Bennett

This is an action to restrain the diversion of water, and for damages. By the judgment the plaintiffs were awarded an injunction and damages in the sum of $250. The defendants appeal from the judgment and an order denying their motion for a new trial. In support of the appeal it is claimed that several errors of law were committed which call for a reversal. These alleged errors will be noticed in their order.

1. The demurrer to the first cause of action set up in the complaint was general, and it was not error to overrule it. The words objected to, as showing that no cause of action was stated, must be read in connection with the balance of the count; and, when so read, the most that can be said is that they make the pleading ambiguous and uncertain. But that is an objection that cannot be raised by a general demurrer.

2. The plaintiffs offered and were permitted to read in evidence the record of the deed from Timothy Haley to Andrew Bahr, dated October 18, 1872, and also the conveyance indorsed thereon from Bahr to George McNeal, dated February 14, 1873. The Haley deed appears to have been signed by the grantor’s mark, and witnessed as required by section 14 of the Civil Code,…