Summary
In Nelson & Nobell v. Highland (13 Cal. 73), the court say: " No motion for a new trial having been made in this case, the finding of facts by the court below is conclusive, and as this finding fully sustains the judgment, it is affirmed."
Summary of this case from People ex rel. Dickenson v. BanvardOpinion
Appeal from the Fourth District.
Suit on notes of Defendant.
COUNSEL:
There is no finding of facts in the case. (Estell v. Chenery , 3 Cal. 467; Burger v. Baker, 4 Abbott, 11; Swift v. Muygridge , 8 Cal. 445.)
No brief on file for Appellant.
Stanley & Hayes, for Respondent.
Sanderson & Newell, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Terry, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Field, J. concurring.
OPINION
TERRY, Judge
The only error assigned in this cause is the exclusion of a Chinese witness offered by plaintiff.
Section 394, of the Civil Practice Act, provides " that no Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action in which a white person is a party; " and in the People v. Hall, (4 Cal. 399,) it was held that the term " Indian," as used in the statute, included the Chinese or Mongolian race; and upon the authority of that decision, the judgment is affirmed.