Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1894-12-15
IMPORTANT DECISION
The Court Docket 10 Be Cleared
Of Civil Cases.
Pay Your Honest Debts and Be-
com" Square Once More.
Notes aud Open Accounts Must he
setthd r. Judgment J. SUI.
JUpE COl.LlEks urlNiuN


Judge Collier IN cases on prumisn ',
notes aud vrrii- accounts, the u,n,n,
II the Judge having been cAclurivrl,
published IN this payer n few days Hgu
Judge u l.. Warren aud N-ill u fmll
"a l+hAf II some defendants. sucd IN AZ
cuuu, of pruinlH,ory uu'rs, requested ia,
court lu he heart ~. the propositions ia
volvtSi Mr.. Field Srgur,. very rlAhu
rahrly that the Position IT the court n
the matter was uuround, ami hr al,
tlrd written argument ~ the case Ih,
court, after considering the matter ut
several day., thir morning handed dow
= written opln"u affirming the posi'tur
heretofore held 10y the court. The uuininr
pAr followu'
Territory of New Mexico. County II Der.
ualillu, second Judicial District Court
First NAtluuAl bank. W. Char r Han,
and J,~e l. prrA. Aurumpzlt
A motion G'iug unAdr - ia. above cAurr
similar IT, thur- d-cld,-l Ia iGul. .ihIa.
jGi3 and 35Is IN which | hl,-l - written
opinion, council for defendant ia thIr rArr
A-krd leave tn submit argument. u"tuIlh
stsnding the views heretofore Announced
| 10y the court ~ thns. cases
The argument vAa quite elaborate and
traced the Legislation ~ this territory l..r.
tanning Ia pleading Ia suits NJ Jaw ,Iuvu
to the present time, and II was abs aui
strrhuuusly urged that section lS1N.whurh
| | hal held IL b- rule uf pleading, NAE
SIMPLY rule of evidence In Aus~ri e.
the view uf the court. thKt the only WAY
Ia construr the section ~ AS to make nj
| It's parts oi utility wAE a. hold II iu h-
n rul" uf lrAting. b.cAuH- ptulnIssury
| notes Ahd other instruments Ia writing
sued IN nr'sied NJ such All from the .rr.
| ton ~ . rule of evidence, counsel con.
| tended that prior Ia the section b-rumiuv
law. II was necerrary f"r plaintiff Ia
prove execution VI the instrument sued
On, and that this section dirIrnH-d With
such prHf, unless defendant drui-d the
same under oath.
II councils pt~Iuls- was true | would
adopt th. conclusion, but the prrinis. 1
Il" not think true
In his written Argument Furnished me
counsel says that up tn the time section
1873 h-cam- law only two kinds Of pi-.r
we're required Ia b- verified, rlra- IN
abatement and pleas non .nt fnclum IT,
Luna Va Mohr, 3 y. m, pa -, Justice
Bristol says that a denial nf signature
under section 1914 In matter foi . rl,-cia
plea. aud It Ia plainly stated that II rig
nature IN d-nlr'i 1t shall b- uni-r oath.
II IL diihcul, I" rny what WAS the puS.
I"'s- of H-cti"n l9l+ II II did not cuni-u.
plate u pl-ai II II did contemplate n
plea. ] think the Inference - not strained
which rays tina, the Legislature iutend-d
that promis@'ry note should prove itself
dnl-Ss the signaturr ~ denies. amber oath
W. are, however, not without authority
"a thus subject
In Thomas vs. Clark. = Mclean, ia,
rrIor'-d m ~ F,-i Dee, =. 623. 1t IL held
that u'der rule nf court requiring "a
plea II the general irsue deny Ing the "a.
'cuii"n ~ at Instrument or ui all lndur.-.
Inrnt on which the action II brought. Ia
l+ sworn to- execution IN AdmItt,si IL
the absence uf sworn pies
IL rule ~ court can accomplish the
10y way 81 Inference, why should nni a
stAtutri
section 1913 IN terms rsy- tina, ~ to
writings obligatory execution shall hr ~.
carried as proven IN Ahs-ncr II plea of non
est iActum sworn Ia.
Thus think II IL clear that my former
I
~ prom Hsnry notes AMI other Instruments
IA writing are cnnc.rn-d rctluu ISIS war
unnecessary lrgirlat On II the section II
merely q rule ~ rvni-nrr
My attention has cen called tu the fact !
that when section 1875 pA-r-d uArti-. L.
suit we're not cnm,,-t-nt witnesses. | |
dn not See that tins touches the question |
h-for- me-, IA the view | take 81 proof II |
go l,.in 4.
tions l3l4 and 1913. rNcrI, ths, 1t r-rv-s
I" sho~ with shsnlu,r clrarnrss that the
teniAl 10y the defendant ar his agent pro.
vd'd by section 1873 meant DENIAL IN
writing,
II defendant could no, testify, because
II being n party To- the suit. then n h- lie.
ni"H nn oath he must do So 10y way nt |
pleading,
Sections 1921 and lg32 are, Il IL urged
10y counr-l In line with section 1873, hut
Il seems To me that with more rrNHnn can
II h- SAID that they are Ia be- construed
with ~ ct'"ns 1914 and 1915, for they cover
The nstn. things 10 terms. and they do not |
Npl"Ar I" touch verified accounts rm.
hrHc-d IN section 1878, W. have l-gisln
tive construction IN the act II 1859, Ia the
fleet that sections 1921 aud l123 do mol
refer Ia yrrlh-'i accounts.
In none Of the arguments advanced hAr
any consideration l--n pad la the wni,is
mot lArr,si by the PROVISIONS II this act"
found IN section 1873. hut II mus, he rup.
Is'r'Si hat there was . purpns. III insert
my them.
II cannot ba contrnd-si that the rul-s III
plraiinR we're ~ chAng,d by this s-c i"n
40 Ia MAX. II M longer unnecessary Tor
defendants :" plead the statute II hmitA.
A.. Al. l..