Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-09-02
The scales Of Justice.

The Scales of Justice.
Appended is the full text of the able
and exhaustive opinion of the New Mex
leo supreme court, handed down by Chief
Justice Smith yesterday, in the celebrated
Santa Fe murder case:
In the supreme court of the territory OF
New Mexico, July term, 1896.
Francisco Gonzales y
Borrego ct al,
Plaintiffs in Error. Error to Santa Fe
Mexico,
Defendant in Error.
statement of Facts.
At the June term, A. D. 1894, of the dis
trict court for the county of Santa Fe,
Francisco Gonzales y Borrego, Antonio
Gonzales Borrego, Lauriano Alarid and
Patricio Valencia were indicted for shoot
ing and killing one Francisco Chavez, on
the 29th day of May, 1892, in the county
of Santa Fe, and territory of New Mexico.
Oh March IS, 1895, special term Of the
said district court was duly called by the
Hon. N. B. Laughlin, associate Justice of
the supreme court and Judge of the let
iudicial district of New Mexico. Judge
Laughlin, deeming himself disqualified to
preside at the trial of the said defendants,
called in to sit for him Hon. H. B. Hamil-
ton, associate Justice of the supreme court
and Judge of the 5th judicial district of
the territory of New Mexico, and there
upon Judge Hamilton, during the said
special term commenced the trial Of the
said parties, to wit: On the 23d of April,
1898. and continued the same until the
29th day of May, of the same year, when
the iury returned verdict finding the
accused guilty as charged in the indict-
ment, A motion was thereupon made for
a new trial and an arrest OF Judgment,
which said motions were duly argued ana
after full consideration were overruled,
and the defendants were thereupon SEN
tenced by the court to be executed on the
10th day of July, 1895. ;,
An appeal was thereupon taken by the
accused to this court by writ OF error
from the district court, and the case is
now before us for review and determine
tion upon numerous points OF error
alleged to have been committed during
the progress of the trial.
In the first place it is contended that
the special term of the court at which
the appellants in error were tried expired
by operation of law on the 18th day OF
April, 1895, and could not legally have
been prolonged by the action of the pre-
siding Judge. II appears that regular
term for district court in the county OF
San Juan was fixed by territorial statute
TO commence on the 3rd Monday OF April,
1895, and il is insisted that limitation
was thus imposed upon the duration OF the
Hpecial term commenced in Santa Fe on
March 1S, 1895; that the terms OF court
for one county can not encroach by ex-
tension upon the courts of other ooun-
ties of the district; that in theory OF law
n term of court begins on the day desig-
mated by statute for it's commencement
and ex vi termini other courts In the dis
trict at the same time are prohibited.
Such construction might obtain in this
territory if statutes did not exclude it.
Section 5A3 of the Compiled Laws di-
rects courts to be held in the different
counties at the times fixed by law, and
authorizes their continuance until ad-
iourned by order of court. 1t is mani
fest that it was intended by this provls-
ion to impose duty and to confer a dis
erection, and it would seem that II the ex-
ercise Of the one should render impracti-
cable the discharge Of the other, the dis
cretion should prevail. The interest OF
the public is the consideration that has
induced many courts to the adoption OF
the doctrine that term In progress In
one county must be arrested BY the arriv-
al of the tune fixed for court in another
county In the same district, and Judge
animated by due regard for public veal,
and in his opinion legally possessing
absolute power az to the duration of the
terms Of his courts, might in sound iudg-
ment continue one and abandon another.
Tho special Term Issue.
The special term in question COM
menced March 18, 1895, and 1t can easily
be conceived by this tribunal that the
trial Judge in the exercise of his discrs-
tion wisely regarded ii more judicious to
conclude the case that had consumed
weeks, at the cost Of thousands Of dollars,
than to abandon IL for term In county
of limited population and proportionate
litigation. Absence of provision fol-
such an emsrgsnt contingency would be
grave casus omissus.
II is further urged that % the statute
section $50, providss that special termi
shall not conflict with regular terms, the
special term at Santa Fe Was necessarily
terminated by the regular term construc
lively existing In San Juan ON the third
Monday Of April, 1896. But said ssotior
merely declares against conflict and
does not declare the oessstion or illegal