INTOXICATING LIQUORS (Continued). to local authorities the right to make and enforce police regulations "not in conflict with general laws," it is intended that local regulations of every kind may be made and enforced, except where the particular act described by the ordinance is the same act already included within the category of crimes as covered by the general codes or statutes, or the punishment affixed by ordinance for acts of a lesser degree than similar acts described by the statute is in excess of or not in harmony with the punishment designated by the latter. (Id.) 3. PENALIZING OF SINGLE SALES WITHOUT LICENSE-VALID ORDINANCE. A municipal ordinance, which by its express terms is declared to be one for regulating the sale of spirituous liquors, and which is prohibitive and penal in its terms, and which explicitly makes it unlawful for any person to sell intoxicating liquors in any quantity whatsoever, unless he comes within one of the excepted classes, and has first obtained a license to make the sale, is a police regulation, and a single sale by a person not having a license, and not within the excepted classes, constitutes a violation of the ordinance. (Matter of Aki, 483.) JOINT DEBTORS. PROCEEDING AGAINST JOINT DEBTOR-EVIDENCE--JOINT OBLIGATION.-In a proceeding under section 989 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that when a judgment is recovered against one or more of several persons, jointly indebted upon an obligation, those who were not originally served with summons and did not appear in the action may be summoned to show cause why they should not be bound by the judgment, evidence that the defendant thus summoned was associated with the defendant against whom judgment was obtained in the ownership of certain placer claims, and that the latter bought supplies from the plaintiffs for the purpose of developing such claims, and that the former never at any time repudiated liability for such supplies, but on the other hand endeavored to raise money to pay for the same, sufficiently shows a joint indebtedness, in view of the presumption created by section 1431 of the Civil Code that an obligation imposed upon several persons is joint. (Colquhoun v. Pack, 97.) See Agency, 4; Association; Partnership, 7; Practice, 3. JUDGE. See New Trial, 4; Office and Officers, 5–8. JUDGMENT. MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT WHEN IN TIME.-An application to vacate the default of defendant and to set aside an interlocutory judgment for divorce, under section 473 of the Code of 32 Cal. App.-54 JUDGMENT (Continued). Civil Procedure, upon the ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, See Appeal, 3, 7; Assignment, 3; Divorce, 4, 5; Eminent Domain, JURISDICTION. See Appeal, 4; Certiorari; Justice's Court, 5, 7-10, 16, 17; Partnership, 1; Storm Water District, 3, 4; Superior Court; Workmen's Compensation Act, 4. JURY AND JURORS. See Criminal Law, 6, 32, 42. JUSTICE'S COURT. 1. JUSTICE'S COURT APPEAL - UNDERTAKING INCORRECT RECITAL OF JUDGMENT. In an undertaking on appeal from a justice's court, an incorrect recital of the date of the rendition of the judgment does not invalidate the undertaking, where the notice of appeal correctly states the date thereof. (Clay v. Superior Court, 189.) 2. JUSTIFICATION OF SURETIES - TIME.-Where exceptions are taken to the sufficiency of the sureties on an undertaking given on a justice's court appeal, and other sureties justify in place of the original sureties, and such justification takes place within five days after the filing of such exceptions, the substitution of new sureties and their justification is within due time, even though it be more than five days after the filing of the notice of appeal. (Id.) 3. REWRITING OF UNDERTAKING - EXECUTION BY ONE OF ORIGINAL SURETIES WITH NEW SURETY-SAME UNDERTAKING.-The fact that the undertaking was rewritten and signed a second time by one of the sureties on the original undertaking, together with the surety who was substituted for the other surety on the original undertaking, did not make the document a new and different undertaking within the meaning of the terms of section 978a of the Code of Civil Procedure, or deprive the superior court of jurisdiction of the appeal. (Id.) 4. IDENTITY OF SURETY-IMMATERIAL VARIANCE. The fact that in the second undertaking in the body thereof the surety was named JUSTICE'S COURT (Continued). as "J. J. Hutchinson," whereas his signature and affidavit were in the name of "John J. Hutchinson," did not constitute a defect impairing the validity of the instrument. (Id.) 5. INSUFFICIENCY OF UNDERTAKING TO STAY EXECUTION-SUFFICIENCY AS COST BOND-JURISDICTION.-Where an undertaking is sufficient to constitute a bond for costs on appeal, jurisdiction of the appeal is sustained thereby, even though the undertaking is not sufficient for the purposes of a stay of execution. (Id.) 6. WAIVER OF JUSTIFICATION OF SURETIES.-Where a party excepting to the sufficiency of sureties fails to appear at the time and place designated in the notice of justification after service of such notice upon him, further notice is waived. (Id.) 7. JUSTICE'S COURT APPEAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT — WANT OF JURISDICTION APPEARING ON FACE OF RECORD-SEASONABLE OBJECTION-DISMISSAL.-Where an appeal from a justice's court is upon questions of law and fact, and the defendant seasonably challenges the jurisdiction of the court to try the action upon its merits, by reason of the want of jurisdiction of the justice's court over the subject matter of the action appearing upon the face of the record, such defendant is entitled to an order dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction to try it upon its merits. (Brians v. Superior Court, 206.) 8. Loss oF ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - - SUBSTITUTION OF COPY TRIAL IN SUPERIOR COURT WITHOUT OBJECTION-VALID JUDGMENT.-Where an action is tried in a justice's court without the original complaint or a copy thereof being on file, and an appeal is taken from the judgment rendered therein on both questions of law and fact, and the case is tried in the superior court on its merits, without objection other than to a motion made to substitute a copy of the complaint for the lost original, the judgment will not be annulled on certiorari for want of jurisdiction of the superior court. (Id.) TRIAL WITHOUT COPY 9. DISAPPEARANCE OF ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IRREGULARITY.A justice's court does not lose jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action by the loss of the original complaint from the files, and a trial had without it or the substitution of a copy is but a mere irregularity. (Id.) 10. SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT WITHOUT IMPOSING COSTS ERROR NOT JURISDICTIONAL.-The setting aside of a default judgment by a justice's court, without imposing costs as a condition, is an error for which the case should be reversed, but the court is not thereby deprived of jurisdiction to proceed further with the cause. (Arbogast v. Superior Court, 372.) 11. RELIEF FROM DEFAULT-TIME-TEN DAYS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY.-The time to file an application under section 859 of JUSTICE'S COURT (Continued). the Code of Civil Procedure, to be relieved from a judgment entered by default in a justice's court on the ground that such judgment had been taken by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect, begins to run from service of written notice of entry of the judgment as required by section 893 of such code, as amended in 1915. (Id.) 12. PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS-NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT REQUIRED.-Service of written notice of entry of judgment is required in cases where personal service of summons has been made, as well as in cases of constructive service. (Id.) 13. VACATING JUSTICE'S COURT JUDGMENTS - CODE SECTION APPLICABLE. Proceedings to vacate judgments of justices' courts are governed by section 859 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and not by section 473 of such code, as the latter deals with such proceedings in the superior courts. (Id.) 14. JUSTICE'S COURT APPEAL VOID UNDERTAKING ERRONEOUS RECITALS AS TO COURTS.-An undertaking on appeal from a judgment rendered in the justice's court of a certain township of a certain county, which refers to the judgment as one rendered by the justice's court of another township of a different county, and to the appeal as being taken to the superior court of the latter county, is wholly insufficient to identify the appeal, and the superior court is without jurisdiction to permit such undertaking to be amended by substituting therein the proper township and county. (Brownell v. Superior Court, 227.) 15. UNDERTAKING ON APPEAL-RECITALS-IDENTIFICATION OF APPEAL.— The recitals in an undertaking on appeal must identify the appeal which it is intended to support, and if they fail to do so, the error is incurable. (Id.) 16. JUDGMENT IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION-WRIT OF REVIEW-REMEDY BY APPEAL.-A writ of review cannot be resorted to for the purpose of annulling a judgment rendered by a justice's court on the alleged ground that the court exceeded its jurisdiction, where the alleged erroneous action can be corrected by appeal. (Maidenberg v. Justice's Court, 686.) 17. EXPIRATION OF TIME TO APPEAL-LACHES OF LOSING PARTY-WRIT OF REVIEW NOT ISSUABLE.-The fact that the losing party permitted the time to appeal to expire by reason of his own laches in not learning of the entry of the judgment in time to take the appeal will not justify the issuance of the writ of review. (Id.) 18. JUSTICE'S COURT APPEALS NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT — SILENCE OF CODE.-There is no code provision requiring service of notice of entry of judgments in justices' courts to start the time running to perfect an appeal from the judgment. (Id.) LACHES. See Certiorari, 7; Justice's Court, 17; Quieting Title, 2, 3. LANDLORD AND TENANT. 1. OBLIGATION OF LESSEE TO MAKE REPAIRS.-Where a lease provides that the lessor shall not be called upon to make any repairs, and that the lessee will keep the demised premises in good order and repair at his own cost and expense, the latter is bound to make repairs ordered by municipal authority, and where such repairs are not made, and a portion of one of the walls of the premise3 collapses, the lessee is not entitled to abandon the premises, nor is he relieved from the obligation to pay the agreed rent. (Egan v. Dodd, 706.) 2. TERMINATION OF HIRING CODE PROVISION INAPPLICABLE.-Section 1932 of the Civil Code, providing that the hirer of a thing may terminate the hiring when the greater part of the thing hired perishes from any other cause than the want of ordinary care of the hirer, is inapplicable to a lease which requires the lessee to make the repairs. (Id.) See Eminent Domain, 8, 9; Lease. LARCENY. See Criminal Law, 18-21. LEASE. 1. INADMISSIBILITY OF ORAL EVIDENCE- RESERVATION OF RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE OUT-LACK OF PREJUDICE.-Where in an action to recover a sum of money alleged to be due and unpaid under the terms of a written lease, the court reserved its ruling upon a motion to strike out certain evidence admitted over the plaintiff's objection of an alleged oral understanding made at the time of the execution of the lease that the rent was payable in advance, the defendant is not prejudiced by the failure of the court to thereafter make a direct ruling on the motion, where the lease was clear and explicit as to the term and rental, and the evidence therefore inadmissible as in contradiction of the terms of the written lease. (Hanke v. Martin, 88.) 2. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.-The scope, purpose, and effect of a lease must be determined from a consideration of it as a whole rather than by a resort to any individual clause thereof, and so construed it must be given such an interpretation as will make it effective in conformity with the intention of the parties; if its terms are in any way ambiguous or uncertain it must be interpreted in the sense in which the lessee believed at the time of making it that the lessor understood it, and if different constructions of its clauses may be otherwise equally proper, that construction must be given which will be most favorable to the party in whose favor the clauses |