gno.law

Bird v. Utica Gold Mining Co.

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 45. · 1906-01-18 · Published · 86 P. 509 · 2 Cal. App. 672 · 1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 247

ANTONE BIRD, Respondent, v. UTICA GOLD MINING COMPANY Et Al., Appellants

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing a change of the place of trial
Trial judge
John Hunt
Outcome
affirmed — The order is affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Hall (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Hall

*673 HALL, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion for a change of the place of trial from the city and county of San Francisco to Calaveras county. The motion was made upon the ground that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by such change. The action has since been tried, as appears by the appeal from the judgment now pending in this court (post, p. 674, 84 Pac. 256).

The refusing or granting of a motion for a change of venue upon the ground that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted thereby lies in the sound legal discretion of the trial court.

(Hanchett v. Finch, 47 Cal. 192;

Reavis v. Cowell, 56 Cal. 588;

Avila v. Meherin, 68 Cal. 478, [9 Pac. 428];

Clanton v. Ruffner, 78 Cal. 268, [20 Pac. 676];

Stockton v. Houser, 103 Cal. 377, [37 Pac. 179].) The mere preponderance in the number of witnesses does not necessarily control the matter; and unless it appears that the trial court has abused its discretion the appellate court will not interfere with the action of the lower court. From a careful examination of the record on this appeal we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ motion. It is true that the witnesses for appellants, seventeen in number, resided in Calaveras county; but it is also true that the plaintiff and his witnesses, six in number, resided in San Francisco. It was also shown that plaintiff was in destitute circumstances, and could not procure the attendance at the trial of some of his important witnesses, especially the physician that treated him for his injuries, if the trial should be transferred to Calaveras county.

The order is affirmed.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by