Martin

The action was trover, to recover the value of certain thirty tons of hay, and also damages for pursuit of the property. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence defendant moved for a nonsuit; his motion was granted, and judgment was entered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. The grounds of the motion for nonsuit were: 1. That there is no evidence connecting defendant in any way with the hay; and 2. That plaintiff offered in evidence certain proceedings in the justice’s court of Petaluma Township, Sonoma County, showing that defendant had obtained a judgment against the plaintiff for the whole of the hay involved, and plaintiff therefore has no interest in the hay.

John Zenoni, plaintiff’s assignor, testified that he was in possession of a ranch which he had leased for one year from defendant and her son, William Barry, dated September 29, 1896; that the rental was payable in cash, and was fully paid for the year; that he raised a crop of hay o,n the land, part of which he sold, and that on August 26, 1897, he had twenty-five bales - remaining, on which day one Brush, constable of Petaluma Township, served certain…