), Chips (yellow), Snacks (green), and Nüsse (purple) and a yellow lid. Height is 20.5 cm. All images are from eBay.
My post of May 15, 2010 focused on the Zodiac mirror by Finesse Originals. I know there’s been interest in purchasing these mirrors. This Zodiac mirror is offered by S J Antiques and Preowned Furniture on eBay. The price is $299.99 (Buy It Now) or Make Offer with $69 for Greyhound shipping.
This is a cool retro looking mirror. It has all of the zodiac characters. The frame is a fiberglass composite material. It is in very good condition. I figure this is from the late 60s/early 70s. It is ready to hang on your wall. Size 40” Across X 5.5” Deep.
An update to my post of February 4, 2009, the Rougier tube lamp by Rougier, Canada. I’ve posted numerous times before about lamps by Rougier. This lamp sold on October 1, 2011 from Kitty Hawk, NC for $2,995. There were 4 bidders who placed 10 bids. All images in this post are from eBay, user sobercindy.
eBay completed item screenshot for the Rougier tube lamp.
This mushroom shaped Rougier tube lamp is awesome and it is in excellent working condition, the switch and wiring are both very good! There are some stains on the pvc as one would expect in a normal non-smoking environment. The height of the lamp is 22-23” including the base (it measures 6 ¼” x 6 ¼”), which is black and brass. The brass has some minor pitting and scratches, a good polishing could make it look like new, otherwise it is in very good condition. The removable opening on the back is attached by two screws that are easily removed to complete the changing of bulb. The metal label “Rougier” is attached on the back of the base and on the bottom is the “Made in Canada” label. Circa 1960-1970s.
Three views of the Rougier tube lamp: in daylight, showing exposed panel used to change bulb, in dark room.
Top view of Rougier tube lamp.
Top: Rougier label. Middle: Underside of lkamp. Bottom: made in CANADA sticker.
An update of my post from September 29, 2011, the Sinus ashtray by Walter Zeischegg for Helit. Here is the ashtray in red with a simple “MADE IN HONG KONG” imprint.
Red Sinus ashtray. Image source, eBay.
Rougier tube lamp | Unknown Designer | Rougier, Ca...THOMSON v. Fred W. Steiner, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Robert W. THOMSON, et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants, Appellants and Respondents, v. Steve DYPVIK, et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants, Respondents and Appellants, Fred W. Steiner, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Louis A. Highman, Bruce J. Highman, San Francisco, for appellants/respondents, Thomsons, Wredes and Stalberg. Campbell, Warburton, Britton, Fitzsimmons & Smith and William T. Brooks, San Jose, for Rogers and Warburton. Donald E. Davis, Mountain View, for respondents, Steiners. L. Roy Harper, Morgan Hill, in proper and for Harpers. Johnston, Miller & Giannini and Faber L. Johnston, San Jose, for respondents/appellants, Dypviks and Fellmans.
This case involves a dispute between adjoining landowners focusing on the rights in and title to a dirt roadway named Twin Falls Creek Road (sometimes referred to as the “road”).
The defendants (respondents and cross-appellants) are neighboring landowners in the foothills of the southern Santa Cruz Mountains west of Morgan Hill, between San Jose and Gilroy. Plaintiffs' (appellants') land lies along either side of the lower reaches of Twin Falls Creek at and above its confluence with Llagas Creek. The defendants' property is all upstream along Twin Falls Creek, beyond the land of plaintiffs.
Each creek has a narrow, unimproved, dirt road which roughly parallels it. Twin Falls Creek Road, following its namesake, provides access for all parties to this litigation, beginning at Casa Loma Road it first passes over the lands of plaintiff and thereafter, in a generally westerly direction, upstream to defendants. Once the road reaches the land of the defendants there is no further dispute since all defendants' parcels are contiguous and there is no litigation amongst them. The road deadends into Casa Loma Road, just downstream of the confluence of the two creeks, and Casa Loma Road leads out of the area.
Plaintiffs and appellants in this case are Robert W. and Maudie R. Thomson (Thomson), Robert C. and Jeanne C. Wrede (Wrede), Gladys A. Stalberg, Marie Rogers, and Austen D. Warburton.
Defendants and respondents are Fred W. and Dorothy E. Steiner (Steiner), L. Roy and Elizabeth M. Harper (Harper), Elroy and Diane Fellman (Fellman), Steven and Lynn Dypvik (Dypvik), the Martinezes, Jarretts and the Matsumotos. The Dypviks are also cross-appellants.
Plaintiffs all traced their title back to patents issued by the United States Government for lands lying entirely within a single government survey section, Section 19, Township 9 South, Range 2 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. Defendants all trace their properties back to similar government land patents issued to different individuals by the United States Government, covering property lying in Sections 24 and 25 of the adjacent range to the west.
Since the grant of these patents to the original patentees, the parcels have been conveyed in various configurations, however, no one person has ever simultaneously owned parcels of land in both Section 19 of Township 9 South, Range 2 East, where plaintiffs' lands lie, and Sections 24 and 25, Township 9 South, Range 1 East, where defendants' lands lie. Thus, other than the United States Government, there has been no common grantor.
On January 4, 1977, plaintiffs filed an action seeking to quiet title to their lands and for injunctive relief. This complaint was amended on February 28, 1978 and again on February 26, 1979 to include defendants Jarrett. Their suit sought to preclude defendants from using the road, some one-half to one mile in length, beginning at its intersection with Casa Loma Road, generally westerly across plaintiffs' properties, to the lands of the defendants. They also included actions for trespass and water rights, neither of which are issues on this appeal.
Apart from defendants Jarrett and Martinez, whose defaults were taken on October 29, 1979 and against whom judgment was entered on July 2, 1981, each of the defendants ultimately answered. Defendants Matsumotos, Dypvik, and Harper also cross-complained to quiet title. The thrust of these pleadings asserted an easement gained by prescriptive right, implication or necessity. Also, all answering defendants, except the Steiners, asserted in their answer and/or cross-complaint an easement for a right-of-way by grant as follows: “A nonexclusive right-of-way for ingress and egress and the installation and maintenance of public utilities over a strip of land 60 feet wide, the center of which is the centerline of the now-existing road․” Only the defendants Steiner did not assert an easement by grant based upon a “wild” deed.
Prior to trial, plaintiffs reached a settlement with defendants Matsumotos, thereby removing them from this litigation.
All parties waived jury and the matter was tried by the court beginning on June 29, 1981.
After receiving conflicting testimony as to the width of Twin Falls Creek Road, the court viewed the scene and determined the defendants had, together with their predecessor in interest, been in the exclusive and adverse use of 15 feet, which use had been open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile to the true owners for more than 5 years. Accordingly, the court awarded the defendants a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over a strip of land 15 feet wide, the center line of which was the center line of Twin Falls Creek Road.
There are two appeals and one cross-appeal from this judgment. One appeal is by one set of plaintiffs/appellants (Thomson, Wrede and Stalberg); the other is by another set of plaintiffs/appellants (Rogers and Warburton). We will refer to the first one as the “Thomson appeal” and the second as the “Rogers appeal.” Defendants/cross-complainants Dypvik have cross-appealed.
Twin Falls Creek Road runs from Casa Loma Road sequentially through the lands of plaintiffs Rogers and Warburton (sister and brother, hereafter referred to collectively as “Rogers”), Thomson, Stalberg, Wrede, then back onto the lands of Rogers, which is “L” shaped, and then finally into the lands of defendants Matsumotos, Dypvik, Harper, and Fellman, sequentially. At some point while the road is still traversing across the property of Rogers, after having first crossed over the lands of the other plaintiffs, a side road leaves Twin Falls Creek Road and goes to the property of defendants Steiner. There is no other way to get to the defendants'