Gilpin observer., 1899-11-23
IMPORTANT DECISION REGARDING
ALIENS.

AT the last term OF district court IN
and for Gilpln county Judge De france
decided that aliens could not be plain
tiffs IN a case for damages. The follow
ing oral opinion handed down in the
United States circuit court by Justice
Moses Hallet in Denver, in the case of
james Branigan VS.. the Union Gold
Mining company, is similar to the case
of Minnie Williams vs. the Sleepy Hollow
Mining company, when motion to dis
miss the case was sustained. The opn-
ion of Justice Hallet reads:
"United States of America, ss.-No.
3S27-In the Circuit Court-James
Gold Mining company, defendants;
1927; James Branigan and Mary s. Bran
igan against the Union Gold Mining
company, is an action to. recover dam
ages for the death of the plaintiffs son.
Deceased was in the employ of the
defendant company, and it is alleged
that the death of deceased occurred
from negligence of the company in re-
,spect to the management of the mine,
while he was in such employment.
1.-THE action is based upon the statute
of the state which gives the right to the
father and mother to recover damages
in the case of a death occurring through
the negligence of the defendant under
circumstances shown in the complaint.
A demurrer was set up to the complaint
upon the ground that it appeared in
the complaint that plaintiffs are nom
resident aliens, they being citizens and
residents of Ireland, Great Britain. 1t
is not averred that they were never resi-
dents Of Colorado, or any part of the
United States. In support of its con-
tention the defendant cited the case of
Deni against the Pennsylvania Railway,
in 161 Pa st. Rep. p. 527. That is
case in which it was ruled that non
resident alien has no right of action
under statute similar to the statute of
this state. | have examined the statute
of Pennsylvania, and upon this question
it is the same as the statute of Colorado;
that is to say, the right of action is given
to certain representatives of the de-
ceased generally, and without any state
ment as to whether they shall be citi-
zens of Pennsylvania or residents OF
Pennsylvania. In that respect the
of Colorado. The reasoning of the
court is clear and full to the point, that
such statute cannot be taken to be for
the benefit Of people residing in foreign
parts. The court says that mo case has
been brought to our notice in which an
English court has held that nom
resident alien is entitled to the benefits
conferred by the act OF 1546.' The act
Of 1916 understand to be Lord Camp
bells act, which has been the precedent
same may be said of the decisions OF the
courts OF our sister states having stat
utes similar to our own. That is to say
there is 70 decision anywhere upon this
subject other than that made by this
court. Under the circumstances l see
reason for denying the force and effect
Of this opinion. 1t appears to be found
ed upon good reason and to be as appli-
cable in Colorado as it is in Pennsyl-
vania.
"The plaintiffs counsel was able to
call the attention Of the court to the
case Of Like against Calhoun county.
So Ala. Rep. p. l1S. That case was
founded upon 'an act to suppress muir
der, lynching, assaults and batteries
and it appears from the statement OF
the case-I have not seen the &c
referred to-but it appears from tn
statement Of the case, that it all, we
the surviving parents to recover
penalty Of 5000 for the death OF son
occurring through violence, such re ov-
cry to be against the county in hich
the crime was committed. The ou y
in that case hill that non n-reside It
aliens could rec over under that act, b 1t
the decision appears to have been upon
the ground that this was an act to sup.
press crime and to punish criminal acts;
in other words, it was an act under the
police power of the state to preserve the
ptdCc anu Boou oiucr VI luc community.
1t was an act to protect people living in
the several counties Of the state, in
their lives and persons. In that view,
an alien residing in the state was rs
much entitled to protection as citizen,
and 1t was 80 held. do not see that
the case is at all similar to the case at
bar; the statute Of Colorado giving
damages under the circumstances de-
tailed in the complaint and the statute
OF Pennsylvania as well, upon which the
decision is made, reported in 1872 Pa
They are not acts for the suppression of