Arizona citizen., 1874-01-31
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.


 fully prepared abstract of another. Next | week a succinct abstract of the opinion in the case of Campbell ct al against Shiv- CTS, will appear, in which some powers of the supreme court and rights to water are passed upon:
 In the case of the Territory of Arizona, ex rel c. w. c. Powell, district attorney of
 Yuma county, respondents, against J. B. Futile and Joseph GOldwater, appellants, the opinion was written by Tweed and concurred in by Titus and reads:
 The appeal is from judgment in favor of
 plaintiff and respondent, purporting to
 have been rendered at the November term
 of the district court, second judicial dis
 trict for the year 1873, sitting at Yuma.
 The same question arises in this case as to the authority of the supreme court judges to fix the time for holding the dis trict courts in the three districts of the Ter ritory, that we have passed upon in the case of John c. Campbell ct al aSalHSt ShiVerS The order of the judges made at | the seat of government on the llth day ol | February, 1873, to fix the time for hOlding | the district court in the second district, designated the first Monday in April ana | the first Monday in December as the umeS | for the commencement of these terms un- | til further order should be made. It ap- | pears from the record that the judge Of the district being absent, the court was open I ed by the sheriff on the first Monday Tn November and adjourned from day to day until the second Monday i'll November. on which last mentioned day an order was received from the judge commanding the sheriff to adjourn the court over unli the 1 third Monday in November, which was | accordingly done. on the Saio thlTu MOI MOI | day in November, the judge being present, | the court proceeded with the transaction 1 of busineSS until November 9, at which | time the court was adjourned untll the | second Monday in December. It appear l ing. therefore. that no court was opened or | in session on the day fixed by the order Of | the judges aforesaid, under our ruling Tn 1 the case of Campbell ct al vS. '5hlVers, l hcreinbefOre referred to, the Decemper term of said court must be deemed 10 nave 1 laneCd: and it appearing by the record | that the order of court overriding the de- murror herein, was made on the 9th day 1 of December and the order for the JudS- | ment herein on the llth day Of December, l the same must be deemed as having no validity. The cause must be remanded with directions that said judgment and orders he annulled and set aside, and u Is so ordered.
 In the case of the Territory of Arizona, respondent against Patrick T. Leny, ap-
 pcIlant, the opinion was written by Tweed
 and concurred in by Titus and Porter, and
 reads as follows:
 The defendant was indicted and tried
 for the crime of murder at the May term | of the district court, second Judicial CiS-
 trict, in and for the county of Mohave. l Upon the trial, the defendant was con | victed of the crime of murder in the first i degree, and judgment rendered and pro nounced against him. The appeal is from 1 the judgment.
 l We have examined the transcript which
 seems to us exceptionally Tull and accu- | -l,x,, -s,,rr a | law in ali the proceedings from the organ 1 iZatiou Of the grand jury to the rendition
 Of the verdict by the jury which tried the | case, were strictly compiled with. some 1 exceptions seem to have been taken m the progress of the proceedings to some DOT | ti0ns of the testimony, and sweeping eN- cnption made to the charge of the court to | the jury. But the testimony objected to
 or offered and refused is not brought be- | fore us, nor is the charge Of the court con | tained in the transcript. To have ayailed | himself of the exceptions attempted to ] be made, motion for new trial should l have been made, and the testimony eX- 1 ceDted tO and the charge of the court made l a part of the statement upon such motion. 1 As before stated we see no error ill the l proceedings and judgment must be affirm l ed, and it is so ordered.
 l Following is an abstract of the supreme courts opinion in the case wherein AlOn-
 20 E. Davis and John \. Rush are plain | tifTs and William A. Linn and Washing
 lon French are defendants. The suit was
 appealed from the third judicial district
 court. James E. McCaffry and John A.
 Rush were attorneys for Davis and Rush
 and Coles Bashford for Linn and French.
 The entire opinion would fill eight col
 umns of this type, hence an abstract alone
 can be given, but all that is directly perti- nent to the issues involved are here pre-
 sented. The opinion is by Titus, Tweed
 concurred in the judgment and Porter's name is not attached to it:
 | This is an action in the nature of eject ment brought in the third district by Da-
 wis and Rush against Linn and French for the possession of a mining claim. The | verdict which was in favor of the plain tiffs, was set aside by order of the court as | against the evidence, and the appeal is to | disaffirm that order. The statement in- lcIuded in the transcript of the record, dis | closes the following conclusions of fact: In the Fall of 1870 and in 1871, the Tiger l Cook. Washington French, A. B. Smith, H. c. Curry and D. c. Moreland, was form ed for the purpose of prospecting and To- eating mining claims in the Bradshaw mountains, in the county of 9avapai. On the 10th of January, 1871, D. c. MOreland assisted by G. A. Hammond located l200 feet including the discovery location on the Tiger Mine and on behalf of this com pany, at the same time, MOreland at the instance of French, located 200 feet north of and adjoining the location of the com