
    DURKEE v. MOULTON.
    L. A. No. 890;
    June 25, 1901.
    65 Pac. 469.
    Trespass—Damages—Sufficiency of Evidence.—The evidence of plaintiff! in trespass as to the extent of damages resulting therefrom is sufficient to support a finding of a less sum as the damages sustained.
    
      APPEAL from Superior Court, Riverside County; J. S. Noyes, Judge.
    Action by Daniel Durkee against Lewis F. Moulton. Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    E. W. Freeman for appellant; S. O. Houghton for respondent.
   SMITH, C.

Action for trespass on plaintiff’s lands by defendant’s sheep. The plaintiff recovered $350 damages, with costs. It is claimed there was no evidence of trespass by any sheep of defendant, or that plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $350, or in any sum. The evidence seems to establish the trespasses complained of, beyond doubt, and plaintiff testified as to the nature and amount of the damage thereby caused. His estimate may have been excessive, and it was in fact cut down by the court, but it cannot be said there was no evidence to support the finding. I advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

We concur: Haynes, C.; Chipman, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.  