Volume 19 — New Mexico Reports

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sec. 7, Chap. 54, Laws 1912, which provides that the County Road Funds “shall hereafter be expended under the supervision and direction of the County Road Board, and the methods for making such expenditures and accounting therefor shall be the same as those now or hereafter required by law in the case of expenditures made by the Boards of County Commissioners.” Held. To authorize the County Road Boards to draw their warrants upon the County Treasurers directly against the County Road Fund, in payment of supplies necessary in the construction of public roads, under the same statutory regulations1 now in force controlling the Boards of County Commissioners in disbursing County Funds. P. 7</p> <p>2. Repeals by implication are not favored but will be declared by the courts in cases where “the last statute is 80> broad in its terms and so clear and explicit in its words as to show that it was intended to cover tbe whole subject, and, therefore, to displace the prior statute.” P. 6</p> <p>3. ■ Chapter 54, Laws of 1912, granting to the County Road Boards general powers over public roads'. Held: Not to repeal by implication so much of Chapter 124, Laws of 1905, as empowered Boards of County Commissioners to acquire by purchase or condemnation land for use as a public ! road. P. 7</p> <p>4. A subsequent statute treating a subject in general terms, will not be held to repeal by implication an- earlier statute treating the same subject specifically, unless such construction is absolutely necessary in order to give the subsequent statute effect. P. 6</p> <p>5. Held. That Section 7, Chap. 54, Laws of 1912, does not forbid the Boards of County Commissioners from drawing warrants against the county Road Fund to pay for land acquired for use as a public road, under the provisions of Chapter 124, Laws of 1905. P. 7</p>

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1 In replevin actions a defendant may not only recover the property and damages for the unjust caption or detention thereof, hut shall have judgment, if plaintiff fails to prosecute his suit with effect, for the value of the property taken, and double damages for' the use of the same from the time of delivery, with the option of taking hack the property, or recovering the assessed value thereof.</p> <p>P. 11</p> <p>2 Evidence examined. Held: That there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict for damages.</p> <p>P. 12</p>

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. An indictment for embezzlement under Section 1122,. C. L. 1897, in tbe exact language of tbe statute is sufficiently specific to require no amplification. It is only where the-terms of a statute are so general as to require specification of detail in order to identify a given transaction with' which it is sought to charge a defendant, that the allegations of' an indictment must be expanded beyond the statutory terms. To allege that a person has fraudulently embezzled and converted to his own use the money of another, is to allege that he so did with intent to defraud. To do an act fraudulently is to do it with intent to cheat and defraud.</p> <p>P. 16'.</p> <p>2. A motion for a continuance which fails to allege that the affiant believes in the truth of the facts to he testified to by the absent witness, as .required by Section 2986, C. L. 1897, is properly overruled.</p> <p>P. Iff</p> <p>3. The title to 'money which is contracted to be deposited by the vendee to the credit of one tenant in common, is properly laid in such tenant in common, notwithstanding his co-tenant may be entitled to his share of the fund upon an accounting between them.</p> <p>P. 17</p> <p>4. Where a vendee covenants with a vendor to deposit in a bank to his credit a sum of money pending an investigation of title to the real estate, and attempts to perform-his contract by drawing his check in favor of the bank for the amount, which check and the proceeds thereof are embezzled by the president of the'bank,' and are never so deposited, and where the check is not treated by the parties; as a present deposit of the amount, the title to the check and the proceeds thereof remain the property of the drawer of the check, and an allegation of title to the funds in the vendor is not sustained. P. 21</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County. Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside final decree. Sub-Secs. 145, 154, 157, of Sec. 2685, C. L. 1897; 23 So. 22; 45 Ga. 28; 11 Mo. 438; 70 N. Y. Sup. 819; 23 Eney. 934; 30 Cent. Digest, Secs. 705 to 711, inc.; 70 N. J. L. 185; 56 Atl. 135; 1 How. Pr. N. Y. 14; 110 N. C. 466; 15 S. E. 97.</p> <p>Final decree entered by court on Aug. 5, 1912, before statutory 20 days had elapsed and without notice to appellant was irregular. 3 111. 61, 62.</p> <p>Final decree entered Aug. 5, 1912, is irregular in that it attempts to adjudicate rights of third persons not parties to this action. 117 Pac. 844; 43 M!o. 309; 48 Ky. 39; 23 Cyc. 926; 30 Cent. Digest, Sec. 694; 5 Kan. 90; 117 Wis. 68; 184 H. S. 235; 10 Tex. C. App. 114.</p> <p>Final decree is not supported by the evidence. 16 N. M. 86; 113 Pac. 848; 8 N. M. 67-68; 130 H. S. 482; 4 Ency. L. & P. 679-680.</p> <p>Court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion and setting aside final decree. Cyc. Y. 23, pp. 695-696, 916,917; Sub-Secs. 178, 179, Sec. 2683, C. L. 1897; I Greene (la.) 394; 47 111. 459; 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 205; 3 Edw. (N. Y.) 478; 66 N. C. 381; 1 Ileisk. (Tenn.) 524; Daniel’s Oh. Pr. Y. 2, Perkins Ed., p. 1030.</p> <p>Notice. 114 Inch 560; 25 Fed. Gas. 1140; .75 Ala. 546; 31 Cal. 160; 88 Mo. 37; 47 How. Pr. 1; 34 Ga. 297; 29 111. 553; 86 Md. 335; 78 Md. 231; 8 Ben. H. S. 52; 102 H. S. 263; 9 Fed. 258; 5 Cent. Digest S. 92; 31 Ga. 34; 10 Tex. 525.</p> <p>APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF.</p> <p>Default Judgment. Chap. 26, Laws 1905; Sub-Sec. 137, Sec. 2685, C. L. 1897; 39 Minn. 73; 29 Cal. 424; 38 Pac. 512; 46 la. 262; 99 Cal. 425; 20 Cal. 92; 27 Cal. 99; 78 Cal. 34; 69 la. 710; 8 Hun 65; 30 Cent. Digest, Sec. 233.</p> <p>No decree could have been entered under pleadings without such decree injuring rights of third parties. 184 H. S. 235; Sec. 37, Chap. 57, Laws 1907.</p> <p>Application to open decree not to be entertained on behalf of one not a party to suit. 16 Cye. 507; 19 Cent. Digest, Sec. 1042; 44 111. 494.</p> <p>To Yacate Erroneous Judgment. 11 L. R. A. 372; 17 L. R. A. 606.</p> <p>Duty of Court. Sec. 2999, C. L. 1897; 16 N. M. 81.</p> <p>APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF.</p> <p>Decree. 1 Paige, N. Y. Ch. Rep. 263; 1 Johns. Ch. N. Y., p. 200; 1 Barb. N. Y. Ch., p. 596.</p> <p>"Where there has been no formal service on defendant and court acquires jurisdiction through unauthorized appearance of attorney, defendant will be relieved from any injury he may suffer. Cyc. Y. 4, p. 926.'</p>

Herbert B. Raynolds, Presiding Judge. Authorities all agree that right of a municipality operating a municipal utilit3r to malee reasonable rules and regulations is exactly the same as of private corporation. 88 Pa. 393; 37 S. W. 525; 28 Pac. 516; 72 Am. Dec. '735; 12 Atl. 855; Dillon on Municipal Corporations, Sec. 985; 38 Am. Dec. 672; 4 Wheat. 668, 672; 13 Wend. 331, 338; 9 Wheat. 907; 12 Wheat. 40; 1 Ld.

<p>Appeal from the District Court, Bernalillo County. Herbert F. Raynolds, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>General Rule. 1 Cook Corp. (6th Ed.) p. 8; 9. How. 172; 2 Bam. & Adol. 793; 201 H. S. 171; 15 N. M. 431; 106 C. C. A. 381; 108 C. C. A. 527; Clark on Corp. p. 125.</p> <p>Cases in Point. 61 Pac. 518; 112 S. W. 816; 104 Pac. 670; 224 H. S. 148; 131 S. W. 680.</p> <p>Rights of the City. 88 Pa. 393; 37 S. W. 525; 218 111. 40; 28 Pac. 516; 72 Am. Dec. 736; 12 Atl. 855; 38 Am. Dee. 672; 4 Wheaton, 668-672; 13 Wend. 331-338; 9 Wheat. 907; 12 Wheat. 40; 1 Ld. Bajen. 8; 2 Kent’s Commentaries, 275; 61 Pae. 518; 92 Pac. 533; 104 Pac. 670; 2 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, p. 778; 3 Kent’s Commentaries 433; 90 N. Y. 161; L. B. 4 Q. B. Div. 104; 70 N Y. 361; 104 N. Y. 268; 107 N. Y. 42; 104 N. Y. 229,; C. Ord. 1895, p. 63; C. Ord. 1905, See. 305, p. 152; O. Ord. 1911, Sec. 683.</p> <p>Water mains are owned by water supply company and are laid for the purpose of furnishing water to consumers. Question of taking water from mains by connecting up-service pipes is for consumer at his expense. L. B. 25 Ch. Div. 443; 67 W. Ya. 285; 132 S. W. 288; 66 S. E. 835; 94 Pac. 1080; 79 N. W. 248; 61 N. M. 1030; 79 111. 337; 31 111. App. 118; 38 N. E. 1067; 93 N. W. 542; 90 App. Div. 397; 118 111. 329.; L. B. 25 Ch. Div. 443; 67 W. Ya. 285; 61 N. W. 1030; 79 N W. 249, 252; 28 N. E. 1067; 2 Wall 728, 737; 6 Wall 773; 7 Wall 229, 245; 9 Wall 50, 54; 11 Wall 566, 576; 122 IT. S. 121, 131; 124 IT. S. 505, 510; 147 IT. S. 91, 99; 154 IT. S. 51, 95; 164 U. S. 261, 270; 206 IT. S. 206; 179 IT. S. 415, 535; 95 IT. S. 269, 273; 95 U. S. 273; 179 IT. S. 435; 206 IT. S. 222.</p> <p>Franchise. 98 Md. 589; 110 La. 517; 142 Pa. St. 580; 61 Kan. 547, 558; 174 N. Y. 417; 107 Wis. 441, 446.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Torrance County. Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Taxes. Cooley on Taxation, p. 527; Yol. 37 Cyc. pp. 1170-1; Yol. 23 Cyc., Sec. D, p. 681; Yol. 12 Ene. Pie. and Pc. p. 179; Abbott’s Trial Brief, Yol. 11, p. 976.</p> <p>Construction of Statute. Lewis’ Sutherland Stat. Construction, Yol. 2, p. 852; 13 Ohio St. Rep. 458, 465; 2 Mass. 136; Lewis’ Sutherland Stat. Con. pp. 910, 915.</p>

Thomas D. Leib, Presiding Judge. Statutes imposing stockholders’ liability are not penal statutes, but contractual in nature. 98 Pa. St. 505; 40 Ohio St. 507; 2 Wall 10. Statutes creating individual liability should be construed remedially, so as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. 8 Ga. 468; 2 Edw. (N. Y.) 304; 1 R. I. 376; 5 Fed. Cas. No. 2485; 3 Am. St. Rep. 836.

Herbert F. Ravnolds, Presiding Judge; Maximum Bate. 36 So. 63-64; 4 N. Y. 270; 50 Fed. 768; 9 Cyc. p. 590. Where meaning of words used is plain and not ambiguous there is no room for construction, and it is duty of court to enforce the contract as it finds it. 170 IT. S. 272-280; 175 IT. S. 588-606.

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. A rule adopted by a water supply company, engaged in supplying water, under a franchise, to a city and its inhabitants, which provides that all bills shall be paid monthly, within a reasonable time after they become due, and in case such payment is not so made, the water will be turned off for' non-payment and a charge of one dollar made for turning- off and turning on the same, is reasonable and not discriminatory, and may be enforced by the company.</p> <p>P. 73</p>

Medler, Presiding Judge.. Injunction to, restrain the commission of crime will not lie. Bislr. New Crom. Proc., Secs. 1412 and 1415; High-on Injunc., 2nd Ed., Sec. 20; 22 Cjrc. 775; Id. 902; 158 H. S. 564. Protection against forfeiture of water rights by nonuser. Sec: 42, Chap. 49, Laws 1907; 13 N. M. 147; Sec. 11, C. L. 1897; Sub-Sec. 40, Sec. 2685, 2947, C. L. 1897; 31 Cyc. 1268.

<p>Appeal from the District Court, Bernalillo County; Herbert F. Rajmolds, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>A sale cannot be decreed where a partition in kind is legally possible. Sub-Secs. 266, 271, 272, Chap. 107, Laws of 1907; 76 Fed. 58-59; 24 Pac. 164; 3 Pomeroy Eq. Jurisp., Sec. 1390; 81 Pac. St. 123; 99 Am. St. Rep. 220; 57 Am. Dec. 198; 40 La. Ann. 571; 19 Wend. 226; 37 N. C. 607; 5 N. Y. Supp. 749; 41 Conn. p. 12; 6 App. D. C. 484; 72 Pac. 933; 2 Barb. 599; 113 Am. St. Rep. 151; Knapp on Partition, pp. 326-6; 2 Barb. 599; 10 Paige Ch. 470.</p> <p>Burden of showing necessity for sale, rather than a partition by metes and bounds, is on him who seeks sale. 59 W. Ya. 353; 6 App. D. C. 484; 26 G-ratt 517; 72 Pac. '933; 30 So. 257; 53 S. E. 466; 37 N. C. 607; 69 N. C. 522; 49 Conn. 517; 37 N. C. 607; 11 Heisk (Tenn.) 699; 3 So. 581; Freeman on Co-tenancy and Partition, Sec. 537, .p. 713.</p> <p>In partition in kind, land will be awarded to party whose land it adjoins. 21 A. & Eng. Ency. L. (2 Ed.) 1164-5; 33 Fed. 397; 24 R. I. 222; 30 Cyc. 257; 21 N. J. Eq. 311; 1 Youngs & C. 538; 7 B. Mon. 90; 8 Bush. 334; 60 Neb. 464.</p> <p>This is not a case for payment of owelty. 2 Bouvier’s Law Die. 343; 30 Cyc. 361, 362; 96 Am. St. Bep. 711.</p> <p>Commissioners appointed by court under provisions of' Chapter 107 of Laws 1907 were without authority to make a report setting forth prejudice to estate by partition and equalizing same by allowance of owelty to defendant. 49 Am. St. Bep. 931; 110 N W. 531; 115 Am. St. Bep. 799; 112 Am. St. Bep. 356; 99 S. W. 216; 85 S. W. 110; 33 Atl. 1073; 55 la. 235; 6 Paige 545; 57 Am. Dec. 198;. 57 N. E. 796; 79 Pac. 242; 48 Atl. 269; 5 N. T. Supp. 749.</p> <p>The property should be sold where report of commissioners shows that a partition would be to the manifest injury of owners or proprietors thereof. 144 Mo. 348;: 110 N. W. 931; 40 Wis. 357.</p> <p>Beport of commissioners affirmatively established right of defendant to have property sold. 40 Wis.'357.</p> <p>Form of report of commissioners does not express their obvious meaning and should be reformed to do so. 30 Cyc.. 266; Chap. 107, Art. 15, Sub-Sec. 266, Laws 1907.</p> <p>STATEMENT OF FACTS.</p> <p>Action for partition between appellant, plaintiff below,, and appellee, defendant below, owners as tenants in common of lots 13 and 14, Block 2, Perea Addition'to Albuquerque, New Mexico. The plaintiff sought a partition in kind; the defendant asked for a sale of the lots.</p> <p>Commissioners were appointed to make the partition and reported that the property consisted of two unimproved lots of no appreciable difference in value; that sold together they would bring '$100-00 more than if sold' separately; that plaintiff was the owner of lots adjoining-lot 13, on which she had valuable improvements; they recommended that lot 14 be set over to the defendant and that lot 13 be set over to the plaintiff and that plaintiff pay the defendant the sum of $50.00 as damages.</p> <p>Both parties excepted to the report of the commissioners and the judgment of the court which divided the property and decreed the payment of damages as recommended by the commissioners and both parties appealed.</p>

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Between the two offenses, murder in the second degree and voluntary manslaughter, the drunkenness of the offender forms no legitimate matter of inquiry; if the killing is unlawful and voluntary, and without deliberate premeditation, the offense is murder in the second degree, malice being implied, unless the provocation were of such character as would reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter, for which offense a drunken man is equally responsible as a sober one.</p> <p>P. 102</p> <p>2. Where a defendant, charged with first degree murder, .relies upon the defense of intoxication for the purpose of reducing the grade of the offense to murder in the second ■degree, he is not required to establish the fact of his intoxication, or, that at the time he inflicted the fatal injuries he was so deeply intoxicated as to be incapable of forming in his mind a deliberate premeditated design to do the killing, beyond a reasonable doubt. All that he is required to •do, is to introduce such evidence as will raise in the minds •of the jurors a reasonable doubt as to such facts in order to reduce the grade of the offense to murder in the second «degree.</p> <p>P. 104</p> <p>3. It is improper for the court, in the trial of a criminal ■case, to permit the district attorney to ask witnesses if he, the district attorney, did not instruct said witnesses not to talk to anyone about the cause, and if they did not, in violation of such instructions, talk to the attorney for the defendant about the 'facts in the case; and, where the court •erroneously permits such questions to be asked and answered, it should, upon request, instruct the jury that the district attorney had no right to forbid witnesses talking to the attorney for the defendant, about the facts in the case, or to enforce such an order. P. 108</p> <p>4. Where mere descriptive language is inadequate to convey to the jury the precise facts, or their bearing on the issue, the description by the witness must of necessity be allowed to be supplemented by his opinion in order to put the jury in a position to make the final decision of the facts. Held, that the court erroneously withdrew from the jury a statement by a witness, that the defendant and deceased appeared to be perfectly friendly toward each other five minutes before the killing.</p> <p>P. 112</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Eddy County; Colin Neblett. Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Error in Giving Improper Instruction. 53 D. R. A., p. 446; 56 D. R. A., p. 446;. L. R. A. New S., p. 660; A. & Eng. Cyc. L., Yol. II, 254.</p> <p>There is no bill of exceptions included in record. 15 N. M. 247;. 131 Pac. 489.</p> <p>STATEMENT OP PACTS.</p> <p>The appellant, Antonio Valencia, was tried for the murder of Simon Rodriguez, at the January term, 1913, •of the district court for Eddy County, and found guilty of murder in the first degree.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Chaves Count}7; John T. McClure, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>First Assignment of Error. Secs. 2412, 2471, C. L. 1897; See. 115 A. & E. Enel. L., Yol. 21, p. 957; 29 Cyc. p. 1692; 127 Mass. 408; 110 Mass. .433, 437; 28 Pac. Rep. 460; 14 N. W. Rep. 975; 5 Watts 172; 104 Mo. App. 595; 20 A. & E. L., p. 1161; 28 Cyc. 664-666; 20 A. & E. Enc. 1161; Sec. 305, Yol. 1, Dillon Mun. Corp. (5th Eel.); 31 Ala. 542; 28- Ga.- 50; 8 Mich. 458; 66 Ind. 396; 28 Ga. 50; 43 Ga. 67; 39 N. J. Eq. 367; 24-La. Ann. 412; la. Sup. Ct. 1873; 8 Mich. 458; 28 Cyc., pp. 638-7.</p> <p>Meeting of Payments. 28 Cyc. 674; 38 Am. Rep. 97; 62 Minn. 509.</p> <p>Court erred in instructing jury to return verdict in favor of defendant on count of quantum meruit. Bates PI. Pr. Parties & Forms Yol. 3, p. 2689; 107 TJ. S. 348; 87 Fed. 829; 98 Fed. 549; 20 A. & E. Ene. L., p. 1163.</p> <p>Law. 49 Pac. 898; Chaps. 37, 78, L. 1899; Chap. 33, L. 1901; Chap. 117, L. 1909; 129 Pac. 64-3.</p> <p>Municipal contracts involving creation of debts cannot be made without provision of payment. 92 N. W. 643; 86 N. W. 726; 60 N. E. 490; 64 Atl. 367; 85 N. Y. Supp. 130; 91 N. W. 855; 81 N. W. 509; 91 N. W. 496; 85 N. W. 1132; 36 Pac. 844.</p> <p>Quantum Meruit. 82 Pac. 601; Phillips Code PL, Sec. 97; 117 Fed. 51; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp. (3rd Ed.) Sec. 89; 51 Fed. 209; 139 TL S. 24; 84 N. W. 822; 84 N. W. 1027; 38 Pac. 682; 48 Atl. 477'; 62 Pac. 84.</p> <p>Appellant entitled to no judgment because purported ordinance on which right of recovery is predicated was not legally adopted by appellee. 98 N. W. 493.</p>

Merritt C. Mechem, Presiding Judge. Court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss writ of certiorari. Secs. 63, 64, 65, Chap. 49, Sess. Laws 1907. Court erred in holding that decision of State Engineer was not final in this case. Yol. 2, Ene. PI. & Pr., p. 16; Yol. 2 Cyc., p. 868. Appellant bound by grounds of motion. Yol. 2, Cyc. 666, YII; 78 N W. 847. Rule of testing writ of notice. Elliott on Appl. Proc., Secs. 170-171; 14 H. S. 436; 14 N. M. 20.

<p>Appeal from District Court, San Miguel Conffiy. David J. Leahy, Presiding- Judge.</p> <p>Proceeding suit against State of New Mexico. Art. 14 of Const., Sec. 1.</p> <p>Useless for court to render judgment against defendant. 34 S. E. Rep. 617; 52 Pac. Rep. 921; 38 S. E. Rep.. 131.</p> <p>Statute treats appellant as individual. Sec. 3615 C. L. 1897; 58 S. E. Rep. 752; 43 la. 140; 66 N. W. Rep. 234; 45 N. Y. Supp. 887; 23 N. E. Rep. 752; 29 Pac. Rep. 759.</p> <p>Action for damages for wrongful discharge. Sutherland on Dam., Yol. 2, p. 472; 7 Wis. 355; 61 Mo. 534; 95 Eed. 296; 12 S. W. Rep. 975; 26 S. W. Rep. 1113; 24 Ala. 194; 89 N. Y. 527; 101 111. App. 140; 62 N. W. Rep. 120; 31 N. Y. Supp. 667; 34 Atl. Rep. 4; 30 Atl. Rep. 1125; 64- Pac. Rep. 135; 173 U. S. 1; 31 N. Y. Supp. 667. Custom of courts. 61 Mo. 534.</p> <p>Right of Appellant to remove appellee. Secs. 3612, 3615,. 3611, 3574, C. L. 1897; Mechem on Public Officers, Sec. 454; Yol. 29 Cyc., p. 408; 135 U. S. 240; 182 U. S. 419; 13 Peeters (U. S.) 230 (261); 77 Pac. Rep. 222; 58 N. W. Rep. 1042; 21 Wis. 502; 32 Pa. St. Rep. 478; 51 111. 110; 25 La. Ann. Rep. 119; 36 Pac. Rep. 281; 59 Pac. Rep. 702; 81 Pac. Rep. 674; 7 Cal. 97; 69 'Pac. Rep. 255; 66 N. W. Rep. 234; 38 Pac. Rep. 14; 34 Pac. Rep. 981; 92 N. Y. 191; 45 N. Y. Supp. 887; 21 N. E. Rep. 949; 50 N. W. Rep. 809; 14 Fla. 220; 58 S. E. Rep. 762; 46" N. J. L. 344; 24 Tex. 253; 56 So. Rep. 211; 35 S. E. Rep. 6; 92 N. E. Rep. 486; 104 S. W. Rep. 766; 71 S. E„ Rep. 795; 56 Pac. 737.</p> <p>Contractual power. 91 Pac. 459; 97 Pac. 1003; 35' Cal. 576; 138 Fed. 96; 110 Mo. 254; 68 Fed. 787; 85 Fed. 27; 74 Conn. 257; 127 H. S. 300; 31 N. E. 827.</p> <p>Kule that public employment, held at pleasure of appointing power, may be terminated at any time lias no' application to this case. 135 H. S. 240; 128 H. S. 419; 21 Wis. 502; 90 111. 186; 25 La. Ann. 119; 36 Pac. 281;. 59 Pac. 702; ¿6 N W. 234; 38 Pac. 14; 34 Pac. 98; 92 N. Y. 191; 50 N. W. 809; 11 So. 845; 14 Fla. 220; 58 S. E. 762; 46 N J. L. 344; 24 Tex. 253.</p> <p>Fact that appointing power has right of removal does not preclude making of contract of employment, and the period of employment may exceed term of office of appointing body. 39 Atl. 335; 102 Minn. 142; 67 N. Y. 36; 196 Mass. 539; 37 Pac. 282; 29 N. E. 385; 36 Mont. 188; 40 Pac. 475; 147 Fed. 1; 21 Kan. 223; 77 Pac. 372; 58 N. W. 1042; 43 la. 140; 45 N. Y. Supp. 887; 15 111. 110.</p> <p>Character of insane asylum as state institution does not prevent bringing this action. 97 Ky. 458; 56 S. W. 525; 43 L. E. A. 703; 34 S. E. 617; 38 S. E. 131; 6 Okla. 593.</p> <p>Court did not err in striking out Paragraphs 1-6 of second defense in appellant’s answer. 29 N. E. 385.</p> <p>Court did not err in allowing damages for contract period, extending past day of trial. 62 N. W. 120; 178 H. S. 1; 173 H. S. 1; 163 Mass. 95; 31 Vt. 582; 112 Mich.. 648; 55 L. E. A. 170; 163 Mass. 95. •</p> <p>STATEMENT OF FACTS.</p> <p>On the 6th day of September, 1910, the Board of Directors of the New Mexico Insane Asylum entered into a written contract with the appellee herein, by the terms of which said appellee was employed as Medical Superintendent of said Asylum for the term of five years, at a stated compensation.</p> <p>Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Dr. Smith gave up a lucrative, practice in East Las Yegas, moved to the Asylum, and faithfully performed all his duties under the contract, until September 9, 1912, when the appellant ■board refused to allow him to perform them further. On the 3rd day of the same month, the Board of Directors ■of said Institution passed the following resolution: “Whereas, In the judgment of the Board of Directors ■of the Insane Asylum of Las Yegas, New Mexico, it is to the best interest of said institution that a change should be made in the position of physician and medical superintendent of said institution; therefore, be it</p> <p>“Kesolved, By the board, that the present physician and medical superintendent, II. M. Smith, be and he hereby is removed from said position as physician and medical superintendent of the insane asylum, such removal to take ■effect upon the adoption of the resolution.”</p> <p>On the same date and at the same meeting the president of the board nominated Dr. William Porter Mills, of Las Yegas, for the position pf physician and medical •superintendent of 'said asylum, which said nomination was then and there ratified by the Board of Directors.</p> <p>Shortly after being ousted from such employment, Dr. Smith instituted this suit, to recover damages, for breach •of said contract by the board. The appellant demurred to the complaint, which was overruled by the court; thereupon it filed an answer to the merits. Thereupon the •case was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury and a judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee in the sum of $970.00, together fith costs of suit and interest. Prom such judgment this appeal is prosecuted.</p>

<p>Error to District Court,. Sandoval Countjr, Herbert FEaynolds, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Error to District Court, Sandoval County, Herbert F. Eaynolds, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Assignment 2 of Error, Secs. 29, 35, Chap. 49, S. L. 1907.</p> <p>Eight to Water Independent of Ownership in Land-Vol. 1, 3rd Ed. Weil’s Water Eights; Western States, Sec-281, pp. 294-5; Id. Sec. 282, pp. 297-8; 110 Am. St. Bep. 986; 76 Pae. 331; 6 Col. 443; 91 Am. Dec. 554.</p> <p>Assignment 5. Secs. 2, 29 and 35, Chap- 49, L. 1907;. Yol. 1, 3rd Ed., Weil, Sec. 384.</p> <p>Assignment 7. Yol. 1, 3rd Ed. Weil, p. 414. Assignment 10. L. 1905, Chap. 22, Sec. 102; L. 1907, Chap- 49, Secs. 72, 73; Chaps. 109, 128, 140, L. 1909.</p> <p>Power to limit those who attempt to appropriate water under Laws of New Mexico. Chap. 49, L. 1907, Secs. 27,. 29, 35.</p>

Baynolds, Presiding Judge. Court erred in denying appellant’s challenge - for cause of juror. 45 Kan. 492; 29 Neb. 437; 9 Wash. 204; 32 Neb. 167. Court erred in permitting witnesses to testify as to visit of Mrs. Colbert to California and return of child before she returned. 7 Wen. 560; 5 Johns 211; 34 N. W., p. 30; 73 N. Y. Supp. 245; 76 N. Y. Supp. 498; 33 Me. 322; 37 Pa. St. 120; 5 Dana (Ky.) 315; 50 Fed. 399.

Mechem, Presiding Judge. Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Sec. 14, Chap. 57, Sess. L. 1907; Chap. 57, Sec. 16, Sess. Acts 1907. Failure to comply with any plain statutory requirement with reference to undertaking on appeal, goes to court’s jurisdiction on subject and will necessitate dismissal. Sec. 14, Chap. 57, L. 1907; Spelling on New Trial & App. Pr., Secs- 647, 661; 134 Pac. 216; 1 Eney.

<p>Error to District Court, San Juan County, Edmund C. Abbott, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Valuation. 70.Pac. 603; 105 D. S. 45; S. C. 36th Law Ed- 135.</p> <p>SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF.</p> <p>Motion to Permit Plaintiff to File Cost Bond. 138 Pac. 300.</p> <p>Motion that writ of error issued be quashed and action dismissed.' 136 Pac. 216; 24 Pac. 2.</p> <p>REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF.</p> <p>Motion to quash writ. 94 Pac. 945; 124 Pac. 2.</p>

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Where the complaint in an action for rescission of an executed contract'for the sale of land alleges that the title to a certain portion of the land transferred to the plaintiff has failed and this failure of title is admitted hy the answer, which answer also sets up and alleges that the plaintiff took possession with full knowledge of the state of the title, that he has held the land in question three years before bringing suit, that he has offered to sell some of it, exercised complete dominion over the same, made improvements thereon, and that he is estopped to claim recission hy reason of laches; in such a state of the pleadings it is not error on the part of the trial judge to deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings as the allegations in the pleadings raise issues to be passed upon hy the court.</p> <p>P. 181</p> <p>2. In a case for rescission of an executed contract of sale, in which the defendant gave the plaintiff a warranty deed, the trial court, failing to find either fraud, mutual mistake or other equitable grounds for rescission, properly holds that the plaintiff relied upon his covenants of title in the conveyance and properly refuses to grant rescission.</p> <p>P. 182</p> <p>3. Where in a suit for recission of an executed contract for sale of land, in which the defendant grantor had given the plaintiff grantee a warranty deed under which plaintiff went into possession and held same for three years, with knowledge of the state of the title, made improvements, attempted to sell portions of the land, and exercised complete dominion over the same, and where the trial court finds as a fact that if there were misrepresentations as to the character or kind of land plaintiff could have discovered them within one year and is guilty of laches, — in such a case the plaintiff is not entitled to rescission but can only recover upon tbe covenants in bis deed.</p> <p>P. 183</p>

Leib, Presiding Judge. BRIEF OF GARNISHEE. Affidavit. 6 Tex. 315; 49 S. W. 774; 12 N M. 460-473. In hands of garnishee, money was no longer property of defendant, but had been assigned to third parties. 86 111. App. 364. General Rule in Garnishment Proceedings. 7 Ind. 348; 7 111. 546; 15 111. 90; 19 W. Va. 115; 13 Vt. 133; 16 Mass. 522; 35 Cal. 385-386; 64 Wis. 662; 2 N. H. 375; Id. 439. Plaintiff’s Right. 8 Ky. L. Rep. 62; Cent. Digest, Yol. 24. Garnishee Not Liable. Am.

<p>Appeal from District Court of McKinley County; Merritt C. Meehem, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Plaintiff was entitled to recovery under specific terms of policy. 9 Cyc. 320; 1 Fed. Stat. Ann. 31; 132 U. S. 188; 34 N. J. L. 371, 376; Yance on Ins. 565, 566; 15 L. R. A. 142; 1 Cyc. 252; 49 111. 180; 88 N. E. 658, 661: 76 S. W. 832; 93 N. W. 22; 59 Pac. 651;'43 S. W. 709; 103 la. 178; 40 N. W. 839; 79 Neb. 20; 34 N. J. L. 371; 71 N. W. 601; 76 Fed. 705; 138 Fed. 629.</p> <p>Motion for new trial and assignments of error not sufficient to properly raise questions argued by counsel. 6 Wheat., p. 603; 14 How., p. 218; 9 N. ML 344; C. 1196, Yol. 3, Cent. Digest; p. 775, Yol. 1, Pac. Rep. Digest.</p> <p>Judgment of District Court in directing verdict was right. 122 Pac. St. 579; Bish. on Contracts, Secs. 382, 384; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 7th Ed., p. 501.</p> <p>REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT.</p> <p>Policy marked Exhibit A covered accident that befell deceased. 15 N. M. 304; 102 Pa. 89, 262; 32 N. Y. 405; 13 L. E. A. 263.</p> <p>Trial Court correct in holding that deceased was insured by policy at time .of death. 9 Am. St. Eep. 147; 1 Cyc. 243; 22 Cyc. 1428, 1445-1446; 1 Cyc. 241, 242; 55 Mich. 141; 54 Am. Eep. 354; 89 Tenn. 427; 73 S. W. 978; 80 S. W. 181; 72 Miss. 333; C. L. 1897, Sec. 3074.</p> <p>BRIEF ON REHEARING.</p> <p>The words “during the continuance of his said employment” include times when employes was off duty as well as when on duty. 15 L. E. A. 142; 49 111. 180. ,</p> <p>ANSWER TO REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT. Plaintiff not entitled to judgment upon any theory. 106 IT. S. 30, 32; 54 Am. Eep- 354; 10 Ency. of Ev. 6; 31 Cyc., p. 1218.</p> <p>STATEMENT OF FACTS.</p> <p>This action was instituted by Edward Bass, as administrator of the estate of C. Gordon Bass, who was killed by an engine at a railroad crossing near Gallup, New Mexico, on October 9th, 1911.</p> <p>The complaint set up a liability against the defendant insurance company based upon a blanket accident policy, the essential provisions of which are as follows: “UNITED STATES OP AMEEIOA</p> <p>“No. 4804. $400.00</p> <p>OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSUEANCE COMPANY.</p> <p>Age........................ Premium $.....................</p> <p>Albuquerque, New Mexico.</p> <p>(Called the company)</p> <p>In consideration of the payment of the premiums, as specified in the agreements issued in connection with this policy, and subject to the conditions and privileges contained herein;</p> <p>I-IEEEBY INSUEES each of the subscribers to said agreement (called the Insured) from SEVEN A. M. of the day said subscriber enters the employment of the Diamond Coal Company, (called the employer) until SIX p. m. of the day said subscriber terminates his employment with said employer.</p> <p>AGAINST the results during the continuance of this policy caused solely by external, violent and accidental means, producing a visible external mark upon the body, such cause producing such mark hereinafter being called accident;</p> <p>And promises to pay as hereinafter set forth;</p> <p>TOTAL LOSS BENEFITS, Section I.</p> <p>(a) . If any of the total losses in'the following table of total loss benefits shall result from such accident within 90 days from the happening of such accident, the Company will pay, in lieu of any other, indemnity:</p> <p>FOR )</p> <p>LOSS ) 1 life .......................................:..............................................:$400.00</p> <p>OF ) 2 ****** :</p> <p>Benefits for loss of life shall be payable to the heirs, administrators or assigns, as provided in the attachment • agreement. ******</p> <p>' GENERAL CONDITIONS.</p> <p>WRITTEN NOTICE of any injury must be furnished to the Company at Albuquerque, New Mexico, within ten days from date of accident. Affirmative proof of any injury, loss of sight or other disability must be furnished to the Company within one month from the date of death, loss of limb or sight, or the termination of disability. .</p> <p>THE COMPANY’S Medical Adviser shall have the right and opportunity to examine the person of the Insured in event of any claim under this policy, when and as often as required.</p> <p>LEGAL PROCEEDINGS under this policy shall not be brought until Two months after the date of furnishing such affirmative proof, nor brought at all unless begun within eight months from time of death} loss of limb or sight or the termination of the disability.</p> <p>THE RIGHT to make a claim for any one of the above specified, results of any accident shall exclude all other claims based upon the same' accident.</p> <p>THE COMPANY shall have the right to cancel this policy at any time by 'giving mitten notice to the employer of their intention; such cancellation to be effective on the last day of the same month in which such notice is given.”</p> <p>The agreement referred to in the policy is'as follows:</p> <p>“THIS CONTRACT, Made this 13th day of March, 1911, between the undersigned employee, hereinafter re ferred to as ‘The Subscriber/ and THE DIAMOND COAL COMPANY, hereinafter referred to as ‘The -Employer/ WITNESSETH:</p> <p>WHEREAS, The said employer is a corporation engaged in the business of mining coal in New Mexico, and the subscriber is an employee in carrying on said work, and whereas said emjdoyee and said employer desire to protect themselves respectively against loss occasioned by accidents in carrying on said work, NOW THEREFORE IT IS AGREED:</p> <p>1. In event that said subscriber shall meet with accident during the continuance of his said employment, said subscriber shall be paid, by the Occidental Life Insurance Company, such benefits as are specified in the Policy No. 4804, provided, said Policy is in force, of said Company which policy is hereby made a part of this agreement.</p> <p>2. In consideration of the above benefits, said s\ibscriber authorizes a deduction of ONE DOLLAR AND A HALF from his wages for each month or part of a month' while in such employment, by said employer, and said employer agrees to collect and pay the amounts so provided to be retained to said Occidental Life Insurance Company.</p> <p>In further consideration of said benefits, said subscriber, for himself and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, releases said employer from any further liability whatsoever for any accident which said subscriber may meet with during the term of his said employment, and authorizes said Occidental Life Insurance Company to pay to said employer, out of money due under said Policy, any expense or liability incurred by said employer on account of hospital service necessarily rendered because of such accident.</p> <p>(No. 270) IN WITNESS WHEEEOE, the said employee, designated herein as the subscriber, has hereunto set his hand the day and year first above 'written.</p> <p>J. A. Kennedy, C. G. Bass, Witness. Employee.”</p> <p>At the close of the trial both plaintiff and defendant move for a directed verdict.</p> <p>The motion of the defendant was granted, by the trial court, upon the ground that the deceased was not in the employ of the company at the time of the accident, or, for the reason, as stated by counsel, that deceased was not engaged in mining coal and was not killed while in the pursuit of his employment.</p> <p>A motion for a new trial having been overruled, this appeal was taken.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Santa Fe County. David J. Leahy, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>No bids conform to requirements of Chap. 58 of Laws of New Mexico of year 1912. Sec. 4, Chap. 58, L. 1912.</p> <p>Chap. 58 unconstitutional. Art. 4, Sec. 29, Const, of New Mexico; Art. 9, Sec. 8, Const. New Mexico; Art. 4, See. 29 Id.; Sec. 5, Chap. 58, L. 1912. -</p> <p>Bid of Kelly & Kelly is in full of compliance with ■statute. Chap. 3, L. 1907.</p> <p>Statute meets constitutional requirement as to provision for interest in Sinking Fund. Chap. 42, L. 1909, Sec. 8; Sec. 5, Act 1912; Sec. 211, 5th Ed., Dillon on Mun. Corp.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Union County; Thomas D. Leib, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Does Petition State Canse of Action? L. E. 4 Q. B. 706; L. E. -3, C. P. 1; 45 Oreg. 414; Crqswell on Electricity, Sec. 457; 11 Colo. App. 328; 169 111. 610; 107 la. 356; 75 Tex. 531; 57 Eed. 471; 2 Old. 234; 154 H. S. 1; 97 Tex. 219; 141 Eed. 522; 7 Col. 499; 100 Eed. 561.</p> <p>Sixteenth Error Assigned. 100 Mass. 40; 74 111. App. 10.5.</p> <p>Twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh and twenty-ninth errors assigned. 22 Eed. Cas. No. 13275, p. 1030.</p> <p>Petition States Cause of Action. 2 C. P. Div. 62; 5 Mont. Leg. News 87; 25 L. C. J. 248; A. & E. Ene. L., 1st Ed., Yol. 25, p. 285; pp. 825, 826, 827 Id.; 3 Sutherland on Dam. 314; 25 A. & E. Corp. Cases 559; 110 N. Y. 403; 52 Ind. 1; 11 Sawyer 28; Bigelow on Torts, '602; 21 N. E. 4; 7 Am. St. Eep. 530; 112 Mass. 90; 25 A. & E. Ene. L., 826-27; 21 N. E. 4; 5 N. M. 308; Wliart. on Negligence 557; 110 N. Y. 403; 52 Ind. 1; 11 Sawyer 28; 28 L. E. A. 72; 64 L. E. A. 545; 72 S. W..232; Allen’s Telegraph Cases 455; Gray Com. by. Telegram, See. 73; 139 N. W. 552; 24 L. E. A. 1045; 139 N. W. 552; 109 Eed. 369; 6 Am. Eep. 140; 39 N. W. 315; 57 N. W. 696.</p> <p>The Pleadings. Ill 111. 400; 35 N. E. 534; 45 N. E. 161; Yol. 14, Ene. P. & P. 337; 22 N. E. 134; 107 Ind. 442; 39 N. E. 885; 14 Ene. P & P. 337; 112 Mass. 90; 7 Col. 499; 100 Eed. 561.</p> <p>Sixteenth Error Assigned. 100 Mass. 40; 74 111. App. 105.</p> <p>Seventh Error Assigned. Sec. 180, 'Jones on Ev., p. 388; 65 L. E. A. 811.</p> <p>Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, Twenty-sixth, Twenty-seventh Errors Assigned. 18th Ene. P. & P., 134, 130.</p> <p>Eeply Briéf of Appellant.</p> <p>Pleadings. 5 N. M. 308; 110 N. Y. 403; 52 Ind. 1; 23 Fed. 315; 21 N. E. 4; 7 Am. St. 530; 112 Mass. 90; 5 N M. 308; 57 N. W. 696; 28 L. E. A. 72; 64 L. E. A. 545; 72 S. W. 232; 139 N. W. 552; 24 L. E. A. 1045; 141 Fed. 522; 39 N. W. 315; 6 Am. Eep. 140.</p> <p>STATEMENT OP PACTS.</p> <p>On the morning of the 14th day of April, 1911, the day operator of the appellant company at Clayton, New Mexico, delivered two telegrams to the appellee, both purporting to be signed by the First National Bank of Monticello, Illinois, one of which directed appellee to sign the appearance bond of Charles W. Lanier, in the sum of $2,000, the said Lanier then being in the custody of the sheriff of Union County, on a criminal charge; the other directing it to pay Lanier $600. Prior to the delivery of the telegrams the said Lanier had been permitted, under the care of a guard, to go around the town and he had frequently visited the appellant’s office, and was in said office the night previous. While there, on that occasion, the evidence discloses that he sent a telegram, for the agent, while he was engaged in other work which took him outside the office, reserving a Pullman berth for. some person, who had requested the agent to wire for the same; upon the return of the agent, Lanier informed him that he had made the reservation, and that he.had also taken two telegrams which came in, and hung them on the hook. There was, however, no evidence showing whether the telegrams so delivered, were the ones which Lanier said he had taken for the operator. Appellee, bank, placed to Lanier’s credit the sum of $600, and caused the bond to be executed, as requested in the telegrams. The bank paid out, on checks issued by Lanier, the sum of $512.50, during banking hours on the 14th day of April. In the afternoon of said day Lanier left town. Later it was discovered that the telegrams were forgeries, and Lanier was subsequently re-arrested in Kansas, and returned to the sheriff of Union County. Ninety dollars was found on Lanier’s person at the time he was apprehended, which the bank applied to the payment of a reward which it had offered for his apprehension, the bank subsequently obtaining an order from Lanier to the sheriff to turn such money over to the bank.</p> <p>The appellee filed its complaint against the appellant, for the recovery of the sum of $512.50. It is alleged that on the 14th day of April, 1911, the appellant delivered to it the following telegram:</p> <p>• “Dated, Monticello, 111. 13. “To the Bank of Commerce, Clayton.</p> <p>“Please pajr Charles W. Lanier Six Hundred Dollars. We remit.</p> <p>“FIRST NATIONAL BANK.”</p> <p>That the telegram was not delivered to the defendant company by the First National Bank of Monticello, Illinois, as said telegram purported to have been, and the complaint contained additional allegations showing that such telegram was a forged and fraudulent message. The complaint also alleged that appellee, relying upon the authenticity of such telegram, paid to said Lanier the sum of $512.50, or that it paid out upon his orders such sum. As no complaint is made as to the. statement of appellee’s loss in the complaint, we will omit further reference thereto. The complaint concluded .with .a prayer for judgment against appellant for the sum of $512.50, together with interest thereon and costs.</p> <p>Appellant answered the complaint, and by its first paragraph of answer challenged the sufficiency of the complaint, upon the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. By additional paragraphs it denied the delivery of the message, and, also alleged that 'appellee was guilty of contributory negligence in not having such teelgram repeated. The other allegations of the complaint were denied.</p> <p>When appellee’s first witness was called appellant objected to the introduction of any evidence on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, which objection was overruled by the court. Upon the conclusion of the evidence the court instructed the jury that if they returned a verdict for the plaintiff, they must credit tlie defendant with the ninety dollars recovered by the plaintiff from Lanier upon his arrest against the $512.50 which the plaintiff claimed it had paid out on Lanier’s checks. The jury returned a verdict for the full amount claimed, viz: $512.50. The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, based upon numerous grounds, one being that the verdict was the result of passion and bias on the part of the jury, as appeared from the fact that the jury re- ' fused to be bound by the instruction of the court with reference to the ninety dollars’ credit. The court announced that it would be obliged to set aside the verdict unless the ninety dollars was remitted by the plaintiff, but, if that amount were remitted it would overrule the motion and enter judgment on the verdict. Appellee thereupon filed its written consent to a reduction of the verdict to $422.50 and the motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant saved an exception. The court then ■entered judgment on the verdict and ■ defendant appealed.</p>

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Where one is in quiet and paeeable possession of land' belonging to the United States Government, and he is ousted by an intruder, he may maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer, under the provisions of Section 3345, C. L. 1897, even though his possession and occupancy of the land may have been in violation of law and without right, as the. inquiry in such cases is confined to the question of the actual peaceable possession of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether rightful or wrongful, and the ouster of plaintiff by defendant.</p> <p>P. 232-</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Union County, Thomas D„ Leib, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Evidence in Eecord. 14 N M. 432, 117.</p> <p>Question for Jury. 1 A. & E. Ene. L., 2nd Ed., 1195; 8 Stand. Proc. 704.</p> <p>Objection and Exception of Appellant Do Not Avail. 2 N. M. Eep., p. 448; 8 Ene. P. & P. 262, 263; 21 Enc. P. & P., pp. 1007, 1018; 31 Cyc. 1452; 101 N. W. 950; 23 Am. Eep. 184.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Santa Fe County, Edmund C. Abbott, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Court erred in not holding that there was an express contract in parol. A. & E. Ene., Yol. 7, 99; Yol. 7, p. 129; Am. Dec., Yol. 21, 272; 10 Ind. App. 503; 160 N. Y. 291; 139 Pa. St. 207; 62 111. 493; 6 Kan. App. 718; 22 Wis. 194; A. & E. Ene., Yol. 21, 850; 18 111. 297; 17 111. 40; 33 Cal. 193‘; 30 N. Y. 83; Am. St. Eep., Yol 61, 436; 68 Am. Dec. 545; 17 111. 40; 49 111. 416; 33 Cal. 183; 139 Mo. 1; 104 Mo. 531; 104 U. S. 192; 110 U. S. 7; 86 Mo. 125.</p> <p>When employment is made by president of corporation and no objections are made thereto. 30 N. Y. 83; 6 N. Y. 168; 34 Am. Dec. 317, 216.</p> <p>Corporations may be liable on contract not formally ratified by them. 51 Am. Dee. 59; 86 Am. Dec. 355; 5 Cush. 158.</p> <p>Board may ratifjr acts. A. & E. Ene., Yol. 21, 853, §54. Authorities cited by appellee. 55 la. 104; 49 Pa. St. 118; 57 Mo. 564; 137 111. 509; 23 Pac. 849; 13 Col. 4; 45 Ga. 34; 121 Ala. 505; Sec. 2685, Sub-Sec. 68, C. L.; 149 Mo. 135 134 Mo. App. 282; 16 Wyo. 403; 64 Kan. 578.</p> <p>Court erred in ignoring admissions made by directors of defendant company as to salary. 3 Smed. M. (Miss. 443.)</p> <p>Court erred in refusing to allow plaintiff for money actually expended. See. 89, Chap. 79, S. L. 1905.</p> <p>President of corporation has no authority to appoint and designate one an officer of corporation nor to fix salary for services to be rendered by such person. 71 Am. Dec. 491; 66 N. H. 581; 20 Cal. 602; 115 Wis. 583; 57 Atl. 417.</p> <p>In order to constitute valid ratification by board of directors of corporation of unauthorized acts of some one attempting to act in its behalf, board must have full knowledge of all material facts and circumstances surrounding action sought to be ratified. 7 Cal. 171; 81 Am. Dec. 133; 16 Md. 456; 10 Cal. 354; 8 Cal. 227. '</p> <p>Appellant is not entitled to compensation for any serv-' ices rendered from September, 1908, until time he resigned and quitted service of appellee company. 3 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 731; 6 Met. 64; 91 111. 63; 46 N.-E. 504; 137 U. S. 98; 25 N. E. 98; 166 Mo. 28; 71 111. 106; 93 Cal. 17; 27 Cal. 630; 17 Col. 421; 27 Conn. 170; 87 111. 446; 167 111. 549; 186 111. 183; 40 Ind. 361; 130 Mass. 391; 75 Mich. 568; 61 N. H. 632; 48 Hun. 524; 118 N. Y.' 629; 23 Oreg. 20; 207 Pa. St. 217; 117 111. 525; 137 111. 509; 55 la. 104; 128 Mich. 518; 4 Mo. App. 59; 166 Mo. 28.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Roosevelt County; John T. McClure, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Common Law Rule. 13 N. M., p. 131; Elliot on Railroads, Yol. 3, Sec. 1203; 45 Mo., p. 22; 115 S. W. Rep. 1039; Elliot on Railroads, Yol. 3, Sec. 1204.</p> <p>Common Law. 13 N. M. 131; 49 Fed. 798; 16 A. & E. L. 472.</p> <p>General Yerdict of Jury. 11 N. M-. 162; 103 Pac. 980.</p>

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ, issued by a superior court to an inferior court to prevent the latter from exceeding its jurisdiction, either by prohibiting it from •assuming jurisdiction in a matter which it has no control, •or from going beyond its legitimate powers in a matter of which it has jurisdiction.</p> <p>P. •258</p> <p>2. A court is inferior to another when it is placed under the supervisory or appellate control of such other court.</p> <p>P. 259</p> <p>3. The writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, granted •ex debito justitiae, but rather one of the sound judicial dis■cretion, to be granted or withheld according to the circumstances of each particular case, to be used with great caution for the furtherance of justice when none of the ordinary remedies provided by law are applicable.</p> <p>P. 259</p> <p>4. The writ of prohibition cannot be used to correct mere irregularities or to perform the functions of an appeal or writ of error.</p> <p>P. 260</p> <p>5. If it is manifest that an appeal would afford an inadequate remedy, the right of appeal does not, of itself, afford •sufficient ground for refusing relief by prohibition.</p> <p>P. 260</p> <p>6. In creating a legislative department and conferring, upon it the legislative power, the people must he understood to have conferred the full and complete power as it rests in, and may he exercised by, the sovereign power of any country, subject only to such restrictions as they may have seen fit to impose, and to the limitations which are contained in the Constitution of the United States.</p> <p>P. 262.</p> <p>7. There being no constitutional inhibition against legislative action in the matter of suspension of public officers, which is properly to be considered as included within the broader term removal, the provisions of Chapter 36, of the Session Laws of 1909, do not constitute a violation of the constitutional provisions of Section 2, of Article XX.</p> <p>P. 262</p> <p>8. Sec. 26 of Chapter 36, S. L. 1909, confers jurisdiction upon the district courts to make preliminary investigations and suspend the officer pending the final adjudication of the matters alleged in an accusation, before the case shall be continued upon application of defendant, beyond the term of court at which the accusation is presented, or if presented in vacation, beyond the first term of court after presentment, thereof.</p> <p>P. 265.</p> <p>9. Held: That jurisdiction to entertain preliminary investigations other than as limited and prescribed in Sections 26 and 21 of the Act, does not exist in the district courts and the present case not falling within either section of the Act, the district court was assuming a jurisdiction in excess of that conferred upon it by the statute and is, therefore, subject to the restraint imposed by a writ of' prohibition issuing out of this court.</p> <p>P. 265-</p>

Abbott, Presiding Judge. Claim of appellee is not a valid and legal debt or liability, evidenced by bonds, coupons and other obligations. The-Enabling Act, Sec. 2; Art 21, Sec. 3 of the Constitution; 27 Ene. L., p. 6; 36 Cyc., pp. 1119, 1120; Chap. 16, L. 1912. State and County Municipal Indebtedness. Sec. 1, Art. 9 of the Constitution; Sec. 3, Art. 26, Constitution; Sec. 16, Art. 4, Constitution; Sec. 1, Chap. 16, L. 1912; 2 Cur.

<p>Appeal from District Court, Cliavez County; Granville A. Richardson, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Law Refers to Minors Over 14 Years of Age. C. L. 1897, Sec. 1461; 1st New Mexico, p. 255.</p> <p>No Violation of Decree. 69 N. M. 798.</p> <p>Custody of Children and Wards. 2 Bish on Marriage & Divorce, 2nd Ed., 1189; 96 Ind. 6; 27 111. App. 375; 56 la. 2S8; 37 Minn. 360; 75 la. 218; 56 la. 608; 8S Ind. 494; 25 Wend. 64; 33 Ga. 195; 299 Eed. Cas. No. 1318 37 Pac. Rep. 660; 20 L. R. A. 171; 75 la. 125; 39 Wis. 167; 33 Wis. 534; 29 Neb. 457; 57 Neb. 158.</p> <p>Ward Has No Right to Choose Guardian. Vol. 2, Nelson on Divorce and Separation, Sec. 975; Church on Habeas Corpus, Sec. 447; C. L. 1897, Sec. 1461; 1st New Mexico, p. 255.</p> <p>Minors Brought From Jurisdiction of Court. Vol. 1, Whart. on Conflict of Laws, Sec. 239-F; Church on Habeas Corpus, Sec. 451; 15 la. Rep. 238.</p> <p>Decree of Divorce Conclusive. 157 S. W. 254; 40 Hun 611; 73 S. E. 126; 55 L. R. A. 930; 96 Tex. 417.</p> <p>Courts Should Have for Their Main Guide, General Welfare of Children. 3 N. E. 289; 6 S. W. 878; 3 N. E. 880; 33 Wis. 534; 45 N. W. 466; 82 Pac. 177; 110 Am. St. Rep. 800; 14 Cal. 513; 26 Mo. 91; 55 L. R. A. 930; 40 L. R. A. 623; 97 Am. St. Rep. 399; 16 L. R. A. 681; 45 N. J. Eq. 283; 14 Cal. 513; 72 N. Y. Supp. 456; 77 N. Y. Supp. 912; 55 L. R. A. 930; 26 Ivan. 653; 20 L. R. A. 199; 42 Mich. 509; 5 L. R. A. 781; Church Habeas Corpus, Par. 442; Schouler, Domestic Relations, Par. 248; Hurd Habeas Corpus, Par. 461; 75 la. 105; 73 Am. St. Rep. 500; 20 L. R. A.: 176; 30 Ga. 195; 10 N. M,'98.</p> <p>Court May Consult Wishes of Children. 14 Cyc. 808; 2 So. 768; 21 N. E. 600; 65 N. W. 555; 32 N. J. Eq. 738; 77 N. Y. Supp. 912; 82 Pac. 177; 29 Cyc. 1596. '</p> <p>Bight of Determining Status of Persons. 7 L. B. A. 306; 4 Allen 321.</p> <p>Guardian, Custody of Child Against its Best Interests. 142 Ind. 113; 160 Pa. 399; 13 Wyo. 79; 42 Mich. 528; 71 Mich. 180; 7 Allen 321, supra; 105 N. Y. 628; 86 111. App. 20; 4 Minn. 412.</p> <p>Court should not modify or reverse an award of custody of children made by lower court unless evidence shows - that there has been abuse of discretion. 90 Ind. 107; 26 N. E. 768; 33 Wis. 534; 11 N. E. 143; 14 Cyc. 808; Dec. Digest, Yol. 7, Par. 312; 5 N. M. 148; 6 N. M. 239; 14 N. M. 271; 10 N. M. 38;'138 Pac. 207.</p>

Raynolds, Presiding Judge. Does not contract Exhibit “A” between the defendant city and defendant bank provide for sale of real property of defendant city for payment of its debts? 102 TJ. S. 472; McQuillin Mun. Corp., Yol. 3, Sec. 1141; 16 Wall. TJ. S. 452, 644. Indebtedness Which May be Incurred by Cities. Sec. 13, Art. 9, Const.

Medler, Presiding Judge. Did work done by lessees upon compromise mine inure-to benefit of real owners ? 24 Neb. 273; 77 Am. St. Rep., p. 810. Public Domain. 84 Pac. 223; 23 Dec. Dept. Interior-267. Mining claims in hostile, adverse possession of another.. 44 Pac. 243; 21 Pac. 1002; 34 Pac. 637; 44 Pac. 246,. supra. Burden of Proof. 22 Morrisons Mining Rep. 276; 130 H. S. 291. Failure to Do Annual Labor. 70 Pac. 123; 76 Fed.. 50; 78 Pac. 251; 83 Pac. 376, 381.

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Ordinarily, and except in special circumstances not present in this case, the measure of damages for the conversion of personal property is the value of the property at the time of conversion and interest.</p> <p>P. 309</p> <p>2. An instruction in such case which submits to the jury as the measure of damages both the value of the property at the time of conversion and the value of its use during the time of its detention is erroneous'.</p> <p>P. 312</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Santa Fe County; Edmund C. Abbott, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Court Erred in Granting Relief to Appellee. Const, of State, Sec. 2, Art. 8; Sec. 5, Chap. 84, L. 1913; Funk & Wagnall’s New Standard Diet., p. 1985; Id. 2471; 8 Words & Phrases, 6870-6871; 1 Words & Phrases 375; 1 Cent. Diet. 181; 21 Wall 492, 498-499; 104 U. S. 493, 495; 116 U. S. 665, 667-668; 132 TJ. S. 174, 185; 143 U. S. 192, 195; 148 TJ. S. 397, 409; 164 U. S. 662, 666; 68 Fed. 1002, 1003; 83 N. W. 924, 926; 84 N. W. 802, •806; 86 N. W. 281, 282; 56 S. W. 405, 407-8, 504, 506; 49 Atl. 645-646; 52 S. W. 748; 38 N. J. L. 270, 272; 40 N. J. L. 328, 331; 73 Minn. 343, 346; 115 Mich. 546, 547; 102 Mich. 374, 388; 138 Mo. 645, 655-656; 157 N. Y. 51, 54; 82 N. Y. 459, 465; 62 Me. 91, 92; 47 Md. 286, 293; 26 Mass. 178, 180; 76 N. C. 212, 214-215; 53 Pa. St. 219, 220; 117 111. 50, 54; 183 111. 373, 375; 58 Ind. 130, 133; 69 Ind. 344, 348; 104 Ind. 195, 200; 15 Utah 242, 249; 14 Utah 264, 265-6; 92 Wis. 352, 358; 71 Conn. 316, 329; 132 Fed. 912, 920; 174 U. S. 439, 445; 63 Pac. 383, 384; 65 Miss. 553, 562; 157 Mo. 51, 58; 136 Mo. 446, 450; 123 111. 267, 272; 130 111. 17, 21; 138 111. 85, 86; 160 111. 576, 578-579; 174 111. 177, 181; 37 Cyc., pp. 292-293; 76 N. J. L. 627¡ 630; 2 Ariz. 114, 122; 153 Cal. 715, 718; 95 N. L. 554; Id., p. 557.</p> <p>Exemption Allowed Taxpayer. Secs. 1, 3, 4, Chap. 81, Jj. 1913, pp. 112, 113; Sec. 5, Chap. 84, L. 1913, 143; Sec. 3, Chap, 81, L. 1913; 3 Head 697; 175 Mass. 257, 142; Coolejr on Taxation, 754-55; 67 N. IL 514; 49 N. J. L. 1; 163 Mass. 283; Sec. 1, Art. 8, Const, of N. M.; 70 N. H. 202.</p> <p>STATEMENT OF FACTS.</p> <p>This is an appeal from the judgment, and decision of the Judge bf the District Court for the County of Santa Fe rendered in the above entitled cause. The appellee presented unto the District Attorney his petition in writing alleging that an obvious error was manifest in the assessment rolls of Santa Fe County, in this, that his property was assessed at its actual value in the sum of nine hundred dollars and that the two hundred dollar exemption claimed by him, and to which he was entitled, had been deducted from the total actual cash value, rather than from the one-third value fixed as the value for purposes of taxation. Thereupon, said petition was presented to the said court, with the recommendation of the District Attorney, in writing, that the relief prayed for be granted, whereupon a hearing was had and the relief granted.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo Count)’; Herbert E. Eaynolds, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Brief on Motion to Dismiss and Affirm.</p> <p>Decree Erom Which Appeal is Taken is Anomalous. 2 Cyc. 62; 46 Mich. 140; Black’s Law Diet.; Cent. Digest, Yol. 4; 5 Ene. PL & Pr. 594; 10 Cyc. 473; 88 Md. 204; 2 Lee 204; 19 Yt. 9; 3 Sarg. & E. 91; 11 Sarg. & E. 353; 84 N. C. 132; 2 Ela. 605; 34 111. 344; 14 Peters 524; 77 Me. 224.</p> <p>Assignments of Error Jurisdictional. Elliott App. Proc. Secs. 300, 128, 524; Sec. 20, Chap. 57, S. L. 1907; 28 111. 43; 1 Ohio St. 388; 82 S. W. 882; 15 How. Pr. 33; 10 Inch 24; 39 Md. 520; 24 Nev. 308; 28 Ala. 454.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Santa Fe .Count]1'; Edmund C. Abbott, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Briefs on motion to.re-instate. Secs. 20, 21, Cbap. 57, L. 1907; Pars. 4, 8, Rule 13; Jurisdiction. Elliott on App., Sec. 541.</p> <p>132 Pac. 249; 17 N. M. 664; 133 Pac. 974; 124 Pac. 794.</p> <p>Appellant’s Repl]r Brief.</p> <p>Sec. 21, Chap. 57, L. 1907.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Union County; Merritt C. Mechem, Presiding Judge;</p> <p>Abuse of discretion. 8 Pac. 685; 6 Cal. 248; 91 Pac. 105; 41 Cal. 456; 6 S. W. 721; 21 Fla. 70; 61 Am. St. Rep. 334; 62-9 Cyc. 173; 7 Pac. 599; Secs. 2050-2051 C.</p> <p>L.1884; 16 L. R. A. 239; 9 Cyc. 186, 177, 173, 183; 13 Tex. App. 468; 12 So. 352; 61 S. W. 119; 14 L. R. A. 609; 32 L. R. A. 108; 92 Mo. 41; 96 M. 298; 93 Mo. 273; 16</p> <p>L. R. A. 239; 50 N. W. 285; 8 N. M. 583; 2 N. M. 93, 114, 474; 2 Pac. 78; 42 Pac. 63; 78 Pac. 50'4; 7 Tex. App. 472; 14 Cent. Digest 2502; 107 Inch 154, 22 La. 43; Sec. 2994 C. L. 1897; 76 N. E. 499; 38 So. 460; 37 Law Ed. 113.7; 40 Law Ed. 395; 8 S. E. 536; 4 S. E. 814; 37 Pac. 1031; 24 Pac. 808; 26 Pac. 502.</p> <p>Variance between allegations and proof. 93 S. W. 722; 95 S. W. 522; 27 Am. St. -Rep. 945; 87 S. W. 347; 9 N.</p> <p>M. 598; 8 N. M. 583; 7 N. M. 532; Sackett Inst. p. 1813; 50 N. W. 285.</p> <p>Court did not err in compelling defendants to go to trial without admitting that facts set forth in affidavit for continuance were true. 15 N. M. 332; 14 N. M. 546, 554-555.</p> <p>Court did not err in failing to instruct jury on simple assault. 89 Pac. 250.</p> <p>Court did err in giving instruction numbered 16, to the effect that there had been manifest perjury committed by witnesses. Sec. 2994, C. L. 1897; 124 Pac. 399; 59 S. W. 564, 565; 32 Tex. Crim. R. 219-228; 27 Tex. App. 146, 163; 35 Tex. Crim. R. 133, 134-135; 150 S. W. 296; 29 N. C. 24, 28; 47 N. C. 187; 11 Mont. 498, 509; 16 Ga. 368, 375-376; 72 Cal. 623-627; 129 Cal. 258, 262; 142 Ala. 287, 296; 170 Mich. 683, 685; 51 Neb. 672; 56 Neb.. 455; 60 Neb. 101; 79 Me. 120; 71 N. J. L. 323; 97 S. W. 815; 138 N. W. 294; 56'So. 401; 16 W. Ya. 307; Blashfield Insts. to Juries, Sec. 38.</p>

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. An instruction to the jury “that the plaintiff has established his right to recover $65.00 for the purchase price of the insulating material,” being based upon conflicting evidence, would be a comment on the weight of the evidence, and erroneous under Section 2994. C. L. 1897.</p> <p>P. 332</p> <p>2. Loss of profits growing out of a breach of contract and resulting to an unestablished business are of too uncertain a character to constitute a basis for the computation of damages for the 'breach.</p> <p>P. 334</p>

<p>Appeal from the District Codrt, Dona Ana County; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge;</p> <p>Lien of attachment. C. L. 1865, Chap. 4, Sec. 14; C. L. 1884, Sec. 2761; Act Jan. 12, 1852; Sec. 3960, C. L. 1897; Secs. 1, 2, 3, Chap. 10, L. N. M. 1887; 10 N. M. 408; 1 N. M. 306; 183 Mass. 382; R. S. Chap. 127, Sec. 4; 90 Mass. 584; 129 Mass. 210; 43 Pae. 216; 4 L. R. A. 223; 6 111. 187; 218 111. 182; 75 Fed. 929; 17 Fed. 789; 20 Tex. Civ. App. 168; 72 S. W. 613; 48 S. W. 35; 9 Ohio 108; 22 Yt. 137; 29 So. 379; 7 Me. 464; 5 Me. 369; 7 Me. 195; 23 Me. 170; 39 Am. Dec. 614; 121 Ind. 147; 2 Minn. 264; 121 Pac. 204; 6 Minn. 220; 13 N. M. 38; 16 N. M. 510; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 3rd. Ed., Sec. 620; 90 N. Y. 298; 38 Kan. 319; 31 Mont. 249; 20 Mass. 149; 15 Minn. 89; 43 Pac. 217; 4 Wigmore on Ev. Sec. 2515; 5 Me. 369; Sec. 2696, C. L. 1897.</p> <p>Title to land. C. L. 1897, Sec. 3021; Chap. 62, Sec. 6, L. 1901; 26 Wash. 48; 2 Ballinger’s Ann. Codes & Stats. Sec. 4991; 36 S. W. 320; 105 S. W.. 324; 26 S. W. 227; 51 111. App. 387; 153 111. '625; 119 111. 548;. 126 111. 132; 246 111. 398; 99 Ind. 369; 48 Yt. 502; 48 N. II. 304; 128 Pac. 567; 40 Cye. 2282.</p> <p>Unrecorded deed. Sec. 2871, C. L. 1897; 14 N. M. 345 12 N. M. 460; 3 N. M. 659; 12 Peters 178; 102 Fed. 17, 540; 1 Oreg. 202; 13 N. M. 32; 14 Mo. 170; 39 Mo. 100; 43 Mo. 93; 62 Mo. 497; 9 S. Dak. 36; 34 N. W. 66; 46 Cal. 161; 24 Ind. 165; 86 N Y. 221; 89 N. W. Rep. 270.</p> <p>Judgment lien holders. 12 Cal. 363; 15 Cal. 128; 51 Cal. 545; 17 Cal. 304; 18 Cal.'367; 19 Cal. 686; 8th Wall 292; 48 Mo. 335; 1 Bin. 493; 2 Bin. 40; 52 N. Jfl Eq. 697;'21 Wash.'314; 51 N. J. Eq. 452; 97 Cal. 575; 32 Pac. 599; 21 L. R. A.'33; 3 N. J. Eq. 474 ; 29 Am. Dec. 523.</p> <p>APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF.</p> <p>Recording of written instruments affecting title to real estate. Chap. 10, p. 26, L. 1887; Sutherland’s Stat. Const. 465; Idem 463, 491, 492; 39 J. J.-Eq. 169; 16 N. M. 497; 14 N. M. 176; Secs. 3953, 3955, 2361, L. 1897;: Sec. 10, Webb on Record of Title; 27 Tex. 494; 1 Gilm. 177; 40 111. 160; 86 Am. Dec. 657; 35 Alt. 349; 10 Yt. 555; 28 Yt. 288; 32 Yt. 109; 33 Yt. 252; 43 Yt. 402; 53’ Yt. 74; 130 Mich. 127; 9 N. J. L. 193; 7 N. J. Eq. 186;: 14 N. J. Eq. 233; 12 N. J. Eq. 233; 12 N. J. L. 29, 30 Atl. 866; 35 Pac. 170; 93 Ya. 364; 28 Grat. 433, 407; 3 Kan. App. 556; 141 la. 255; 83 Neb. 488; 89 N. W. 720; .176 TJ. S. 484; 202 TJ. S. 311.</p> <p>REPLY BRIER OR APPELLANTS.</p> <p>Interest in land in question. I Craneh 103; 166 IJ. S. 557; 2 Pet. 417; Act Jan. 12, 1852; C. L. N. M. 1884, Secs. 2761, 2763; Sec. 3944, C. L. 1897; 1 N. M. 306; 4 Hun. 321; 13 N. M. '565; 68 N. II. 71; 75 TJ. S. 292. .</p>

Nos. 1683-1684 (consolidated). Appeals from the District Court, Santa Fe County; Edmund C. Abbott, Presiding-Judge. Court erred in holding that indictment did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense and in sustaining demurrer to said indictment 26 Cyc. pp. 926, 496; 25 Ency.

<p>Appeal from District Court, Otero County; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>IJnder New Mexico statutes there can be only one corporation representing each community ditch. Yol. 17, Ene. P. & P., 429; 117 Cal. 612; 88 111. 544; 5 Mass. 230; 1 Dougl. 59; 3 Minn. 240; 57 N. J. L. 203; 77 N. C. IS; 81 N. C. 301; 5 B. I. 1; 69 Tex. 369; 63 Tex. 265; 75 Tex. 231; Sec. 10, C. L. 1897.</p> <p>Water rights in a community ditch may be sold and convoyed either with land to which appurtenant or separately and independent of land to which appurtenant. Farnham on Water Bights, Yol. 3, p. 204; 4 Wjo. 556; 21 Col. 188; 16 Col. 61; 66 Pac. 1074; 25 Col. 144; 8 Col. App. 234; 1 Weil on Water Bights, Secs. 541, 543; Sec. 537, 1 b., p. 573; Sec. 538 lb., p. 575; 150 Cal. 426; 4 Col. 382; Kinney on Irrigation, Sec. 994, p. 1760.</p> <p>Construction of Community Ditch. Act Jan. 31, 1866; Sec. 8, C. L. 1897; 13 N M. pp. 162-3.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Luna County; Colin Neblott. Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Brief Of Appellant.</p> <p>James S. Fielder, Doming, New Mexico.</p> <p>Session Laws 1901, Chap. LNII, Sec. 22. Kind -of neglect as basis for diovrce. I N. H. 198. 9 Cal. 475. 42 Cal. 444. Carson v. Carson, 138 N. M. 1075, 43 L. R. A. N. S. 255. Van Born v. Arantes, 116 La. 130; Barret v. Barret, 131 S. W. 821; Johnson v. Johnson,. 4 Wis., 125; Mandige v. Mandige, 15 Vt. 736; Caswell v. Caswell, 28 Atl. 988 ; Freeman v. Freeman, 98 Me. App. 509, 63 S. W. 389; Hammond v. Hammond, 15 E. I. 40, 2 Ahv St. E. I. 40, 2 Am. St. E. 867, 23 Atl. 143; Stewart v. Stewart, 155-Mich. 421, 119 N. W. 144; Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 5 Atl. 401; Forree v. Forree, 7 Ohio L. J. 302; Murphy v. Murphy, 7 Ohio L. J. 303; Nichols v. Nichols, 8 Ohio L. J. 88; Tiberghein v. Tiberghein, 8 Ohio L. J. 89; 1 N. M. 198; Fellows v. Fellows, 8 N. M. 160; Dávis v. Davis, 37 N. I-I. 191.</p> <p>Power of appellate court to grant suit money. 14 Cyc. 745. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 48 Wash, 498, 95 Pac. 1091; Session Laws 1901, Ch. 62, Sec. 27; Session Laws 1907,. Ch. 57, Secs. 38, 39; Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 3; Sullivan v. Gallagher, 65 Wash. 310, 118 Pac. 4; Lake v. Lake, 17 Nev. 230, .30 Pac. 878; Prine v. Priné, 36 Fla-676, 34 L. E. A. 87; Mosher v. Mjosher, 16 N. D. 269, 113 N. W. 99-101; Pleyte v. Pleyte, 15 Colo. 125; 25 Pac. 25-,</p> <p>Jurisdiction of Court to grant motion. Mercer v. Mercer, 19 Colo. App. 51, 73 Pac. 662; Vanduzer v. Vanduzer, 70' Iowa 614, 31 N. W. 956; Day v. Day, 84 Iowa 221, 50 N. W. 979; Shore v. Shore, 133 Iowa 22, 110 N. W. 16; Lewis-vs. Lewis, 138 Iowa, 593, 116 N. W. 698; Wagner v. Wagner, 36 Minn. 239, 30 N. W. 766; Van Voorhis v. Van Voorhis, 90 Mich. 276, 51 N. W. 281; Pollock v. Pollock, 7 S. D. 331, 64 N. W. 165; Wells v. Wells, 26 S. D. 70, 127 N. W. 636; Duxstad v. Duxstad, 16 Wyo. 296, 132 Pac. 1170.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Curry County; Merritt C. Mechem, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Notice to vacate. Chap. 32, 1901; 126 Ilh 18; 23 111. App. 552; 19 Cyc. 1147; 1 Col. 177; 23 Neb. 257; 24 111. 192; 6 Old. 328; 2 N. M. 108; 5 N. M. 406, 404;. 11 N. M. 447, 346.</p> <p>STATEMENT OP PACTS.</p> <p>This is an action in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, instituted by appellee before the justice of the* peace of Precinct No. 1 of Curry County, New Mexico, on December 30, 1913.</p> <p>The lands alleged to have been forcibly entered upon and tinlawfully detained are situated in Section 33, Township 2, North of Eange 36, in Curry County, and were and are in Precinct No. 9 of said Comity, there being a duly qualified and acting justice of the peace in Precinct No. 9, as shown by the stipulation as to the facts in this case.</p> <p>At the trial-had in the justice court, plaintiff recovered judgment of removal from the premises described in the complaint, excepting a portion thereof, and his damages were assessed at $30.00. The appellant appealing to the district court of Curry County, where a trial by jury was had, resulting in a verdict finding tire issues in favor of the plaintiff, the appellee in this court, and assessing damages against the defendant, or appellant in this court. Whereupon appellant filed a motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto, and in the alternative for a new trial, the motion being overruled and judgment for appellee given in accordance with the verdict.</p>

Mandamus. Original in the Supreme Court. STATEMENT OF FACTS.

Eiehardson, Presiding Judge. Court erred in holding that Chap. 13, L. 1905, was ineffectual to revive Libel Law of 1889. Chap. 13, L. 1905; Smith v. Eaton, 18 N. M. 513; 3 N M. 557. Law of 1889 not void because it embraces within its provisions, more than one subject. Sec. 16, Art. 4 of Const. Court erred in holding that revived Act of 1889 was unconstitutional because in conflict with Sec. 17 of Art. 2, Secs. 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, Libel Law 1889.

<p>Appeal front District Court, Eddy County; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Indictment valid. Sec. 1, Chap. 23, 1901; Chap 80, S. L. 1907.</p> <p>Indictment void. 22 Cyc. 293; 45 Cyc. 183; 55 Pac. 992; 34 L. E. A. 178; 47 L. E. A. 144; 59 L. E. A. 789; 101 3, 4, Sec. 1, Art 2, Sec. 10, Art 4, Sec. 2; 35 Cyc. 1265; 61 AM Dec.- 318; 65 L. R. A. 519; Sec. 3764 C. L. 1897; 14th, 5th Amds. Const. U. S.; 4 L.. R. A. 725; 2 L. R. A. 268; 8 Cyc. 1895; 8 L. R. A. 438; 35 Am. Rep. 420; 63 Am. Dec. 381; 35 Am. Dec. 186; 23 Am. Dec. 477; 11 L. R. A.224; 13 L. R. A. 305; Jones on Ev. Sees. 123-129; 48 L. R. A. 265; 67 111. 337; 32 L. R .A. 663; 159 111. 98; 98 N. Y. 108; 109 N. Y. 389; 48 L. R. A. 265; Tiedeman on Police Powers See. 85; 67 111. 37; 32 L. R. A. 663; 155 111. 98; 49 LP. R. A. 184; 19 L. R. A. 730; 141 Pac. 132; 49 L. R. A. 1123.</p> <p>REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT.</p> <p>8 Cyc. 863, 864; Bish. on Stat. Crime, Sec. 1103; 95 Mo. 1618.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Union County; Thomas D. Leib, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>13th error. 142 N. AY. 235.</p> <p>14th error. Supra; 150 U. S. 442; 7 S. E. 140; 35 N. E. 472; 68 Pac. 504; 12 Am. Eep. 176.</p> <p>21st error. 50 N. E. 142; 30 S. E. 254; 27 Atl. 417; 31 N. E. 599.</p> <p>22nd error. 81 N. Y. 360; 92 N. AY. 876; 32 S. E. 125.</p> <p>23rd error. 62 Pac. 10’5; 40 L. Ed. 395.</p> <p>26th error. 92 Ga. 601; 8 N. M. 211; 14 111. 86; 11 N. M. 558; 14 N. M. 30.</p> <p>Deceased brought on trouble. 11 Pac. 183; 50 Pac. 327. It was error for court to instruct upon murder in first degree and upon presumption of malice. 133 N. AY. 406; 142 N. AY. 445.</p> <p>Implied malice. 133 N. AY. 431. •</p> <p>Defendant was entitled to an instruction. 39 Pac. 160; 8 N. M. 496, 538; 60 Pac. 101; supra.</p> <p>Voluntary manslaughter. 20 Pac. 769; 103 Pac. 1057. Design to kill. 32 Pac. 1030; 77 Pac. 163.</p> <p>Acts of defendants on night of homicide. 68 Ala. 42; 18 S. AY. 459; 55 S. AY. 573; supra; 40 L. Ed. 474; 2 N. M. 307.</p> <p>Not guilty of voluntary manslaughter. 8 N. M. 543; 12 N. M. 90; 30 So. 391.</p> <p>Impartial jury. 11 N. M. 302, 588; 8 N. I. 180; 62 N. AY. 631; 57 Ñ. AY. 490; 6 S-. AY. 97; 28 N. E. 964; 12 A. & E. Enc. 52; 24 So. 314. ■</p> <p>Presumptions of court. 160 S. AY. 71.</p> <p>Defendant had right to defend brother. Sec. 1069 C. L. 1897; 160 S. AY. 80.</p> <p>No evidence of conspiracy. 79 S. E. 709.</p> <p>Self-defense. Supra; 63 So. 167; 152 S. AY. 1074.</p> <p>Instructions of court. 16 N. M. 40; 15 N. M. 124; 12 N. M. 419; 7 N. M. 62; 8 N. M. 543; 15 N. M. 165; 13 N. M. 300; 17 N. M. 479; 16 N M. 476.</p> <p>Eeply Brief Of Appellants.</p> <p>Instructions of court. Whart. on Homicide, Chap. 11; 18 Fla. 472; 8 N. M. 543; 15 N. M. 165; Sec. 1069 C. L. 1897.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Torrance County; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>General principles concerning granting of relief in such cases. 90 Ind. 346, 198; 112 Ind. 221; 152 H. S. 596; Spelling on Injunction & Ex. Leg. Bern. Yol. 1, 2 Ed., Secs. 83, 84; 22, Cyc. 848; 23 Md. 471; Joyce on Injunctions, Sec. 689, 690; 12 Mich. 297; 59 Md. 313; 12 B. Mon. 426; 26 Miss. 314; 44 la. 179.</p> <p>Sustaining of defendant’s motion for judgment on pleadings improper. 180 H. S. 28; 17 Minn. 372; 31 Cyc. 606; supra; 53 L. B. A. 438; Abbott’s Trial Brief, Yol. 11, p. 1249; 81 Fed. 524; 95 Cal. 471; 48 Cal. 46; 79 Mo. App. 578; 48 Neb. 152; 191 Pa. St. 59; 9 Pae. 129; 72 Pac. 960; 83 Pac. 932; 85 Pae. 531; 90 Pac. 1099; 89 Pac. 648; 7 Oída. 277; Sutherland Code PI. & Pr., Yol. 1, p 933, Secs. 1452, 1453; 17 S. W. 285; 144 Fed. 717; 79 N. E. 26.</p> <p>Cause should have been heard upon merits. 84 S. W. 443; 79 111. App. 384; 57 N. C. 17; 5 Wheat. 313; 22 Cyc. 952; 10 Ala. 776; 6 now. Pr. 184; 45 Miss. 183; 83 Ya. 659; 113 Ala. 239.</p> <p>Construction of agreement. 153 H. S. 564; Page on Contracts, Yol. Ill, p 2248; 162 U. S. p. 180; 1 Pet. 455, p. 465; 19 How. 224; 128 U. S. 590; Page on Contracts, Secs. 1462, 1463; 223 111. 616; 26 B. I. 295.</p> <p>Bestraint by injunction. Spelling on Injunc., Sec. 508, p. 433; L. B.'lO. Chap. 440; 40 Ga. 206; 12 Wall 86; 66 N. W. 851; 127 Ind. 327; High on Injunc. Sec. 196, p. 194, Yol. 1; 47 N. H. 507; 9 Pac. 129; 10 Ala. 776; 4 Johns. Chap. 22; 23 Cyc. 1028-h, 1029.</p> <p>Contract providing for appraisement. 25 R. I. 92; 146 Fed. Rep. 8; 5 N. Y. Chan. Rep. 411; 18 111. App. 293; 76 Miss. 524; 3 Mo. App. 429; 15 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 508; 5 De G. M. & G. 880; 17 Ves. 232; 19 Ves. 429; 5 H. L. Cas. 811; 34 IJ. S. 327; 9 L. R. A. 501; 15 Mo. App. 532; 56 Cal. 307; 114 Mich. 310; 37 Pac. 7Ó; 5 L. R. A. 270.</p> <p>Damages on dissolution of injunction. Joyce on Injunc. Secs. 211-a, 177-a; Id. Vol. 1, Secs. 175, 176, 176-a; Spelling on Injunc. 'Vol. 1. Secs. 960; 957; 10-Enc. P. & P., p. 1115; 22 Cyc. 1004; High on Injunc., Vol. 11, 4th Ed., See. 1657; 12 How. 166; 32 Minn. 277; 120 H. S. 206; 4 Ark. 21;' 18 111. 309; 31 Ark. 217.; 94 Ala. 429; 41 la. 264; Sutherland on Dam., Vol. 11, Sec. 523; 8 Col. 185; 64 N. Y. 326; 82 Mo. 349; 112 Ga. 610; 86 la. 117.</p> <p>Mode of assessment. 64 Am. Dec. 739; 129 N. Y. 280; 32 Minn. 277.</p> <p>Damages- evidence. Joyce on Injunc. Vol. 1, Sec. 266-B; 65 N. C. 588; 54 Barb. 271; 85 111. 349; 54 111. 210; Sutherland Corle P. & P. Sec. 3009; 41 la. 264; 64 Cal. 472.</p> <p>Injunction rightful when issued, but dissolved on grounds accruing since issuance. 22 Cyc. 1005-33; 5 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 259; 4 Bibb. 433.</p> <p>Court did not err in construing contract. 41 N. E. 115; U. S. Rep. 17 L. Ed. 762; 82 Ala. 302; 39 Pac. 705; 70 III. 527; 149 Mass. 284; 110 Mass. 141; 120 Mass. 141; H. S. Rep. 22 L. Ed. 161; 58 N. E. 712; 133 Pac. 400; 9 Cyc. 629; 7 Gray 139; 48 Pac. St. 300; 69 H. S. 728.</p> <p>Court did not err in assessing damages upon disolntion of injunction. High on Injunc., Sec. 1657; 120 H. S. 206; 55 Atl. 899; .185 N. Y. 408; 147 Fed. 76; 38 S. E. 940; 97 N. E. 911; 97 N. W. 354; 90 Pac. 324; 184 Fed. 54; 60 Mo. 544; 2 Tenn. Ch. 356; 51 Fed. 107; 33 Vt. 486; Kerr on Injunc. Sec. 224; 3 Ccam. 365; 4 Ohio St. 502; 5 Mich. 436; 30 N. Y. 166; 105 H. S. 433; 12 How. 179; 15 Fed. 575; 90 Pac. 324; 11 Biss (H. S.) 40; 31 Fed. 138; 51 C. A. 418; 98 Fed. 508; 32 C. C. A. 556; 184 U. S. 497; 55 Atl. 899; 120 U. S. 206; 16 Pac. 855.</p> <p>STATEMENT OF FACTS.</p> <p>On January 25, 1912, the appellee took judgment against the appellants, and Benjamin B. Spencer and' Sarah E. Spencer, in an action to foreclose a mortgage made by the said Spencers to appellants, and endorsed to appellee, said judgment being taken in pursuance of the following stipulation:</p> <p>“Memoranda agreement between the Torrance County Savings Bank and W. M. McCoy & Company relative to judgment entered this day in cause No. 225, Torrance 'County:</p> <p>1. In the event of a deficiency judgment, in said cause, which W. M. McCoy may have to pay, said company is to be allowed two per cent discount on entire sum on which attorney’s fee is computed in judgment.</p> <p>2. Extension of time of payment to W. M. McCoy & ■Company of one year from this date on any deficiency they may have to pay at ten per cent interest, said sum to be secured by such security as TI. B. Jones and McCoy & Company may agree upon.</p> <p>3. Bank is to exhaust all property of B. B. Spencer and wife, subject to execution before issuing execution against \Y. M. McCoy & Co., for .any deficiency judgment.</p> <p>4. Bank agrees to co-operate with W. M. McCoy & Co. in bringing Spencer and wife into court on supplementary proceedings. McCoy & Co. to take initiative in any such proceeding and pay all expenses of same.</p> <p>5. As soon as said deficiency judgment is ascertained then security is to be given by W. M. McCoy & Co. to said Bank as above provided.</p> <p>(Signed) C. E. McGinnis, Atty.</p> <p>(Signed) W. M. McCoy & Co.' by J. P. Dunlavy.”</p> <p>Thereafter the property mortgaged having been duly sold there was a deficiency judgment, and the appellants and IT. B. Jones having failed to agree upon the security for the payment of such judgment, the appellee, without waiting for the termination of the year specified, had execution issue against the appellant's and placed the same in the hands of the Sheriff. To prevent the levy of this execution appellants obtained a temporary injunction, which was afterwards dissolved on the motion of appellee for judgment on the pleadings, and in the same action the court, without hearing any evidence, rendered judgment against the appellants for damages occasioned by the issuance of said injunction. The appeal from the dissolution of this injunction by the lower court, and from the judgment for damages so rendered, is now before us for consideration.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Chaves County; John T. McClure, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Evidence.. 3 Ariz. 288; 139 Cal. 103; 66 Pac. 202; 91 Pac. 1013; 52 Pac. 307; 32 Pac. 8; 6 Pac. Eep. 691; 7 Pac. Eep. 37; 33 la. 420; 45 Ala. 80; 76 Ala. 29; 5 S. W. 517; 15 Ark. 624; 113 S. W. 346; 41 So. 466; 38 So. 1019; 51 So. 107; 7 Pac. 37; 66 Cal. 597; 21 Cal. 261; 25 Fla. 702; 97 Ga. 792; 11 Ga. 225; 13 Id. 317; 10 Id. 18; 44 N E. 856; 124 111. 576; 38 Ind. 39; 32 Ind. 81; 138 la. 113; 129 la. 484; 106 la. 99; 69 la. 294; 33 la. 420; 96 Pac. 138; 63 Pac. 695; 40 Am. St. Eep. 277; 58 Am. Eep. 201; 85 Me. 106; 125 Mich. 376; 89 Mich. 86;' 39 Minn. 276; 89 Miss. 643; 38 So. 776; 35 So. 202; 33 So. 174; 198 Mo. 212; 174 Mo. 607; 82 Pac. 509; 38 So. 907; 12 So. 176; 9 So. 577; 1 So. 448; 90 Mo. 54; 17 Atl. 118; 168 Mo. 480; Wharf Crim. Ev. Secs. 262-263; 22 Tex. App. 273; 58 Am. Eep. 181; 7 N M. 428; 2 Id. 83; 34 Pac. 715; 25 Kan. 349; 74 la. 509; 30 Pae. 115; 20 So. 904; 136 Ind. 284; 45 Ala. 80; 89 N. W. 363; 20 S. W. 710; 6 Cal. 221; 10 3ST. M. 778; 56 Pac. 81; Cooley’s Blackstone, Yol. 2, p. 212; 72 Pac. 838; 71 N. E. 389; 101 N W. 189; 19 Am. St. Eep. 387; 74 S. W. 969; 71 Pac. 162; 210 111. 410; 101 N. W. 189.</p> <p>Court erred in overruling defendant’s various motions to strike from record evidence of witnesses relative to details and statements of prosecutrix and bearing upon alleged complaint. 2 Park Or. (N. Y.) 663; 76 S. W. 115; 108 Mich. 361; 2 Neb. 157; 81 la. 380; 118 Cal. 349; 41 Fla. 547; 30 Fla. 256; 108 Mich. 361; 100 Mo. 347; 130 Ala. 18; 62 Ala. 434; 76 Cal. 328; 96 Mo. 364; 51 Neb. 301.</p> <p>Opinion of physician. Wharton & Stille’s Med. Jur., p. 580; 40 Mich. 90'; 62 Bar. 364; 88 Mich.; 16 L. E. A. 437; 208 111. 608; 60 la. 172; 37 S. Ev 938; 57 Hun 123.</p> <p>Abuse of discretion on part of court. 94 111. 142; 51 111. 288; 10 N. C. 308; supra; 59 Miss. 561; 20 Mo. 603; 44 Mo. App. 148; 50 Hun 602; 94 111. 142; 27 Ga. 382; 73 la. 384; 50 Mo. App. 312.</p> <p>Not sufficient competent evidence to support verdict of guilty. 43 Pac. 772; 45 Pac. 813; 101 Cal.; 9 Pac. 42; 24 Pac. 965; Ga. Dii’d. 213; 50 Ga. 513; 21 Neb. 492; 12 Tex. App. 51; 24 S. W. 99; 2 N. M. 459; 39 Cal. 689; 57 Ga. -182; 85 Ga. 535; 33 Ga. 571; 95 Ga. 460; 30 la. 251; 44 Tenn. 175.</p> <p>It is province of court to instruct jury as to law of case. 21 Pac. 152; 167 111. 443; 6 So. 391; 83 111. 150; 2 So. 357; 59 Ind. 105; 89 N. W. 128; 24 N. E. 874; 32 N. E. 966; 94 IT. S. 610; 30 Cal. 158; 16 Cal. 137; 17 Cal. 146.</p> <p>If evidence fails to establish, allegations beyond reasonable doubt. 43 111. App. 83; -51 111. App. 225; 38 111. 164; 12 Cyc. p. 600; 87 Ala. 80; 82 Ala. 8; 89 N. W. 128.</p> <p>Corroboration. 100 Pac. 153; 119 N. W. 461; 116 N. W. 1085; 100 Pac. 269; 86 Pac. 187; 58 N. E. 75; 31 Ind. 492; 58 Ind. 293; 70 Ind. 375; 74 Ind. 60; 5 N. E. 898; 98 S. W. 705; 37 N. W. 630; 63 la. 464; 55 la.. 702; 63 la. 355; supra.</p> <p>Puling of court in refusing defendant’s requested instructions. 47 la. 151; 100 Pac. 153; 119 N. W. 461; 116 N.W. 1085.</p>

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. The words “in good faith” in Sec. 2362, C. L., 1897, construed to apply to purchasers of mortgaged chattels.</p> <p>P. 455</p> <p>2. The words “good faith” used in this section are synonymous with “without notice.”</p> <p>P. 455</p> <p>3. The omission to re-file a copy of a chattel mortgage as provided by Sec. 2362, C. L. 1897, does not affect its validity as against a subsequent purchaser with actual notice of the existence of such mortgage and that it is unsatisfied.</p> <p>P. 455</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; David J. Leahy, Presiding Judge. '</p> <p>Proceedings for criminal contempt. 194 H. S. 328; 15 N. M. 528; Secs. 47, 57 Acts 1907; Sec. 2, Art. 6, Sec. 4, Art. 22 State Const.; S. C. 31 S. E. 871-872; S. C. 25 S. E. 219; 83 Pae. 235; 37 Pac. 7-8; 134 Pac. 217; 37 N W. Rep. 949; 36 Incl. 196; 7 Col. 451; 70 Cal. 210; 11 Nev. 187; 22 Am. St. Rep. 417; 12 Am. Dec. 178. ’</p> <p>Contempt charged constitutes criminal contempt. 12 N. M. 451; 15 N. M. p. 528; 194 D. S. 328; Rapalje on Con-tempts, Sec. 21; 2 Bish. Cr. L., 7th Ed., Sec. 259; 7 Enc. L. p. 28.</p> <p>No appeal lies to Supreme Court in criminal contempt proceedings. Sec. 2, Art. 6, Const. N. M.; Sec..l, Chap. 57 L. 1907; Sec. 3406 C. L. 1897; Yol. 12 N. M. p. 451; 16 Col. 274; 52 Cal. 230; 26 Mich. 415; 10 L. R. A. 263; 43 L. R. A. 287; 20 Wash. 158; 127 Wis. 468; supra; 14 Cvc. 193-194; 16 Col. 274; 14 Mich. 304; 30 Midi. 273; 48 Mich. 133; 236 111. 429; 159 Ind- 94; 12 Am. Dec. 177; 42 Am. Dec. 161; 32 Yt. 253; 44 Conn. 393; 7 Col. 451; 70 Cal. 210; 39 Ala. 551; 42 N. M. 540; 11 Nev. 137; 12 Nev. 158; 51 Miss. 331; 22 Am. St. Rep. 414.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Chayes County; John- T. McClure, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Seasonable doubt 33 N E. 681; 73 1ST W. 744.</p> <p>Verdict contrary to weight of evidence. Am. Dig. Cent. Ed., Vol. 15, Col. 130, Sec. 2297, Col. 134 Sec. 2298; 9 Pac. 42; Am. Dig. Dec. Ed. Vol. 6, Sec. 935; 53 S. E. 767,. 493; 1st N. M. 247; 2 S. W. 857; 6 N. M. 464, 490.</p> <p>Granting new trials on newly discovered evidence. 11 N. M. 568; 71 Pac. 163; 86 Pac. 433; 22 S. E. 274, 546; 39 S. E. 884; 16 Pac. 705; 26 ”S. W. 406; 39 S. W. 680; 32 So. 915; 53 S. W. 689; 32 So. 920; 99 N. W. 125; 69 S. W: 517; 8 S. W. 426; 59 N. E. 408; 81 Pac. 1092: 42 N W. 1131; N. Y. Supp. 386; 19 So. 146; 7 Mo. Pep.' 267; 11 Tex. App. 283; 11 S. W. 485; 12 S. W. 740; 18 S. W. 864; 14 N ML 239; 13 N M. 19-25; 1 N H. 247; 6 N M. 173; 8 N. M. 7; L. 1907, 116, Par. 38; Kearney’s Code 1846, Par. 14; 1 N. M. 147, 150.</p> <p>Court did not err in giving instruction on reasonable-doubt. E., pp. Ill, 112; 17 N M. 666, 682.</p> <p>Verdict not contrary to evidence. 104 N C. 737; 115 M. C. 746; 133 N. C. 643; 156 N C. 643; 133 Fed. 293; 179 Fed. 373, 374; 48 Oreg. 357.</p> <p>Court did not err in refusing to grant new trial. B., p. -117; 14 Cent. Digest Sec. 981; 1 Whart. Cr.. Ev. p. 452; 9 Tex. App. 571; 65 Ga. 199; 9 Ala. 990; 54 Ala. 138; 96-Ala. 92; 55 Mo. 460; 118 Mo. 92;'23 Hun. 454; 68 N C. 154; 82 N.'C. 602; 88 N. C. 632; 116 Mo. 288; 14 N. M-239, 243; 9 N. M. 526; 13 N. M. 59.</p> <p>Supplemental Brief Of Appellée.</p> <p>Court did not err in giving instruction on reasonable doubt. E. pp. 115, 116; 11 N. M. 301; 15 N. M. 240; 16-N. M. 40, 700; 17 N. Mi. 666.</p> <p>Instruction on reasonable doubt properly stated law. 53 Neb. 310, 431, 438; 60 Neb. 628; 48 W. Va. 325; 114 Pa. 300.</p> <p>Sufficiency of evidence cannot be attacked by appellants.. 14 N. M. 147, 159.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Herbert F. Bajmolds, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Allegations of complaint. Abbott on Civ. Jur. Trials, pp. 152, 153; N. Y. 398; 42 N. Y. Supp. 326; 103 H, S’ 261; 78 N. J. L. 692; Sec. 1, Cliap. 67, L. 1905; 23 A. & E. Enc., 1st Ed., p. 309; 139 Fed. 961; 110 Mo. 254; 32 H. S. App. 513; 88 Fed. 435; 85 Fed. 27-34; 3 Neb. 17; 23 A. & E. Enc., 1st Ed. 412; 2 Lewis’ Sutherland on Stat. Const. 911; 28 S. E. 43.</p> <p>Principle universally adopted and approved in courts of this country. Dillon on Mun. Corp., 5th Ed., 4, 2893; 51 .Cal. 52; 38 Conn. 225; 107 111. 334; 161 Ala. 427; 132 N. Y. App. Div. 394; 123 Wis. 172; 16 Gray (Mass.) 297; 62 N. Y. 160; 5 Lea (Tenn.) 685; 78 Me. 118; 63 Md. 336; 56 Vt. 228; Sec. 1, Chap. 67, L. 1905.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Court erred in overruling demurrer to indictment. Sec. 79, C. L. 1897; Bish. N. Cr. Proc., vol. 2, Sec. 718, 889; 128 Ind. 160; 78 Ivy. 180; 86 S. W. 551; 14 Mont. 399; 85 Tenn. 551; 68 Yt. 109; 42 Yt. 537; 21 E. C. L. 755; 43 So. 466; supre; 44 So. 802; 45 So. 212; 51. So. 276.</p> <p>Yerdict of jury contrary to law. 73 Ark. 34; 145 S. W. 531; 55 Ark. 244; 138 S. W. 918; 54 Mo. App. 208; 133 S. W. 99; 34 S. W. 925; 42 Tex. 415; 45 S. W. 693; 38 Tex. Cr. 458; 36 S. W. 264; 32 Tex. Cr. 530; 19 Tex. App. 462; 18 Tex. App. 456; 6 Tex. App. 238; 26 Tex. App. 533; 36 Tex. Cr. R. 135; 38 S. W. 331; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. Sec. 562; 89 Ala. 130; 52 So. 518; 25 Ga. 474 ; 84 Ga. 466; 10 S. E 1087; 20 Am. St. Rep. 377; 15 Ga. 255; 32 N. Y. 465; 38 Ala. 227; 11 Cush. (Mass.) 137; Clark’s Cr. Pr. 168; 60 S. E. 816; 16 Ark. 499; 13 Ark. 712; 3 Camp, 264; 30 Conn. 507; 30 Ind. 115; 4 Ga. App. 67 ; 116 S. W. 500; 53 Me. 124; 655 N. C. 313.</p> <p>There was no arraignment of defendant. 13 N M. 97; 15 N. M. 292; 142 Mo. 478; 162 U. S. 625; 13 La. Ann. 103; Bish. New Crim. Proc., Yol. 1, Sec. 796, 728; supra; 6 Col. 231; 2 Hawk. 458; 5 S. & R. Rep. 314; 98 111. 259; Cent. Digest, Yol. 14, Sec. 18; Dec. Digest, Yol. 6, Sec 264; 12 Cyc. 348.</p> <p>Fence of pasture. Ene. Ev. Yol. 5, pp 555, 556, 559; 40' la. 394.</p> <p>Court erred in not granting a new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence. 14 N. M. 239; 13 N. M. 19; 8 N. M. 99; '6 N. M. 464; 2 K M. 391; 1 N. M. 247.</p> <p>•' Too late to raise any question as to sufficiency of indict meat. 13 N M. 378; Sec. 37, Cliap. 57, L. 1907.</p> <p>Arraignment and plea entered by appellant. 8 N. M. 446. Too late to raise objection to instructions by court. State v. Lucero, 17 N. M. 484.</p>

<p>'Appeal from District Court, Lincoln Countjr; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p>

Raynolds, Presiding Judge. • Case at bar should have been held in abeyance until disposal of equity suit. Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, (3rd. Ed.) Yol. 4, par. 1371; Dart vs. Orme, 41 G-a. 376; Harrison’s Devisees vs. Fleming, 23 Ky. 537; Stafford vs. Stafford, 25 La. Ann. 223.

Mechem, Presiding Judge. Law presumes that promissory notes, such as those in-suit, rest upon a valid consideration, and in absence of legal evidence sufficient to overcome that presumption, plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict. 2 Story on Prom. Notes, 7th Ed., Sec. 181; 60 Mass. 364; 2 Best on Ev., Morgan’s Notes, Sec. 429; 2 Greenleaf Ev. Secs. 171-2;-Secs. 24, 28, Stats. N. M.; L. 1907, Chap. 83, p. 169; 127' Pae. 1019; 156 TT.

<p>Appeal from District Court, Dona Ana Count}'; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Sufficiency of indictment. C. L. 1897, Sec. 1122; Session Laws 1905, Chap. 129, Sec. 1; 7 and 8 Geo. 4 c 29, Par. 47; Bishop’s Directions and Forms, par. 403; State v. Harmon, 106 Mo. 635, 18 S. W. 128.</p> <p>Change of venue against defendant’s objection violated his constitutional rights. N. M. constitution, Sec. 16. C. L. 1897 Secs. 7311-7318; Constitution Art. 6, Sec. 7; 2 Cooleys’ Blackstone (Third Edition) 491; People v. Powell, 25 Pac. 481, 11 L. E. A. 75; Wheeler v. State, 24 Wis. 52; Osborne v. State, 24 Ark. 629; Olive v. State, 7 E. W. 444.</p> <p>Constitutional rights. State v. Kindig, 55 Kans. 113, 39 Pac. 1028; State v. Bunker, 38 Kans. 737, 17 Pac. 651; State vs. Gut. 13 Minn. 341; 'State vs. Potter, 16 Kans. 80; State vs. Knapp et al, 40 Kans. 148, 19 Pac. 728; Bishop’s Or. Pr. Yol. 1, Sec. 50, page 21; Mayes v. State, 3 Heisk 175; Craig v. State, 3 Heisk 227; Speck v. State, 7 Bax. 46; State v. Smiley, 98- Mo. 605; State v. Kemp, 34 Minn. 61; State v. Albee, 61 N. H. 423, 60 Am. E. 325; State v. Danton, 6 Coldw. 539; State v. Trinklaw, 40 Neb. 759, 59 N. W. 370.</p> <p>Effect of unconstitutional statute. Dempsey v. State, 94 Geo. 766; 22 S. E. 57; State v. Howard, 31 Yt. 414; Ex. Party Eivers, 40 Ala. 712; Kirk v. State, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 344; Miller v. People, 230 111. 65; 82 N. E. 521, -C. L. 1897, Sec. 3398.</p> <p>Improper admission of evidence as to acquisition of capital stock. State v. Silva, 130 Mo. 440, 32 S. W., 1007.</p> <p>Proof as to conversion of money. Watson v. State, 64 Geo. 61; Block v. State, 44 Tex. 620.</p> <p>Erroneous instruction as to reasonable doubt. Terr. v. Ayer, 15 N. M. 581.</p> <p>Court should instruct jury in regard to circumstantial evidence. Terr. v. Lermo, 8 N. M. 566, 46 Pac. 16.</p> <p>Jury should not separate. U. S. v. Swan, 7 N. M. 306-13, 34 Pac. 535.</p> <p>The indictment is not defective. Only questions of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal. IT. S. y. Cook, 15 N. M. 127.</p> <p>Duplicity must be raised. 1 Bishop’s Crim. Pro. (Second Edition), pages 88, 361, 362, 369, 395 and 396, Bishop’s Directions and Forms, Sec. 403. Terr. v. Hurt, 16 N. M. 152-153 as to conclusions.</p> <p>No error in change of venue. C. L. 1897, Secs. 2879, 2881; N. M. Const. Art. 2, Sec. 14'; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 346; C. L. 1897, Sec. 3398; In re Nelson 102 N. W. 885; State v. Kindig, 55 Kans. 113; Olive v. State, 7 N. V. 444; State v. Gut. 13 Minn. 341; Wheeler' v. State, 24 Wis. 52; Kansas v. Knapp., 40 Kans. 148; State v. Bunker, 38 Kans. 741; State v. Smiley, 98 Mo. 605; State v. Kemp, 34 Minn. 61; State v. Albee, 60 Am. R. 325; State v. Denton, 6 Oolw. (Tenn.) 539, 541; State v. Trinldaw, 40 Neb. 759; Dempsey v. State, 94 Ga. 766; Vermont v. Howard, 31 Vt. 414; Ex Parte Rivers, 40 Ala. 712; Miller v. People, 230 111. 65; People v. Powell, 25 Pac. 481; Glinnan v. Phelan, 140 N. W. 87; Hewitt, et al. v. State, 43 Fla. 194; Armstrong v. State, 1 Coldw. 337; State, ex. rel. v. McCarthy, 52 Ohio State,. 363; Barry v. Traux, 112 Am. St. B. 662; People v. Furhmann, 103 Mich. 593, 61 N. W. 865; People v. Baker, 3 Abb. Pr. 42; Misc.er v. State, 41 Tex. Or. Bep. 212, 96 Am. St. B. 780; State v. Durflinger, 73 Ohio State, 154; People v. Yermilyea et al., 7 Cow. 108, 139; People v. Peterson, 93 Mich. 27;-Zinn v. District Court, 114 N. W. 472; People v. Webb, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 179; Cox et al. v. State, 8 Tex. A. 254.</p> <p>No error in permitting introduction of evidence concerning stock transactions. Kerr v. People, 110 111. 627; Beeves v. State, 95 Ala. 31; State v. Klasner, 19 N. M. 474.</p> <p>SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLEE.</p> <p>Change of venue. C. L. 1897, sec. 3398; Session Laws, 1851, sec. 17, p. 144; Session Laws 1882, Ch. 9; O. L.. 1897, Sec. 2879; Session Laws 1889, C. L. 1897, sec. 2881 N. M. Const. Art. II, sec. 12.</p> <p>STATEMENT OF FACTS.</p> <p>Appellant was indicted in the district court for Otero* county and charged with embezzlement of thirty-five hundred dollars which came into his hands by virtue of his employment as cashier of the Citizens State Bank of Tularosa. TJpon motion of the state for a change of venue the court transferred the trial of the cause to Dona Ana county, where the appellant was tried and 'found guilty. From that verdict and the judgment of the court appellant appealed.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Santa Fe County; Merritt C. Mecliem, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Effect of request for both parties for direction of verdict. 157 D. S. 154; 142 Fed. 132; A. & E. Ann. Cases, 545; 25 Olda. 600; 30 O'kla. 6; 68 N. C. 509; 233 I1L 501; 13 A. & E. Ann. Cases 369; 28 A. & E. Ann Cases 1346; 210 H. S. 1; 149 S. W. 1056.</p> <p>Effect of appellee’s motion for a directed verdict. 38 Cyc. 1543; 100 Ind. 127; 50 Am. Bep. 799; 20 How. 427; 53 Kan. 1080; 193 Mass. 289; 28 Cyc. 1576. •</p> <p>Parol proof of suretyship agreement. 95 IJ. S. 474; 8 Cyc. 262; Brandt on Suretyhsip, 3rd Ed., Sec. 454; 180 Pa. 165; 78 N. Y. 74; 51 Cal. 162; 43 L. B. A. 474.</p> <p>Duty of bank towards surety. 89 Fed. 464; 34 Fed. 104; 18 Ind. 281; 7 Mass. 518; 4 Johns. Oh. 123; 37 L. B. A. 699; 32 Cyc. 216; 8 D. E. A. 944; 37 L. E. A. 699; Daniels on Negotiable Instruments, 6th Ed., Sec. 1311; Page 707, Yol. 37, L. E. A.</p> <p>Court erred in refusing to permit inquiry with reference to statement made by Bowlds. Sec. 3026, C. L. 1897.</p> <p>Insufficient verdict. Sec. 2685, C. L. 1897; 42 Mo. 169; 60 Mo. 24; 18 Mo. App. 583; 31 Mo. App. 555; 51 Mo. App. 260; 74 Mo. App. 1; 9 111. 136; 1 Gilm. 347; 20. Am. Dec. 179; 13 Cyc. 422; 2 Eawle 53; 8 W. & S. 47; 1 Am. Dec. 439; 44 Mo. App. 42.</p> <p>Court erred in refusing to grant appellant’s motion to amend his motion for new trial. Sub-Sec. 136. Sec. 2685, C. L. 1897; 92 Ala. 79; 123 N ,C. 660; 26 Wend. 143.</p> <p>It is the general rule that when both parties request directed verdict, there is a submission of whole case to court and its decision on facts has same effect as verdict of jury. 16 N. M. 414; 14 N. M. 502; 38 Cyc. 1503; Ann. Cases 913, p. 1342; 157 IT. S. 154; 153 IJ. S. 216; 148 IT. S. 71; 47 Col. 263;-21 Col. App.416.</p> <p>Parol proof of alleged suretyship agreement inadmissable. 12 Neb. 138; 8 C3rc. 262; Daniels on Negotiable Instruments, 6th Ed., Sec. 119; 95 IT. S. 474; 90 Mass. 47; 41 Cal. 322; 157 111.' 255; 15 Ind. 114, 243; 59 la. --.73; 41 Miss. 616; 26 Mich. 93; 17 Wend. 190; 7 N. Y. State 273; 36 Tenn. 512; 76 Tenn. 586; 73 Am. Dec. 529.</p> <p>Bessemer Bank had no notice of alleged agreement between Norment and Perry and accepted note without knowledge of alleged 'conditions attached to Norment’s suretyship. 166 IT. S. 277; 176 Pa. 513; 54 S. E. 977; 8 L. E. A. 949; 6 Peters 51; 37 N. J. L. 307.</p> <p>Miscellaneous. Jones onEv., 2nd Ed., Sec. 852; 8 Cyc. 141; 131 Ala. 211; 108 Cal. 25; 47 Ind. 559; 5. N. M. 427; 135 Pac. 454; 85 Am. Dec. 610; 30 Minn. 368; 33 Pac. 1; 12 Tex. 54; 8 Ind. 315; 38 Cyc. 1880.</p> <p>“Inducement,” Yol. 4 Words and Phrases; 51 I£y. 178; 31 Pac. 204; 5 Abb. Pr. 41; “Consideration”, Yol. 2 Words and Phrases; 72 Ala. 294; 120 Mass. 449; Cent. Ene. and Die., Yol. 2; word “cover”, 24 S. E. 751; Yol. 7 Words and Phrases; “remain”, 5 So. 833; 3 L.,E. A. 661; 10 Barb. 223; “keep”, Words and Phrases, Yol. 7; Stearns on Suretyship, Secs. 2, 17; 21 Wall 657; 2 Wall 235; 2 Am. Dec. 291; 32 Cyc. 216; 4 Johns. Ch. 123; 37 L. E. A. 699; Daniels on Negotiable Instruments, 6th Ed., Sec. 1311; Brandt on Suretyship, Yol. 1, 3rd Ed., Sees. 480, 496; 166 U. S. 277; supra; Sec. 3026, C. L. 1897.</p> <p>STATEMENT OP PACTS.</p> <p>On June 24th, 1909, N. A. Perry requested the appellant to sign with him a note to the Bessemer Bank, of Pueblo, Colorado, for two thousand dollars, said Perry representing to ‘appellant that he would permit the money procured on said note to1 remain on deposit in said bank, as security for the payment of the note, and that he would also further secure the payment of the note by depositing with the bank as collateral security twenty shares of stock of the American Bank & Trust Company, of Clovis, New Mexico. Upon the faith of such representations appellant signed tlie note with Perry, writing after his signature the word '“surety.” Perry sent the note to the Bessemer Bank, together with the twenty shares of stock which he had agreed to deposit as collateral security, and instructed the bank to place the proceeds to the credit of the Savings Bank of Melrose, which was done. The business with the Bessemer Bank was transacted through C. H. Bowlds, •acting Yice President of that bank. At that time Bowlds was also Yice President of the Savings Bank of Melrose. Perry was also an officer of the Melrose Bank, and Sandell, ■appellee herein, was the cashier of the Bessemer Bank. The Melrose Bank credited Perry’s account with the $3,000 ■so placed to its credit by the Bessemer Bank, which sum was subsequently paid out by the Melrose Bank on Perry’s 'cheeks and drafts. The Melrose Bank drew, at different times, on the Bessemer Bank, four drafts, each for the •sum of $500, which were all paid by the Bessemer Bank, without objection, except the last. This draft it refused to pay, because it alleged that the Melrose Bank had agreed to keep $3,000 on deposit with it. Legal proceedings were instituted by the Melrose Bank'to compel the payment of the draft, whereupon it appears that it was paid.</p> <p>After maturity of the note, the Bessemer Bank transferred the same to J. H. Sandell, appellee herein, who instituted this action against appellant to enforce the payment of the same. In his answer to the complaint appellant admitted the execution and delivery of the note sued upon; that it was past due and unpaid, and set up several •different grounds of defense only two of which, however, in view of the propositions discussed by counsel for appellant in their brief, need be considered. These may be briefly stated as follows: (1) that the act of the Bessemer Bank in permitting the withdrawal of the $2,000 on deposit was an affirmative act on the part of the creditor, ■detrimental to the surety, and released him, and, (2) that the Bessemer Bank failed to dispose of the twenty shares of stock, pledged as collateral security, as was its duty to'have done.</p> <p>The case was tried to a jury, and, after all the evidence was heard, the plaintiff moved for' an instructed verdict. The defendant, appellant here, likewise moved for an in- * structed verdict in his'favor, The court sustained appellee’s motion, pursuant to which the jury was instructed to return a verdict for appellee. ' •</p> <p>The appellant thereupon gave notice of a motion for a new trial, whereupon the court announced that the motion for a new trial would be deemed overruled, and exception would be granted to the appellant, although the appellant would be given ten days’ time within which to prepare and file a formal motion for new trial, and that judgment would be entered for appellee in accordance with the prayer of his complaint.</p> <p>Thereafter motion for new trial was prepared and filed, and formal order overruling the motion and granting judgment upon the verdict returned by the jury; under the instructions of the court, was entered upon the 10th day of October, 1913. On the next day there was filed a motion in arrest of judgment and later, while said motion was pending, and on the 12th day of October, 1913, there was filed in said cause an application to amend the motion' for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The motion in arrest and motion to amend were denied by an order entered on the 8th day of December, 1913, and on the next dajr this appeal was allowed.</p>

•Appeal from District Court, Curry' County; Granville A. Richardson, Presiding Judge.

<p>Writ of Audita Querela. Original in the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Failure, neglect and refusal. 30 Cal. 644; 68 -Ga. 324; 127 N. W. 1023; 31 L. R. A. 566; 58 Ohio St. 584; 56 Ain. St. Eep. 781; 80 Mich. 187; 45 N. W. 80; 29 N. J. L. 99; 24 Pickering 370; 93 N. M. 808; 27 Atl. 85; 100 Fed. 384; 22 S. W. 134; 45 N. W. 694.</p> <p>Cause of action. Chap. 36, L. 1909; Secs. 827, 831, C. L. 1897; Sec. 1, Chap. 5, L. 1899; Secs. 1804; 3619, C. L. 1897; Sec.-2, Art. 10 Const. -</p> <p>Illegal fees. 17 N. M. 81; Sub-Sec. 10, Sec. 867, C. L. 1897.</p> <p>Charge that books were not properly kept. Chap. 61, L. 1912.</p> <p>Charge as to uncleanliness of jail. 827, C. L. 1897.</p>

Baynolds, Presiding Judge. Sureties are said to be favorites of the law, and contract of suretyship must be strictly construed so as to impose upon the surety only those burdens clearly within its terms, and must not be extended by implication or presumption. Stearns on Suretyship.

District Court, Bernalillo County; Herbert F. Raynolds, Presiding Judge. In reviewing judgment directed by court-on opening of counsel every fact stated in complaint and opening and every fact which jury might have inferred therefrom is. deemed established in favor of plaintiff. 172 N. Y. 348; 80 Pac. 950; 245 111. 454; 76 N. J. 604; 101 Pac. 59.

<p>Appeal from District Court, Quay County; Thomas D_ Leib, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>89 Alá. 99; 57 Law Ed. 815; 176 Fed. 71; 6 Va. 899; 50 N. J. L. 485; 14 N. M. 147; 91 Am. Dee. 760; $ Cye. 1048, 1047; 55 Pac. 988; 2 L. R. A. 624; 95, Mo. 322; 63 N. W. 856; 39 Fed. Rep. 834.</p> <p>STATEMENT OP PACTS.</p> <p>The appellee, John L. Brobst, brought his suit against the Southwestern Company to recover damages on account of injuries received by appellee by reason of an alleged assault made upon him by one Mark Johnson, the agent of said appellant. Evidence was introduced to the effect that the appellant company was a railraod corporation and maintained a depot at Tucumcari for the transaction of its business with the public, and that said Mark Johnson was the agent of the company and that he was •at the time of making the alleged assault engaged in the performance of his duty as a special officer of the company; that appellee arrived at said depot on the early morning train en route to a point in Oklahoma; he stopped at Tucumcari where it was necessary to change cars; he was found asleep in the depot by said Mark Johnson ■and told to get out and was ejected from the depot and the right of way of appellant company. The appellee was intoxicated, and after he ivas ejected by the special ■officer he returned to the depot, when the alleged assault occurred. After trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,190.16. The appellant then moved for a new trial, which was overruled and an appeal was prayed to this court. Error was assigned upon four ■grounds, all of which were based upon the failure of the ■court to give certain requested instructions. Only one of these grounds, is argued in the brief.</p>

Baynolds, Presiding Judge. Motion to dismiss. 9 N. M. 46; 16 N. M. 191; 111 H. S; 488. Court erred in not making and filing finding of facts upon evidence submitted prior to rendering judgment in said cause. 16 N. M. 71; Sec. 2999 C. L. 1897. Court erred in 'sustaining demurrer of defendant. 90 N. W. 767; 129 Mass. 44; 205 H. S. 130; 2 Atl. Bep. 195; 78 N. E. Bep. 633. Burden upon plaintiff. 98 Cyc. 1104; 116 Mass. 401; 103 N. Y. 28. When did judgment become final?

<p>Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; David J\ Leahy, Presiding Judge.</p> <p>Motion to vacate judgment and restore case to docket. 1 Black on Judgments, Secs. 313, 306, 331, 333, 345, 397; 48 M'd. 404; 104 H. S. 416., ,</p> <p>Power' to vacate. 18 Md. 138; 14 Hun. 331; 8 N. Y. ■Supp. 330; 4 How. Pr. 6; 18 How. Pr. 544.</p> <p>Statutes regulating opening of judgment. 19 N. E. Rep. 844; 69 N. C. 410; 18 Abb. Pr; 3; 17 Abb. Pr. 177; 8 S. D: 419; 34 La. Ann. 48; 31 la. 386; 63 111. 137; 15 Tex. 345; 80 App. Div. Supp. Ct. (N. Y.) 395; 66 Ga. 30; ■83 Ind. 334; 69 Ind. 577; 94 Minn. 437; 4 Nev. 171; 1 N. M. 401; 153 Pa. St. 633; 38 111. 349.</p> <p>Inherent power of courts to set aside judgment obtained through fraud, etc. 33 Cye. 907; 303 111. 357; 17 A. & E. Ene. L., 3nd Ed., p. 837; 87 111. 474; 111 111. 176; 134 111. 195; 149 111. 430; 300 111. 56; 111 la. 339; 14 N. H. •303; 43 N. H. 508; 5 Met. 300; 17 Pick. 170; 33 N. H. 136; 3 Mackey 336; 18 Md. 130; 9 Wheat. 576; 14 Md. ■565; 34 Md. 41; 101 Ga. 113; 17 Mich. 335; 13 Mich. 449.</p> <p>Judgments may be' set aside for fraud and mistake. 46 la. 176; 16 So. 533; 1 McMill (S. C.) 393; 50 N. Y. 586; 51 Mo. 359; 38 Mo. 80; 38 Mo. 431; 153 N. Y. 314.</p> <p>Court will grant relief in furtherance of justice. 35 Minn. 311; 33 Pa. Supp. Rep. 607; 88 Fed. 770; 13 Pa. ■Supp. Ct. 439; 67 Cal. 393.</p> <p>Judgment may be impeached or set aside for fraud. 59 Cal. 179; 93 Ind. 495; 15 Wis. 567; 27 Wis. 667; 47 N. J.. Eq. 278; 62 N. Y. Supp. 852; 13 Phil. Eep. 82; 14 S. D. 614; 1 Black on Judgments, Sec. 355; 25 S. W. 182; 83-Tenn. 473.</p> <p>Agreement between parties that case should be continued. 9 Ark. 354; 92 Ind. 296; 72 Ind. 379; 81 N. C. 106; 47 N H. 507; 5 El. & B. 301; 6 A. & E. (N. S.) 587; 12 Pa. St. 328; 30 Md. 558; 5 Mich. 30; 21 la. 58; 12 N Y. 156; 30 Ind. 435; 1 Ind. App. 33; 13 Kan. 171; 13'-N. J. L. 264; 10 Abb. N.' C. 359 f 19 How. Pr. 289; 12 N. Y. 215; 3 Barn. & Aid. 934; 18 Wend. 628; 10 Abb. Pr. 407; 33 N Y. 9; 16 How. Pr. 203; 2 Abb. N. C. 238; 8 Hun 61; 41 How. Pr. 221; 5 How. Pr. 484; 26 Barb. 263;. 25 Wis. 566.</p> <p>Doubt. 38 Pae. 512; 41 Cah 17; 99 Cal. 425; 23 Mo. 411; 89 Cal. 232; 41 Cal. 17.</p> <p>When court bases judgment on ground that it has no power to vacate or set aside judgment, it is error, 65 N C. 394.</p> <p>Sufficient reason for opening or vacating judgment. 42' La. Ann. 194; 47 Md. 281; 22 Mo. App. 191; 43 Mo. 309; 3 Ohio 448; 7 Ohio Eep. 188; 37 Neb. 359; 62 Tex. 65; 38 la. 434; 12 Pa. 328; 25 Humph. (Tenn.) 47; 12' Wheat., p. 10; 16 Gray 364; 20 Wis. 268; 82 Wis. 135; 31. Oreg. 231.</p> <p>Order of dismissal. 23 Cye. 901, 905, 907; Sec. 2685 C.. L. 1897; 16 N. M. 98; 58 Fed. 536; 77 N. M. 503; 189 S. W. 289; 80 Pac. 1065; .74 Pac. 301; 104 H. S. 410; 117 H. S. 665; 2 Mackey 236; 29 So. 622; 51 Atl. 601; Vol. 7, Am. Digest, Dee. Ed., Sec. 81; 115 111. App. 599; 85 Mo.-App. 298; 28 N. Y. Supp. 769; 16 S. D. 591; 22 S. E. 36, 901; 14 111. App. 38; 50 111. App. 595; 11 S. W. 100; 28 N. Y. Supp. 769; Cyc. 921; 202 111. 257.</p>

Abbott, Presiding Judge. Court erred in rendering judgment for appellant as an allowance of any fee in excess of $150 for such fees was error. 58 Minn. 561; 36 Utah 6; 20 A. & E. Ann. Cases, p. 1371; 5 Ind. App. 4; 8 Cyc. 321; 46 la. 319; 124 Ind. 61; 49 Pac. 777; 23 Pac. 241; 137 Pa. St. Eep. 329; 88: Pac. 1057; 105 TJ. S. 45; 124 Pac. 733; 140 Pac. 339; 99 111. 616; 107 S. W. 1108; 24 So. 168; 1 Kent’s Commentaries 462.

<p>Habeas Corpus. Original in the Supreme Court.</p> <p>Local Option Statutes. Laws 1913, Ch. 78; O. L. 1897, Sec. 3224; Election void. S. L. 1913, Sh. 78, Sec. 3; In re Woolridge, 30 Mo. App. 212; Ex Parte Snyder, 64 Mo. 863; State ex. rel. White v. Euark, 34 Mo. App| 325; Woolen and Thornton “The Law of Intoxicating Liquors”, Vol. 1, Sec. 529, p. 882; Id. See. 531; Gossard v. Vaught, 10 Kans. 162, 26 Pac. 129; State of Nevada, ex. rel. Lewis Hess, et al. v. The County Commissioners of Washoe County, 6 Nev. 104, 34 Pac. 104; Town of Grove v. Haskell, 104 Pac. 58; City of Chanute v. Davis, 116 Pac. 367; Haskell v. Reigel, 108 Pac. 368; Winston v. State, 22 S. W. 138; Gurry v. State, 13 S. W. 752; King y. State, 28 S. W. 201.</p> <p>Construction of statute. O’Rielly v. Colb.ert and Coast Lines Hospital Association, 16 N. M. 647; H. S. v. Goldenberg, 168 H. S. 195; Baca v. Perez, 8 N. M. 197; Woolen & Thornton, Law of Intoxicating Liquors, Sec. 91; Ex parte MeCardle, 12 Wall. (H. S.) 561; Doyle y. Continental Ins. Co. 94 H. S. 535; Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502; Lyon v. Norris, 15 Ga. 480; McCullough v. State, 11 Ind. . 424; Lilly v. City, etc., 49 N. E. 887; Coverdale v. Edwards, 58 N. E. 495; Gandy y. State, 82 Ala. 61; Sharkey y. State, 33 Miss. 353.</p> <p>Construction of statute. McCrary v. Williams, 154 S. W. 418; 15 Cyc. 320 and cases cited.</p> <p>Notice and proclamation of special elections. 15 Cyc. 322. Requirements of statute mandatory or directory. Ho-gins y. Bullock, 121 S. W. 164; Hinkle v. Coleman, 92 N. E. 61; State v. School District, 124 Pac. 484; People v. Yoorhees, 91 N. Y. S. 595; State y. Russel, 51 N. W. 465; •Fowler v. State, 3 S. W. 255; People v. Wood, 42 N. E. 536; In re Pine Hill, 33 N. Y. S. 181; State v. Bernier, 33 N. W. 368; Landcaster v. Ham on, 156 S. W. 142.</p> <p>Can the election be attacked collaterally? 23 Cyc. 101; Wesley v. State, 122 S. W. 550; Woodward v. State, 30 S. E. 522; State v. Cooper, 8 S. E. 134; State v. Emery, 3 S. E. 810; Gubb v. State, 21 S. W. 190; State v. Yilliage, 128 N. W. 2.95; People y. Poster, 58 N. Y. S. 574; State v. Gamma, 129 S. W. 734.</p>

Original in Supreme Court. STATEMENT OP THE CASE. This is a proceeding on an information against Alois B. Renehan for disbarment, filed by the attorney general in accordance with the recommendation of the State Board of Bar Examiners of the State of New Mexico, under and by virtue of Chapter 53, Session Laws of 1909 of New Mexico.

Habeas Corpus. Original in the Supreme Court. Authority of court to take original jurisdiction. Notes-tine v. Bogers, 18 N. M. 462; Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch, 448. Only one way to hold a person to answer for a capital crime. Constitution (N. M.) Art. II, Sec. 14, Const. N. M. Art. XX, Sec. 20. Validity of Informations. Bill of Bights, Sec. 10, Fed.