Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-07-31
DISTRICT COURT.
a Record of Yesterdays Business in Ter
ritorial Civil, Criminal and trited
States Cases.

I
court opens at 9 o'clock and again at
80 p. m, and holds till p. m. The
damage suit OF Ambroso Ortiz vs. the T.,
S. f. & N, in which the plaintiff claims
damages amounting to 1000 because OF
the construction of the road along Rosario
street, near his property, is occupying
most OF the courts attention to-day.
Judge Downs appears for the plaintiff
and Mr.. Preston for the railroad company.
Other business has received attention
thus far during the term as follows:
( Insley, Shire 4 Co. vs. +. G. Ross, suit
for debt, set for trial on the second We'd
nesday of the term.
James M. Lucas VS.. Patrick Cullen,
plaintiff granted new trial.
Willis Turner VS.. Miguel Silva ct al,
judges OF election 4th precinct, dismissed
at cost OF plaintiff.
Eva s. Muse vs.. VIM. S. Muse, suit for
divorce, referred 10 Judge Downs as spe-
cial master.
S. Wedeles ct al. vs.. Simon Leyser,
judgment by default for $253.
L. A. Fiske VS.. S. Leyser, judgment by
default for $230.70.
Louis Felsenthal vs.. w. S. Fletcher,
set for trial Tuesday next.
Seligman Bros. vs. Jesse Benton, judg-
ment for $149.49 and sale of property
ordered.
L. G. Jones VS.. W. H. Sealy, judgment
for $452.30.
J. H. Knaebel vs.. Milton Fiske, suit
involving the Dolores mill referred to S.
Burkhart as special master.
Joseph Noehman vs. II. Champion,
judgment for $l44.05.
D. H. Smith vs.. Alexander Read; con-
tinued by agreement.
7. B. Catron Va. S. B. Elkins, inyoly-
| ing Cerrillos lands; decree pro confesso
and referred to ?. l.. Vanderveer, special
master.
7. B. Catron vs.. S. N. Laughln, re-
speeding the Eaton grant; decree pro
confesso against all unknown claimants I;
except s. N. Laughlin and c, II. Glider
! sleeve.
On the L, S. side of the court the fol-
lowing cases have been dismissed on mo-
ton Of the U. S. district attorney;
A. 3. Clark, violation of timber laws;
F. A. Forbes, fencing public lands; W.
E. Miller, making false account; w. Z.
Miller, embezzlement; VIM. Gibson,
forgery; Cresencio Archueta, violation
election laws.
U. S. VS.. Jose Salazar Ortiz, violation
OF election law; bond forfeited and scire
facias ordered.
q. S. VS.. Toribio Vigil, Jose Salazar
Ortiz and Luis Garcia, violation of cleo
ton laws, same order.
U. S. VS.. Cresantos Vigil, violation of
election laws, same order.
[. S. VS.. Jose Alcario Veasquez ct al,
violation of election laws, same order.
U. S. vs.. Noe Gallegos, violation OF
election laws, two cases, same order.
L. S. VS.. Gavino Vargas, violation OF
election laws, same order.
U. S. vs.. Atlano Gold, ct al. and U. s.
VS.. Doroteo Sanchez, Rosario Martinez
de Herbert, same order.
The case of Doniciano Duran for viola
ton of the Edmunds act was tried and
taken under advisement by the court.
In this case John H. Knaebel, esq.,,
made very able argument in behalf of
the accused, taking the ground, first, that
spects, particularly with reference to the
time and place such violations of law are
alleged to have occurred, and, second,
contending that the Edmunds act was in
tended to apply, not to all the territories,
but to the territory of Utah only. He
cited the decision OF the supreme court in
the Crawford case, wherein it was held
that this act does not apply to the district
of Columbia, and also an Idaho supreme
court decision, wherein it was held that
the provisions of the law respecting dover,
etc., could make it applicable alone to
Utah. 1t is law directed against the
institution Of Mormonism only, contended
Mr.. knaebel. The court has the question
still under advisement.
U. S. District Attorney Fiske made an
able response on behalf of the United
States, contending for the application of
the act to all territories. 1t is but just to
state here that the Indictment in this case
was drawn by the former U. s. attorney
and not by Mr.. Fiske.
w. E. Dame for failure to appear when
summoned to serve as grand juror was
arraigned in court and fined $40 and costs
for contempt.
In the case of the U. S. vs.. VIM. Breed
EN-, suit to eject defendant from the old
adobe palace, appearance was entered
and he was ruled to plead within two
weeks.
On the criminal docket number of
minor criminal cases were dismissed.
Territory vs. w. II. Spencer, carrying
arms, bond forfeited and scire facias
ordered Territory vs.. Agustin Hunter,
resisting an officer, same order; Territory
VS.. @. Sidios, carrying arms, same order;
Territory vs.. Fernando Sena, abandoning
wife, same order Territory vs.. Juan Mar
tinez y Romero, abandoning wife, same
order.