Arizona republican., 1906-05-29

| been sworn out before him and had | thereby passed fully upon the case. The matter was argued at some | length by Judge BIenman and Judge | Lowell of Tucson on behalf of the
 city and they were replied to very shortly by Attorney W. P. Miller for
 the petitioner.
 The court took the matter under ad- visement and took a recess for nearly an hour. On re-assembling. Chief Justice Kent in an exhaustive opinion, delivered the judgment of the court in which all the associate justices con cured, stating that the contentious of counsel for the city of Tucson were sustained and that the petitioners writ must be dismissed as the statutes ex- pressly provide a right of appeal from a decision in habeas corpus proceed ings and that this was the proper and only remedy; that after a petitioner 1 has sought his remedy in a district court on a writ of habeas corpus and the matter there had been fully and Ie- gally passed upon and determined his right to a similar writ in the supreme court which is in such matters a court of concurrent jurisdiction to the dis
 trict court, had passed away from him: that if dissatisfied with the decision. nothing is left to him but to appeal He certainly could not be entitled to
 take out writ after writ of habeas cor pus which would be an endless pro ! Ceeding. On these grounds both writs will be dismissed.
 The advantage to the city of Tucson in this decision lies in the fact that if ! Dubois now avaiIs himself of the only remedy left to him he will have to give a bond in twice the sum involved. There | is hanging over him a fine of $I.35O. in addition to his nine months sentence, l which in making up the bond would be considered al the rate of a dollar ] day. Thus, if the city eventually wins ! it will be assured of the amount of the fine which it might not get, if Dubois l should serve out his term. There are 1 four more cases pending against him. In the case of w. w Cook ct al appellants against Mary E. Purman, appellee, the appellee's motion for a
 re-hearing was denied In the case of Albert Steinfeld appellant against l.. | ZeckendOrf, appellee. a motion for a re-hearing was granted. The motion was offered by the appellee, the court | at it's last meeting having decided in l favor of Steinfeld by reversing the 1 judgment of the court below.
 ! In the case of John W. Began ad-
 ministrator of the estate of Ella Fin 1 ley appellant, against Roy and Tit 1 comb appellees, from Santa Cruz | county, reversed and remanded with l instructions to the lower court. In the | case of Frank Powers and wife appel lants against the Worlds Fair Mining company appellee. from Santa Cruz | county, motion for a re-hearing was 1 denied.
 A motion for a re-hearing was de-
 nied in the case of George Schuerman and others against the territory from l Yavapai county and an appeal was ] taken to the United States supreme 1 court The bond was fixed at $1,OOO l This case is in relation to the taxes of ] the United Verde Mining company. 1 which had been compromised by the 1 appellants, members of the board of | supervisors. Judgment had been rem 1 dered against them in the lower court and at the last meeting of the supreme court the judgment was affirmed.
 | In the case of the Phoenix Water company against the common council | of the City of Phoenix, notice of ap- | peal having previously been given by 1 the appellant, the bond was fixed at $1,OO0. In the case of R. Allyn Lewis and other appellants against Fred Herrera appellee, the appellants bond on appeal was fixed at $20OO
 A motion for a re-hearing was de- nied in the case of Priscilla Bradford against Robert F. Morrison from Yav- apai county. w. A. O'Connor, probate