Volume 72 — Washington Reports, Second Series

<bold>[1] Boundaries — Fixed by Common Grantor.</bold> A line which was located on the ground and accepted by a grantor and grantee as dividing the property which the grantee was purchasing from that property being retained by the grantor, was binding upon those persons subsequently holding the retained parcel as successors in interest to the grantor, nothwithstanding that the agreed line was at variance with the deed executed by the grantor, where the grantees and their successors occupied and claimed to the line fixed by the grantor in a manner and character visible to anybody looking at the property. <bold>[2] Same — Deeds — Reformation — Agreed Boundary at Variance.</bold> A grantee's contention that the true boundary between his property and adjacent property retained by the grantor is a line agreed upon by the parties rather than the line described in the deed, is not an attempt to reform the deed. <bold>[3] Judges — Conduct and Discharge of Duties — Presumptions.</bold> The presumption that a judge performed his functions regularly and properly and without bias or prejudice was not overcome by conflicting interpretations of a trial judge's statement, made in chambers while attempting to effect a settlement after both sides had presented their case in chief, that he had developed some "leanings" in favor of one party but had not prejudged the cause. <bold>[4] Boundaries — Evidence — Hearsay Evidence — Location of</bold> <bold>Boundary Lines.</bold> In an action involving the location of a property boundary,<page_number>Page 880</page_number> the out-of-court declarations of a former owner of the property as to stakes marking the boundary were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, where the declarations were made prior to the controversy over the boundary, and the former owner was outside the jurisdiction of the court at the time of the trial. [4] See Ann. 68 A.L.R. 31, 58 A.L.R.2d 620; Am.Jur.2d, Boundaries § 106.

<bold>[1] Infants — Juvenile Court Proceeding — Obtaining Majority</bold> <bold>While Cause is Pending.</bold> When a juvenile cause is pending and not heard on its merits prior to the time the juvenile reaches 18 years of age, the juvenile court loses jurisdiction over the cause, obviating any necessity for a hearing relating to relinquishment of jurisdiction. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Evidence — Statement Made in Juvenile</bold> <bold>Proceedings — Waiver of Objection.</bold> Although a statement taken by police officers from a juvenile while juvenile proceedings are pending may not be introduced into evidence in the prosecution's case in chief in a later adult criminal proceeding, the defendant waives any right to object to the use of the statement in subsequent criminal proceedings on cross-examination, if it has been found to be voluntary, and he testifies on direct examination with regard to the substance of the statement and the circumstances surrounding its taking. <bold>[3] Same — Confessions — Hearing — Review.</bold> The Supreme Court will not blindly and conclusively accept findings of fact of the trial court arising out of a hearing on the voluntariness of a confession, though it will attach significant weight thereto. Where basic constitutional rights are concerned, the court must carefully review the record to determine whether the bounds of due process requirements have been exceeded. [2] See Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 574.