Meraviglia

The only question presented by this appeal is the soundness of the court’s ruling in sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended com plaint. Two causes of action are therein set up, both based upon slander, and nether susceptible of interpretation as hinting at any other cause of action. Among other grounds of demurrer was the plea that the statute of limitations had run against the two causes, specific reference being made to subdivision 3 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes a limitation of one year. The slanderous words were uttered, according to the complaint, in August of the year 1915. From October of that year until March, 1922, the complaint further recites, plaintiff was imprisoned in the state penitentiary at Folsom. During this period the statute of limitations was not running. (Sec. 352, subd. 3, Code Civ. Proc.) It had run prior to May, 1924, however, when the second amended complaint was filed. (Sec. 340, subd. 3, Code Civ. Proc.)

The record filed with us contained no pleading of plaintiff’s other than the second amended complaint. On an appeal presenting the question here at issue, the original complaint is_ properly a part of the…