Marks

Upon filing the complaint in this case a preliminary injunction was issued, restraining the defendant from placing or maintaining on the sidewalk of a street in the city of Sacramento a certain obstruction, alleged to have been placed and kept there by defendant maliciously and to the prejudice and ■damage of the plaintiff. The complaint was duly verified - and *54 stated facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief demanded.

Without filing any answer, the defendant moved the court to dissolve the injunction upon several grounds. After a hearing the motion was denied, and from that order this appeal is prosecuted.

The motion was based upon two affidavits which were introduced and read by defendant at the hearing, one made by-James Seadler and the other by A. Bonnheim.

The affidavit of Seadler is of no importance, as it simply states the extent of the sidewalk occupied by the obstruction complained of, as alleged in the complaint.

The affidavit of Bonnheim, after stating that he is the secretary of defendant and makes the affidavit for and on behalf of defendant, consists alone of admissions, denials, and allegations as to the facts of the case. It first states that…