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

G. X. Bowman VS. AIva Smith; dis
missed by plaintiff.
/ MATRIMONIAL.
Married, October 29th, Frank NJ. No
Bile to Katie WEIGH; November 5th,
David McCoowe and Ella Chinn.
Liscenee issued, Isom J. Jones and
Mrs. Rachel Morgan; James 7. Moore
and Alice Harrison; George Hail and
Josephine ValIy.
WITHOUT PERMIT 80 RESIDENT.
In the case Of J.W. Martin VS. Moses
Wheeler, Judge Mason delivered the
following opinion which very properly
upholds the CherOkes statutes and es-
tablishes the principle that unless a
citizen of the United States is here le-
galiy he is not resident" and cannot
take advantage of the exemption law:
IHE DECISION.
This is an application for a superse-
deRs to exempt property from sale un-
der execution. The defendant has fled
his schedule declaring among other
things that he is resident Of the In
dian Territory. The plaintiff cOnfro-
verts the fact of residence. IL is ad-
mitted on both sides that the defend
snt is n nOn-citizen Of the Indian
Territory. The statute OF exemption
applies only 10 residents. To establish
this fact the defendant; produces a per-
nit issued TO l.. w. Marks by the clerk
of Coo Eesscoowee district dated Sept,
26, 1890. for two months, under section
3 of the ''Act aut horizing and requiring
district clerks 10 issue permits" ap-
proved December I, 1879. as amended
by act December !, ISSj.laws Of the
Cherokee nation. The az, 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 a mechanic, artisan or labOrer-the
regulations for issuing such permit
are contained in the act. The act is
intended for the benef. OF citizens of
the Cherokee nation a ID 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
eos.urug rrstT,f, sta r;r,sfa
Mr.. Marks tesiifes that he made no
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
request him to do so, and 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 un'ier sucE
circumsta noes confer residence on the
defendant? II 50, then We see nothing
10 prevent any citizen Of the United
States or foreigner from securing a
residence in the territory at any time
and for just such length of time as he
chOoses-in fact, it changes the diree-
iion OF all permits and grants them to
the pretended empioye instead Of
the citizen of the Cherokee naiinn
and thus IN effect evades the object OF
the law.
We cannot eOnstrue the Cherokee
statute in this manner and must there
fore hold the permit In this case fraud
ulent and void, and as a consequence,
that the defendant is not-a residens of
the Indian Territory and not entitled
TO the benefits OF the exemption law.
Supersedeas refused.