Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-03-02
NEW CHIEF JUSTICE
TAKES THE OATH
Of OFFICE
COURT HANDS DOWN LONG
LIST Of OPINIONS
AffirmS Decision Of the Lower
Court in Case Of AIbuQuer-
que Bank VS., BfQyleS Of San
MarciaI,
Especial Dispatch to the Mornnaa Journal,

Tspecial Dispatch 10 the Mornnaa Jouraall
Santa Fe, n. NJ, March 1.-Thi,
morning in the presence of the judges
\ OF the supreme court, Chief Justice
Mills retiring, administered the oatf
of office to Chief Justice William II
Pope, the incoming head of the court.
There was no ceremony in the occa-
sion which was carried through in the
presence of only a few members OF
the bar and others Interested.
The court yesterday afternoon
The court yesterday afternoon hand
cd down a long list of decisions some OF
them of much Importance. h court
affirmed the decision of the lower
court in the action of the Bank OF
Commerce Of Albuquerque against j.
n. Broyles of a Maroial to collect
$4,000 on two notes. Other opinions
given are as follows.
No. 1862, Harry Slocum Friday.
appellee, vs.. the Santa Fe Central
Railway company, appellant; George
". Prichard appearing for the app
pellee, and c. +. Easley, N. y. Laugh
lin and Il. w. Uobson' for the appel
liant, appeal from Santa Fe county.
The opinion was by Associate Justice
william ii. Pope and affirmed the
Judgment of the lower court, in which
anuay was given damages for per-
sonal injuries received while brake
man on 4 Santa Zee. Central train. The
syllabus says:
/. The record in this case (especi-
ally when aided by our statute as to
amendments of the record in formal
matters even after appeal), sufficient
~ shows the injuries alleged to have
occurred In the first judicial district.
2. Judicial notice Is taken of the
4 counties composing a judicial district
\ and of the county in which is known
4 railroad stations or points on a rail-
road line at known distance from
such stations are located.
3. The federal employers liability
act of June IL. 1906, Is valid as TO the
territory of New Mexico following
Ell Paso & n. l.. Railway company VS..
Gutierrez, L.. s, decided November Is,
5000.
4. This court viii not review in
structions not excepted To- inlthe trial
court.
5. Assignments OF error on the adj
instability of testimony must, to be
cognizable by this court, point out spe-
officially the testimony deemed objee-
tionable.
G. Under the rule OF practice Just
stated an assignment alleging error in
the reception of the testimony, upon
a given point, Of some eve Witnesses |
whose testimony upon that point went
in under different circumstances and
Against varying objections, is too gem
eral to be entertained and is. contrary
TO rule IA Of this court requiring each
error to be stated in a separate par
agraph. II
United States vs.. Aurandt.
The case of the United States of
America, appellee, VS.. Jacob M.
Aurandt, appellant, from the first ju-
dicial district. was reversed and re-
manded. David j.. Leahy, United
States district attorney, appeared for
the United States government, and A..
II. Renehan for the appellant. The
opinion is by Judge Pope and the
syllabus is as follows:
J. Arrangement and u plea are ele-
ments necessary to a valid trial of one
charged with crime.
2, Such arraignment and plea must
preccde the empanelling and swearing
Of the jury as until plea there is no
issue for the jury to try.
y If after the trial is commenced
II Is discovered Thai there has been
no arraignment or plea. it is the duty
OF the trial court to begin the trial
anew.
I. This last includes not only the
retaking of any testimony. but the
r~e-empanelling and the rcswcaring
Of the jury.
3. IN u prosecution under United
States Rev. st, Sec. 5467. an indict-
nent is fatally defective which, fails
TO show that the letter embezzled
came into the possession OF the de-
PENDANT officially, that is to say, as
an cmpluye of the postal service.
SHAW VS.. United States, l65 Fed. ia,
followed. IA
6. While it is permissible under
certain circumstances to allege Gle
lnents of description as unknown to
the grand jury. recourse to this
Of pleading is justifiable only
ol grounds Of q reasonable necessity.
. me allegation in the present
vase That the embezzled letter con
.slned IAN article OF value" a more
ueihite description of which being
% grand jurors unknown" considered
inc light of the record, and doubt
"a, but not decided, whether the al
Iegatlon was sufficient under the
RUE last mentioned.
>. The defendant is placed In jeop-
eIuy when after issue joined upon a
,alu indictment before a competent
oourt the jury is empanelled and +,
sworn to try his cause.
y In so far as a different rule is
by the statute of this
uIrit0ry &C. L.. Sec. 2423) providing !
a nolle prOsequi cannot be en- :
.sred after any testimony has been in :
.oduced for the defendant" such !
''atute is unconstitutional and void. I
~ Relatively to a given charge .
nere Is. however. no former jeopardy !
mere The testimony necessary TO sus- :
ath The latter charge would not be !
l.