George A. Luxford

In this case, defendant MacKall and Tánger were jointly tried and convicted of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses from one Bullis. Tánger's separate appeal resulted in affirmance of his conviction based on the facts presented. MacKall challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict against him. The court held that the same facts established in the Tánger appeal were adequate for the jury to find that MacKall conspired with Tánger to defraud Bullis of $1500, and therefore affirmed the judgment.

criminal law

The case involved Fred S. Pillod, who was charged in two consolidated cases with taking indecent liberties with two girls aged six and seven; a jury found him guilty on both counts, leading to a penitentiary sentence that he appealed. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in deeming the young children competent to testify under Colorado statute, that evidence of their later complaints was properly admitted without details, and that the defendant received a fair trial with sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. The opinion noted that no objections were raised at trial to the children's testimony or the lack of cautionary instructions, and it rejected claims of error regarding the admission of corroborative testimony from a neighbor and the parents. The court concluded that the jury properly resolved the conflicting accounts after viewing the premises.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Otis E. Hall, a chiropractor convicted of causing a miscarriage by administering medicine and using instruments on a pregnant woman, in violation of Colorado statute. Hall appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing his proposed jury instruction requiring the fetus to be 'quick with child' (capable of movement) and by excluding testimony from his other patients about satisfactory treatment. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute criminalizes the destruction of the fetus at any stage before birth and that the given instruction properly tracked the law's language on miscarriage. It further ruled that the excluded patient testimony was irrelevant because the witnesses were not offered as character witnesses.

criminal lawabortion

The case involved Carl Tanger, who was convicted along with R.W. Mackall of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses. Tanger had advertised a business opportunity and, together with Mackall, misrepresented the income and value of Mackall's real estate business to induce Clifford Bullis to purchase a half-interest for $1,500, when the business had in fact earned only $150 in the prior three months. The trial court overruled Tanger's motion for a directed verdict and submitted the matter to the jury, which found the defendants guilty based on evidence of their coordinated false representations about the business's profitability. On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence of the conspiracy and false pretenses was sufficient for the jury's determination and that the verdict was supported by the record.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute between landlords and tenants over whether a three-year lease with an option to extend for five more years had terminated or been properly extended. The landlords sought to regain possession after the initial term, arguing that the tenants had not given notice of their intent to extend and offering only to rent on a month-to-month basis at a higher rate. The court ruled in favor of the tenants, affirming that the lease had not terminated. The core reasoning was that the lease did not require written notice for extension, and the tenants' continued possession combined with tendering the original rent amount sufficiently indicated their desire to exercise the extension option, with the typewritten extension clause prevailing over any conflicting printed provisions about month-to-month tenancy.

property

This case concerns a post-divorce dispute over the modification of alimony payments, attorney fees, and a requested lump-sum award. The plaintiff sought to increase her monthly alimony from $30 to a higher amount based on the defendant's increased income, while the defendant argued the payments were only child support and not modifiable alimony. The trial court ruled the payments constituted alimony, raised the amount to $125 per month, awarded $350 in attorney fees, and denied the lump-sum request. On appeal, the court affirmed these rulings, holding that it had continuing jurisdiction to modify alimony based on changed circumstances of the parties and that the trial court had not abused its discretion in light of the parties' incomes, the son's adulthood, and other relevant factors.

family law