The Coconino sun., 1923-10-19
SHEEPMEN LOSE CASE
BEFORE PRESCOTT COURT

The supreme court of Arizona has
handed down a decision in the cases
of the state against Hazas and Mar
tinez, which are known as the sheep
trespass cases, affirming the convic-
ton of the defendant in the superior
court and upholding the constitution
atty of the sheep trespass law. These
were test cases brought under the
amended trespass law Of 1921, where
by it was made a misdemeanor for
anyone owning sheep to Craze them
upon cattle range. In December,
1921, the defendants, Haas and Mar
tinez, while grazing their sheep on
the cattle range of the Diamond Two
Cattle company, south of Wagner in
Yavapai county, were arrested, Com
plants were sworn out by the mana
ger of this cattle company, Wayne
Thornburg, and the trial had before
the superior court of Yavapai county.
After trial the defendants were con-
victed and each fined $1,000 covering
several counts or separate trespasses.
The law under which the defendants
were convicted was copied from the
Idaho laws, it having been in force
| in Idaho for a number of years. II
had been before the courts Of thaS
state and had been passed upon by the
supreme court of the United States.
The appeal in the present cases was
argued by Robert E. Morrison of
Prescott and Judge F. w. Perkins,
representing the defendants as
well as the Arizona Sheep Growers
association. The state. was represent
| ed by "A. II. Favor, Prescott, and the
attorney general of the state Of Ari-
zona
| Sheepmen and cattlemen in the
state have been waiting the outcome
of these cases because the constitu-
| tionality of the law relative to the
| grazing of sheep on a cattle range
was attacked by the appeals in the
cases. The sheepmen contended that
| the law was unconstitutional on the
| grounds that it deprived them of equal
rights and that it granted certain
| special privileges to the eattlemen not
granted to the sheepmen.
| Laws operating uniformly upon all
of a class" the opinion states, when
| the classification has a basis founda-
ton in reason, are not obnoxious to
any constitutional provision with
I Which, we are 1dlLliIdI L1cBiSldIlOli
of the kind is common is often nee
essary.'
! In summing up the contention of
| the cattlemen and the sheepmen with
reference to the police powers of the
state in passing laws to keep peace
among the cattlemen and sheepmen in
! their joint use Of the public domain,
the supreme court states as follows:
ut is for the legislature to pass
/ laws and to determine the general pol
icy in that regard. We cannot reject
law because it may seem harsh in
some respects or may rest unequally
upon the citizens. Our power is limit
ed to an inquiry as to whether the
| legislature has exceeded its authority
in the enactment of the law. Finding
| no reversible error in the trial of this
case and having come to the conclus-
/ ion that the law is not violative of any
constitutional provision, either state
or federal, the judgment Of conviction
is affirmed"
The opinion was written by Justice
Henry d. Ross and concurred in by
| Chief Justice Al. G. McAlister and
| Justice Frank HI. Lyman.
In connection with the foregoing
cases, the supreme court also con-
sidered an appeal In another sheep
trespass case involving r. I. Brown.
Brown was convicted of trespassing
sheep on a cattle range situated north
of Castle Hot Springs, by the superior
court of the county. The supreme
court on this appeal found error in
the conviction for the reason that it
was not shown that Brown was the
owner Of the sheep. The conviction
was reversed and the lower court or
dered to dismiss the complaint The
defendant, Brown, was represented by
Mr.. Morrison and Judge Perkins, and
the state by the attorney general.