Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1899-08-29
SUPREME COURT.
Additional Opinions Handed Down Yester-
day and Today.

day and Today.
No. 751, Territory of New Mexico, ap-
pellee, VS.. Robert A. Casey, ct al, APP
pellants, appeal from district court of
Lincoln county. The supreme court
reversed the opinion Of the lower court
with instructions to sustain appellants
for a new trial. Casey, together
with Lille Klasner and j. A. K%lasner,
were indicted for murder in the first de-
gree of William H. Guise April "a, 1896.
Casey was found guilty of murder in the
second degree and sentenced to Is years
in the penitentiary. The other two de-
PENDANTS were acquitted. The Casey
case was appealed and Judge Crumpack-
er rendered the opinion granting Casey
a new trial. Solicitor General Bartlett
appeared for the territory, and Warren,
Ferguson & Gillett for Casey.
Case No. 700, Territory of New MeXi-
co, appellee, VS.. Geronimo Pine, appel
ant; appeal from Socolro county. Judge
j. w. Crumpacker rendered the opinion
for the court, remanding the case to the
lower court with instructions for a new
trial. Pine had been indicted for rape
on Andrea Cordova, August 1898, found
guilty and sentenced to three years in
the penitentiary, two OF which he has
served. A motion for a new trial and
arrest of Judgment had been overruled
by the lower court and an appeal to the
supreme court was yesterday decided as
above. Solicitor General Bartlett APP
peared for the territory and A. A. Free
man for Pine.
No. 794, Samuel Il. Biting, appellee,
| VS.. The Board of Education of the town
of Eddy, appealed from Eddy county.
The opinion, by Judge j. w. Crumpack-
| err modifies the Judgment of the lower
court. Biting sued for the payment of
two warrants issued by the board of edu-
| cation. The lower court rendered a
Judgment in favor of Biting for $l75
| with interest and costs. N. S. Bateman
appeared for appellant. and Freeman &
| Cameron for appellee.
No. 795. Territory of New Mexico, APP
pellee, VS.. w. R. Christman, appellant,
appeal from Eddy county. Judge Crum-
packer in his opinion affirms the iudg-
ment of the court below. Christman
had been indicted for the larceny OF a
steer, found guilty and sentenced to
three years in the penitentiary. A mo-
ton for a new trial was o%verruled by the
lower court and an appeal to the su-
preme court was taken. Solicitor Gen
eral Bartlett appeared for the territory,
and Hon. A. A. Freeman and j. 0. Cam
eron for the appellant.
No. 797, Scipio Aguilar, appellant, VS..
| Territory of New Mexico, appellee, ap-
peal from San Miguel county. The
court dismissed the case upon motion OF
| Solicitor General Bartlett. The appel
ant was represented by Colonel r. E.
Twitchell and w. G. Reid.
No. 1862, The Traders Insurance Com
pany, garnishee. plaintiffs in error, VS..
| Bartlett & Tyler, defendants in error,
error to district court of Valencia coun-
ty. The court in an opinion by Judge
f. w. Parker affirmed the decision of
the lower court.
Case No. 76s, William H. Miller, plain
tiff in error, VS.. City of Socorro, John
| H. McCutcheon, James M. Hill, defend
ants in error, error to district court of
Socorro county, was argued yesterday
afternoon and submitted to the court.
Case No. S02, G. E.. Patterson, ct al,
VS.. John j. Hewett. ct al, an appeal,
was argued and submitted to the court
this forenoon.
Case No. 799, The Town of Roswell,
appellant, VS.. f. Dominica, appellee, APP
peal from Chaves county, the Judgment
Of the lower court was affirmed in an
opinion by Judge f. w. Parker. The
Town of Roswell in that case had
brought suit against Dominica for a
| special tax levied against his property
as his share towards the expense of i'm
proving and grading certain streets.
The district court dismissed the COM
plant because among other things the
tax was assessed without the petition of
| the owners of at least one-half of the
property fronting on said improvement.
In case No. S3S, in ex parte, b. G..
| Wilson, the petition for habeas corpus,
was granted and the hearing set for
this afternoon.
In case No. $50, William Naeglin ct al
| VS.. Doloritas Martin de. Cordova ct al,
upon mandate from the United States
supreme court, an order was entered
affirming the judgment of the territorial
supreme court.