Eastlick

This is an action brought to enjoin the defendants from placing a dam in the waterway known as Oro Eino creek, and for damages occasioned by such obstruction. Defendants made denials of the allegations of the complaint, and also filed a cross-complaint asking for an order restraining plaintiffs from the improper use of Oro Fino creek, in covering the dumping ground of defendants with debris in the nature of tailings. Judgment went for plaintiffs, and this case is before ns on the pleadings, findings of fact, and judgment.

A certain mining claim of plaintiffs is described in the complaint as “the island.” The finding of fact made by the trial court describes a certain piece and parcel of mining ground owned by plaintiffs, by metes and hounds. Appellants now insist that there is a variance between the pleading and the finding as to the particular tract of mineral ground covered by these descriptions. Upon inspection of the two descriptions no variance is apparent. Both descriptions may cover the same ■tract. There is nothing inconsistent in the two to prevent it. *311 The evidence taken at the trial is not before us; and upon the face of the pleading and of the finding no variance…