Arizona republican., 1910-05-16
SYMOPSS OF ARGUMENTS N CITRUS TREES CASE
In Witch Decision Will Be Rendered on "Wednesday.

A wide interest is felt in the case of the territory against Frank Stewart foreman of ]. II. Fleming. who was on trial in Justice .ParlIer's court last week charged with resisting agents of the Horticultural commission when they went to destroy alleged infested trees on Mfr. Fienling's property The de- cision will be given by Judge Parker on "Wednesday.
 The interest in the case rests largely un the bearing the outcome may have on Hthc criminal suit uf Mfr. Fleming against pr. Morrill, for damages.
 Vhe arguments were concluded on saturday afternoon. Attorney General Wright openad, for the prosecution. He reviewed the testimony of the wit nesses showing that it was an, undis- putet. fact that carload of trees re- ccived st J'hocnix on about April { and wliich was found generally infest- cd with a dangerous citrus pest called Inealy hugs and condemned by the officers of the horticultural. commis- sion was without legal authority taken to the promises of NIT. Fleming and there planted.s It had been shown by two witnesses qualified as experts. pr A.kW. Morrill,. and Professor R. H. Forbes. that the nuisance created by the planting of these infested trees could be abated only by the destruction of the trees. MT Shamblain. the duly authorized inspector of the district. in good faith and with the intention Of complying with the law and acting un- der the advice and structions of the attorney general of the territory and the entomologist of the commission had proceeded to abate the nuisance after thes expiration of the time allowed in d notice duly served upon Mir. Elem ing. : Accompanied by Dr. Morrill,, the inspector went to the grove of MT. Fleming. read the law 10 MT. Stewart. and advised him of the object of their visit. Mr. Stewart threatened resist ance. but Dr Morrill, and Mr. Shamblin wfth their men proceeded to abate the nuisance Resistance followed. Of the witnesses for the defense. only two. men, Kale and Kale, pretended to know where the infested and con demiled shipment was planted. The officers of the horticultural commits sion had obtained their information directly from these men, Stewards re- sistance covered all of the trees and. as shown in his own testimony. he did not known whether or not the particu- lar trees which were being pulled up when resis1ence was offered were a portion of another shipment as claimed by the defense. MT. Wright contended that no evidence has been introduced by .the defense which could justify the resistance. and that of all the testi- mony.. only that presented by Kale and Kale had d direct connection with the ease: The. cross questioning of the prosescution's witnesses would lead one to believe that the horticultural com mission and entomologist were on trial rather than the real defendant. Even this had been an advantage to the. prosecution. however. since it had shown that the commission and its of ficers- had admVlistered the jaw hon estly and fairif with as much regard as possible, for relieving unnecessary hardships which would be imposed by the strictest interpretations. Mir. Wright introduced several citations in support of his contention that the of ficers of the commission were acting fully: within their authority in abating the nuisance
 Judge Kibbey opened the argument for the defense. He declared that sev- eral of the contentious of the attorney general were absurd and humorous He stased that the horticultural commis- sion itself had violated the law in cer- tain instances and that if the commits sion had. a. right to destroy the trees in. question other means should have been adopted. He scored the commits sion. for arranging to admit trees in Tested with certain pests and for re- curing the payment of 2k cents per