Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1910-01-07
OPINIONS BY
SUPREME COURT
Four Albuquerque and Seve-
raj Other Cases Decided
Yesterday
APPEALS TO HIGHER TRIBUNAL
Adjournment Out of Respect to
Judge O'Brien and General
Victory.


respect to the memory of the late
Chief Justice James O'Brien and for
mer Attorney General J. P. Victory,
the territorial supreme court handed
down number of opinions.
In the case of Joseph Schmitt. APP
pellee VS.. the Southwestern Brewery
and Ice Company, appellant, an APP
peal from Bernalillo county, a case
Of damages for personal injuries, the
decision of the lower court was af-
tirmed in an opinion written by AS
sociate Justice Frank w. Parker. The
plaintiff had been scalded by leak
in the cooker of the brewery at Al
buquerQue of the defendant company,
after the company had been repeat
edly notified that the cooker was leak
ing and had made several efforts
that proved futile to repair it. The
jury in the lower court awarded ST.
500 damages less S910.30, the defend
ant had expended for medical treat
ment, etc, of plaintiff. n. B. Field
appeared for the appellee and Mar
ron & Wood for the appellant.
In the case of Joseph C. Baldridge,
appellee, VS.. A. L. Morgan, contract
or, who had also operated in Santa
Fe, Andreas Romero and Melton Cha
vez, involving a lien for lumber and
building material for $3,25136. an
appeal from Bernalillo county county,
the judgment of the lower court for
the above amount was affirmed in an
opinion by Associate Justice NJ. G.
Mechem. E. l.. Medler appeared for
appellee, and N. B. Field for appel
liant. The cases of n. Nash, appellee,
VS.. A. l.. Morgan, ct al, appellants,
and Nick Metz, appellee, VS.. Andres
Romero, appellant, both from Berna-
lilo county, involving the same ques-
tions, were affirmed.
In the case of A. H. Patton, appe
lee, VS.. w. w Balch, appellant, 9
peal from Roosevelt county, Henry
Patton appearing for appellee and .
C. Taylor for appellant, the j.
ment of the lower court was affirass
in an opinion by Associate Ju e
NJ. c. Mechem. The case was oao 9'
forcible entry and detainer.
In the case of the Terrific II
New Mexico VS.. Robert Lesle Sr.
and Robert Leslie Jr., sentearre }o
the penitentiary from Lincoln rtgp~
ty for the larceny of six hea. IF at-
tie from the Ell Captain lad ald
Cattle Company, the judgmta5 Ell .le
lower court was affirmed i, aa utn-
ion by Chief Justice Williar r alG
Gatewood and Graves and janea L'ar-
den appeared for appella a at.
torney General Frank w sia, or
the Territory
In the case of the Ill. les
appellee, VS.. Carl Adam --.'a lt
indicted for conspiracy e sins siu-
lawfully into the United Sta,s CH,az
ese persons not entitled to enter, the
lower court was sustained, the only
point raised being as to alleged err
ror in the admission of evidence and
the opinion being per curiam. U. s.
Attorney David j. Leahy appeared for
the government and j. Z. Wharton
fer appellant.
In case No. 1880, Luciano Chaves,
! ct al, appellants, VS., Eloisa l.. de
Bergere, ct al, appellees, an appeal
to the Z. S. Supreme Court was
granted and the appeal bond was
fixed at $1,000.
Notice of writ of error was given
in cases Nos 1924, Territory of New
| Mexico VS.. Ricardo Alarid, from San
| ia Fe county, in which the court had
just denied a rehearing and No. 1045,
United States VS.. Mariana Sena. in
which the court had also denied re-
| hearing.
| The board Of Bar Examiners report
ed and H. B. Jamison, of Albuquer-
! que, was admitted to practice upon
examination, and Alfredo Ruiz of Gal
lup upon certificate. The temporary
licenses of j. A. Law, Roscoe Nesbitt
and Leroy R. Wade were extended.
The following temporary licenses
were cancelled: Burt Challis of Dem
ing; John F. Durant of Fort Bayard;
John F. Perry of Solano; Joseph Gill
of Clayton; Samuel Denton Ware of
| Clovis; Francis Reese of Portales; S.
| D. Williams and Powatan E. Carter of
| Portales; Thomas Davis of Estancia;
| Jerome Dawson of Hollene, W. L.
Carter of Alamogordo and August F.
Lee of Tucumcari.
An order was entered instructing
the clerk to notify all parties having
cases for argument if any desire to
submit them on briefs, this should be
done by February 1, SO that if pos
sible they may be considered by the
time court meets again on February