Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1897-01-02

fu, as they say in the preface to thei
work, to avoid "making changes in an
original law" The compilation of gen
eral laws embraced the revision of 1856
and the session laws thereafter. Sec
tion 553 was taken from section fou
of chapter eighteen of the revised
laws of 1865, the chapter embodying thu
previous law of January 13, 1862 Sec
tion $50 was section three Of chapter
twenty-six of the laws of 1874, approved
January 8, and section 552a was section
three of chapter twenty seven of the law
of 1874, approved January 6. LAW
1874, PIP. AZ, 49) The compilation o
1884 was published in accordance will
the act authorizing it to be made.
June IA, 1858, congress passed an aci
providing shat the judges of the su
preme court of each territory of the
United States are hereby authorized te
hold court within their respective dis
tricts in the counties wherein, by the laws
of said territories, courts have been ol
may be established, for the purpose OF
hearing and determining all matters and
causes, except those in which the United
States ia party: Provided, That the
expenses thereof shall be paid by the ter
ritory, or by the counties in which said
courts may be held, and the United States
shall in no case be chargeable Herewith
1 Stat 1856, C. 1866. Accordingly terms
of court in the several counties were duly
provided for by the territorial legisla-
ture, and these terms in the counties IN
the first judicial district were fixed by the
first section of the territorial act of Feb
ruary 22, 1898.
BY other sections than those before
given, it was provided that district courts
in the several counties in which they
might be held should have power and
jnsisdiction of all criminal cases that
should not otherwise be provided for by
law; of all criminal cases that might
originate in the several counties, which
according to law belong to the district
courts, or that might be presented by in
dictment, information or appeal and
that the costs, charges and expenses Of
holding and maintaining the district
courts and the costs in causes determined
against the territory should be paid by
the territory. Comp. Laws, 53l, 532,
$40.
BY section 20 of chapter 81 of the acts
of 1898 the respective counties Of the ter
ritory were required to provide for the
expenses of the district courts by levy Of
taxes as herein prescribed. claws 1893,
p. 1857
The supreme court of the territory held
that the requirement that the respective
counties should provide for the expenses
of their district courts under this section,
which we have not felt called upon to set
forth in extenso, practically inhibited
terms in counties in which there were no
funds, and declared that it had been a
frequent consequence of this system that
courts could not be and were not held in
some of the counties at the time fixed by
the statute. The laws of New Mexico
contained the usual provision for ad-
journment of terms to terms in course
ON the non attendance of the judge, and
it was not contended here that in fact
regular terms of the district court we're
held in the county Of San Juan in April,
in the county of Rio Arriba in May, and
in the county of Taos in May, while the
special term was in session. From the
various provisions of the acts referred to.
it appears that no specific duration of
either regular or special terms was pre-
scribed by law, but that they were sub
ject, when lawfully commenced, to be
continued until adjourned by order of
court, and that therefore they could not
be necessarily determined by the advent
of the particular days designated for the
commencement of regular terms; and
that special terms might be ordered when
regular terms failed to be held, and also
whenever in the discretion of the Judge
of any district court furtherance of JUS
tice required it,
Under section $50, which was section
of chapter 26 of the laws of 1874, when
special terms were held because the regu-
lar term had failed, it was provided that
any such special term should not conflict
with the regular term In any other coun
ty in the same judicial district, that Is,
that it should not be so called as to pro-
duce conflict or be held in actual con-
fiict; while by section of chapter ~ of
the laws of 1874, being section 552a, no
specific limitations we're imposed in re-
spect of special term called hereunder.
There was nothing in any of these pro-
visions which controlled the discretion of
the trial Judge in continuing any special
term he may have been holding until
pending case was concluded, and moth
ing which operated to invalidate the pro-
ceedings of such special term because
prolonged beyond the day fixed for
regular term. Jurisdiction did not de.
pend on the stroke of the clock. Election
cases, 65 Pa. Stat. "a; Briceland v. Com,
"a Pa. 463; Bank v. Withers, Wheat.
1O6; Maish v. Arizona, 164 U. S..
This trial was commenced on April %,
1895, which was, as the record declared,
the thirty-second day of the special term,
which had commenced March Is, and was
concluded on May 80, 1895, the sixty
third day of said special term, by the re-
turn of verdict of guilty. The motions
for new trial and in arrest were denied,
and the sentence pronounced on June Is,
1895, one of the days of the regular term
of the district court, the postponement
to that day having been granted on the
request of defendants. Under these oir
cumstauces the proceedings in any view
can not be held void for want of juris
diction. Mcdowell v. United States, 159
U. s. 596. Order affirmed.
True copy.
Tests JAMES II. MoKENNEY.
(SeaD Clerk Supreme Court U. s.
TO-DAY'S CONDENSATION.