The case involved a defendant charged with violating Arizona's child stealing statute after he approached a six-year-old girl outside a music store, offered her a nickel to go with him, and led her on a route through public streets and a vacant lot before releasing her unharmed near her home. At trial the State presented testimony from the child, her father, and a neighbor describing the child's frightened condition and statements upon returning home, and the jury convicted after the court denied a motion for directed verdict. On appeal the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, certain hearsay admissions, the jury instructions, and remarks by the prosecutor; the court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the evidence supported an inference of intent to detain and conceal the child from her parents, that the instructions correctly required both elements, and that the jury was properly positioned to assess intent.
In Ex Parte Decker, the appellant was charged in justice court with conspiracy to violate Arizona's Alien Land Law by leasing property to the minor American-citizen daughter of a Japanese citizen, allegedly to allow the father to possess and use the land in circumvention of the statute. After a preliminary hearing relying on limited evidence and extrajudicial statements, the appellant was bound over for trial; a habeas corpus petition was denied by the superior court, which quashed the writ. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause for conspiracy, as statements by alleged coconspirators were inadmissible against the appellant and there was no proof that any party was an ineligible alien. The court further ruled that the statutory provision shifting the burden to the defendant to disprove ineligibility violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Arizona Constitution, requiring the state to bear the burden of proof in a criminal case. The order quashing the writ was set aside, and the case was remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
The case involved a husband who filed for an absolute divorce in Pima County, Arizona, on the ground of five years of non-cohabitation with his wife, who contested the suit by challenging his residency qualifications and arguing that a prior limited divorce decree (a mensa et thoro) from Pinal County barred the action. The trial court rejected the limited divorce as a defense, found the husband to be a resident of Pima County based on evidence of his living arrangements and intent, and granted the divorce, which the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the five-year separation statute provided an independent ground for absolute divorce unaffected by a prior limited decree, that military service did not automatically change residency absent proof of intent to establish a new domicile elsewhere, and that selective service registration statements were evidence but not conclusive on the issue of domicile for divorce purposes.
The case concerned a customs broker who advanced expenses to clear a shipment of beans from Mexico to the US under a straight bill of lading naming a New York importer as consignee, then directed the railroad not to deliver until its draft for those expenses was paid. After the railroad delivered the goods anyway, the broker sued Southern Pacific for damages equal to its advances, alleging the carrier ignored a valid stop order. The court affirmed judgment for the broker, reasoning that under the Federal Bill of Lading Act the broker became a transferee with rights of property and possession, allowing it to notify the carrier and control delivery, and that the carrier was not justified in releasing the goods to the named consignee once so notified. The opinion treated the defendant as an initial carrier based on its pleadings and found no contractual barrier to liability.
The case involved a pedestrian who was struck by a City of Phoenix bus making a right turn at an intersection in 1945, resulting in head and back injuries that affected his work as a janitor. A jury awarded the plaintiff $2,883.50, and the city appealed on grounds including improper jury instructions on statutory negligence per se under traffic laws requiring drivers to signal and yield, insufficient evidence to support the verdict or a finding of permanent injury, and excessive damages. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that violation of the statutes was negligence per se if it proximately caused the injury, that the evidence created factual issues for the jury on causation, contributory negligence, and permanency of harm, and that the damages award was supported by testimony of lost work and ongoing pain.
The case concerned a lease dispute in which the plaintiff lessee sought to exercise an option to renew the term of a commercial lease by providing written notice and tendering rent, but the defendant lessors refused, asserting that the notice had not been received. The plaintiff filed suit for a declaratory judgment construing the lease option and for specific performance, which the defendants moved to dismiss in favor of forcible entry proceedings. After a jury trial, the court found that written notice had been received by the husband of the property owner, who was acting as her agent with apparent authority to handle renewal matters, making the renewal effective. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that a declaratory judgment action was proper, that the agent's receipt of notice and related admissions were binding on the principal, and that certain evidentiary rulings did not constitute reversible error.
