Sukeforth

I concur in the judgment, but do not agree to what is said in the opinion of Mr. Justice Pox as to the manner of entering an exception to the giving of instructions. I think the record sufficiently shows that the exceptions were properly taken, and in time. It was enough that the judge was notified that the appellant excepted, and the record shows that this was done. It was not necessary that the exception should have been entered at the time by either the judge or the clerk.

This is an action against the sheriff of Nevada county for the recovery' of the sum of $4,000 damages, for the unlawful conversion of a stock of merchandise. The sheriff justifies under an attachment, and subsequent judgment, in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, in a suit wherein George D. Cooper was plaintiff and L. M. Sukeforth was defendant. No exception is taken to the regularity or legality of the proceedings or writ in that case. The goods were levied upon as the property of L. M. Sukeforth, the judgment debtor, but found in and taken from the possession of E. G. Sukeforth, the plaintiff in this action. The action was tried before a jury, verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $3,000, motion for new trial made and denied, and defendant appeals. The value of the property alleged to have been unlawfully converted is admitted by the pleadings to have been $4,000, and the verdict and judgment was for $3,000. This disposes of one point made on the motion for new trial, and insisted upon on the appeal—that the verdict was excessive.

Another point made on the motion, and insisted upon here, is that the evidence was insufficient to…