Arizona republican., 1917-01-01
Supreme Court Has
 Had One Busy Year

The supreme court during 1916 has disposed of 75 cases covering wide range of legal questions ot importance as establishing precedents for the conduct of affairs in the new state.
 Among those dealing with questions of government. wel Q the Arlzoha Corporation Commission vs. Heralds of Liberty which defined the status of the corporation commission naNils reference to it's relations with the legislature and the courts. Defining its powers and duties as to foreign corporations transaCting business Tn the state. and upholding the power of the courts to review it's decisions and rulings.
 The case of Blount ct al. vs Mari- copa county supervisors. in which II was decided that property in special road districts is subject to taxation for the purposes of paving bond is sues made at the time the property in question was included in the ter ritorial boundaries of the district.
 The case of Chultz. vs. City Of Phoenix, in which it was decided that the city was not exempt from liaoll- ity for personal injuries resulting from the negligence of it's officers and agents.
 
 which the state was held responsible for debts incurred by the territory.
 The case of the City of Bisbee vs. Bisbee improvement Company, i- which it was decided that a city could not withdraw a franchise. once granted, if it be shown that the city cannot be injured if the franchise is sustained. whereas the holder of the franchise would sustain a loss if the sl,1 fafr tod
 Among the questions of public in terest decided. were the now famous Personal Use" decision, upholding the constitutonality of the Drohibi- tion amendment and explaining the effect of the WebbKenyon act.
 The case of Board of Control vs Buckstegge. in which the old age and mothers pension bill was held un- constitutional
 Reynolds vs. State, in which it wat held tkat interior counties have jurisdiction in bootleg cases. and
 Mccall vs. State. in hwich the pari mutuels machine was held not to be per SC a gambling device.
 or interest to women was the case of Eshom vs Eshom which defines the rights of | married woman as to her separate property.
 Of interest Go homesteaders. was the
  ern rail road to quiet title to land lying adjacent to rall read rights-ot way.
 of interest to mining men was the case of Richardson vs. Henry. involv- ing the title to the Three R group of mines.
 Of interest to stock men was the case of Santa Fe Railway vs Car TOW, as it defines their rights in re- latiOn to fences on railroad rights of-way.
 ? Of interest to workingmen, the case Of Deyo vs. Arizona Grading & Con- struction Company. defining the em ployer5 liability law as covering every employee from president 10 bod carrier"
 Of interest to business men. the case of Brutinel vs Nygren, a care ful discussion of two important doc trines in regard to agency one hay ing to do with the appointment of an agent and the nature and extent of his authority. and the other relating to the doctrine of ratification and agency by estoppel.
 Many other decisions were agreed to, involving questions of law re- quiring the construction of many statutes, ranging from thcse of the federal government to the most seem ingly simple of ArizOna's rather com plicated code.
 The personnel of the court will re- main unchanged after the first of the year with the exception that former Chief Justice Franklin will again assume that title. while the present Chief Justice Ross. newly re- elected. will take office as the junior member Of the bench