Arizona republican., 1898-04-17

appeal from Yavapai county, judgment i i affirmed.
 John McGowan vs Nellie A Sullivan,
 appeal from Graham county. This
 is a case wherein an attorney sues
 upon quantum meruit for profes- |
 sional services. The attorney was de feated in the court below and the su-
 preme court affirmed the judgment. ] United States of America vS. Simon
 Marks ct al, appeal from Cochise |
 county. The suit was based upon a charge of illegal retention of money by i 1 8 postmaster, action against him and the sureties on his bond Judgment affirmed.
 Elias L. Tidwell vs Chiric ahua Cat tie company, appeal from Graham
 county, action in ejectment for the
 possession of Cottonwood ranch of 160
 acres. Judgment affirmed.
 Apache county vs. Earth, eX,. appeal
 from Maricopa county. This case re-
 lates to the county-Warrants of Apache
 county issued in 1884, presented to the
 board of supervisors for exchange un-
 der the funding act in 1887, said ex- change being refused and the word,
 Forgery marked in red ink across
 the face of the warrants. Suit was commenced in 1891, and after various changes of venue was finally tried in this county in May, 1896, and judg ment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.
 Thomas Wagener and Ada Wagener ? vs. C. B. Boyce, appeal from Coconino
 county, action on account for debt
 arising upon an open account. Judg-
 ment reversed and the case remanded n George w. Oakes vs. Samuel w.
 Finlay, appeal from Pima county.
 This is a contested election case held Q in Tucson in December, 1896, both par if ties being candidates for the office of 1T city marshal. The returns showed n that Oakes received 311 votes, Finlay - 300 votes. Oakes was declared elected = by the city council and his certificate - was issued. Finlay complained that s the ballots in certain wards had not 'h been correctly counted, ten ballots
 having been counted for Oakes, which m should have been counted for Finlay IS On the trial the count showed 301 for Finlay, and for Oakes 311. In the package were found seven rejected st ballots which the court ruled should m be counted for Finlay. In another " package were ten ballots rejected, an6 IL the court ordered seven of these count to ed for Finlay. These ballots brought lg Finlay's vote up to 315, and the cour1 le found that Finlay was elected. The IS, judgment is reversed and the cast ed remanded with directions to the cour ht below to enter judgment for the con es testee.
 T. George Pusch vs. R. G. Brady Thi. SC easel S similar to the one of. Cake: Tt vs. Finlay and the judgment is tht d. same.
 ve James Reilley vs county of Cochise n. appeal from Cochise county Judg if ment affirmed.
 ne Luther J. Webber vs. F. L. Kastne
 ct al, appeal from Yavapai county Il, This was an action to quiet title te .i- an undivided one-fourth interest il ,n and to the Waters mine in the Eureks k mining district. Judgment affirmed E. R. B. Daggs and A. J. Daggs vs e. Phoenix National bank, appeal iron CT Maricopa county. Judgment affirmed ir M. H. Sherman vs the Western In. a. vestment company, appeal from Mari ,y copa county. Judgment affirmed. n M B. Curry ct al vs. Gila county re appeal from Gila county, action to re " cover on bond. Judgment affirmed le F. A. Kleuenstuber vs. J. M. Robin in son, appeal from Graham county, in- le Junction in relation to a water ditch 1t Judgment reversed and remanded fol l. new trial.
 d Joseph I. Roberts vs C. W. Smith as al receiver of the Atlantic & Pacific Rail-
 road company, appeal from Coconino 1, county, action in damages for eject ss ment from a train on July IA, 1894 Il Judgment affirmed.
 f. H. H. Filling and w. I. Perry vs. the
 St. Louis Refrigerator and Wooden J. Gutter company, appeal from Pima o county, action on account. Judgment j. reversed and case remanded for new J. trial.
 J. B. Gates vs. R. N Fredericks, A. y J. Herndon and Jane Jackson, appeal 7. from Yavapai county. Judgment af- tt f1rmed.
 s Coconino county vs. Yavapai county, j. appeal from Yavapai county. This h suit grows out of the Yavapai railroad r bonds, Coconino at the time of is }, suance of the bonds being a part of |, Yavapai county, and separated there
 from in February, 1891, and Coconino |, county seeks relief from burden in