Plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendants - had execution returned unsatisfied in part. There obtained an order of Court under Sec 714 C. C. P. for the examination of the defendants as to their property.
From such examination it appeared that said T. M. Harris for a number of years had owned cultivated a ranch until about 6 or 7 months prior to such examination when he sold it and has since resided with his family on a tract of about two acres near this city, a portion of which is cultivated mainly by his 14 year old son, while he was and for several weeks had been tending bar in a saloon in this place.
That he there had in his possession two horses which he had and used in cultivating his ranch before selling it which are now in pasture on the ranch sold.
Plaintiff contends that said Harris has changed his occupation and is no longer a farmer and therefore is not entitled to hold said horses as exempt and asks that an order be made directing him to turn them over to be applied on payment of said debt.
Defendant Harris contents that he is entitled to claim hold said horses as exempt on two grounds.
I. That he is entitled to hold them even if he is not a farmer.
II. This his present employment is only temporary. That he has not and never intended to abandon his business as a farmer but intends to resume the same as soon as he can, that he is a farmer and as such entitled to said horses as exempt under subdivision 3 or Sec. 690 C. C. P.
Defendants first contention is I think wholly untenable under the numerous decisions in this State... The only point for consideration so far as covers T. M. Harris is - Has he ceased to be a farmer if so then the horses are not exempt - if he has not then they are exempt.
On this point as the case stands I think the plaintiff holds the affirmative and must make out his contentions by a preponderance of evidence. This I think he has clearly failed to do.
While the testimony of T. M. Harris is loose, vague and unsatisfactory in some respects, I think that it not only fails to show that he has abandoned the business of farming but on the contrary he secured that he has not abandoned it - That his wife owns a ranch of 18 acres in Rincon Valley which he has heretofore cultivated but which is rented for one year. That he intends to ? what he now does and cultivate said 18 acres.
That his present employment is only temporary and because he has nothing else to do - that his wages are $50.00 per month but that he is liable to be discharged or quit at any time that he intends to resume farming as soon as he can. This I think his testimony fairly shows and as there is none to the contrary, I have no right to disregard it.
Temporary employment in some other business is not enough - There must be an intention to abandon permanently the right or pursuit or calling before the career can be said to be abandoned... A party may resort temporarily to other pursuits for support of himself and family and while so engaged he does not loose or forfeit his right to his exemptions...
It was shown by the examination of Jacob Harris that he had in his possession a Silver Watch and a watch chain which plaintiff contends should be ordered turned over to apply in payment of said debt. No questions was asked as to their value but they were exhibited and from their appearance I am satisfied that they are of little value. The watch being an old worn hunter case silver watch... A watch is not considered as a Jewel or an ornament but as an article of ordinary wear and hourly use - it is as necessary to a guest as an user in his room and out of it - in the night as in the day time...
Both these defendants are entitled to have the law as to exemptions liberally construed so that if any reasonable doubt existed they should have the benefit of it.
Plaintiff has not made out such a case against either defendant as would entitle him to the order he asks. It is therefore denied.

<signed by> R.F. Crawford
Judge