Barker
Barker v. Hope
1 Cal. Unrep. 877
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 1875No. 4384California101 words
Lead Opinion
McKinstry, J.
— We think the first instruction given by the court below is not obnoxious to the criticism to which *878 it is subjected in appellant’s brief. The district court properly asserted judicial knowledge of the fact that a “fence pole” is a “heavy club”; and when the court said, “the defendant admits that he struck the plaintiff substantially as charged, ’ ’ it was a statement of an admission that he struck with a heavy club, and not of the alleged malice accompanying the blow.
Nor do we think the other points made by the appellant are well taken.
Judgment affirmed.