The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1920-07-02
State Capitol News
CONDUCTOR WINS
FIGHT WITH UNION
Supreme Court Overrides
Action in F. A.
Murphey Case

New Mexico supreme court has at
firmed the Judgment Of the district
court In Bernaliilo county, which held
that +. A. Murphey. of Albuquerque,
a conductor on the coast lines OF the
santa Fe railway. was convicted n
expelled from the order OF Railway
Conductors without such trial an IL
guaranteed under the constitution
eud bylaws OF the Organization.
Tho effect OF the supreme court
decision IN to restore Murphey to
good standing in h order and to
r~einstate his Insurance. In the mutual
benefit department. The opinion is
by Justice Roberts, Chief Justice
Parh"r %concurrlng. Justice Raynolds,
having been the trial judge. did not
participate.
The decision affirmB the Judgment
of the dlstrIcA court In Bernhlillo
county, Judge Herbert +. Reynolds
presiding. The conductor in question
Is 4. A. Murphey, who runs west OF
Albuquerque on the coast lines OF
the Santa Fe, The. opinion Is by
Justice Roberts, chief Justice Parker
cUncurrlng. Justice Reynolds not par
ticlpating.
The suit grew out OF Murphey's
conduct In 1915, In connection with
the movement OF the railroad unions
to demand an eight hour day n time
and a half for overtime. A meeting
Of several OF the brotherhoods was
held In Albuquerque TO discuss the
problem. Murphcy attended this
meeting. There was some question
as to the wisdom OF forcing the Issue
at that time, and after the meeting
Murphey. as a committeeman repre-
sentipg The several brotherhoods, Is
sued u circular rels. e to the ques-
ton. Charges were brought against
hl,, U,a 10 Ah. eriaI kts Ata IladaloR
OF the order, he was acquitted.
NJ v. Kelly, a member of division
No. 602, at Gallup, appealed the case.
On the appeal, the president OF this
order yLt aside the finding Of The
Albuquerque division and remanded
the case for new trial. This new
trial was held at San Marcial. and
resulted In the conviction OF the de-
PENDANT. His expulsion. from the
order followed. Thu San Marciai
verdict waa affirmed by the president
and later upheld by the board of
directors.
Eight Other Decisions
The supreme court has handed
down decisions In eight civil caseS,
affirming the Judgment OF the dis
trict court In Sandoval county In two,
In Valencia county in one, in ColfaN
county In three, In chaves county In
one. and in Socorro county affirms
as to cross appellant, but reversing
as to relator.
Sandovpl county, In the matter
Of the estate of II. a. Miera. deceased,
Bond-C Council Sheep and Wool com
pany. appellee, versus ]. s. Mler1s, el
al. appellants, suit over constructor
Of u sheep contnLot. Jesus NJ, San
doval, appellee. versus Maxinin,
Perez. ct al, appellants. suit in eject
ment.
Valencia county. Jose Angel Jar
amlllo. administrator. etc. ct al, ap
p~cilants, versus Julian Jaramillo, g
al, appellees, suit to cancel a deed
to real estate.
Colfax county. Two cases OF hi
city of Ration versus the Ration Ici
company, ct al n OF the city
versus the Yankee Fuel company. 81
al. All three are suits on cOndem
nations proceedings, the companies
being the appellants.
Chaves county. This Texas Banl
and Trust comrany. appellee. versu'
q. Il. Gavin. ct al, appellants. sui
for Judgment upon Il joint promis
sorry note.
Socorro county. The state cx re
Lorenzo y. Rivera. appellant, veISui
S~ylvestre Escuibel. ct al, appellees
an action In mandamus against IN,
trustees nf the Ccvilleta de Ia JOY
grant.