El Nuevo mexicano., 1916-02-24

'sday)
took over the farm Of sixty acres
The court held that the parties
agreed 10 make exchange Of farms
October /. A suit arose over pastur-
ing Of cattle, however, and appellee
obtained Judgment for $3.50 and pos
session Of the lands. An appeal was
taken. raising a question as to the
amount OF damages allowable and
whether parole evidence was proper
~ received to show that the consfim-
nation Of the contract was depend
ent upon the ability Of the appellee,
with the assistance Of appellant, I'd
raise the sum OF $4,000.
IN his opinion Chief Justice G. j.
Roberts affirms the lower court. The
syllabus says:
Il. Evidence and plpadings exam
med, and held to warrant judgment
for appellee for damages In the sum
awarded by the ceurt.
2. Where the agreement between
the parties is one and entire, and
only a part Of this Is reduced TO writ
ing, the residue may be proved by
extrinsic evidence, but parole evil
dence will not be received to dispute
so much Of the transaction as Isl en-
bodied in the written agreement.
8. Where only a portion Of an Oral
contract was reduced to writing. and
the writing provided that the sum
lof $4,000 is to be raised at once" it
was competent to show by parole
evidence that such sum, was to be
arranged for, from other parties, by
the party who was to receive such
sum in part payment for certain
property sold, as such fact was not
Inconsistent with the written portion
of the contract,
Messrs. Reid and Herycy were at
~torneys for appellee and George s.
Downer for appellants,
Sunday is a Day.
In the ase OF the A. r. < S.. F. Rail.
way company, appellant, VS.. Apolinar
Solorzan0. appellee. the interesting
contention IS raised that Sunday
does not count as "a day. The court
holds that Sunday does count as "a
day"
The lower court oyerruled the rail-
ways motion to set aside final judy
ment against 1t in the sum OF SITS.
The question at Issue is disposed Of
in the syllabus of the opinion written
by Chief Justice Roberts which says:
I'm computing time allowed for
filing a motion for a new trial, an in
'teryening Sunday must be included;
and, where such motion is flied on.
the Wednesday next succeeding the
Thursday on which the verdict was
returned. II Is not within the five
days prescribed by Sub. Sec. 100 OF
Sec. 1926. Code 1915.r
Extortion Case
Case No. 1919. State of New Mexico
US. NJ. A. Strickland. appellant, is an
appeal from Roosevelt county senten-
cling appellant to serve a term in the
nenitentiary for ~malicolusly threaten
ing to do injury to a person or prop
erty with intent to exort money. In
his opinion. Chief Justice Roberts
holds that the demurrer to the indict-
ment against appellant should have
heen sustained on the ground that the
Indictment failed to charge a threat
TO injure the person or property Of an
other and therefore, the chief justice
rules that the lower court must be
reversed The syllabus says:
In charging an onense under Sec.
1884. Code 1915, It is necessary to al
lege and prove that the defendant ma.
liclousIyI threatened injury to the per
son or property OF another. with IN.
tent. ETC.. and where an Indictment
simply charges that defendant threat
ened another, without alleging that
such threat was to iniure the person
Or property Of such other. it is insult
iicient."
HIS. Bowman. assistant attorney
general. represented appellee and T.
e. Mears was attorney for the appel
liant.
Real Estate Case
Case 1920 Is an action brought in
the district court for Roosevelt c0un.
II by plaintiff, Till Walters, against
defendant, William Battenfeld, to re-
cover $500 as commission for service
! rendered in a real estate transaction
between defendant and J.. W. Green
wood. From a judgment in favor of
for $500 defendant appeals.
The opinion reversing the lower court
Is by Mr.. Justice Hanna, c~oncurred in
BY Chief Justice Roberts and Mr.. Jus
lice f. N. Parker. The syllabus says;
T. A narration Of facts. ID. an an.
swer. in the form Of new matter.
which could all be properly proved
under the general or specific denials
made by the defendant constitutes an
Ergumentative answer.
Where an issue IS formed BY a gem
eral or specific denial. but defendant
improperly attempts to add to the ef-
Icacy Of the denial by ~narrating facts
all Of which were provable under the
general or specific denial, the burden
If proving the facts constituting the
made BY the denial does not
rest upon the defendant.
Interesting Farm Case
Case 1929 Is ap Interesting suit in
the trading OF farm for city
rroperty. the discovery OF m~isrepre-