Redemeyer

The action was in ejectment to recover the possession of a strip of land in the city of Ukiah, Mendocino County, described as follows: "Beginning at a point where the westerly line of Hortense Street if extended southerly would intersect the southerly line of Jones Street, and running thence southerly along the said westerly line of Hortense Street if extended southerly to the north line of Mill Street; thence easterly along the northerly line of Mill Street 24.3 feet to a certain fence; thence northerly along the line of said fence to a point in the southerly line of Jones Street; thence westerly along the southerly line of Jones Street 23 feet to the point of beginning." To better understand what follows we append a replica of a portion of the map of Gobbi's Addition to the city of Ukiah filed in the county recorder's office in March 30, 1888, to which we have added the dotted lines, A B C D to indicate the boundaries of the disputed strip. We may call *Page 425 attention at this point to the fact that on said map no division line between blocks 9 and 10 appears, and this circumstance is of importance in the controversy between the parties. [EDITORS' NOTE: Map IS ELECTRONICALLY…

In his petition for rehearing respondent contends that the ruling of the court below in rejecting the offered evidence as to the payment of taxes was without prejudice, for the reason that it did not show that the payment was made for five consecutive years. No such objection *Page 437 was made in the trial court and the ruling was based distinctly upon the ground that it was not material. When the offer was made of a copy of the official record respondent objected upon the ground that "it's immaterial who paid the taxes." Then counsel for appellant stated: "We offer in evidence a statement prepared by Lee Cunningham, the tax collector of Mendocino County, showing who paid the taxes so far as disclosed by the records in that office." The transcript then shows the following: "The Court: 'Objection sustained.' "Mr. Wessels: 'We offer it in evidence for the purpose of' — "Mr. Kasch: 'Now with the witness Cunningham, it can't be material. I submit the motion to strike out the testimony as he has not connected it up.' "The Court: 'If that was out the other document also must go B and C.' "Mr. Kasch: 'I intended to follow with a motion to strike out those in view of that strip.'…