Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1907-08-29
SUPREME COURT
STILL IN SESSION
Disbarment Pro-
ceeding Up on
Demurrer
MAY ADJOURN TOMORROW
Arguments In Bergere. Cha.
yes Case Involving Rancho
de Galisteo Land Grant.

The Supreme Court OF New Mexico
continued in session today, reconven-
ing this morning at 10 o'clock. There
were present:
Chief Justice William J. Mills, AS
sociate Justice John r. McFie, Asso
ciate Justice Frank w. Parker, Asso
ciate Justice William H. Pope, Asso-
ciate Justice Edward A. Mann, and
Associate Justice Ira A. Abbott. The
Territory was represented bv Attor-
ney General Albert B. Fall and Assist
ant Attorney General Robert C. Gort-
ner, while the United States was rep
resented by Assistant United States
Attorney David J. Leahy.
Considerable of the afternoon ses
sion yesterday was devoted to argu
ments in the case of the United States
Of America versus Mariana F. Sena
Associate Justice McFie did not par
ticipate in the hearing as he was dis
qualified on account of having tried
the case when it was before the fed
eral court of the First Judicial Dis
trict. This case has been pending in
the courts for some time 1t was
taken to the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals of the eighth district
at st. Paul, Minnesota, and remanded
back to the Territorial Supreme Court.
1t has been taken under advisement
The case OF Eloisa l.. de Bergere, ct
al, versus Luciano Chaves, ct al,
which was appealed from the district
court Of Santa Fe County, was ar
gued and submitted this morning, and
has been taken under advisement.
The Bergere-C -Chaves case involves
the Ranches de Calisteo land grant in
southern Santa Fe County in which
the ownership is in dispute. Attor-
neys T. B. Catron and R. c. Gortner
are counsel for appellees and Attorney
A. B. Renehan for the appellant.
The Douhitt-Bailey case appealed
from the district court of Chaves
County was submitted on briefs. Bail
ey who is the appellant has been CIV
en- thirty days in which to file brief
and the appellee is given like period
thereafter to make reply.
"A motion for rehearing was de-
MED in the Kitchen-Schuster case
which was disposed of at the January
session. These are all civil actions.
Arguments were commenced this
afternoon on the demurrer filed in the
disbarment proceedings instituted
against Attorney w. J. Hittson. Yes
terday it was thought that court
would adjourn today but the indica-
tions are a morning session will be
held tomorrow.
Following is detailed statement Of
the cases which came up today for
consideration:
No. 1131. Peter Kitchen, appellee,
versus George Schuster, appellant,
appealed from district court of Ber-
nalillo County. Motion for rehearing
denied.
No. 1902. Elgin Doubt, who sues
by his next friend, Thomas J. Douhitt,
appellee, versus Joshua B. Bailey, ap-
pellant, appealed from district court
Of Chaves County. Submitted on
briefs. Appellant given thirty days in
which to file brief, and appellee thirty
days thereafter to reply.
No. 1880. Eloisa L. de Bergere, ct
al, appellees, versus Luciano Chaves,
ct al, appellants, appealed from dis
trict court of Santa Fe County. Ar
gued and submitted.
No. 1901. In Re w. J. Hittson, dis
barment. Argued and submitted.