Arizona republican., 1905-03-31

<
 been given judgment for a little more than S1G0O in a damage suit brought by him against the company. He had offered at Maricopa to a conductor of the Southern Pacific a return ticket from Denver to Phoenix. The conduc- tor took the ticket and compelled Fitchett to pay his fare to Tucson. where he intended to stop. In the course of a conversation he told Fitch cit that it looked to him that the man who had signed the name of Fitchett to the ticket had also countersigned the name of the agent at Phoenix.
 After the arrival of the train at Tue son after conference with the divi- sion superintendent there the conduc- tor hunted Fitchett up and tried to return the ticket and the fare which he had been compelled to pay. Fitch cit would hold no communication with him but waited about Tucson until he could send to Denver for money.
 At the trial Fitchett was allowed the cost of his ticket, the money he had paid for fare and his expenses while waiting at Tucson. In addition to this he was allowed $1,O0o for injury to his feelings. That latter item was subsequently reduced by the trial court. The Judgment was reversed. I vajo county, appellant, against the Aztec Land and Cattle company, ap- pellee. The county had brought suit for collection of taxes under the de- Iinquent tax law. The company re- sisted on the ground that the title to the property taxed had not passed to | 1t from the government until after the period for assessment that year had expired and that when the lien at tached the company was not actually the owner of the property. Judgment was given the company and the judg- ment Vas affirmed.
 In the case of F. L. Butterfield and other appellants against the Nogales Copper company, appellee, Santa | Cruz. reversed.
 Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Rail way, appellant against A. J. Lyon, ap-. pellee. Graham county, affirmed. Beauchamp H. Smith, appellant. against w. H. StillweI, appellee, Pima county, affirmed. A similar order was made in another case of the same ti- tie. In both these the appellee had brought suit for the recovery of at torney's fees in a case brought by Smith against the King of Arizona Mining Co, and was given judgment. In the case of Smith against the King of Arizona writ of error was dismiss ed.
 H. D. Keppler. appellant. against Paul Becker, appellee, Graham coun- ty. affirmed
 Tobe Lacy, appellant, against J. V. Parks. Graham county, appellee, re- versed.
 Meyer -Clark-Row Mines company, appellant, against Albert Stcinfeld. Pima county. reversed.
 | Steinfield, appellant. against Monti- 1 jo appellee, Pima county. affirmed. The judgment of the lower court in the Keystone Copper and Gold Mining company litigation. this county, was affirmed.
 John P. Score. appellant, against N s. Griffin, appellee, Yavapai county affirmed.
 Francis Cunningham. appellant against F. V. Moreno, Cochise county. appellee, affirmed.
 National Metals company appellant, against the Greene Consolidated Cop per company, appellee, Santa Cruz county. affirmed. In this there Is in- volved about $SO.OOO, suit having been brought by the Green company on a contract with the former company for the sale of it's ores for which differ ent prices were to be paid, according to the point of delivery. Judgment was taken against the National Metals company by default Appeal was talk en on the ground of a want of Juris- diction.
 Francisco Mapula, appellant, against Dionicio Jurada, appellee. Graham county, affirmed.
 In the case of H. J. Bennett, appel lee, against w. F. Nichols and others, 1~.v.N I,sr judgment of the lower court was af- firmed. This was a suit brought to compel the territorial board of equali- zation to put the property of the s. r. r. & P. on the tax roll in spite of the legislature in exempting the property of the company from taxation for a period of years.
 The following are some of the gmore important criminal cases disposed of, many of them coming under the class referred to by the court in it's censure of the attorneys for taking appeals and paying no more attention to the cases: Ramon Moreno against the territory, Cochise county, affirmed; Erik Thornquist against territory, Co., chise county, affirmed; J. M. Gould against territory, Cochise county, af- firmed; William Davis against terri SF Ramirez against territory, Yuma coun- ty. reversed; Charles H. Davis against territory. Yuma county, affirmed; E. Figueroa against territory, Cochise county, affirmed; Bert NOft against territory, Pima county. affirmed; Jesus Gomez against territory, Cochise coun- ty, affirmed Territory against J. M. w. Moore, Yav3pai county, supreme court without Jurisdiction, appeal dis missed; Frank Miller against territO ry, Graham county, affirmed; E. Ere dia against territory, Cochise county, affirmed; James Shorjn against terri tory, Cochise county affirmed.
 The court will meet again at ten o'clock this morning but no opinions will be handed down then or at any other, time before next fall It was expected that a decision would be ren- dered in the United Verde tax case