Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1914-01-15
Twelve Years of Steady Legal
Battle TO Come to an End
With Argument Before FL
nal Tribunal.
WOOD FOR PLAINTIFF
FIELD FOR DEFENSE
Three Times Tried ir Local
and State Supreme Court
With Final Judgment for
Plaintiff $1,000.


tried In me ncrnalilo county district
court md as many times by the Sew
Mexco territorial supreme court,
which nnully affirmed verdict giy-
ing the planun damages in the sum
0f approximately $1,000, viii he ar
su,d b,fore the final tribunal. the SUI
premc court IT tnc United states in
Washington next week.
Tho argument before the United
States supreme court Will bring Go an
end twelve years of constant ana .nrd
fought lcsal contest boz which Ions
array of prominent legal talent has
been employ ed and which has kept
the case almost constantly before the
public during that period Tho briefs
iu the c1W and the record cover
thousands of printed pages. bound Boa
several volumes.
Francis IT,. Wood, OF Marion and
Wood representing the plaintiff VIII
mukr the argument in Washington,
with Nciu %. Field appearing Tor the
defense. Mr Field lett Tor washing
ton laat night Mr Wood leaves toe
night. going py way of 80 roso and
Ncw Orleans.
History of thc Case.
Few 90 ans cascs Ice the legal rec
I ords uf New Mexico nave so much OF
local interest as ti,.s long contest and
10 probably is uncqualcd in its dura-
lion before the courts.
In May t9o2, Joseph Barnett bee
gan cNcaVating Tor che basement and
foundation of the present Barnett
building "a the corner of SECOND and
Central NeSt door where the san
Jose market now Be-, ~ Ruppo occu-
pied with his drug store, enc story
building. which hc held ou % two year
| lease from D. Weluman Use owner.
In digging the foundation for the iar-
nett building .Workinen wept under
| ana undermined the foundhuon un-
der the east wall oi the Ruppc store
| and on June 3Oth 1909 the building
! lnu iu. partially Wrocklug the store
ana putting the drug store entirely
out OF business SO one WAS SER
lously injured ln the fan and thr re-
mltlng litigation was based entirely
on the damasc Go the stock and bua-
| lnoss ot the druggist.
In August. 1919 Mr. Ruppo caused
suit 90 be died asking 10000 dam-
! ares' The caso came o. trinl for the
/ first tlmo before Judge 10. y. Baker boz
April. 1908. Ncill o. Field appeared
/ for Joseph Barnett william h chill
ders for y. Weinman and %. y Mar
ron and A. b. McMilleu Tor Ruppe
I'm this first trial the court directed
the Jury Co return % verdict for IN,
defendants The case was taken q
the territorial supreme court where
tho decision wns reversed and e new
trial ordered August 1905.
Tho second trial was before jude
ira A. Abbott In November 1906
when the Jury returned verdict fo'
the pialntlm ln the sum OF $4,000. u
this trial the court instructed the jur,
10 add . per cent interest 10 th'
Judgment fund. from the date Of th'
accident, also that IL should ana
verdict on the profits of the business
lost through the accident
THIS time the defense appealed q
the territorial supreme court and tn
court held that she lower cour
should have left tho matter Of in
terest 10 the discretion of the jur!
and also that che evidence as to los
OF pront from the business was in
sufficient. The court ngnin sent Oh
ease back for "a re-trlal
In tho meantime William u. chill
ders had died and Judse T.. A. Mani
came into the case representing M
Welnmun a. the same time ~
Wood came into the case for az
plaintiff
THE third Trial was before JudE
Abbott lp December 1909. Tho iur
was out fifteen minutes and reiurho
To tell the court that one Of thei
number could not be- reasoned "it
and therefore they could NOT reach
{ verdict Tho court sent them hac
; bat after an .hour they returned Wit
J tho information that the unreafonin
Juror was more stubborn than ey'
b ana that a verdict was hopeless IN
r iutv was dismissed and NE eas
r tried again before Judge Abbott q
81 the next term of court lea Ap,n lNl'
b This time the Jury brought To- Nel
a dlct for $1,000, and mlet"st 90 D
p, computed by the court 40 per con
= This the court declined 20 do whc
3 aitornoys for the plainuH held ihI
3 thc jury should compute The in'efes
The Jury waH returned Tor iaith'l N'
liberation and when Il next reiurne
D brought with Il verdict TOR q
D plaintiff for t77as.
The case again went to the ~
prnme court and there the cnu
q struck out one item of ffoo from q
70 verdict affirming the balance OF q
z Judgment. This was just before u
q admission Of New MeXico 49, % sta
p land the verdict being more th'
a $4,000, according 40 the then eNisiil
q practice, the case was appealed q
q rect to tho supreme court OF q
), United states.
4 II has required two years 60 roal
a. the case ON the United states q
n prone court calendar
n Oman ninht eud dnv. Trlmhlo'a 4