GEO. B. HENEY, Appellant, v. PIMA COUNTY, Appellee. (Civil No. 243.) (S. C. 17 Pac. 263.) APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Pima. Haynes & Mitchell and F. J. Heney, for Appellant. H. R. Jeffords, Dist. Atty., for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this case we are asked to review the decision of this court in case of same title reported in 2 Ariz 257, 14 Pac. 299. We see no good reason to change the views there expressed. The county is not bound by law to pay these fees; and, to be bound by contract, must assent to it. The board, however, have power to deal with the equities of the case, so forcibly urged upon us, and it rests with them to pay for these services as they see fit. The judgment is affirmed. Wright, C. J., and Porter and Barnes, JJ., concur. (Opinion filed April 5, 1888.) HENRY T. BALDRIDGE, Appellant, v. JAMES REILLY, Appellee. (Civil No. 227.) APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Cochise. Geo. G. Berry, for Appellant. Thomas Mitchell, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. We think that the probate court erred in striking out that portion of defendant's answer to the petition for distribution wherein there was a denial of a balance in the hands of the removed administrator, Reilly, and for that reason affirm the judgment of the District Court, holding for naught the judgment of the probate court, entered March 15, 1887. (Opinion filed May 26, 1888.) N. HERRICK et al., Appellants, v. WM. A. HANCOCK AND WIFE, Appellees. (Civil No. 254.) APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. Alexander and Lighthizer, for Appellants. No appearance for Appellees. July 2, 1888. Dismissed on motion of appellants. ABANDONMENT. See Mines and Mining, 5; Railroads, 1. ABSTRACT. See Appeal and Error, 1. ACCESSORY. See Forgery, 1. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.-Where defendants deposited a sum in the ADMISSIONS. See Criminal Law, 13, 17. ADVERSE POSSESSION. See Suit to Quiet Title, 2. ADVERSE USER. See Irrigation, 6. AFFIDAVITS. See Appeal and Error, 5. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. See Appeal and Error, 2. APPEAL AND ERROR. 1. APPEAL AND ERROR-ABSTRACT-PRESUMPTION-WHERE EVIDENCE (U. S. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR-APPEAL FROM SUPREME COURT OF TERRITORY TO * * * |