Arizona republican., 1919-02-02
NUT.
 ACCOMP PL|CES IN. .bOO I LEG CASE
Supreme Court Rules Lower
 Court Need Not Instruct That Their Testimony Be
 Scrutinized By The Jury

In the case of George Baumgartner, appellant, against the state, respon- dent, Coconino county. the supreme court yesterday affirmed the judgment of the lower court, convicting the ap pellant of the crime of bootlegging He was convicted on the testimony of three Thiel detectives who sWore that they had visited his place, a pool hall, and purchased liquor from him.
 Baumgartner testified that he had sold no liquor; that the men had ap- piled and that he had none and was not engaged in the business of selling liquor; that thereafter they went away and soon returned with a bottle of whisky and gave him a drink The jury accepted the word of the detect ives.
 One assignment of error was the refusal of the trial judge to instruct the jury that the testimony of the detect ives as accomplices should be scruti- nized The supreme court held that they were not accomplices; that though they might have induced Baumgartner to commit a crime they | could have been accomplices only when ! they had the same interest he had when they touched it from the same angle.
 reverse Rate Cace Te case of the Yuma Gas Light and ] Water company, appellant against the i city of Yuma and others, appellees, was reversed. This was a controversy I regarding the fixing of rates for the 1 service by ordinance by the city, the rates being different from those which had been fixed by the state corporation commission. The supreme court re- cites the Tucson case in which the power of the corporation commission conferred upon it by the constitution, was sustained
 In the case of A. R. Jenkins, appel l lant, against John l.. Irwin, appellee this county, a suit brought by the ap- pellee to recover commission on the sale of real estate, the lower court was affirmed. In this case the court took occasion to comment upon the manner I of preparing briefs.
 Dismiss Land Board Appeal
 An appeal was dismissed in the mat ter of Edward G. Belknap, appellant, against the state land board, appellee, for the reason that the matter in dis pute had been settled between the parties since the filing of the appeal, leaving nothing for the court to de- termine. Belknap had brought suit in mandamus against the land board to compel it to enter into a contract of sale with him of certain school land. The land had been appraised. and the appellant at a public sale bid it in at the appraised price, but the board re- fused to execute a cGEhtract of sale un- less the appellant should pay the rent for the period between the admission of the state and the time of the sale Later, Belknap paid the rent
 The only other matter 0iSnOSed Of hv , the court was the case of O. ]. Cotey, appellant, against the county of Green lee, appellee. The lower court was af- firmed. This is the second appearance of this controversy. In the first suit in the superior court of Greenlee county Cotey was given judgment. and the county appealed. The case was reversed, and in the second trial judg- ment was awarded the county. It was a suit to recover on a road construc- ton contract.