question was an individual contract because it was signed in the same manner. The only remaining question is: Was the verdict so clearly opposed to the decided weight of the evidence as to require us to overrule the circuit judge's decision refusing a new trial? It is strenuously insisted that a grave injustice has been done the defendants; that the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of defendants that the conclusion cannot be escaped that the jury were influenced by something other than the testimony. If satisfied that the record presents such a case, our duty to set aside the verdict is clear. Hintz v. Railroad Co., 132 Mich. 305, and cases cited. We are not, however, convinced that the verdict is so clearly against the weight of evidence that the trial court was bound to set it aside. The judgment is affirmed. MCALVAY, C. J., and OSTRANDER, HOOKER, and MOORE, JJ., concurred. KALAMAZOO GAZETTE CO. v. KALAMAZOO COUNTY RECORDS-MARRIAGE LICENSES-INSPECTION BY PUBLIC. The marriage licenses and returns kept in the office of the county clerk pursuant to statute (sections 8604-8611, 3 Comp. Laws) are public records, and as such open to public inspection under Act No. 76, Pub. Acts 1903, and the county clerk has no discretion to withhold them from inspection when, in his opinion, the publication of their contents is undesirable. Certiorari to Kalamazoo; North, J., presiding. Submitted April 16, 1907. (Calendar No. 22,183.) Decided May 18, 1907. Mandamus by the Kalamazoo Gazette Company to compel Edwin W. Vosburg, clerk of Kalamazoo county, to allow an examination of certain public records. There was an order granting the writ, and respondent brings certiorari. Affirmed. Alfred J. Mills, for relator. Dallas Boudeman, for respondent. MONTGOMERY, J. The relator applied to the circuit court for and was granted a mandamus requiring the respondent to permit relator's reporters to examine the records of marriage licenses and returns showing marriages in the respondent's office. The respondent has brought the case before us for review by certiorari. The controlling question in the case is whether marriage licenses and returns, provided for by the statute (3 Comp. Laws, §§ 8604-8611) are public records open to inspection by those who have occasion to inspect them, or whether the clerk has a discretion to withhold such records from inspection when in his opinion the publication of the con tents is undesirable. It must be held that these records are public records. The statute (3 Comp. Laws, § 8612 et seq.) makes provision for withholding from the public information in certain cases where the marriage has been solemnized by the probate judge. This statute, so far as it throws light upon the subject, indicates that the legislative branch of the government understood that the record provided for by the preceding sections was public. Public records (other than court records, as to which see Schmedding v. May, 85 Mich. 1) are, under Act No. 76, Pub. Acts 1903, open to inspection for any lawful purpose. See Burton v. Tuite, 78 Mich. 363 (7 L. R. A. 73), and Day v. Button, 96 Mich. 600. The order is affirmed. MCALVAY, C. J., and OSTRANDER, HOOKER, and MOORE, JJ., concurred. DICKINSON v. PERE MARQUETTE RAILROAD CO. 1. EVIDENCE-OPINIONS-ADMISSIBILITY-HARMLESS ERROR. Where the measure of damages had been stated in the presence of the jury to be the deterioration of the value of plaintiffs' farm by reason of the negligent acts of defendant, and there is no doubt that the court, witnesses, and counsel all understood that this was precisely what the witnesses were attempting to state when they gave their opinions as to the amount of damages resulting from the washing and caving away of plaintiffs' land, a motion to strike out the testimony, made after plaintiffs' case was closed, and their witnesses departed, was properly overruled, though the form of the questions propounded was objectionable, if timely objection had been made. 2. ACTIONS-JOINDER-GROUND FOR NEW TRIAL. The joinder of several demands for different torts, and attempted recovery on them in good faith in a single action, is not ground for a new trial, on the theory that the presentation of demands on which no recovery could be had resulted in prejudicing the jury and in an unjust verdict. 3. DAMAGES INJURIES TO LAND-EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY — EXCESSIVE DAMAGES. Where, in an action for injuries to land caused by removal of lateral support by excavating for a railroad track, there is no tangible testimony of any damage other than the loss of the land which has slid down the bank and inconvenience in farming such land as remains between the slides, the whole not exceeding an acre, of the value of $150, a verdict for $450 is excessive and a remittitur of $200 will be required as a condition of affirmance. Error to Kent; Perkins, J. Submitted April-15, 1907. (Docket No. 83.) Decided May 18, 1907. Case by James A. Dickinson and Jane Dickinson against the Pere Marquette Railroad Company for damages to land. There was judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed on condition. Plaintiffs own a farm in Alpine township, Kent county, a little north of Grand Rapids. This farm is 160 rods long north and south, and 80 rods wide east and west. The defendant's right of way, 100 feet in width, and Mill creek, a small stream, extend across the land, entering at the north end and leaving at the south end. In the summer of 1905 high water in Mill creek washed away a large portion of defendant's roadbed through plaintiffs' farm. It was claimed by plaintiffs that the roadbed would not have been washed out if the course of Mill creek had not been diverted when the roadbed was originally constructed, and that the defendant was liable for all damages resulting from the diversion of the course of the creek. Under this claim plaintiffs introduced evidence to prove that, when the roadbed was washed out, their land was greatly damaged by the gravel which was washed upon it and by other effects of the washout. Upon cross-examination plaintiffs' witnesses testified that the roadbed had been constructed more than 30 years before it was washed out and more than 20 years before they bought their farm, and that the high water by which the roadbed had been washed out was an unprecedented occurrence. The defendant immediately rebuilt its roadbed; but, for the purpose of preventing future washouts, it located its roadbed and track about 25 feet west of its former location, but within the right of way. In moving its tracks to the west the defendant made an excavation so near the line of its right of way that subsequent rains formed several gullies in the embankment which worked back into plaintiffs' land. The longest gully had worked into plaintiffs' land a distance of 15 feet at the time of the commencement of this suit. Less than one twenty-fourth of one acre of surface had been washed into the excavation on defendant's right of way at the time of the commencement of the suit, and a strip of land one rod in width the whole length of plaintiffs' farm, along the west side of defendant's right of way, making a total of one acre, would include all of the gullies which had formed on the land on account of the excavation on defendant's right of way, and would also include land not affected by gullies or otherwise. There were no buildings along the right of way, and the land that would be included in that one acre, assuming that the right of way fence had been moved back, was land which had been used for ordinary farming purposes, and was suitable for such purposes only. Plaintiffs' testimony fixed the value of the farm at $100 to $125 an acre. Plaintiffs claimed damages for the injuries to their land by removing its lateral support, so that the gullies had worked into the land from defendant's excavation. James A. Dickinson, one of the plaintiffs, testified that in his opinion the farm was damaged $800 by the gullies that had formed in it. Jane Dickinson, the other plaintiff, testified that in her opinion the |