*1 (77 рeculiar duties.” P.2d 629 we'believe the garded his marital Ariz. here, justice circumstances basic 737.) will de- 269 P.2d deprived nied if is in- husband noted, gift this stock was As we have required and terest this stock he is father, but the nature of from the wife’s commence very career little new with had gift significant. This husband is the way assets. family corporation for this working in years, Judgment it fifteen most is so approximately rendered below modified capacity. provide fair managerial as that the defendant re- believe is We separate that, in ceive as his and thе absence sole one property to assume of evidence contrary, part half his efforts of the 125 Marcus Mercan- on shares of and, spurred Corporation stock; de- corporation except tile were to some as modified, gree ownership. part judgment The evidence rendered his below years of during the last five affirmed. that profits, marriage, undistributed KRUCKER, MARKS, J., and G. taxes, corpora- in this were accumulated JACK Superior Judge, concur. Court $7,355.34 (in varying tion in amounts from February year terminating the fiscal Judge NOTE: D. HATHAWAY JAMES (in $35,632 year termi- fiscal having requested that he be relieved from 1968). nating February During consideration matter, this Judge JACK February February of 1962 to G. MARKS was called sit in his stead corporation, re- the net worth this and participate in the determination of this sulting from the accumulation of undis- decision. profits, $189,- tributed had increased $344,366. 372.82 to as this evidence value of radically. pub-
stock varied Two certified action, lic testified during accountants this plaintiff one for the for the de- and one Arizona, Appellant, The STATE of fendant. The husband’s estimatеd witness $1,242 that the of these shares was value n per share, Appellee. total GOOD, which would make a com- (nine cases) Joe G. munity $155,250. The value wife’s wit- Arizona, Appellant, The STATE of ness, corporation, this accountant for per book testified that the value was $529 WATKINS, Appellee. (six Bert B. cases) shares, $66,125 share or and vari- for expressed ably Arizona, stock Appellant, this STATE “ * * * practically be would of no value “ * * * * non-operator to a was of Hiester, Joe G. GOOD and Harriet * very, Appellees. very (two no valuе little cases) value that he at' would stock book value value Arizona, Appellant, The STATE of point,” that he “low would value .as purposes stock estate tax at its book Ray BROWN, Appellee. value, purposes he estate tax No. 2 CA-CR 153-170. appraise it at would its book value less Appeals Court of of Arizona. per cent. of between 25 discount April While, appellate we are Rehearing May 6, Denied position placed value to hold this between the trial stock Review Denied June outer this is errone- limits evidence set ous, Utility Supplies, Fred Tucson Inc. v. Co., Gallagher Const. Ariz.
J.
389:
Nelson,
Gary
Atty. Gen.,
.
K.
Richard J.
Riley,
Atty.,
Cochise County
Alan .L.
Slaughter, Deputy
Atty.,
County
Cochise
County, Bisbee,
appellant.
Wesley
Polley, Bisbee,
E.
and W. Shel-
ley
Douglas,
appellees.
Richey,
MOLLOY,
Judge.
Chief
eighteen
In
cases filed in
this
ap-
defendants
moved to dismiss
peals by
jurisdictional
the State
grounds.
importance
peal”
ques-'
specified
of the
the record on
persuaded
dispose
peal portions
tions raised
us
record
cause No.
these
motions
cause No.
and certain tran-
*3
by
scripts
written
rather than
en-
grand
minute
jury proceedings.
copy
of
A
try order.
was
day
mailed the same
to defendant’s at-
torneys
subsequently,
who
29,
on November
County
eighteen
All
cases are Cochise
1968,
“Designation
filed a
of Additional
respective
criminal
de-
cases in which the
Appeal”:
Record on
quash
fendants’ motions to
the indictment
25,
granted
portions
were
All
“1)
on October
of Cause Number
in
trial
Throughout
proceedings
in
Desig-
7090
the State’s
contained
filed,
were
heard
nation
Aрpeal.
motions
of Record
various
on
ruled
in each
these cases.
and
of
“2)
portions
All
of Cause Number 7099
presented the same
these motions
Since
Designation
in the
contained
State’s
hearings
determination,
questions for
Appeal.
of Recоrd on
consolidated,
proce-
were
a commendable
“3)
portions
All
Jury
of Master Grand
expedition.
dure in
interest
of
file Number
in the
23748 not contained
However,
Designation
Ap-
there is no formal order of
State’s
of
Record
peal.”
consolidation
these causes
as to
record;
be-
throughout
proceedings
record,
This
of additional
e.,
low,
i.
they enjoyed separate identity,
signed by
rec-
the defendant’s attorney of
Good,
eighteen individual causes: State v.
ord,
indicates that a copy thereof was
7090;
Good,
7091;
No.
State
No.
State v.
27, 1968,
on November
to the Chief
mailed
Watkins,
Watkins,
7092;
v.
No.
State v.
Deputy County Attorney of
Coun-
Cochise
7096;
Watkins,
7095;
No.
No.
State v.
ty.
Good,
Brown,
7099;
State
v.
v.
No.
State
January
21,
On
the State filed
1969,
Good,
7106;
7103;
State
No.
State v.
No.
(our
document in cause No.
CA-CR
Gоod,
Good,
7107;
No.
No.
State v.
153)
entitled “Clarification of Notice
Good,
7108;
7109;
State v.
No.
State
Appeal.”
perti-
This document recited
Hiester,
Good,
7110;
and
No.
State Good
part:
nent
Hiester,
7111;
No.
No.
State
and
v. Good
13, 1968,
“On November
Richard J.
7112;
Watkins,
7115;
State
State
No.
’
Rilеy,
Attorney,
County
filed
Cochise
Watkins,
7116;
Watkins, No.
No.
State v.
Appeal
Notice
the Or-
appealing
7117;
Good,
State v.
No.
and
Mahoney
der
T.
Honorable
J.
quash
order
was
granting the motions to
quashing
odd and even
indictments
filed in
cause.
each
assigned
him.
numbered cases
13, 1968,
On November
the State filed
Appeal
previous
“The
Notice
was
appeal
(our
in cause No. 7090
captioned exactly
and was
as the Order
153)
CA-CR
recited:
appeal
intended
all cases
referred
13-1712,
“Pursuant
to ARS
”*
* *
(Emphasis
order,
in the
add-
Procedure,
Rules of Criminal
the State
ed)1
appeals
hereby
Arizona
the Or-
Quash
der Granting Motion to
Indict-
filed
motions
”*
* *
25,
ments dated October
jurisdiction on
challenge
in these cases
our
by
grounds
perfected
The notice
thereon
pre-
time
copy
day
State within the
was mailed the same
appeal by
attorneys
scribed
An
defendant’s
On No-
law.
State
of record.
26,
may
1968,
quashing
an indictment
vember
cause
from an order
the State filed
Ap-
entry
only
sixty days
“Designation
No.
be taken
within
after
Record on
sixty days
entry
appealеd
than
from.
This
more
of the order
“Clarification” was filed
“jurisdictional”
may
in the sense
349,
Rule
Rules
Criminal
of such’order.
Pankey
Springs
not be waived.
v. Hot
Procedure,
Rules of
Rule
17 A.R.S.
Bank,
42 N.M.
part:
Nat.
Procedure,
provides
Criminal
595b
& Error §
by filing
may
only
“An
be taken
Here,
spe-
(1)
supra.
Rule 353
Rule
court a notice
with the clerk of
trial
cifically
may
that the
be waiv-
states
stating
appellant
writing
that the
Lopez,
Application
ed.
In
97 Ariz.
order,
peals
ruling or
judgment,
from a
Supreme Court
P.2d 325
our
be,
sentence,
the case
as
“ * * *
perfected
stated:
serving
сopy
of the notice of
”
filing
97 Ariz.
* * *
notice.”
provided in
351 and 352.
Rules
393 County, Elkhart 217 Tp. Osolo School
Ind. A.L.R. N.E.2d
(1940). appellee no entitled to receive
tice in accordance with
mandate of 350 and Rules has A.R.S. He objection notice at
raised the lack of e., opportunity
first in this i. the case
receipt of this court’s before
had been docketed and two weeks
appellant’s opening brief was filed. Such
objection, me, timely, and I would single in the trial to con
hold act Winn, See, stitute waiver. Winchester (ap Mo.App. 288, 29 (1930) S.W.2d
proval supersedeas bond held ; Bray Clothing waiver) Co.
constitute
Holland,
(1924)
(appellee’s suggested amendments case- waiver). held not to
made *6 Hills,
Lee D. CASHDOLLAR Alton R. Appellants, BIERBAUM, Appellee.
Ora
No. 1 CA-CIV 625. Appeals
Court of of Arizona.
April
Rehearing April 30, Denied
Review June Denied Phoenix, Haislip, appel-
Marshall W. lants. Yankee, Phoenix, appellee. A.
James