Arizona republican., 1917-06-24
SUPREME COURT
 UPHOLDS STATE
 LAW IN SALARY

Several opinions were handed down by the supreme court yesterday, none of them of great importance, though one of them is not without interest. It is the Arizona Power company, appel lant against the state from YaVapai county It was instituted by T. F. Caughlin against the power company whose service he had quit and had been required by the company to wait until the regular payday before receiving the amount vet due him. The company was charged with a violation of the law which provides that an enlploye shall be paid when he quits the service of his employer.
 The case was tried before Judge Smith of Yavapai county without jury and a verdict and judgment were rendered against the defendant com pany It was the contention of the company that the law was a violation of the constitution which guarantees a validity of contracts. Under the terms of it's charter the company had formed certain regulations regarding the time Cf the payment of it's employees and that it's contracts with them recognized the terms of payment with respect to time
 The opinion of the court upholds the validity Of the law and affirms the judgment of the lower court.
 In the case of Mary M. Mannion, ap- pellant, against Theodore w. Marsh, appellee, from Santa Cruz county, the judgment of the lower court is re- Versed with directions that the appel lees complaint be dismissed. In this case the appellant had made home stead entry including tract of about eight acres upon which the appellee asserted some sort of a claim. It was the contention of the appellant that the government having permitted her to file on the several legal subdivisions described. she is entitled to possession of all of it.
 In the case of the Warren company, appellant against l.. Willard Whit, a minor appellee no reversible error was found and the judgment of the lower court of Cochise county was af firmed This was an action for dam ages for which verdict awarding s.. 600 had beer rendered on account of injuries sustained bv the overturning of an automobile he was driving on an uneven street.
 Other cases were Aurella B. Sparks and Harry C. Wheeler, appellants, against Douglas & Sparks Realty com pany appellee Cochise county; Fran cisco Porras. appellant against the state of Arizona respondent. Greenlee county, affirmed The appellant had been guilty of violating the prohibition law An appeal was taken on the ground that there was insufficient eV idence to convict. The supreme court held that though the evidence was con- flicting that was matter for the jury 10 decide
 In the case of H. S Corbett, trustee, appellant against s. L. Kingan. appel lee and Farrand 0. Benedict, defendant, from Pima county, the judgment of the lower court was reversed and a new trial ordered.
 Motions for rehearings were denied in the following cases: Southern Pa ciffc Railroad company vs. State of Ar izona: William Henry Marshall vs. State of Arizona: Eugene s. Ives Ys F. of Arizona: O. E. Hall and J. J. Elliott Vs. State of Arizona
 The Southern Pacific case is one in which the right of the state corporation commission to fix rates at which circus trains shall be transported within the state is upheld The Marshall. Fuqua and Hall and Elliott cases are bootleg ging cases R. NJ Fuqua is a wealthy Phoenix man who was convicted about a year ago of violation of the prohibi- tory law in illegally transporting by motor car, intoxicating liquor across the state line. J. J. Elliott did not join in the motion for a rehearing as he was pardoned by the governor.
 A motion to dismiss the case of Edith Sanburg Jackson vs. Lebanon Reservoir and Ditch com2aIly is denied: