533  (assuming  that  the  trial  court
may  have  indulged  in  a  presnmp-
tion  that  a  use  of  land  was  under
a  claim  of  right  and  adverse);  San
Pedro,  L.  A.  &  S.  L.  B.  B.  Co.  v^
City  of  Long  Beach,  172  Cal.  631,
158   Pae.   204    (presumed   that  trial


852


2  Cal.  Jur.
Appeal  and  Erbob.
§499


litigant  coinplaining  of  errors  committed  by  a  trial  court
to  produce  a  duly  authenticated  record  affirmatively
showing  the  alleged  error.    If  it  is  necessary  to  convict


court  drew  inferences  arising  from
the  evidence  or  want  of  evidence
against  the  plaintiff);  Estate  of
Parsons,  159  Cal.  425,  114  Pae.  570;
Niles  V.  Gonzalez,  155  Cal.  359,  100
Pac.  1080  (presumption  that  person
not  served  with  notice  of  appeal
from  order  denying  new  trial  was
Bot  party  to  motion);  Power  v.
Pairbanks,  146  Cal.  611,  80  Pac.
1075;  Johnston  v.  Callahan,  146  Cal.
212,  79  Pac.  870;  Abner  Doble  Co.
V.  Keystone  Consol.  Min.  Co.,  145
Cal.  490,  78  Pac.  1050;  Cutting
Pruit  Packing  Co.  v.  Canty,  141
Cal.  692,  75  Pac.  564;  Hanna  v.  De
Garmo,  140  Cal.  172,  73  Pac.  830;
Carroll  v.  Briggs,  138  Cal.  452,  71
Pac.  501;  Freman  ▼.  Marshall,  137
Cal.  159,  69  Pac.  986;  Security
Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Estudillo,  134
Cal.  166,  66  Pac.  257  (appeal  from
order  refusing  to  set  aside  de-
fault); Perkins  v.  West  Coast  Lum-
ber Co.,  129  Cal.  427,  62  Pac.  57;
Pereira  v.  City  Savings  Bank,  128
Cal.  45,  60  Pac.  524;  McLennan
V.  Wilcox,  126  Cal.  51,  58  Pac.  305;
Gray  ▼.  Eschen,  125  Cal.  1,  57  Pac.
