said Minnie McClellan, by and through the advice and counsel of her husband, F. E. McClellan, and one A. R. Carpenter, her counsel, fraudulently and with the intent and purpose to defeat the said judgment and decree of said court, and, in violation of its terms and provisions, and for the purpose of clouding the title to said property and vexing and annoying the said plaintiff Lewis in the ownership and possession thereof, attempted to make and declare and file a homestead thereon, and in pursuance thereof did cause to be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county of San Joaquin, state of California, a pretended and attempted homestead on said premises; that said alleged and pretended homestead is fraudulent, illegal, void, and of no force and effect."

Defendant avers that the only notices and demands sent to or made upon said Minnie McClellan in the said action above referred to were sent and made in accordance with the lawful judgment and decree of said court in said case, and denies that said plaintiff in this action has been damaged in the sum of five thousand dollars or any sum whatsoever by reason of any of the acts or conduct of the said Lewis or his attorney, Grimm. Defendant also pleads in bar of the action all the proceedings, findings, and judgment had in the action of Lewis v. McClellan above referred to, numbered 10,741. For further answer, also, defendant alleges the pendency of an action commenced by the said Minnie McClellan and her husband against the said John T. Lewis, defendant herein, on November 12, 1913, in said court, said action being numbered 10,943, in which the plaintiffs seek to have the title to said property quieted and their homestead rights determined. That the said defendant Lewis has appeared in said action and filed an answer and cross-complaint therein; that the said action, numbered 10,943, is between the same parties as the action numbered 10,741, and that the subject matter of the action in both cases is the same; that said action is at issue of fact and is undetermined.

The present cause was tried by the court without a jury and the court made findings in favor of the defendant herein and judgment was accordingly entered, from which plaintiff appeals. Among the findings are the following: "That at no time subsequent to the trial of said action No. 10.741, or at any time or at all, did the attorney for the plaintiff Lewis in

said action, to wit, Max Grimm, deceive or impose upon the judge who tried said case, as to the contents or substance of the findings signed by the judge in said action, and the judge in said action signed said findings after reading and understanding same, and he refused to sign the findings presented by the attorney for the defendants in said action.

"That the said judge was not deceived or imposed upon by the said Max Grimm, or any other person, as to the contents of the said findings, and no fraud, deceit, or imposition was committed upon said court by any person in connection with the signing of said findings, or in procuring said judgment in said action No. 10,741.

"That the said judgment in said action No. 10,741 was not false, fictitious, fraudulent, wrong, absurd, erroneous, or inconsistent, but was supported by the evidence therein and was obtained without fraud, mistake, inadvertence, or imposition, and is, in all respects, a good and valid judgment.

"That in and by said judgment in the case 10,741, it was and is adjudicated that the real property in question herein was the community property of Frank E. and Minnie McClellan. That the purchase price agreed upon of $4,250 was a fair and adequate consideration and value for the said. property; and said contract was just and reasonable between said Grove and said F. E. McClellan.

"That said plaintiff, Minnie McClellan, did not suffer any damages whatsoever by reason of said findings, conclusions of law, or judgment rendered, filed, and entered in said action No. 10,741."

As conclusions of law, the court found that plaintiff "is not entitled to recover any judgment for damages, and is not entitled to have the findings, conclusions of law, or judgment in said action No. 10,741 amended, modified, changed, or reformed, nor to any other relief from the defendant and the court further finds and decides that the defendant, John T. Lewis, have judgment for his costs incurred herein."

We think there is ample evidence in the record to support the findings of fact. Upon the principle stated in Bacon v. Bacon, 150 Cal. 477, 484, [89 Pac. 317], that a party may have relief against a judgment on the ground of fraud or mistake, it is contended that it sufficiently appears from what occurred at the conclusion of the trial in the case of Lewis v. McClellan that the findings and judgment, as entered in that

case, were not the findings and judgment directed to be entered by the court. It is also contended that the announcement made by the judge from the bench must be treated as the decision, and that the findings and judgment not being in accord with such decision, must be treated as void.

We do not think it reasonably inferable from the oral statements of the judge at the close of the trial in Lewis v. McClellan, that he was precluded from making findings to meet the issues in accordance with the facts. The statute requires that the decision of the court "must be given in writing and filed with the clerk" (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 632); and "in giving the decision, the facts found and conclusions of law must be separately stated. Judgment upon the decision must be entered accordingly" (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 633). The remarks of the court touching the question of costs and Mrs. McClellan's relation to the case were but the informal views of the court, subject to future modification when it came to make its findings, "as only properly they could be found, in the formal findings of fact and conclusions of law." (Montecito Valley Co. v. Santa Barbara, 144 Cal. 578, 595, [77 Pac. 1113].) In Wadleigh v. Phelps, 149 Cal. 627, 645, [87 Pac. 93], the court had rendered a written opinion in which it said: "Let each party herein pay his, her, or their own costs." Subsequently the court made findings and entered judgment thereon that "plaintiffs recover their costs incurred in this action." There the claim was made that "the court having announced its views as to the costs in the written opinion, could not in the findings and judgment make different provision from that indicated in the opinion." The supreme court said: "This written opinion was, however, no part of the decision in the case, cannot be treated as such, and was entirely without legal effect."

That the findings were not made through fraud or mistake was fully supported by the evidence, and that they were framed to meet and were based on the issues in the case is clearly shown.

Plaintiff's alleged rights arising from the homestead filed by her, from her claim that the property was not community property but was purchased with her money, from the fact that she did not sign the contract of sale-in fact, every claim advanced by her in support of her title to the property was adjudicated and decided against her contention in the action.

of McClellan v. Lewis, and the judgment has been affirmed on appeal to this court.

Plaintiff has failed to establish the truth of the averments in her amended complaint. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Burnett, J., and Hart, J., concurred.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 24, 1917.

[Civ. No. 2377. Second Appellate District.-October 26, 1917.] In re Application by W. L. LEFAVOR, etc. W. L. LEFAVOR, Appellant, v. P. H. LUDOLPH, Respondent. NEWSPAPER GENERAL CIRCULATION-SECTION 4460, POLITICAL CODE.Under section 4460 of the Political Code, defining a newspaper of general circulation to be one established, printed, and published at regular intervals, in the state, county, city, city and county, or town, where such publication is made, for at least one year preceding the date of such publication, a newspaper printed in the city where such paper was circulated and to which it was local, for the one year period with the exception of seven of the weekly issues, which were printed elsewhere for lack of a newspaper plant, is a newspaper of general circulation.

ID. CHANGING OF NAME CHARACTER OF NEWSPAPER NOT AFFECTED.— The changing of the name of the newspaper during the one year period by the dropping of a part of the wording in the name does not change the character of the paper nor destroy its identity.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles Monroe, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Neighbors, Hoag & Burke, for Appellant.

A. R. Holston, S. C. Schaefer, and Peebles Shoaff, for Respondent.

85 Cal. App.-10

JAMES, J.-Appellant herein petitioned the superior court for the purpose of securing a judgment declaring a newspaper published in the city of Watts to be a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in section 4460 of the Political Code. We quote the section:

"A newspaper of general circulation is a newspaper published for the dissemination of local or telegraphic news and intelligence of a general character, having a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and which shall have been established, printed and published at regular intervals, in the state, county, city, city and county, or town, where such publication, notice by publication, or official advertising is given or made, for at least one year preceding the date of such publication, notice or advertisement. A newspaper devoted to the interests, or published for the entertainment or instruction of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race, or denomination, or for any number of such classes, professions, trades, callings, races or denominations when the avowed purpose is to entertain or instruct such classes, is not a newspaper of general circulation."

Section 4462 of the same code contains provisions authorizing this proceeding to be brought. The trial judge determined the facts to be that the newspaper had been published weekly in the city of Watts for the required time, and that it was a newspaper containing general news intelligence as required by the act. A finding followed which recited that the newspaper had been "published and printed" at all such times, "except that for seven issues-being the issues from October 27 to December 8, 1916, inclusive said newspaper was printed at the city of Redondo Beach, California, and that said newspaper and its proprietor had no press and no newspaper plant at the city of Watts, California, during the time said newspaper was so printed at said Redondo Beach, and that the then owner of the paper never thereafter printed said newspaper at said Watts, California. That a new management began after the said seventh issue, to wit, December 8, 1916, printing said newspaper in the office of the 'Observer' on the press of the 'Observer' at Watts, California." Upon these findings judgment was ordered and entered denying the prayer of the petitioner. From these findings made by the trial judge, it is very apparent that the