Schreindl

I concur on the ground stated in my concurring opinion in the H. A. Lindquist Case (C. C. A., No. 5703) 37 F.(2d) - 1 .

Rehearing pending.

This case belongs to the same class as Sacramento Suburban Eruit Lands Co. v. Melin, 36 F.(2d) 907 , this day decided.

The errors specified in the brief are: The overruling of a demurrer to the complaint; the admission of testimony on cross-examination over objection; an instruction in reference to the value’ of the land for poultry •raising; the refusal of the court to give a requested instruction on the statute of limitations and the failure to fully instruct on that subject, and an instruction in reference to the contents of a certain pamphlet in evidence.

The demurrer to the complaint was overruled by consent, and no error can be predicated on such a ruling.

The testimony elicited on the cross-examination of the witness was in no wise prejudicial to the appellant, and it is utterly immaterial whether the limits of .cross-examination were exceeded or not.

The court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was under no obligation to disprove that the land was valuable for poultry raising. That the land was valuable for that *933 purpose was one of the representations made by the seller, but there is no claim that that particular representation was false. To that extent, at…