Examining Committees for candidates for admission to the bar of the State courts. First Judicial District:-R. S. Morrison, Georgetown; Thomas Mitchell, Georgetown; A. H. DeFrance, Golden. Second District:--B. M. Hughes, M. Benedict, Isaac Barnum, Denver. Third District:-John M. Waldron, Geo. Q. Richmond, Charles E. Gast, Pueblo. Fourth District:-T. A. McMorris, John Campbell, Colorado Springs; M. J. Bartley, Fairplay. Fifth District:-C. C. Parsons, Clinton Reed, Leadville; Geo. Puterbaugh, Breckenridge. Sixth District:-S. P. Dale, Canon City; Geo. S. Adams, Rosita; R. H. Vosburgh, Alamosa. Seventh District:-Thomas C. Brown, T. H. Thomas, Gunnison; J. C. Bell, Lake City. JUDGES OF DISTRICT COURTS. First Judicial District-C. C. Carpenter, Golden. Fourth-William Harrison, Colorado Springs. Sixth-C. D. Hayt, Alamosa. Seventh-M. B. Gerry, Lake City, TEMPLER, PAGE & NOONAN, Practice in all State and Federal Courts. HENRY BOWMAN, Justice of the Peace and Notary Public. F. W. Pitkin. CLARENCE A. LOTT, Room 1 Gordon's Block, Santa Fe Ave. Practices in all courts. RED CLIFF. (COUNTY SEAT EAGLE CO.) LAW BOOKS FOR SALE. Addison on Contracts, (Morgan's Ed.,) 3 Vols. American Probate Cases, 1 Vol. Barbour's N. Y., Supreme Court, 21 Vols. Brightley's Leading Cases on Elections. Ewell's Leading Cases-on Infancy, etc. Green's Brice's Ultra Vires. McCrary's U. S. Cir. Ct. (8th Circuit) Reports, 2 Vols. Mills on Eminent Domain. Schouler on Husband and Wife, 1 Vol., last Ed. Thompson's Liability of Stockholders. Tyler on Boundaries. U. S. Supreme Court, from VIII Otta. Weeks on Attorneys. Wells on Circumstantial Evidence, 1 Vol. Wharton's Criminal Pleading, 8th Ed., 1 Vol. Wharton's Criminal Evidence, 8th Ed., 1 Vol. All of the above are in good condition, and but little used. Address, JOHN C. FITNAM, Publisher of the DENVER LAW JOURNAL, Denver, Colorado, The publisher reserves the right to stop THE JOUR court seems disposed to compel counsel to take prompt action in their cases, so that the client may not complain of the proverbial law's delay. The action of the court will meet with universal approval. Important Opinions by the Supreme Court. DELIVERED DEC. 4, 1883. 907. Glass-Pendery Mining Co. vs. Meyer Mining Co.; arbitration. A failure of all the arbitrators to meet to NAL in all cases at the expiration of the paid subscrip-gether is but an irregularity, where the abtion, unless the renewal is accompanied with cash for at least a six months' subscription, at the rate of $3 for six months. Legal advertisements inserted at the rates fixed by the statutes of Colorado. sent arbitrator has the opportunity of ascertaining and considering all the evidence heard, by reading the stenographic report thereof. An irregularity may be waived expressly or tacitly by a failure to make objection in time. 878. Richardson vs. Bricker; new promise. A promise to pay when able, or when the promisor has sold his coal land is merely a conditional promise. It is the duty of the plaintiff to give some proof of the ability of SUPREME COURT convenes on Friday next, the promisor, or that he has sold his coal 14th inst., at 10 a. m. Opinions. In this issue we give a synopsis of the questions discussed, and points decided, in the opinions filed on the 4th inst. The opinions will be published in full in THE JOURNAL as rapidly as possible. Special Notice. On and after the beginning of this volume, any subscriber who is in arrears for the first volume, or any part of it, will cease to receive THE JOURNAL. It is indispensible to the permanency of THE JOURNAL that all subscriptions be paid in advance. The expenses of travel are so great that we can not afford to send out a collector, or go ourselves, to collect small bills. Subscriptions are expected to be accompanied with the cash in postal note, postal money order, or a check on a Denver bank. Supreme Court. This court, at its last Thursday's session, dismissed all cases pending for over one year in which the appellant or plaintiff in error had not taken a rule on appellee or defendant in error to file briefs. This action of the court is an intimation of a purpose not to allow unnecessary delay in cases pending. From an examination of the docket, we are satisfied that most of the delay complained of in the Supreme Court, lies at the door of the attorneys, and not of the court. The land, before he can enforce the new promise. 817. L. R. Tucker vs. D. E. Parks; attorney at law as assignee. The fact that the assignee is an attorney at law does not disqualify him from acting as an assignee. Code, 22 57, 72, 73, and 209, construed. In replevin allegations of value and of damage are material allegations, the failure to deny which admits them as alleged. Such admission, however, applies only to such damages as are the natural consequences of the taking and detention, and not to special damages. The latter must be specially alleged. Fraud must be specially pleaded as a defense in the answer to be availed of on the trial. 973. C. A. Trippe ct als. vs. W. H. Overocker et als. Ditch Law, 3 of Act of 1881, Session Laws, 1881, p. 164, is unconstitutional so far as it attempts to regulate the just compensation for damages to which the owner of the land is entitled. The proceeding to condemn under the right of eminent domain is not a civil action but a special proceeding. 773. Willard vs. Mattesus; Fence Law. The case of Morris vs. Fraker, 5 Colo. 425, has no application to sheep herded and straying from the care of the herder. The duty of fencing does not apply as against sheep running on the range. 1012. Dorr vs. Hammond; priority of water rights-abandonment of such priority. 996. Owen vs. Going. The action of the lower court in vacating a judgment at the same term it was rendered is not a final judgment and not reviewable in this court. On the judgment being vacated the action stands for trial as if no judgment had been rendered. The court by setting aside the vacating order does not reinstate the judgment. Supreme Court of Nebraska. ROUSS vs. WRIGHT. Error from Douglas County. Opinion Filed October 9, 1883. Liability of Justice of the Peace for Wrongfully Issuing an Attachment.—An affidavit for attachment, before a justice of the peace, containing, as a statement of the plaintiff's cause of action, "that the said claim in said action is for damages in not delivering goods purchased," does not show that the case is for a debt or demand arising upon contract, judgment, or decrce, and does not authorize the issuance of an attachment against a foreign corporation or a non-resino-dent of the State. 946. Jones vs. Nachtrieb, Adm'x. Damages for breach of contract can be recovered only when such damages are the proximate result of the breach, and not when they are remote and merely speculative. 856. Israel vs. Arthur et als.; divorce; tice by publication; R. S. chap. 13, §8. Where the record shows the facts upon which the court found that due service by publication was had, and such facts show a want of jurisdiction of the person of defendant, the final decree is subject to collateral attack. "Isaac Levy vs. C. H. B. Rouss. COBB, J.—In its third instruction the court informed the jury "that the claim upon which the attachment was based was one. arising upon contract, and that the affidavit filed in said Wright's court, upon which said order of attachment was based, gave said Wright jurisdiction to issue said order." 930. Webber vs. Hartman et al.; estrays. The following is a copy of the bill of particuIt is doubtful whether the estray law ap-lars referred to as "the claim upon which the plies to animals which have but recently es- attachment was based:" caped from the care and custody of the owner. It probably applies only to animals, which are wandering at large without any known owner. Estrays can be taken up by no one who is not at the time a householder. A subsequent ratification by the householder of the taking up by his employee will not do. The use of the animal taken up, except so far as is necessary to the safety and keeping in good health of the animal, forfeits all right to the expenses of keeping and costs of taking up. The statute does not contemp-in not delivering goods purchased; that the late that estrays be stabled and grain fed. 1039. Merrell vs. Ferrier; Statute of Limitations; new promise. "In justice court of Luther R. Wright. Bill of particulars. Plaintiff's claim to damages by delay in receiving goods bought of C. H. B. Rouss, and for delay caused by wrong shipment, sixty dollars." And the following is a copy of the substantial part of the affidavit: "Isaac Levy, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the plaintiff in the above entitled action, and that the claim in said action is for damages said claim is just, and this affiant believes that said plaintiff ought to recover the sum of $60 thereon. Affiant further says that the An acknowledgement of indebtedness is said defendant is a non-resident of the State presumed to apply to the debt in suit. The of Nebraska." The clause of the statute speburden of proof to show the contrary is on cially applicable to the case is in the followthe defendant. ing words: "When the defendant is a foreign 800. Wells et al. vs. Adams; value of at- corporation or a non-resident of the State the torney's services. attachment shall not be granted unless the Declarations of one not a party to the suit claim is for a debt or demand arising upon are mere hearsay. 977. O'Connell vs. Gavitt; disqualification of judge. When county judge is for any reason disqualified he should certify the case to the District Court on his own motion. No law requires the prepayment of all costs as a condition to such change. contract, judgment, or decree." The defendant in the attachment case being a non-resident of this State, the jurisdiction or right on the part of the justice of the peace to proceed against him depended upon two facts, the absence of either one of which would render the proceeding illegal: (1) The defendant must have property in this State 961. Overland M. & Ex. Co. vs. Carroll; within the jurisdiction of the court, which Express company; liability; custom of com- must have been seized or levied upon by the pany not to seal packages, or to receive un-officer of the court, otherwise no constructive sealed packages. Contract limiting liability service by publication or otherwise would be does not apply to cases of negligence. sufficient to give the court jurisdiction in the |