Phillips

After a careful examination of the original arguments of counsel, and of the petition for a rehearing, and also the briefs in Reclamation Dist. 307 v. Glide, one of which contains an elaborate review of the opinion rendered in Department, I am convinced that the judgment ordered and the opinion rendered should stand.

*310 The point upon which the rehearing was asked was that the conclusion in Department, that “ the court erred in excluding the evidence tending to prove that defendants’ land was not benefited by the reclamation works, and was arbitrarily and excessively assessed without regard to proportionate benefits,” was unwarranted. Naturally to this point our attention has been mainly directed, and, while the -matter is fully and satisfactorily discussed in the opinion, I will notice some of the objections urged.

It is contended that the opinion overrules several decisions of this court, and that neither the case of Reclamation Dist. v. Evans, 61 Cal. 104 , nor the other cases cited in support of the conclusion reached in Department, sanction that conclusion.

In People v. Hagar, 52 Cal. 171 , it was said: “ The statute confides to the- commissioners the duty of…