Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-03-02

/, held that the defendants plea of ai,
t~refois acquit was not well taken.
Aurandt was postmaster at Santf
Cruz, Santa Fe county, and had beer
convicted Of embe2zling a letter an(
It's contents.
Weaver vs.. Weaver. :.
The case of 5. j. Weaver, appellant
VS.. A, NJ. Weaver, appellee. appea'
from the fourth judicial district. mo-
ton to dismiss to the hearing on tho
merits postponed. Stephen b. Davis
Jf- attorney for appellee. Messrs
Jones and Rogers attorneys for appel
liant, The opinion is by Judge Pope
and the syllabus is as follows:
When the question of the courts
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal
necessarily involves the consideration
OF the validity of the proceedings
complaint of the disposition of a mo.
tion to dismiss the appeal VIII be
postponed to the hearing on the
merits.
Duncan vs.. Holder let Al.
The case of Frank NJ. Duncan, APP
pellee VS.. $. w Holder, ]. A. Ed
wards, NJ. w. Evans and j.. *. Heart,
appellants, appeal from the district
court of Chayes county. Eden &
Bowers of Roswell, attorneys for APP
pellee. VS.. S. w. Holder. j. A. Ed
lin, attorneys for appellants. The
judgment of the court below is al
firmed. The opinion is by Judge M.
c.. Mechem and the statement of facts
is as follows:
I The appellee (plaintiff below al
legged in his amended complaint that
for some time prior TO July 20, 1907,
he was the owner of certain land In
Chaves county, and had placed same
ia the hands of the appellants, as his
agents for sale; that on June 20.
1907, the appellants informed him
that they had a purchaser for said
land, one NJ. G.. Swinncy. for the sum
of $500, whom In truth and in fact
said purchaser had agreed to pay and
| did thereafter pay the appellants the
sum Of So sac for said land; that the
said appellants falsely and fraudu-
lently, concealing the fact from him,
that they had found a purchaser at
$G,S40, the appellee relying on their
said representation thai $500 was
the best price they could get for him
accepted said sum and paid them a
commission of $270 thereon: that the
appellants converted the difference
in price to their own use, and for that
difference. together with the commits
sion paid them appellee demanded
judgment against said appellants.
The appellants answered, denying
that they had ever been plaintiffs
5at " AAi& "a Va Rofo ft-ho HAf'
that they a ever sold it for $3.50.
or any other sum. or that they had
ever received or converted to their
own use any sum of money belonging
to the appellee, n further answer
ing, by way of new matter. they al
lege that they bought the said prop
crty of the appellee for themselves
and on their own behalf for the sum
of $3.50 and exhibited a contract
dated July p, 1907, executed by the
appellee, by which he agreed to trans
fer said real estate to appellants, or
whoever they might name, for the
sum Of $3.50 upon payment to him
Of $4,000 cash and the balance by
note executed by appellants and Sc
cured by a mortgage back.
To This answer the appellee filed an
amended reply denying the allega-
tons of new matter, but admitting
the execution of the contract there
in set forth. but alleged that he had
executed the same upon the false and
fraudulent representation OF the APP
%pellants. that they could only obtain
the sum Of $1,000 for said land. when
they had at the time already sald the
for $6,S40. and that said state
were made for the r of
appellee. It appeared in
evidence at the trial, that the appel
lants did sell SAID LAND for the sum
of $3.50. and that they received
the sum OF $500 in cast and
the balance of $500 in unsecured
notes, and that at the time of the trial
there remained due of the balance of
purchase price Represented by
notes. the sum of $4,000.
A trial was had to the court and
a jury, and a verdict returned in favor
Of the appellee for the sum of $1,710, |
and costs, which sum repre-
sents the full mount prayed for by
him. Motions for a new trial were
made and overruIed and this appeal
vas taken.
Fire Association VS.. Patton let Al.
Case No. 1865 was affirmed. 1t is
he Fire Association, interviewer; Bur-
-on-Linge company. appellants, VS.. s.
e Patton, Amelia j. Patton. his wife;
:. w. Haynes, and r. l.. Smith( ap-
Reid d Hervey appeared for
appellants and l.. @. Fullen for APP
Appeal from Chavcs county.
The SUIT was brought to foraclosc
1 mechanics lien on certain lots il
.hc clty Of Roswell, against Patton
V lie, as owners, and Haynes and
sfttith us mortgages OF Patton. pa
took out two insurance policies
S1.hre. payable to Burton-Linge
company. The opinion is by Associate
Justice NJ q. Mechem,
,IcmeZ land Company vs.. Garcia.
In the case of the Jcmcz Land COM
appellant, VS.. Antonio Jose Car
ia, appellc. the error assigned as to
his action in the court below is over
'uled with costs. The opinion is by
Judge John X. Merle. The appeal
vas from the district cour for Berna-
lilo county. Possession 10 a tract of
and in Sandoval county was involved
n the original suit.
vs.. Maxwell Land Grant Co.
In case No. 11G1, John Jenkins,
plaintiff in error, VS.. the Maxwell
Grant company ct AL. defen- {
in error, the court in an opin-
on by Judge A.. w. Cooley, affirms
he decision of the lower court. The $
was brought up from the district {
curt for ColfaX county. The action :
ras one in ejectment and was tried
v Judge John Il. McFie in the lower +,
curt. s
Torrance County Seat Case. p,
Attorney A.. b. Renehan moved that
he Injunction against the board of c
ounty commissioners of Torrance I
ounty, restraining them from ex- t
ending any II upon a court Y
ouse at Estancia. be reinstated until $
ne case could be disposed of on it's r
lerits at the summer session of the I
curt. Judge +. A. Mann, for the de- C
.ndants. objected and the matter
Ill be argued this week. The claim A
made that Progreso is the legal y
)unty seat. the removal of which to
stancia by act Of the Legislature was
"a =. -. x-.stfav1 Of f6a SnTfnpaT+ not A -