Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1912-05-10
WHAT IS NATURAL
WATER COURSE
Ruling on Question in SUI
preme Court Decision; Com
mon Law in New Mexico
Also Passed on by Tribunal.

Especial Correspondence ca Ens Herald
Santa Fe, n 81. Nay 9.--'rhc ducs-
tion OF what constitutes natural
water" course was considered hy the
state supreme court IN case No 1850
the Jacquez Ditch company, ct a..
appellants. We. senior Garcia. ct al, ap.
pellecs; appeal from the district court
or San Juan county This Cause was
reversed on the ground that the trial
court erred in lts definition OF nutu-
raj water course. ana was remandel
for further proceedings I'm conformity
with this opinion. Opinion by District
Judge ~ H. Reynolds, Judge Roberis
and Parker concurring. Judge Hanna
not participating. The syllabus fof
this case reads:
Where the question involved was
whether natural water course, ana
The court below found THAT the ar
rOyo was not permanent or natural
stream or water course In which wa
ter runs during the entire year be-
ing a dry arroyo carrying only such
water as may be designated as SUI
face or flood waters" and dlsuiissCa
the cause on this ground: Held error,
Whore surface water in a hlily re-
gion of high bluffs seeks an outlet
through a gorge or rayine during the
rainy season ard By It's flow assumes
definite and natural ehannsl. and
such has always been the case 50 tar
as the memory Of man runs such ac-
customed channel through which the
Weter flows possesses the attribu9oa
Of natural water course. The flow
OF the water need not be continuous,
and the size OF the stream Is imma-
teriai
Common Law IN New Mexico.
Case No. 1924 jose Casimiro Mon
( toya. appellant vs.. territory OF New
7 Mexico. appellee Appeal from the
district eCurt ~ Collax county. IN the
opinion Of Che court the evidence ,waa
sufficient 20 sustain rne verdict. n
Number 81 assignments OF error are
dealt with IN appellants brief some
apparently waived. but al have bncn
considered and we are OF the opinion
that no reversible error has been
found, therefore. The Judgment OF the
lower court Is affirmed"
Opinion By Judge r. II. Hanna.
Judges Parker and Abbott concurring.
The syllabus IN this case reads:
First The common law Of crimes
Is IN force IN New Mexico. except
where q may have been repealed or
modified by statute, ana common-law
procedure Is In force except whore
special provision IL made by statute
10 the exclusion Of common law pro-
eeedure
Second Where the statues have
adopted the common law definition OF
murder an Indictment may, very prop
lcrly. omit direct charge Of pur-
pose or intent 10 KIN, as part OF the
overt act alleged as a crime.
Third. The statutes Of New Mexico
do not attempt 10 change the com
mon law definition or murder, and
. do not limit murder IN the first de-
gree 10 those hOmiclueB committed
purpOsely, or without intent 70 XII.
-Four. Defendant cannot take ad
Vantage OF an obvious clerical error
uonected By necessary iniendmen
from other parts Of indictment,
Fifth. An Indictment that fails 4
lalieee In conclusion that the defend
, ant Killed and murdered the deceased
h sufficient 10 charge manslaughier
I. where the defendant was convicted 81
manslaughte1 no cannot take aGyan
/ tage of the defect, as he was not n
iured thereof.
Sixth. The Jury, IN a homicide case
are the solo judges Of the fact of th'
} existence OF a motive on the part o
= che accused, and the jury may infer 1
2 motive from the commission OF th'
crime.
seventh Evidence examined an,
= IL N4fs =. sfnu4Nlnf
. ett.t, t,.aa.ri,a raatttta f~on, afsnr