The Arizona sentinel. [volume] (Arizona City [Yuma], Yuma County, A.T. [Ariz.]) 1872-1911, 1905-04-19
District Court Proceedings.

The April term of the district court
was practically finished with last Sat
urday's proceedings, though Judge
Campbell announced that he would re
turn next Saturday to conclude some
unfinished business and TO resentence
Martin Ubillos, who murdered Simon
| Aldrete, q fellow convict, in the terri
torial prison August Is, 1903. Ubillos,
who stabbed and killed Aldrete with q
knife, was serving q life sentence al
the time. He was tried at the April
term, 1904, found guilty of murder and
sentenced to be hung June 3. An ap
peal to the supreme court by his attor
neys acted as stay of execution pend
ing the decision of the higher court.
The supreme court refused to grant
a new trial and affirmed the decision Of
the lower court. so that Yuma county
will doubtless have summer hanging.
Other cases disposed of since last
Wednesday are as follows:
Z. +. Sanguinetti VS.. E. S. Ives-suit
for debt; defendants demurrer over.
ruled and judgment rendered for plain
tiff. Notice of appeal was given.
r. 5. Hatch vs.. John Gandolfo-in-
junction suit; continued for the term.
E. S. Ives VS.. E. T. Sanguinetti-suit
for an accounting of 500 tons of hay:
continued for term on motion of plain
tiff.
E. S. and Anna w. Ives vs.. E. F.
Sanguiretti-s for accounting of SOC
tons OF hay; continued on motion of
plaintiffs.
P. B. Hodges Us. L. N. Lassell-at-
tachment sait; damages for breach of
contract; continued for the term.
Durham: Carrigan & Co. VS.. Yuma
Lumber Co.; dismissed.
Cottrell & Faubion VS. Bank of Yuma;
taken under advisement.
Pedro Aguallo VS.. Elmira Aguallo-
action for divorce: set for trial next
Saturday-provided Attorney Wupper-
man can get his client into court.
The case of John w. Darlington vs.
Eugene S. Ives and wife-suit on prom
issory note, came up for trial Friday
morning and consumed the day. Judge
Charles Blenman Of Tucson appearing
for plaintiff, and Ives and Brown for
defendant. The case was submitted
to the court on the evidence of witness
es and without argument. 1t was Ia
ken under advisement, and by stipula-
ton will be decided at Tucson. The
amount involved in this suit is about
$2l0O. The suit was holly contested,
and created considerable interest.
The important case of the term-M.
J. Nugent VS.. John Stoffela-was put
on trial Saturday morning. The
amount involved in the action was &c.
600. Suit was brought to set aside
deed to lot i, block Is, and lot l, block
2Iproperty formerly belonging to the
Levy estate. 1t appears that convey
auce was first made Of this property to
VI. j. Nugent and q second deed was
few days later given to John Stoffela
for the same property, the last deed
being the first recorded. The legal
point upon which the case hinged was
whether or not Stoif eiaiwas an innocent
purchaser. The court did not render
decision except as to this point: that
StOtfela was not an innocent purchaser,
which entities Mr.. Nugent to the prop
erty. The question then to determine
was whether Stoffela--who is, thus far,
'out" SIC, 000--shall be reimbursed
in whole or in part. by Air. Nugent
~ decision covering this point will be
rendered by Judge Davis at Tucson,
by stipulation of PARTIES