Albuquerque morning journal., 1914-12-03

mouon for directed verdict hy both
iitigants the motion Of Sandell was
sustained and Judgment given against
appellant. The opinion IL by chief
Justice Roberts.
syllabus of the Court.
No alleged errors, unless they are
jurisdictionaL will be considered, ox-
ccpt those which are set out IN the
motion for a new trial
Tho common law rule upon the
right Ia Il trial hy jury of the visne
or neighhorhood. if that be the rule
la It's strictest sense. has been long
modified by legislation permitting u
change OF venue where an impartial
Jury was not obtainable IN the county
where the alleged crime was commit
ted
Where trial by an impartial jury
can be secured In the county where
the crime is committed, the accused
cannot be deprived OF a trial there.
even under the sanction OF our
legislation upon the subject of change
OF venue.
The constitutional guarantee Of a
speedy public trial by an impartial
jury Of the county or district In which
the offense Ia alleged TO have been
committed. Is not of a right to be
tried In the county. but in the county
or district in which the offense Is
alleged TO have been committed. II an
impartial Jury ean be secured therein.
The power conferred upon the dis
iriet courts by this statute is one
which ought 10 be exercised With
greater care and deliberatiOn. and Il
'hange of behalf of the people, should I
)c made only after showing which /
the court that public aenti- /
nent IL in such state as to render
Improbable n fair and impartial trial.
Held: by Section 20, OF chapter 81
avs of 1907, il is provided that the
shall file the transcript
# testimony with the clerk of the
curt In which the action was tried.
nd thereupon either party may give
i've days notice to the opposite party
( his Intention to apply 10 the judge
D have the transcript signed aud
called as a bill of exceptions.
The facts urged in support of a mo-
ION for new trial upon the ground
nat the jury was allowed TO separate.
Unsupported by proof Of such facts
y affidavit, or otherwise. and not ,
orne out by the record in sufficient
lowng and does not entitle the de-
'ndant to a new trial upon such
round.
The Bibo Case.
A transaction which Is capable OF I
eing rescinded on the ground of
aud, is 10 be treated as good untll
and not as had until con- :
rmed. But such contract is not 20
considered as rescinded only as
the date Of the decree of the court
tting the transaction aside, but as
of the date of the unequivocal and
zen declaration of the injured party
at he demands a rescission, followed
,on a refusal. BY a prompt appllca-
)n to the courts.
a secret preference, given TO one
the creditors signing a composition
treement, in order 10 induce him TO
sent TO the same, renders the COM
'sition agreement, as to the innocent
editors who sign the same, voidahle
ly, and such contract continues In
II force and effect until the fraud IS
scovered and the election TO rescind
exercised
Consideration, like every other fea-
re and element of a contract. Is 4
utter Of agreement, upon which the
nds Of the contracting parties must
set and agree.
Hence, whore BIS creditors signed
IMPOSITION agreement, whereby they
reed to accept thirty-five per cent
their claims against him in full set
ment, but the signature of NJ, one
such creditors, was obtained by BIS
reeing to give him secret preference
fifteen per cent, and G, another Of
creditors who had signed the
'eemcnt. upon being paid the thlr-
five per cent provided for, de-