Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1910-08-22
IMPORTANT TOP|N|ONS
HANDED DOWN
Roberts Improvement Dis
trict Law Does Not Re-
peal Old Act
SALOONS NEAR RESERVATIONS
Statute Forbidding Them Within
Five Miles Is Consti-
tutional.

The territorial supreme court ad
journed at two o'clock this afternoon
to attend the funeral of the late E. A.
Fiske. Four important opinions were
handed down this forenoon and a num-
Der of other opinions VIII probably be
delivered tomorrow.
Case No. 1905, Territory of New
Mexico, appellee, VS.. Wade Swift, ap-
pellant, was dismissed by appellant,
Swift, who had been convicted at Ros-
well for gambling, being reprieved by
Governor Mills, the reprieve being re-
commended by Chief Justice w. H.
Pope and District Attorney L. O. Full
len.
Cases No. 1916 and 1917 were ar
gued and submitted. They are G. e.
Thomas, appellant, VS.. C. E. Gavin,
appellee, and Amarillo Hardware Co.,
appellant, VS.. J. F. McMurray, ap-
pellee.
Case No. 1892, John H. Rapp, appel-
liant, VS.. E. B. Venable, probate clerk,
ETC., appellee, was affirmed in an opin-
ion by Judge John R. McFie. The ap-
pellant applied for license to vend
liquors at retail in the town of Central,
Grant county, but was refused the Ii
cense by appellee, who based his re-
fusal on the ground that the saloon
was within five miles of a United
States government sanatorium" and
was not zone previously established"
and was therefore within the inhibi
tion of Section 2, Chapter lis, Laws
of 1905 The appellant brought suit in
mandamus. The appeal is based upon
the assertion that the act is unconsti-
tutional The supreme court declar-
ed the act constitutional.
" Case No. 1895, Territory of New
Mexico, appellee, VS.. Juan Barela,
Dona Ana county, is affirmed, in an
opinion by Associate Justice Ira A.
Abbott. The appellant was sentenced
for murder. He appealed on the
I1dC LuS lGI LII VI COuit udu ga
pired by limitation of lew twelve days
before his conviction and that his
trial therefore was nullity. The
syllabus says:
A term of district court in the ter
ritory, begun and held by any judge,
as required by law, for county in the
district, continues in existence until
the day fixed by law for the beginning
of another term of that court for the
same county, unless sooner adjourned
without day, although another term
of the same court for another county
has been held, as required by law, in
the meantime, by the same or another
judge.
Case No. 1929, The Costilla Land
and Investment Company, plaintiff
and appellee, VS.. Robert Allen ct al,
defendants and appellants, from Taos
county, on motion to dismiss the ap-
peal. the court in an opinion written
by Chief Justice W. III. Pope, dis
misses the appeal. The complainant
asked damages for $4,000, a decree
uuieting title and an injunction against
the acts and pretensions of the de-
PENDANTS as outlined. The court
ordered a preliminary injunction as
prayed upon giving of bond but the
case as yet remains untfied. The
plaintiffs filed a motion alleging that
the defendants had violated the terms
of the injunction and the court adjudg-
ed eight of the defendants in con-
tempt, each being fined $25 and costs
The defendants appealed from this
decision. The syllabus says:
l. Proceedings to punish for con-
tempt are deemed criminal in their
nature when the purpose is primarily
punishment.
2. Where the purpose of such pro
ceeding is primarily compensation OF
by way of reimbursement to the oppos
ite party for expenses growing out OF
the alleged contempt the proceeding is
civil.
8. While the border line between
the two classes of proceedings is often
indistinct, the question of whether the
offender is party to the suit, whether
the proceedings are before final de
cree and whether the fine goes to the
public or party to the litigation are
often determinative considerations.
4. No appeal lies in this territory
from a judgment for what is classet
as a criminal contempt. Marinan v
Baker, IL N. M. 451 followed
5. An order imposing fine, pay
able by way Of reimbursement, to the
opposite party, for violation of a pre-
liminary Injunction is an interlocutory
order in civil proceeding and review
Of such an order can be entertained
only after final decree and in connec