Newton

This is an original proceeding by which it is sought through the medium of the writ of mandate to compel the respondent judge to settle a bill of exceptions different from the one allowed by him on the claim of petitioners that a portion of the present bill is “contrary and diametrically opposed to the evidence introduced.” The portion objected to reads as follows: “That from the testimony of John H. Landes, City Clerk and H. D. Brodie, former city clerk and one of the defendants, and from the books of the City of Oceanside, that there was in the ‘Water Fund’ on the first day of January, 1924, an overdraft, or deficit, in the amount of $1,229.95; that on December 31, 1924, there was in said ‘Water Fund’ $2,025.26; that on December 31, 1925, there was in said ‘Water Fund’ $2,982.07, and that there was in said ‘Water Fund’ on December 31, 1926, $3,640.88. That there was collected and paid into the ‘Redemption Fund’ for taxes of the year 1924, collected in the year 1925, $514.29; in the year 1926, $1,754.98, and in the year 1927, $533.91.” We have examined the transcript of the testimony, in accordance with the understanding between counsel, and deem it material to summarize the…