[L. A. No. 6394. Department Two.-January 24, 1921.]

C. J. PROUD, Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.

[L. A. No. 6426. Department Two.-January 24, 1921.] THE PATTERSON RANCH COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.

[L. A. No. 6625. Department Two.-January 24, 1921.] AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC MILLING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.

NEGLIGENCE-Loss OF BEANS-DESTRUCTION OF WAREHOUSE-LIABILITY OF WAREHOUSEMAN.-Judgments affirmed upon the authority of Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Ventura County. Merle J. Rogers, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are identical with those stated in the opinion in Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714.

Charles F. Blackstock for Appellant.

Robert M. Clarke, Henry L. Knoop, I. W. Stewart, A. D. Shaw and W. W. Hindman for Respondents.

THE COURT.-Although they are three separate and independent suits, the three above-mentioned cases are identical in their facts with the facts of the case of Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., ante, p. 714, [195 Pac. 398]. The points urged for a reversal in these cases by appellant, Southern Pacific Milling Company, are the same as those which were presented in said case of Runkle v. Southern Pacific Milling Co., and, therefore, what we have said in the latter case sufficiently disposes of the points made. Upon the authority of that case the judgments in these three cases are affirmed.

INDEX.

(811)

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT. See Building Contracts, 4; Divorce, 4, 5;

Guardian and Ward, 1-13.

ABATEMENT. See Partnership, 1, 5.

ACCOUNTING. See Partnership, 14.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. See Mortgages, 6–9.

ADMISSIONS. See Appeal, 5; Building Contracts, 3; Claim and
Delivery, 1.

ADVERSE USER. Waters and Water Rights, 13 15.

AGENCY. See Bonds, 3; Conspiracy, 5; Execution Sales, 1; Fire
Insurance, 4, 5; Pledges, 4; Vendor and Vendee, 4-6.

ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS.

1. EVIDENCE-IMPROPER RELATIONS WITH WIFE-STATEMENTS OF DE-
FENDANT. In an action for alienation of a wife's affections,
statements of the defendant as to his improper relations with the
wife are admissible against him. (Adkins v. Brett, 252.)

2. CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE-TRUTH QUESTION FOR JURY.-In an action
for alienation of affections of a wife, where the evidence is con-
flicting, the determination of the truth is a question for the jury.
(Id.)

3. EVIDENCE-STATEMENTS OF WIFE IN ABSENCE OF DEFENDANT-AD-
MISSIBILITY. In an action for alienation of a wife's affections,
evidence of conversations between the plaintiff and his wife in-
dicative of her then feelings toward him is admissible, although
made in the absence of the defendant, for the purpose of proving
the wife's then state of feelings. (Id.)

4. INCOMPETENCY OF STATEMENTS TO PROVE OTHER MATERIAL MATTERS
-ADMISSIBILITY UNAFFECTED BY.-In an action for alienation of a
wife's affections, evidence of statements made by the wife in-
dicative of her then feelings toward her husband and the defend-
ant and competent to prove her feelings is not rendered incom-
petent because of the fact that the statements also contain mate-
rial matters not provable by such evidence. (Id.)

(813)