Arizona republican., 1904-10-04

brought Cn the only change of venue grantaed by Judge Davis in his term of | seven years as judge of that district | There are really two cases growing cut | Of a shooting which occurred in the ! Willard hotel at Tucson of which the defendant is the owner.
 Mir. Casey was arrested ct the time and tried in a justices court on a 1 charge Of having unlawfully disch2rs- ! ed firearms and was sentenced 10 the i raymcnt of a fine and six months i'm prisorunent. He fulfilled the sentence but before that he was indicted by the grand jury of Pima county on a
 charge of attempting to kill an officer
 by the name of Nabo- Pacheco. who
 had been summoned to the hotel and
 arrived about the time of the shooting.
 1t was claimed by Casey that ha dic mot see Pacheco and that he did not
 know him. He remembered nothing
 of the shooting but admitted that he
 had been drinking heavily for some time having been led to drink by do-
 mestic troubles.
 It was contended that since the"e had
 I;een only one instance of the shooting,
 that had been disposed of in the jus r tice's court and in the execution of the
 sentence which had been imposed; that
 the indictment put Casey in jeopardy o for for the second time.
 :. Casey and his attorney. Charles . Blenmar. of Tucson, were in court yes ] terday morning when the case Was . called. It was set for trial on Novem- n Der B. That date was fixed after q tel Q ephonfc communication with the dis s trict attorney of Pima county, who sait
 he would not come to Phoenix to prose c cute It was his understanding tha 3: the change of venue took it out of hi e hands District Attorney Baker hap 'f pened to be in court when the view O $ the Pima county attorney was an es nounced. He caused it to be undersroo' " that if that view was maintained th A case would go without prosecution e l. he woud have have nothing to do wit :" it.
 r. In the case of Tom L. Mercer agains 5- c. w. AIognett and Walter Harrington 2. the defendants withdrew their answe and deposit. In the suit of COhn, Gold
 water & Go. against Louis GersOn an 'C A. Herzberg there was judgment fo IS the plaintiff In the case of the Stat le,' Insurance company against Charie - Batre and T. H. Schuste t' judgment was rendered again' 1o the first named defendant. A decle {" of divorce was granted Fred A. kirl m, wood from Ella GT- NlfhNOOu oll U on ground of abandonment.
 ,,5 The case of Thomas J. Presco
 against the Union Oil, Gas and Ref: so ing company was dismissed on Il In motion of the plaintiff at his cost ed This was a suit for the dissolution
 the corporation organized under Il nd laws of this territory though all
 it's property and business is in the sta
 of Ohio The president and some of t
 officers and directors sought the diss
 lution of the company and MT. Prescc
 was employed, having been made SeS stockhoIder, to begin the action whi
 was based on the ground that the eor
 pany had failed to comply with t
 laws of the territory in that it had n '-ct maintained a resident agent. Up ere this showing there was an order of | rst court dissoIvfng the company. The ca lex was subsequently, reoPoned on sho of ing by other stockholders and " be were in the majority, that the preside