillinghast, 10 Cal. 584; in People v. Supervisors of San Francisco County, 12 Cal. 300; and in Thornton v. Hooper, 14 Cal. 12, relative to the commissioners of the funded debt of San Francisco; and in McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 34, relative to the contract of indebtedness by a county or State. PEO. People v. Burbank, 12 Cal. 378, affirmed in People v. Templeton, 12 Cal. 402, relative to the election of judges in the State and the terms thereof. People v. Campbell, 2 Cal. 135, affirmed in People v. Murray, 15 Cal. 223, relative to the time when an officer may be elected. People v. Clark, 1 Cal. 406, affirmed in Craig v. Godfroy, 1 Cal. 415; and referred to in Fowler v. Pierce, 2 Cal. 170, as to the time when a statute goes into effect. People v. Cohen, 8 Cal. 42, referred to in People v. Winkler, 9 Cal. 236; and in People v. Peterson, 9 Cal. 315, as to the necessary description of coin in an indictment for embezzlement; but restricted in People v. Green, 15 Cal. 513, that it must be limited by the facts to which they apply. People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46, affirmed as "the revenue cases " in Thompson v. Williams, 6 Cal. 89; and in People v. Rogers, admr., 13 Cal. 165, that the legislature has every power necessary for government not prohibited by the constitution. People v. Cottle, 6 Cal. 227, affirmed in People v. Gehr, 8 Cal. 361, as to the incompetency of a juror who has expressed an opinion of the case. People v. County Court of El Dorado County, 10 Cal. 19, affirmed in Funkenstein v. Elgutter, 11 Cal. 328, that no appeal lies from a judgment by default in a justice's court upon questions of fact. People v. Craycroft, 2 Cal. 243, affirmed in People v. Raynes, 3 Cal. 367; in Ward v. Severance, 7 Cal. 129; and in State v. Poulterer, 16 Cal. 526, when a right exists at common law the remedy provided by statute is merely cumulative. People v. Cuintano, 15 Cal. 327, affirmed in People v. Moice, 15 Cal. 331, relative to impanneling a jury for trial. People v. Davidson, 5 Cal. 133, affirmed People v. Boring, 8 Cal. 406, affirmed in People v. Vanard, 6 Cal. 563, relative in Anthony v. Wessel, 9 Cal. 104, as to to a verdict of assault under an indictthe proper officer to execute a deed for ment of assault with intent to commit property sold on execution. murder. People v. Brenham, 3 Cal. 477, referred to in Payne v. City of San Francisco, 3 Cal. 126; in Dickey v. Hurlbut, 5 Cal. 344; in People v. Porter, 6 Cal. 28; and in People v. Weller, 11 Cal. 63, relative to elections and the proclamations of the governor. People v. Demint, 8 Cal. 423, affirmed in People v. Woppner, 14 Cal. 438, that oral instructions are improper in criminal cases. People v. Dolan, 9 Cal. 576, affirmed in People v. Murray, 10 Cal. 310, that an indictment for murder need not aver the killing to have been "willful, deliberate | overruled in People v. El Dorado County, and premeditated." 8 Cal. 61; and in People v. Board of People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 286, affirmed Delegates of the Fire Department of San in Skillman v. Riley, 10 Cal. 301, that Francisco, 14 Cal. 499, that a certiorari amendments to statement on appeal must will lie to a board of supervisors. be embodied in one document; in People People v. Houghtaling, 7 Cal. 348, afv. Squires, 14 Cal. 216, that the sheriff's firmed in Gunter v. Janes, 9 Cal. 658, relbond covers his liabilities as tax collector. ative to property in the hands of an adPeople v. Fitch, 1 Cal. 535, affirmed in ministrator de son tort. Gorham v. Campbell, 2 Cal. 137; in People v. Olds, 3 Cal. 177; in People v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 540; and in People v. Mizner, 7 Cal. 525, relative to appointment to office by the governor pending a vacancy. People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198, affirmed People v. Freeland, 6 Cal. 96, affirmed in People v. Rodriguez, 10 Cal. 59, that a in People v. Roberts, 6 Cal. 215, that a jury may be challenged peremptorily at declaration of a juror that he is a natural- any time before being sworn. ized citizen is prima facie evidence of that fact. People v. Gherke, 6 Cal. 381, doubted in Siemssen v. Bofer, 6 Cal. 252, relative to inheritance by foreign heirs; and affirmed in Forbes v. Scannell, 13 Cal. 282, relative to foreign treaties. People v. Gilmore, 4 Cal. 376, affirmed in People v. Backus, 5 Cal. 278, relative to the right to be tried for manslaughter only, when once found guilty in that degree on an indictment for murder. People v. Gillespie, 1 Cal. 342, affirmed in People v. King, 1 Cal. 345; and in Seale v. Mitchell, 5 Cal. 402, as to the jurisdiction of the superior court. People v. Hall, 4 Cal. 399, affirmed in Speer v. See Yup Co., 13 Cal. 73; and in People v. Elyea, 14 Cal. 146, relative to Chinese as witnesses. People v. Haskell, 5 Cal. 357, affirmed in People v. Squires, 14 Cal. 17, that the legislature can shorten the term of an office while filled. People v. Hays, 4 Cal. 127, affirmed in Seale v. Mitchell, 5 Cal. 402; and in Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 587, that the right of redemption is not retrospective; and in Holland v. City of San Francisco, 7 Cal. 735, relative to the corporate powers of the city of San Francisco. People v. Hays, 5 Cal. 66, affirmed in Williams v. Smith, 6 Cal. 92; and in Harvey v. Fisk, 9 Cal. 94, that a sheriff may refuse to execute a certificate of sale of property sold and credit same on execution, when the lien is in dispute, unless the money is paid. People v. Hester, 6 Cal. 679, affirmed in Chard v. Harrison, 7 Cal. 116; and People v. Hurley, 8 Cal. 390, affirmed in People v. Ramirez, 13 Cal. 173, that an instruction may be refused because it was once given. People v. Johnson, 6 Cal. 499, affirmed in Nougues v. Douglass, 7 Cal. 66, as to the unconstitutionality of the state debt. People v. Lafarge, 3 Cal. 130, referred to in Robb v. Robb, 6 Cal. 22, as to the power of a district court to open a judgment after term. People v. Langdon, 8 Cal. 1, affirmed in People v. Whitman, 10 Cal. 46, as to the power of the governor to fill a vacancy in an office. People v. Lee, 5 Cal. 353, explained in People v. Fisher, 6 Cal. 155, as being erroneously decided on the civil instead of the criminal code of change of venue. People v. Lloyd, 9 Cal. 54, affirmed in People v. Cox, 9 Cal. 33, without comment. People v. March, 6 Cal. 543, explained in People v. Stonecifer, 6 Cal. 411, as being incorrect, in deciding that a prisoner may waive any incompetence of a juror to serve in the case. People v. Martin, 6 Cal. 477, affirmed in People v. Woppner, 14 Cal. 437, relative to signing statements in criminal cases. People v. Martin, 12 Cal. 409, affirmed in People v. Rosborough, 14 Cal. 178, relative to the election of judges and their terms. People v. Milgate, 5 Cal. 127, affirmed in People v. Roberts, 6 Cal. 217; and in People v. Stonecifer, 6 Cal. 410, as to instructions upon character and malice. People v. Mizner, 7 Cal. 519, affirmed in People v. Langdon, 8 Cal. 15, 17; in People v. Addison, 10 Cal. 7; and in People v. Whitman, 10 Cal. 46, as to power of the governor to appoint to a vacancy. People v. Moore, 12 Cal. 56, referred PEO. to in Hart v. Plum, 14 Cal. 154, relative to taxation of mining claims. People v. Mott, 3 Cal. 502, referred to in People v. Fitch, 1 Cal. 536; and in People v. Mizner, 7 Cal. 523, as to the appointment to office by the governor during a vacancy. People v. Mullins, 10 Cal. 20, affirmed in People v. Beatty, 14 Cal. 572, relative to the consolidation of a city and county. PEO. People v. Reid, 6 Cal. 288, referred to in People v. Mizner, 7 Cal. 523; and in People v. Langdon, 8 Cal. 11, as to the appointment by a governor to a vacancy. People v. Roberts, 6 Cal. 214, affirmed in People v. March, 6 Cal. 547, as to effect of an erroneous instruction; and in People v. Butler, 8 Cal. 439, as to the number of grand jurors requisite to find an indictment. People v. Roderiguez, 10 Cal. 50, affirmed in People v. Cuintano, 15 Cal. 329, relative to impanneling a jury for trial. People v. McCauley, 1 Cal. 379, affirmed in People v. Baker, 1 Cal. 405, that a statement on appeal must show the erroneous evidence and instructions; and in Peo- People v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 432, referred ple v. Wells, 2 Cal. 207, that the legisla- to in Doane v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 394, relature can authorize a district judge to hold tive to the office of sheriff of San Francourt in another district. cisco county. People v. McMakin, 8 Cal. 547, affirmed in People v. Honshell, 10 Cal. 87, as to assault with a drawn pistol. People v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 232, referred to in People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 52, as to the construction of the revenue laws. People v. Town of Nevada, 6 Cal. 143, affirmed in Colton v. Rossi, 9 Cal. 599, that county courts cannot incorporate towns. People v. Nugent, 4 Cal. 341, affirmed in People v. Vanard, 6 Cal. 562, as to requisites of an indictment for an assault with a deadly weapon. People v. Olds, 3 Cal. 167, affirmed in Merced Mining Co. v. Fremont, 7 Cal. 133, that a mandamus can only order a court to exercise its discretion. People v. Squires, 14 Cal. 12, referred to in People v. Supervisors Santa Barbara County, 14 Cal. 103, relative to county officers. People v. Steventon, 9 Cal. 273, affirmed in People v. Choiser, 10 Cal. 311; and in People v. Judd, 10 Cal. 314, as to the requisites of an indictment for murder. People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 140, affirmed in People v. Gehr, 8 Cal. 361, relative to jurors who form or express an opinion. People v. Stillman, 7 Cal. 17, referred to in Gilman v. Contra Costa County, 8 Cal. 57, relative to appeals from an order refusing to change the venue. People v. Stonecifer, 6 Cal. 405, affirmed in People v. Honshell, 10 Cal. 86, that affidavits in support of a motion must be People v. Parsons, 6 Cal. 487, com- in the statement to have the motion remented on in People v. Olivera, 7 Cal. 404; in People v. Winkler, 9 Cal. 236; and in People v. Dolan, 9 Cal. 584, that an indictment is sufficient which sets forth the words of a statute. People v. Payne, 8 Cal. 341, affirmed in People v. Honshell, 10 Cal. 87, relative to force used in preventing a trespass; and in People v. Acosta, 10 Cal. 196, that a verdict given under great excitement will be set aside; and affirmed in People v. Woppner, 14 Cal. 438, that oral instructions are improper in criminal cases. People v. Phoenix, 6 Cal. 92, affirmed in People v. Wells, 11 Cal. 339, that a special statute controls a general one. People v. Porter, 6 Cal. 26, affirmed in People v. Weller, 11 Cal. 63; in People v. Martin, 12 Cal. 410; and in People v. Rosborough, 14 Cal. 147, relative to the election of judges of the courts. viewed. People v. Supervisors of El Dorado County, 8 Cal. 58, affirmed in People v. Supervisors of Marin County, 10 Cal. 345, and in Robinson v. Supervisors of Sacramento County, 16 Cal. 210, that a certiorari will lie to a board of supervisors. People v. Templeton, 12 Cal. 394, affirmed in People v. Rosborough, 14 Cal. 187, relative to election of judges and their terms. People v. Thompson, 4 Cal. 238, affirmed in People v. Stuart, 4 Cal. 226, that objections to the manner of transfer of an indictment must be made before appeal. People v. Tillinghast, 10 Cal. 584, referred to in Thornton v. Hooper, 14 Cal. 11, relative to an act to fund the floating debt of San Francisco. People v. Turner, 1 Cal. 143, referred Peters v. Jamestown Bridge Co., 5 Cal. 334, affirmed in McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 410; and in Nagle v. Macy, 9 Cal. 429, relative to the assignment of a mortgage. to in People v. Turner, 1 Cal. 153; and Ex parte Field, 1 Cal. 187; and affirmed in White v. Lighthall, 1 Cal. 348, and in Cowell v. Buckelew, 14 Cal. 642, relative to writs of certiorari and mandamus. People v. Vanard, 6 Cal. 562, affirmed Phelan v. Olney, 6 Cal. 478, affirmed in People v. Wilson, 9 Cal. 260, relative in McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 410, that to a conviction of assault on an indictment a mortgage is a mere incident of the infor assault with intent to commit great debtedness. bodily harm. People v. Wallace, 9 Cal. 30, affirmed in People v. Cox, 9 Cal. 33; and in People v. Coleman, 10 Cal. 334, without com ment. Phelan v. San Francisco County, 6 Cal. 531, affirmed in Holland v. City of San Francisco, 7 Cal. 380, and in Argenti v. City of San Francisco, 16 Cal. 272, relative to the powers of the corporation of People v. Weller, 11 Cal. 49, affirmed San Francisco; and in Phelan v. San in People v. Wells, 11 Cal. 339; in Peo- Francisco County, 9 Cal. 16, that remandple v. Martin, 12 Cal. 411, without com- ing a case on appeal does not affect the ment; and in People v. Rosborough, 14 rights of the parties. Cal. 147, relative to the election of judges Phelps v. Owens, 11 Cal. 22, affirmed in Dorsey v. Manlove, 13 Cal. 580, as being under the same rule of damages there laid down. and their terms. People v. Weller, 11 Cal. 77, affirmed in People v. Burbank, 12 Cal. 392; and referred to in Pattison v. Supervisors of Yuba County, 13 Cal. 182, relative to the mode of constitutional construction as to election of district judges and their terms. People v. Wells, 2 Cal. 198, referred to in People v. Mizner, 7 Cal. 523, relative to vacancy in an office. Pico v. Columbet, 12 Cal. 414, affirmed in Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Cal. 471, relative to the rents collected by a tenant in common. Pierce v. Kennedy, 5 Cal. 138, affirmed in Geiger v. Clark, 13 Cal. 580, as to the liability of a surety. Pierce v. Minturn, 1 Cal. 470, affirmed in Ellis v. Janes, 7 Cal. 416; in Walker v. Sedgwick, 8 Cal. 402, that a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title; and in Castro v. Armesti, 14 Cal. 39, relative to statements on appeal. People v. Whitman, 6 Cal. 659, explained and overruled in Price v. Whitman, 8 Cal. 415, as to the "Sundays" in the ten days in which the governor shall approve a legislative act; and referred to in McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 47, that a mandamus will issue to a controller. Pierce v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 116, affirmPeople v. Whitman, 10 Cal. 38, affirm-ed in Pope v. Huth, 14 Cal. 407, as to an ed in Perkins v. Thornburgh, 10 Cal. 191, equitable assignment of property; and in that a statute is presumed to cover all the Johnson v. Sherman, 15 Cal. 291, relative intentions of the law maker; and in Saun- to parol evidence to show the purpose of ders v. Haynes, 13 Cal. 154, that votes an instrument. given for an ineligible candidate are not Piercy v. Sabin, 10 Cal. 22, affirmed in to be counted; and questioned in People Glazer v. Clift, 10 Cal. 304; and in Hawv. Melony, 15 Cal. 62, as being of doubt-kins v. Borland, 14 Cal. 415, that new ful authority. matter must be specially pleaded. People v. Woodlief, 2 Cal. 241, affirmed in Porter v. Hermann, 8 Cal. 625, that a radical defect in a summons will not support a judgment by default. People v. Woods, 7 Cal. 579, affirmed in People v. Bond, 10 Cal. 570, relative to the commissioners of the funded debt of San Francisco. People v. Woppner, 14 Cal. 437, referred to in People v. Lee, 14 Cal. 511, relative to statements on appeal in criminal eases. Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 127, affirmed in Curtis v. Sutter, 15 Cal. 264, relative to the evidence necessary in an action of ejectment. Plume v. Seward, 4 Cal. 94, affirmed in Castro v. Gill, 5 Cal. 42, that a party's possession is not confined to his actual inclosure; and in Gunn v. Bates, 6 Cal. 272; in Nagle v. Macy, 9 Cal. 427, prior possession is sufficient to maintain ejectment; in Murphy v. Wallingford, 6 Cal. 649; and in Bird v. Dennison, 7 Cal. 302, 309, that a survey and marking boundary lines | Water Co., 5 Cal. 43; in Keller v. Frankis no evidence of possession. lin, 5 Cal. 434; and in People v. Fowler, 9 Cal. 86, as to the jurisdiction of the county courts. Poole v. Gerrard, 6 Cal. 71, affirmed in Morse v. McCarty, 7 Cal. 346; in Revalk v. Kramer, 8 Cal. 74, separate deeds of husband and wife to a homestead are void; and overruled in Gee v. Moore, 14 Cal. 477, relative to the right of survivorship; and referred to in Guiod v. Guiod, 14 Cal. 508, relative to abandonment, but abrogated by the statute of 1860, p. 311. Reina v. Cross, 6 Cal. 29, affirmed in Lawson v. Worms, 6 Cal. 370, that freight paid in advance may be recovered back. Revalk v. Kramer, 8 Cal. 66, affirmed in Kramer v. Revalk, 8 Cal. 75; in Van Reynegom v. Revalk, 8 Cal. 76; in Cook v. Klink, 8 Cal. 353; in Buchanan's EsPosten v. Rassette, 5 Cal. 467, affirmed tate, 8 Cal. 509; and in Marks v. Marsh, in Letter v. Putney, 7 Cal. 423, that ex-9 Cal. 97, in proceedings against the wife ceptions to the admissibility of a deed for the homestead property; and overshould be taken at nisi prius; and in Mar- ruled in Gee v. Moore, 14 Cal. 477, relaziou v. Pioche, 8 Cal. 536, as to the irrevocable character of a power of attorney; and in Stanley v. Green, 12 Cal. 166, as to requisites of a deed to pass title in the civil law. Potter v. Seale, 5 Cal. 410, referred to in same case, 8 Cal. 220, as appearing with additional facts. Preston v. Kehoe, 10 Cal. 445, referred to in same case, 15 Cal. 318, relative to the actual possession necessary in an action of forcible entry. Price v. Dunlap, 5 Cal. 483, affirmed in Castro v. Wetmore, 16 Cal. 380, relative to indemnity on a lost note. Price v. Sacramento County, 6 Cal. 254, affirmed in Placer County v. Austin, 8 Cal. 305, as to the power of a county to sue and be sued. Priest v. Union Canal Co., 6 Cal. 170, referred to in Butte Canal and Ditch Co. v. Vaughn, 11 Cal. 153, as to appropriation of water for mining purposes. Rabé v. Hamilton, 15 Cal. 31, referred to in Shaw v. Randall, 15 Cal. 380, relative to undertakings on appeal. Rabé v. Wells, 3 Cal. 148, affirmed in Morgan v. Hugg, 5 Cal. 410, that errors relied on must be shown on appeal. Ramirez v. Kent, 2 Cal. 558, affirmed in People v. Folsom, 5 Cal. 378, that an alien may hold real estate until office found. Raun v. Reynolds, 11 Cal. 14, referred to in Reynolds v. Harris, 14 Cal. 679, as conclusive of the law in the case. Ray v. Armstrong, 4 Cal. 208, affirmed in Garbrell v. Fitch, 6 Cal. 189, relative to time requisite to give notice of unlawful holding over. tive to the right of survivorship; and referred to in Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 134, relative to injunctions against sales of property on execution; the questions of homestead are abrogated by the statute of 1860, p. 311. Reyes v. Sandford, 5 Cal. 117, affirmed in Pearks v. Freer, 9 Cal. 643, that an objection to the venue must be made before answer. Reynolds v. Harris, 14 Cal. 679, referred to in Raun v. Reynolds, 15 Cal. 467, relative to the opinion in that case. Reynolds v. Jourdan, 6 Cal. 108, affirmed in Adams v. Pugh, 7 Cal. 151, that assumpsit will lie for the part performance of a contract which has been interrupted. Reynolds v. Lathrop, 7 Cal. 43, affirmed in McDevitt v. Sullivan, 8 Cal. 597, that a purchaser can collect rents until time of redemption expires. Reynolds v. West, 1 Cal. 322, affirmed in Brown v. O'Connor, 1 Cal. 420; and overruled in Cohas v. Raisin, 3 Cal. 451; in Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 588, 598; and in Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 227, as to Mexican grants in California. Rich v. Davis, 4 Cal. 22, affirmed in same case, 6 Cal. 142, without comment. Richards v. McMillan, 6 Cal. 410, affirmed in Cordier v. Schloss, 12 Cal. 146, as to the statement on a confession of judgment. Richards v. Schroeder, 10 Cal. 434, referred to in Chaffin v. Doub, 14 Cal. 386, relative to change of possession of personal property under the statute of frauds. Rickett v. Johnson, 8 Cal. 34, affirmed in Revalk v. Kramer, 8 Cal. 71; Chipman v. Hibbard, 8 Cal. 271; in Phelan v. Smith, Reed v. McCormick, 4 Cal. 342, refer- 8 Cal. 521; in Gorham v. Toomy, 9 Cal. red to in Parsons v. Tuolumne County 77; and in Uhlfelder v. Levy, 9 Cal. 614, |