Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1914-01-12

negotiable: and the assignee. under
the Statute of Now Mexico, may sue
thereon IN bis own name Where q
note is transferred after maturity 1t
Is subject to defeuses existing be-
tween the payec and the payer. and
the question Of les negotiabllity Is inn
material
2. Transfers Of property made to
/ innocent third parties, in violation OF
a restraining order are not void nor
voidablc, because made In disregard
Of such order
3. a surety on a profnissory note
Is not discharged from liability by an
extension Of time, granted the prin-
ciple whore the makers are not pre-
cluded from paying the note prior TO
the expiration Of such an extension.
land the extension granted was with
out consideration.
4. An exception to findings Of fact
made by the trial court must specify
the particular finding or findings obs
iected to, whore more than one ending
lis made. and general objection h
insufficient to present any question
for review unless m the findings are
incorrect and an objection to a find
ing, where no requested finding on
the proposition is asked, which points
out eounsel's theory or contention,
should clearly Indicate the claimed
error
faggard s. 90, vs. Cunningham.
This is case where a default judg-
ment was entered against appellant
hy 70 justice Of the peace in Precinct
No. 4 Roosevelt county, from which
he appealed to the district court In
the court motion was lnterposed 10
dismiss the appeal, upon the ground
mat no appeal could be taken from
default Judgment, entered by justice
of the peace. which was sustained,
ana the appeal dismissed
Judgment Of the court below, re-
yorsed; cause remanded.
syllabus BY tie Court.
Under Sections 1906 and 1866 c. /.
1897, a defendant may appeal from
a default judgment rendered and en-
tered against him by a justice OF the
peace.
State vs. Cabodi.
Appellant Cabodi was convicted In
the district court of Mckinley coun-
~ Of murder In the first degree and
was sentenced to death From the
judgment he appeals to this court.
Judgment Of the court below af-
drmed.
Syllabus BY the Court.
/. Assuming the meaning to be
plain, false grammar or wrong spell
Ing will not render an indictment in
.. a question, not jurisdictlonal, /
cannot be raised the first time on APP
peal.
3. Where the name Dewey Dlmon I
appears upon the roll Of jurors em-
pannellod to try a cause, ana the ver-
llct is signed Dewitt Dimon Fore. (
nan, ana no objection to the variance I
S made in the trial court, the supreme /
court, on appeal, where the question .
q first raised Is warranted in assum-
ng that no substitution in the per-
'onnel Of the jury was made and that I
signed the verdict as Dewitt Dimon
4. Whore complaining party Is
lware at the time, that the internre-
alton Of the evidence, By an interpre-
err rs not correct it is incumbent up
IN him 60 call the courts attention to8
such erroneous TRANSACTIONS and ask
% have It corrected; and, where he \
ias not such knowledge at the time, 4
lut afterwards becomes aware of the n
act, he must sol out an the facts IN 1
his motion for n new trial pointing l
,ut therein specifically the evidence 4
'rronoously translated, and support
uch contention by affidavit or proof,
o that the trial court can pass intelli-
iently upon the question.
g. Under the provisions Of Sec. II,
Art. IT, of the state constitution, the
defendant is entitled to have the testi-
nony interpreted to him in n lan-
,upge which he understands. While II
UGH right cannot be denied a defend
mt, 1t Is incumbent upon him to- IN
ONE appropriate manner. call the at
ention OF the trial court 10 the fact
hat he does not understand the Ian
uage In which the testimony Is given.
G.. The word charge" used IN Sec
ion IA. Article H. of the state con
iiWiior. in the clause Ito have the
harge and testimony interpreted to
i'm ia a language that he under
lands" refers to the indictment or
and not the instructions
lven 10 the jury by the court.