Arizona republican., 1911-03-28
GRANT BROS,
 FINE STICKS Judgment Of Lower Court
 Affirmed OTHER MATTERS TAKEN UP
The Supreme Court Ad- journed to May 4, But No Other Opinions Will Like ly Be Handed Down Be fore January Meeting.

moon finished the business of the March
 meeting and adjourned until May 1.
 That IS. it finished it's business SD far
 as if could: there were several cases
 on which the court had not reached an agreement and they were allowed 10
 go over until the regular meeting next
 winter.
 Among the cases disposed of yester- day was that of Grant Bros. Construc- ton company, appellees against the
 United States, respondent, from the first district This was a prosecution by the government of the construction company charged with violating the contract alient labor law. lt was charged that the company through its agents had been bringing unskilled la borers into the country for work on railroad construction in the southern part Of the territory. In one lot there were forty-five of these' labOrers. so that there were fOrty-five counts in the complaint The company was convict ed and fined S40.0O0. This judgment was affirmed.
 That there had been an importation of laborers there was no doubt, but it was the contention Of the company that it's agent had acted without its knowledge and in the face of instruc- tions that all negotiations for labor must be conducted on this side of the line
 Yet there was proof introduced that the transportation of the men had been paid for from Hermosillo. There was irOof that the agent had not paid for the transporta tion: the men had not paid. |. there fore appeared that either the railroad mad carried them for nothing or that the transportation had been paid by the only other party interested in their the construction company itself.
 There was also testimony that the agent, one Carney who had Oeen bring ing the men in through Nogales. had received instructions to bring others in by the way of NacO. as that point was nearer to the construction camps.
 The question thus mainly centered about the contention of the companv that whatever violation of law there had been had been committed without the knowledge of the management which could not be held for the illegal acts of it's agent. Concerning the question of the company's knowledge the opinion haH the following:
 A clear definition of what is meant by legal knowledge is found in the language employed by Judge Nixon in charging jury in the case of the United States vs. Houghton. IA Fed. 544. which was a criminal prosecution based upon section 5fIS of the revised statutes of the United States. making it mlsdemeanor for any person to pre- sent to am officer of the United States any false. forged or altered public rec ord and other writing knowing the same to be false:
 What is legal Knowledge of a fact? There is great misapprehension in the popular mind on this subject There seems to be a prevalent notion that no one is chargeable with more knowledge that he chooses to have: that he is permitted to close his eyes when he pleases upon all sources Of information and then excuse his ignorance by say ing that he does not see anything. In as well as civil affairs every
  that he can Aearn upon inquiry when he has facts in his possession which suggest the inquiry
 This is the most important pending case of this kind in the United States; the fine imposed is said to be the largest for a violation of the alient labor law. The importance of the case is shown by the number of tele grams which have been received by United States Attorney Morrison re- specting it.
 Another matter before the court. not yet decided, was the peculiar case of he Arizona Eastern, appellant. against the old Dominion Mining company. ap- pellee A motion for q new trial had been denied by the lower court and an appeal was perfected. After this, the ower court vacated the judgment. The question was as to the status of the appeal or that of the case itself: vhe ther it was now before the supreme court or whether it was brought back within the jurisdiction of the lower ,ourt by the vacation of the judgment.
 Chief Justice Kent said that some rears ago this same question had been brought before the supreme court. which decided that the district court lad not lost jurisdiction by the per ecting of the appeal the then Chief Justice Baker dissenting Chief Justice Kent said that he believed that the 'uling of the court at that time was