Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1890-11-06

G. X. Bowman W Alya SMITH dis
missed by plaintiff.
MArRiNoNIAL
Married, October goth, Frank NJ. No-
bic to Katie Welch; November 5th,
David McCoowe aud Fila Chinn.
Liscence issued, lson j Jones and
Mrs. Rachel Morgan James r. Moore
and Alice Harrison; George Hall ana
Josephine Vally.
WITHOUT PERMIT 40 RESIDENT.
In the case Of NV Martin vs. Moses
Wheeler Judge Mason delivered the
following opinion which very properly
upholds the Cherokes statutes and es-
tablishes the principle that unless
citizen Of the United States is here lc-
gally he is not resident" and cannot
take advantage Of the exemption law.
THE DECISION.
This is an application for superse-
deas to exempt property from sale IN
der execution. The defendant has filed
his schedule declaring among other
things that he is resident Oft the In
dian Territory The plaintiff contro-
verts the fact of residence. It is all
mitted on both sides that the defend
ant is non.citigen Of the Indian
Territory. The statute OF exemption
applies only to residents. To establish
this fact the defendant produces a per-
mil issued to l.. W. Marks by the clerk
of Cooweescoowee district dated Sept,
26, 1890, FOR two months, under section
2 Of the "Act authorizing and requiring
district clerks to issue permits" ap-
proved December !, 1879. MS amended
by act December /, 1885 Jaws of the
Cherokee nation. The act mentioned
requires the district clerk to issue a
permit to any citizen Of the Cherokee
nation who may wish to employ . cit-
izen OF the United States, or foreigner,
as mechanic, artisan or lab6rer--the
regulations for issning such permit
are contained in the act. The act is
intended for the benefit Of citizens Of
the Cherokee nation and not citizens
Of the United States and foreigners;
as a matter Of necessity such permit
inures to the use and benefit of the
employe and for the time specified
gives him the right TO reside in the
territory. Without that permit he
can acquire no residence within the
territory and he is an intruder il he
sojourns within its limits.
Mr.. Marks ieslifies that he made DO
application for permit to employ the
defendant that he never requested
said clerk to issue it nor authorized
the defendant or any other person to
reques. him to do so, ana that he
knew nothing at all about such permit
being issued until this trial and dis
owned the entire transaction. The
defendant admits that he procured 1t
without the authorization Of Mr.
Marks.
Now, can a permit issued under such
circumstance confer residence on the
defendant? If 50, then we see nothing
to prevent any citizen of the United
States or foreigner from securing
residence in the territory at any time
aud Tor just such length OF time as he
ch.9s-s-i- fact itchangcs theH'ec-
tiou OF all permits aud grants them to
the pretended empio!e instead of
the citizen OF the Cherokee nation
and thus IN effect eyades the object Of
the laW.
We cannot conslruo the Cherokee
statute in this manner and must there
fore hold the permit in this case fraud
uleut and void, aud as consequence,
that the defendant is not resident Of
the Indian Territory and not entitled
TO the benefits Of the exemption law.
Snperscdeas refused.