Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-08-30

tween Texico and the point neaI
Cameo whore the branch o con
Aeeted. The distance from Texieo L,
the last named point is 1872 miles
and between the same points by Wa.
of clovis 19 miles.
Held. that the change was within
the statutory authority OF subsection
II. section 3Sf7, G. l.. 1897.
The director Of the defendant com
! pauy did not take action to authorize
the change specified in the preceding
paragraph until after the change hat
been made n after suit was brought
% prevent It's contamination but die
take such action before trial.
Held, that the state of facts al
the time Of judgment n not that "a
the institution Of the suit furnished
the proper basis for the action Of the
trial court
In case No. 1863, Territory OF New
Mexico. appellee, ". Carlos Cecil
! Aver. appellant. from B|ernalillo eOun-
ty. the judgment 81 the lower court
Is affirmed, in an opinion by Associ-
ate Justice NJ. G. Mechem, chief JUS
tice w. H.. Pope N Associate Jus
tice +. r. Wright, however, dissent
ing. the dissenting opinion being writ
ten by the former. The defendant
had been convicted Of murder in thu
third degree The syllabus says.
In laying the foundation for the
Introduction Of the record of former
testimony given by a witness claimed
To- be absent from the territory, dec
larations made by the witness as to
his intention to leave the territory
permanently ana the return of the
sheriff mot found. endOrsed.-on the
subpoena issued for the witness, are
each of them competent to prove that
the witness was not available.
2 The evidence in this case con
sidered and held not to tender a plea
of self-defensc. held that an instruc-
ton as TO self-defense, though enron
eous. was am error of which the ap-
pellaut could not complain.
. Where a trial court fails to IN
struct the jury as to all the essential
ingredients of the crime charged and
the defendant neither calls the
court attention to such omission nor
takes exception thereto he cannot
avail himself OF such error on ap-
peal Territory VS.. watson, IL n. n.
40.
4 An instruction defining a 'rea-
sonabie doubt To be "onc Tor when a
reason could be given based on uhe
evidence or want of 70. though ef.
roneous does not in this particular
case constitute reversible error, where
the jury might well have found the
defendant guilty solely on MS own
testimony.
Tn the important ease 80. 1856. Tn
Sacramento Valley Irrigation CONE
pany. plaintiff In error, vs.. OilNer Al.
Lee 81 ALL detendants lh eIIoI, 4iIii
pleio county, tie JuuEHiS'1
lower court IS teNsIseu an r1iit1t
Inc case ~InNoiNeu VIZ "i979'"
the corporation nance oiiu "pli"'m'
ment ol q receiver me + minus m
Where the pl"Ihllll !"
a transcript on tHe leSoiu' ~.
required ny SCI ~. l"p'' -
Laws ol i9Vt, zen u"Hs "olpie a.
return daN Oh lile Wlil' "nu |'71 ~
assignments ol tiipi5 p'1 wv ,,otttn
the return gay on SuyH W. O. ~"
90 uis'nlss the VIII -, i,to,. si.b' m.
Inc. viii Joe denied Armllo VS. NoeN
tia . y. NJ. 'sd' - a,.
Sec T. 'hapter wv Di wv.
of lF"s. amending go " i"'f1s
. oi the l-aWs OF lFv'. "''H.ts =,
return day oI T. writ ol elluI @"
from date OF the WIN lL9'o"" ="
DAYS as i"ImerlN' ueals WIN P''N
only. and prima lacle, appl'es lo =
aetlons-thost when law" 49,"
or are pending ana iulur' "Vt,"i9-
decree 5fdi''hE e"
ttntu and hpp"lhtihs q $500, ~ /"
insotNent corporation uh"Il "a o.
visions of sections = ana ID 'l 'n"P
ter ~ "i inc laws oil I'V' "lnai
decree WiIhln ihe terms '"v
&c Act relating to apPediS am" WINS
pt error.
T. The compliant IN a. l'", 'e"'H7
under the provisions "l N'''t"n
chapter 49, ol the l1Ms l'V'
which merely alleges. nat the sAi"
corporation Is lhseiNeht "n" i'ls 80
PENDED ms ordinary business '"i N"ns
L- o. o. . b.. mn tho A NNNL docs