Dunning v. Rankin

Citations

• 19 Cal. 640

Syllabus

<p>Where, to prove prior possession of a mining claim, plaintiff relied upon a notice which had been posted on a tree at one end of the claim, which notice was not produced on the trial, but in place thereof, plaintiff introduced a witness who stated that he had frequently seen the notice, and that when he last saw it a part of it was torn and the residue so much defaced as to be illegible: Held, that this was sufficient to let in’secondary proof of the contents of the notice; and that stricter proof of loss ought not to be required in such cases.</p> <p>An objection to testimony held not to be good, because being too general. See facts.</p>