Arizona republican., 1905-05-27

John Booth, had been tried together.
 The defense insisted that each of the defendants should be allowed ten per
 emptory challenges but the court ruled that they could not sever their chal- lenges.
 The argument of Col. Edwards on
 this point was a strong one and rais-
 ed a doubt in the minds of many of the attorneys. In the former hearing of the case the court had referred to a California case in which it had been
 held that the defendants must join in their challenges. Col. Edwards took
 the ground that the decision was not
 applicable for since the first part of
 the Arizona statute on the subject is
 the same as the California statute When several defendants are tried together they are not allowed to sever
 their challenges but must join there in," there is this exception in the Ari-
 zona statute, except a challenge to an individual juror."
 The argument of Col Edwards was made in the morning and in the af
 ternoon the court denied the motion for a rehearing.
 Another interesting matter was brought before the court. It was the case of Score, appellant, against GTif- fen, appellee, from Yavapai county This is a mining suit. The appellee was the locator of a claim known as the Goliah. This was leased to an other man who subsequently, relocated a part of the claim into another claim called the Midget, the claims being for the greater part of their area in con- fict The interest of the relocator pass ed to Score. At the trial of the case
 
 claimed by Score that Griffen had not complied with the laws with refer ence to the claim and that therefore it was subject to relocation. It was held though that there had been com pliance with the law and judgment was given Griffen. This judgment was affirmed and there was a mDion for d rehearing in which it was stat ed that it had not been shown that there had been any dis covery of mineral on the GoIiah claim and that it was urged was an essen tial condition to location. Score had testihed to the discovery of mineral but it was on the Midget forth feet from the boundaries of the Goiiah. The court yesterday afternoon decided to grant the motion for the rehearing and urged the attorneys to present the case aSdln III OTuer lIldI lne uiIliIldlt of it might be facilitated.
 It was argued by Robert F. Morri- son for the appellant and by Messrs. Rerndon and Norris for the appellee. NIT. .Herndon took the ground that the only point at issue had been settled in the court below and that matter which had now come up was not supported by any record. In the course of his argument he said: ''I can find deci- sions in support of my contention by the score, and," he added, this is the case of Score against Griffen." The chief justice little later alluding to this pun said that the counsel could not expect much from the court af- ter that play upon words, whereupon Mir. Herndon offered an apology. Both sides were given ten days in which to file briefs.
 In the Pima county bond case the demurrer of the county of Pima was oveIruled and the attorney general was given permission to file an amend ed complaint. In the two cases re- garding the Bright Angel trail the arguments of both sides on the demur- rers were concluded.
 Motions for rehearing were denied 1 n the following cases:
 H. J. Bennett against w. F. Nichols l md others, from Maricopa county; Frank Miller against the territory. | rom Graham county; Francisco Ma 1 )ula and Dionicio Jurado against the | erIdtory, from Graham county; the | United States against w. K. Meade, l rom the first district; the National | Metal company against the Greene | Copper company, from | Santa Cruz county; Herman D. Sep- l 1ler against Faul Becker, from Gra- | lam county; the Keystone Copper and | ioId Mining company and c. F. Aims worth and J. H. Boal intervenors, | against J. M. Evans and wife. In this | notice of appeal to the supreme | .ourt of the United States was given.
 In the case of the Meyer Clark | Rowe Mines company against Albert a motion for a rehearing was granted.