Smith v. East Branch Mining Co.

This is an action to recover the value of work, labor, and services rendered by plaintiff for defendant as mining superintendent. The answer is a general denial. Evidence was given that the services were rendered as general superintendent of defendant’s mines, ditches, flumes, and works, and in supervising the construction of and in constructing a water-ditch; and while one Martin, a witness for defendant, was being examined, the defendant offered to show that the work of constructing the ditch was not well done, which offer, with the ruling and exception, were as follows :

The defendant did not offer to show that it had sustained damage or loss in consequence of any act of plaintiff inconsistent with his duty as its superintendent, nor that the water failed to run in consequence of any default of plaintiff in the discharge of his duties. The offer made is, in our opinion, too *166 vague, and does not embrace any offer to show unskillfulness, or negligence, or any fault on the part of plaintiff. ( Chamberlain v. Vance, 51 Cal. 75 .)

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thornton, P. J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.