Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1895-10-24
THE PRYOR CREEK CASE.
Disagreement by the Jury-Judgt
Springer's Charge.

tried than the $1,000 damage suit
of Dills VS.. Mills, of the thrifty
though pugnacious town of Pryor
Greek. The case occupied more
than half of last week and resulted
in a disagreement of the jury, and
was finally transferred to Miami
having been originally transferred
from Muskogee to this place. The
town of Pryor Greek, it will be re-
membered, was chartered by the
national council last December,
and at once organized a city gov
eminent, and elected mayor and
town council according to law. In
getting up a set of ordinances to
govern the town they enacted an
occupation tax law, imposing a
license of $500 per year on car
penters, and perhaps other me-
chanics. Here began the trouble.
Mr.. Dills refused to pay the tax,
was arrested for contempt of court
and fined, and refusing to pay his
fine was locked up in the city's
new calaboose, being the first man
to enter it. Dills was a citizen of
the United States and as soon as
he got out on bond he came before
Commissioner Mcclure and swore
out warrant for the mayor of
Pryor Greek, Lee Mills, also foT
Hicks, the marshal. They were
bound over to the Muskogee court.
where they appeared, but were
never prosecuted, the case being
nolle prosecuted by Attorney Jack
son. Dills then bought a civil
suit for 5000 against the mayor
and four of the councillors and the
city marshal. The plaintiff was
represented by Downing Il Pasco,
of the Vinita bar, and the defend
ant by Geo. E. Nelson, of Musko-
gee. The case is of more than
ordinary Importance on account of
its involving a question of juris-
diction of the Cherokee municipal
courts over ncn-citizens. Judge
Springer's instructions to the jury
were clear and concise, and of un-
usual length, and very elaborate,
showing a wonderful insight into
the anomalous condition of affairs
in this territory as regards juris-
diction of the different courts, and
great familiarity with the treaties
that have puzzled jurists and
statesmen alike from the begin
ming.
JUDGE sPRINGER's CHARGE To THE
JURY.
Gentlemen of the jury, in this
case you are instructed as follows:
LIST. This is an action for dam
ages for false and unlawful impris-
onment in which the plaintiff, w.
c. Dills, seeks TO recover against
the defendants for falsely aud un-
lawfully arrestibg and confining
him in the town Jail or calaboose
at the town of Pryor Creek in the
Cherokee nation of the Indian Ter
ritory on or about the tenth day
of January 1895, under a charge of
violating the provisions of ordin-
ance No. 81 of the compiled ordin-
ances of said town of Pryor Creek,
approved December z, 1894.
2nd. You are further instruct
ed that under the provisions
of the treaties between the
Cherokee Indians and of the gov
eminent of the United States this
ordinance, being law. or regula-
tion prescribing a penalty for its
violation, could not take effect or
be enforced until after ninety DAYS
from the date of its promulgation
either by publication in one or
more newspapers OF general circu-
lation, or by posting up copies
thereof in the Cherokee and Eng
lish languages in the said town of
Pryor Creek, where the ordin-
ance was to take effect, and unless
you find from the evidence that
said ordinance had been so promul-
gated at the time of the arrest and |
OF this plaintiff by |
these defendants, if he was so ar
rested and imprisoned, such arrest |
and Imprisonment was unlawful
and false and such of these defend
ants as participated therein or
aided in procuring it to be done !
are liable in this action and you
should so find. unless you should |
find from the evidence that the |
mayor had no knowledge or means
Of knowing that such ordinances
could not take effect until so pro-
mulgated.
3rd. If you find from the evi.
ience that plaintiff was, at the |
lime of his arrest and imprison-
ment,a a citizen of the United States
and not citizen of the Cherokee
nation of Indians, the town offic-
srs OF the town of Pryor Greek
would have no jurisdiction to ar
rest and imprison him under the
said charges; and if SO you should
find for plaintiff in this action, un-
ess you should find from the evil
ience that he did not plead or
make known the fact of his citi-
4th. The court instructs the
ury that if the arrest and impris-
of plaintiff was malicious
y caused by these defendants you
should award plaintiff such exem-
olary damages as in your opinion
would be just and reasonable for
such malicious acts.
9Th. The court instructs the
ury that if they should find in
his case that the ordinace which
was arrested and impris-
med for violating was not in force
1t the time of his arrest and i'm
)risonment the mayor of said