Shannon

1. This Court has decided that the omission from the affidavit required by statute to be filed by an applicant to purchase State land, of any fact required by the statute to be stated in such affidavit, is fatal to the applicant’s claim. (Hildebrand v. Stew art, 41 Cal. 387 .)

2. No evidence being offered on either side at the trial, the case stands upon the pleadings; the allegations of the complaint being admitted, because not denied, and the allegations of the answer being deemed denied, and no proof offered to sustain *103 them. So the case really stands upon the complaint alone, a; if on demurrer thereto.

3. Neither the affidavit of Perkins or Robertson contains the statement that there was no occupation of said lands adverse tc any they might have, as required by sec. 52 of the Act of 1868 as amended in 1870.

4. No applicant, except the plaintiff, has complied with the statute. An inspection of the complaint (taken as true, because none of its allegations are denied) will show this statement to be correct.

Dairigerjield and Warren Olney, Attorneys for Respondents.

We desire to correct the statement made at page three of appellant’s brief, that the allegations of the…