Soderman

This is another of the Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands cases.

The specifications of error in this ease, not covered by opinions in other eases, are based on rulings admitting or rejecting testimony, and on the instructions of the court. The appellee, as a witness in his own behalf, was asked what, if anything, was said in certain conversations concerning the reason for selling this valuable land to people in the east. The answer was that Mr. Bean was a millionaire and had a hobby of helping poor people out. No objection to the question was interposed until after the answer was given, and no motion was made to strike the answer. There is therefore no ruling before us for review. The witness was further asked the value of certain improvements on the land at the time of his purchase, consisting of two sections of chicken coops and a well. The question was objected to on the ground that the testimony was incompetent, and the witness not shown to be qualified. The witness was a carpenter by occupation, the question of his qualification rested largely in the discretion of the court, and we are unable to say that any abuse of discretion appears. In any event, every property owner is…