The Winslow mail., 1923-06-29
FOUR OPINIONS ARE
GIVEN TUESDAY
IN SUPREME COUR |

Judgment was affirmed in two
cases and reversed in two others in
opinions handed down Tuesday by
the supreme court on the appeals
of four suits taken from judgments
and orders of the lower courts. One
of the cases reversed was a criminal
action brought against w. H. Pat
terson while the other was the case
Of Alice Hudspeth as guarding OF
William G. Hudspeth, an incompetent
person, against the Blue Bar Taxi
cab and Transfer company of Tue
son. The two cases affirmed were
the suits of David H. Biles and S.
p Wells against the United Verde
Extension Mining company and the
divorce suit of Hattie NJ. Moore
against her husband, Albert T..
Moore.
The appeal of the United Verde
Mining company was made to an or
der directing the company to pay
81 $50 jury fees in the case brought
against it by David H. Biles and s.
p Wells which resulted in a verdict
in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum
of 81. The opinion in this case was
written by Chief Justice A. G. Nc
Alister and concurred in by Justice
Henry D. Ross. Justice Frank H.
Lyman however, refused to concur
and rendered separate opinion hOl-
ding that the order of the court as
sessing jury fees was foreign to the
laws of the state and should be stri-
ken out
Justice McAlister in his opinion
holds that the Judgment of the lower
court should be affirmed and as his
opinion was concurred in by Justice
Ross, it is the ruling opinion in the
case, which was tried in Yavapai
county. The appeal was brought on
the grounds that the court erred in
including the jury fees in the judg-
ment.
In reversing the case of Mrs. Hud-
speth against the Blue Bar Taxicab
and Transfer company, which result
ted at the trial in verdict in favor
of the plaintiff, the ponion which
was written by Justice Lyman, holds
that the defendant company was not
liable for damages in the case be-
cause the driver of their cab was
driving where he had no authority
to drive.
Hudspeth as guardian for her hus-
band for damages alleged to have
been sustained by the latter when
the taxicab in which he was riding
was struck by another car on the
road between Tucson and Benson. 1t
was groubht out that Hudspeth, a
deputy sheriff at the time, ordered
the driver to drive into the country
although the latter told him that he
had no authority to do so. The ac-
cident occurred on the return trip
and theinjuries sustained by Huds-
peth, it was claimed, resulted in his
total and permanent disability.
The opinion holds that Hudspeth,
as a peace officer, knew that the dri-
yer of the taxicab had no authority
to drive into the country, it being in
violation of an agreement between
the Sheriff and the owner of the
taxicab company The opinion also
states that the improper introduction
of testimony concerning some
checks, one to the hospital and the
other to Hudspeth, which the judge
in instructing the jury failed to cure,
also is sufficient to reverse the case
and demand new trial, which the
opinion orders. The case was tried
in the Pima county court.
The second case reversed is that
of w. w. Patterson, convicted of OBJ
tanning money by means of fraud
The opinion was written by Justice
Ross Patterson, under the alias OF
]. G. Covington, was charged with
obtaining $50 from Mrs. j. B. Armer
of Phoenix bv delivering to her a
bogus draft The evidence, the op1-
MON states, shows that Patterson got
Mrs Armer to endorse the draft
which he later cashed. The draft
came back unpaid and Mrs Armer
gave her note for it. The opinion
holds that Patterson in reality did
not obtain $50 from Mrs Armer, but
merely the loan of her good name
and credit On those grounds the
case is reversed and remanded for
new trial. The case was tried In
the Maricopa county court.
The appeal of Mrs Moore was from
judgment refusing to grant her
divorce from her husband Albert l.
Moore Mrs Moore alleged cruelty
and failure to provide. The opinion
which was written by Justice Ross
states that the evidence in the case
was sharply in conflict on all issues
I'm affirming the judgment of the
trial court" the opinion states, "there
is a lingering hope that these par
ties will become reconciled and re-
sumo the duties and obligations they
promised each other at the marriage
altar. It may have been this thought
in part that impelled the trial courI
to deny the divorce prayed for by
the plaintiff" j"