New-York tribune., 1883-12-18
THE COURTS.
TINTED STATES SUPREME COURT.
v.nRAs CORPUS WRIT FOR SPOTTED TAILS hUR
prRyR-oTHER DECISIONS OF INTEREsr.


6ay in the original habeas corpus case OF the sioux
InSan Crow Dog who tried in the District Court Tor
,hs First Judicial Distdct OF Dakota for the mlrder III
the Innan country Of another Sioux Indian spotteu
Tail and upon being found guilty was sentenced 10
aeats Counsel for the prisoner main aimed here that
the crime charged ,anst him not ali offence unuer
the Avs OF the United stes that the District Court OF
Dakota had no jurisdiction 10 try him, and that lSS
Judgment and sentence were VOID. Inc qudS~on
presented, therefore, in this Court Is, whether e e
press letter of Section 2,l45 of the Revised oo1u,
which excludes from the jurisdiction OF ue 49,
States the OF crime committed IN tne A
Country by Indian against tue person OF y 'P' -
another Indian, has been repealed. Ihs OouO no'~
that ID has moi that In such case as the preSoH ~
Indians have right to try ana punish the crniha a.
ccrdne 70 their owa Jaws and customs wl'h'ut III
tcrfcrcnce with the United States; that lne fHS'
Uirct Court OF Dakota had no urisdicton ana the I'M
prisonmenr of Crow Dog is therefore, illegal The writ Oh
habeas corpus and certorari prayed or Will F'ooiSS
be issued Opinion by Justice Matthew'S
An imo,tant decision was also rendered by the Court
to-iav I'm the case of the Providence and New-fOrk
seanshi Company, painth in error, against the h
Manufacturing Company, IN error 10 the supreme 'uH
ca Court of tue Commonwealth OF Massachusetts, Inc
principal question raised b. this litigation relates TO the
effect 10 be given TO act of Congress approved March
1851 entitled "An to limit the responsibility OF
shpowners aud for other purposes Ia May lSoo' Tue
hin Manufacturing Company, of Boston, delivered TO the
Providence and NewYork steamship Company aqulntlS
NJ goos 70 be transported by steamer to NewYOrk city
The goods were carried safely NewIork, but before
they had been unloa1ed the steamer containing Them was
burned dock Ore which originated IN n o"hu
ing on Shore suits damage thereupon instituted
IN New-Ycrk and Boston by the owners
Of the goods against the owners OF the
burned ship. The latter responded by in7ttut'hs
proceedngs In the United States District Court Tor the
Southern District of NewYork 20 limit their haon'y
upder the act Of 1851 referred to- which provides l
first section shT-owBers shall be exempt apy
for losses on board Of their ships by re unless such
fire is caused by the design neglect OF such owners
and its third section, that the haOlty OF shp""ue's
for embezzenen loss or destruction oi gOonS on pou
of their ships incurred without the prvity or knowledge
~ nch owners shall ia no case exceed the amount or
value Of the interest OF such owners such snip or vessel
and her freight In the OF these proceedings the
Steamship Company entered into stipulation 10 pay mo
the court the whole amount Of its interest III the oued
Ship to be divided oquitlby among the Owners ot the
destroyed goods ana asked to he dsch ared from fu'hcf
liability The stipulation accepted by the Court and
deeree entered fogbddng tine owners Of the burned
goods Gncluding the HUI Manufacturing Company to
prosecute further any claims for damages on account OF
their destruction.
The Hill Manufacturing CorlD.ny Notwithstanding thi'
prohibition continued present suit in Massachusetts,,
and finally obtained from the supreme Judicial Court oil
that5tae Judgment in its favor The steamship Company
sued out writ Of error and brought The case here Ior
final determination Of this question: whether the nsu-
ton of proceedings by il in the United states District
Conr 10 limit its liability under the act of 1851, supeTs ID
ed and barred the prosecution Of claims for the same
losses aud injuries in oher courts This Court IN long
and elaborate opinion by Justice Bradley, holds nrsu
that ia The District Court OF the United States
under the act OF 1881, TO limit the liabilities OF
showner supersede all other actions and suits for the
same loss or damages the State Federal courts
Other actions and suits ought TO cease aIter pro
ceedings for limited liabilities have been instituted ana
Tie value of ship and the proceeds have been secured
paid into court whether the court issues an Ouucoh
nv fltao hn9r az a
ship are within the relief of the 81 as well as the Isl sec
u1 & VI W the Massachusetts, state Conrt erred go
Ing With this a!eE proeeedings hal begun IN IN te
bad mil nTi-iifion and pIenay power. The value and
Importance OF this law TIE court s5I -, : 10 o. o nc nc
value of it Largely depends on the manner me ~ wie u,
administered II t tnG GoT 9 trs with the view Of Civ
ing 10 shIowners tie 1u benefit Of the minunies IN,
afford 10 commercial operations viii be Of the the
last Importance but il so, is adsSfeS aanseTHiaS
every clause most untavOrably against The slPowner
and allowing tie as possible 10 10 t9"Se EpGe m af M IT'S enact
ment Its value and efficiency w01m ai1O ne nG SaRaf R
mnisfration 10 be haInpered and intcrcrod with by
various and conflicting Jurisdictions The Judgment oi
fhe Snpremc Judicial Court of Massachusetts, i reversed
and tie romanded with objections to tax sca @
further procedure as may 6e IN acfoidae T @ ,s ih
opinion Justices Field and Gray dssedtea hom 'he
'oa % other h. decisions rendered to-day follows
No Ooe-J L. sullvsn et al plaintiffs in error, est
tho lion silver Mining Compsny; M IN error Tnt f ~
Colorado. Judgment reversed with costs an eatSe f
manded with esVe 20 aaend Eh tbs a o io Of t
Court Opinion by III. Justice Gray. l., q.
No; y sea from the supreme Ccar, Of te
st1ef of Columbia Decree affirmed with COSTS Opinion
oy Sr iSstshhoPs Robertson ct al plaintiffs in
AIT. Esau Pckrcl ct IA. Ia error 70 the Sdptlne o.,
OF the District OF Columbia Judgment ~Lrihcd WIN
COSTS Opinion by MI Justice flei1, 49,. ,, y ptc,
No. esay rp G S'SSSeG tSs tat pfc coarr T Of tie
States for tBe District OF Kentncky Decree a'nrheu'
No i09-AIThur W. swecny appellant vs. inc Umtea %
States. appeal from the Court OF Claims Judgment a.
nrIned. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice NAtt g y, t,,o
No glSIIhe Board Of County Commissioner OF the
G %on %l In error to the Cuut Of tae United
sa,es for the District Of NJ ka9s s JTagien' w '''
No 9l9-salananca Towishll SneIohee ~ 49, no tbe
a5 1ca ceuf m Of rhe UiiteI states for District OF
Ka1sss Judgment aairu4eI with costs and Interest
ns oer ne business transacted to-day follows:
No 05l Henry Hale eet a., etc, plaintiffs in error yS
Elisha r. Everett Motion 10 dismiss OF dillIh Nub
No. 13-Ongnal ex paTte Join In matter o. S,IiS @ a a
Boyer ct al, petitioners Petition for VIII oi proAoi
"SS No. i4~oTsinal ex parte In the matter matter ,o o.
e Ffsnc'S 20 sehr16S snSS cause Why wI1t mandau
So s12GEieRard Francis ct al. appellants james
NJ. Finn Motion 10 advance submit co.. o., o,t,t,e
an srroT "a Jossphine r. ATT1ck adnIIirtrau1x, etc
Motion 10 tx day for argument denied ana case ooh''
ueS NO aao-The First Narona, Bank Of Omaha plaintiff
An error, John 8. Readick. MOTION 10 h7hhSS sun
No s6o-willam Gray, appellant VS.. Mary Maple Ac
ton 10 advance submitted. -...,, 4, . .,
No 5s0-Josepn Il. Holland, plaintiff in error W
James H. Chambers submitted under hli-secohu Ti' %
No 5o-U b. Clahin q Co., plaintiffs IN error, - Al
Commonwealth Insurance Company OF Bostohi dnu ,r
No 5l-u H. Clahin q Co, plaintiffs III error, vs.
Western Assurance Company OF Toronto, Carta ana -,
NO52-H B Clafn a Co., plaintiffs IN etfor' S;,n W; -
FRANKLIN Insurance Company OF 81 LOUIS, MO Frn'o
Arguments on motion ~ Jurisdiction hnDihten;v l., -
10 6s-Robert and william Mitchell, yah'hS III eifo
vs. William q. Clark. Argument cOncluded 49, u
No l0l-Henry Hilton and Wlain L1o"sy, ms n5 y a.
Stewart Co. plaintiffs In error Vs. L. a. -1'''' ~
lectOT, etc Argument begun
COURT OF CLAIMS DECISIONS
-. L., tho Court 4