Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.


Civ. 11172.

Decided: December 28, 1936

Charles A. Buckley and John B. Bertero, both of Los Angeles, for appellant Fox West Coast Theatres Corporation. Albert W. Leeds, of Los Angeles, for appellant Thornton Sargent. Sparling & Teel, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

This is an appeal from a judgment against the defendants for damages for wrongful ejectment from a theater with unnecessary force. The case is not novel, and the questions which are presented are not of general public importance. This will be clearly indicated when the questions are hereinafter set forth. For that reason we are not setting out the facts. The Constitution does not require that this court set out the facts in its opinions. It requires only that “all decisions * * * shall be given in writing, and the grounds of the decision shall be stated” Article 6, § 24.

Appellants' first contention is that there was a total lack of any evidence showing that defendants committed any wrong upon plaintiff or that undue force was used in evicting plaintiff from defendants' premises. Under our view of the evidence it cannot be said that there is not any substantial evidence to sustain the implied findings of the jury and this contention of the appellants is untenable. Appellants' second contention is that the evidence shows no causal connection between plaintiff's eviction from theater and his discharge from his employment. We have the same view of the evidence with regard to this contention and the same may be said with regard to the appellants' third contention, which is that as a matter of law the plaintiff's ejectment from the theater was not the proximate cause of his discharge, and also the appellants' fourth contention, which is that the damages awarded were so excessive as to indicate that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.

All other contentions made by the appellants relate to procedural errors which it is claimed were made by the court in ruling on the admission of evidence and certain comments made by the court in the presence of the jury concerning a subpoena issued to one of the witnesses. We find nothing in any of these contentions which would authorize a reversal of the trial court's judgment, in the face of the people's mandate contained in article 6, § 4 1/2, of the Constitution.

Judgment affirmed.

CRAIL, Presiding Justice.

I concur: McCOMB, Justice pro tem. I concur in the judgment: WOOD, J.