The Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1849-1855, 1850-02-06
The Law Suit.

The Law Suit.
VIM. H. Forbes s Louis Roberts }
rs.
Levi Sloan.
Before Saml. FL. Dent, Esq. j. Z.
Jan. -, 1850. 81. ..a-
IL Trespass.
Counsel for pln''s Messrs. Lambert,
Babcocl s. Murray; Tor def Mcssrs.
Rice s Becker.
This was ali action Of trcspass qaare
c!ausum ficgit, with count added in
the declaration for trcspass de bonis as
por'atis; that is to say, Forbes s. Rob-
crts sued Sloan for breaking their close
and carrying away God. The close
described, was that body of timber land,
about two miles in length and perhaps
half mile in width, on the bank of the
Mississippi river opposite Saint Paul,
being portion of the Sioux lands.
Defendant pleaded general issue, and
gave notice that he would dispute the
title to the land and property. and on
the :s9th inst. the cause came on TO trial.
Dctt. objected to the jurisdiction of
the Court, on the ground Of the action
being local and the Court having no iu-
risdiction, by statute, in counties at
tached.
Plaintiffs replied, no Court in Dakota
County, cause between the citizens of
Ramsey County, and ii transitory cause
Of action in one count of declaration, and
that the statute in question, the Justices
act, refers to acts by Justices in Dakota
County; not actions between our own
citizens that may have arisen there.
Court over-ruled, and said the obiec-
ton came too late.
On the trial the plaintiff offered in ev-
idcnce:
LIST. An agreement between the Chiefs
and Braves Of Little Crows band of
Sioux Indians, and Messrs. Forbes &
Roberts in consideration of certain orti-
cles Of pork, -four and merchandise,
granting to Forbes s Roberts the right
to the wood, standing and lying on a
certain tract of land, opposite St. Paul,
and described by metes and bounds.
Cd. The signatures of the subscribe
ing Witnesses: admitted.
The defendants raised the question
on the admissibility of the agreement to
sustain the plaintiffs action, on the
ground that the Sioux Indians could
make no such contract, under the laws
of the United States, regulating inter-
course with the Indian tribes.
Pits contended, that it was admissi-
bic to prove their possession:
lst. That plff's are thereby in posses
} sion, and should show acts of possession.
I'd. No wrong doer could question
their title as defence, except by way
of adverse possession, and had not plead
ed specially.
3D. That the agreement was no de-
fence to any injury to possession by a
wrong doer.
4th. If qaare claus.m ,f'eefl could not
be sustained, the second count of the
declaration could be sustained, and
property in the United States, or In
dian Territory; or laws of Congress, are
no bar to the plaintiffs right to recover
againct trcspasscr.
The motion of defendant ovcr-ruled.
The plaintiffs proved acts of tresspass
on the 18th Jan, at which time said
writ purportcd to have been issued;
writ sued out the l4th and acts done in
the forepar OF January, and value OF
wood.
The cause was summed up by Messrs.
Rice s Lambert, the defendants relying
on the laws Of the United States regu-
lating intercourse with the Indians.
The plaintiffs relying On the Common
law, and the Interpretation Of the law of
Congress of Jan. 30, 1884, Sec. 8, and
Atty. Genl. Wirt's opinions, also object
ing to the defendants right to the use
of his argument rs Il defence in law.
Points in The Case, made by The Defence.
Ist That the title of the Indians to
the land is subordinate to the absolute,
ultimate title acquired by discovery.
The relation of the Indians to the United
! States is that of a ward to his guardian.
The sei-en of their lands is in the Gov
crnmcnt, and the Indians are mere oc-
cupants with no more than usufructuary
rights.
The plaintiffs claim, under a license
; from six Of the Chiefs and Braves
! of Little Crows band of Sioux, is a
license to cut and carry away growing
timber. But trees while growing are a
part of the realty, and grant or devise
of an interest in groring rood is that of
an interest in the soil itself; such u
license then, is void. -a. its
1st. Because tie Indians have not a
sufficient title to grant such a license.
Again. Little Crows band is but one of
many that constitute the tribe Of Sioux.
and it is not competent for them to dis
, pose of real estate in which the whole
tribe are interested.
I'd. Because it is in opposition to a
wise public policy. Were such contracts
allowed, it weuld enable any private in