The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1901-08-24
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


The question whether the fish and game
| laws of Wisconsin extend TO the arrest
and punishment OF Indians maintaining
their tribal relations and residing upon
Irdian reservations within the limits OF
the State was recently decided in the
| negative by Judge Bum. Of the United
states District Court in re Biackbird
uO9 Fed Rep, 1897. John Blackbird- an
Indian. and a member of the Chippewa
tribe on the Bad River reservation in the
State of Wisconsin, was arrested upon
The reservation for setting a net for fish
in Bear Trap Creek a small stream upon
and mainly within said reservation. Ills
net was seized by the game warden and
he WAS tried In the Municipal Court and
convicted of fishing with net, contrary
to the fish and game laws of the State.
and was fined 50, in default OF payment
OF which he was sent to the county Jail.
n writ Of habeas CORPUS Was sued out al
the instance of the United States Govern
rnent, TO test the legality of his convic-
ton and imprisonment Judge Bum held
that. since Congress has taken jurtsrii,--
ton Of crimes committed by Indians with
In the limits Of an Indian reservation. that
jurisdiction Is exclusive. and that the
State laws do not extend TO these cases.
and that. moreover. the Chippewas had
the right to fish and hunt on their rcser-
walton by treaty with the United states.
In concluding his opinion. Judge Bum
said:
AFTER taking from them the great body
of their lands in Minnesota and Wiscon-
sin. allowing them to reserve certain por-
tions for reservations, and STIMULATING
that they should always have the right
to fish and hunt upon all the lands
coded, 1t would be adding Insult as well
as injustice now to deprive them of the
poor privilege of fishing with seine for
suckers In little red marsh-water
stream upon their own reservation
l feel confident that neither the State
fRNp tod aasH
cruelty, and that the prisoner arrest
was the result of overzeaI the part Of
a fish and game warren. which may be
excus9 bic, but Is not justifiable Ia law.
A city cannot restrain the erection of a
wooden building in violation of an ordi-
nance, holds the Appellate Court Of In
diana in the case of Town of Rochester
VS.. Walters go n. E. Rep, li0il. An
ordinance Of the town made it unlawful
to erect wooden building of any de-
scription whatever within certain desig-
mated limits prescribed in the ordinance,
and provided a penalty for the violation
of the ordinance. The town sued to
enjoin the erection of wooden build
ing within the designated limits, on
the ground that such an act would be
a viola ton of the ordinance. In de-
Gliding that the town could not main
tain It's suit. the court said: 1t is per-
haps true that municipality might re-
strain the erection OF any
thing within the corporate limits that was
in and of itself a nuisance, or IL the cree
ton of the building would work special
and irreparabie injury to the municipality
or to its property But in the case at
bar the erection of the prohibited build
ing within the fire limits was not nui-
sance per Sc. and the Injunction was
asked simply because the contemplated
act was a violation of the ordinance
city ordinance has to the people within
it's reach all the force and effect of a leg
islatfve enactment. The ordinance IN
question provides penalty for its viola
ton. and neither the municipality nor
private citizen can ask a court of equity
simply to enforce the ordinance by in
junction.
A policy of insurance against the loss
sustained by an employer through acct
dents happening to his employees contained
the following clause: No action shall
lie against the Qnsurance) company as
respects any loss under this policy. unless
it shall be brought by the assured himself I
to reimburse him for loss actually sus-
tained and paid by him in satisfaction OF 1
a Judgment, after a trial of the issue
In an action to enforce the po!1cy. the
Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jer-
sey, in the case of Moses VS.. Travellers
Insurance Company (i9 All. Rep, 80, |
held: That not the amount of the en-
ploye's judgment, but the amount paid !
by the employer thereon, was the sum
for which the insurer was responsible;
that the transfer of the employers prop
erty to a trustee in bankruptcy, by opera
ton of the United States Bankrupt act. |
was payment. within the requirement of |
this clause, and perfected the liability of |
the insurer for so much as the empioye
was entitled to receive out of the bank !
rupt's estate: that this liability of the in |
~urer passed, by force of the bankrupt |
act, to the trustee in bankruptcy. as as |
sets of the estate; that the amount for |
which the insurer is liable VIII be deter !
mined by ascertaining what percentage |
all the assets of the bankrupt, outside of ,
this policy, VIII pay on all the debts prov |
ed against the estate, outside of the en- !
ployes Judgment.
A woman married and lived with her /
husband about 4 year and a half. when |
he disappeared and she never saw him /
again or heard from him directly. After /
he had been absent five years, during |
which time she had made many efforts |
to find him. she remarked in the honest |
belief that he was dead, though as an |
actual fact he was then alive. In action /
for separation brought by the wife /
gainst the second husband, the question |
as to whether the first marriage was valid |
or not arose. The court (Suprerne Court. !
appellate division) held that the former /
marriage was not absolutely void, but |
only voidabie, and that ii came within |
the exception of the statute which de |
clares marriages void If contracted while !
either party is living. except where the /
former husband or wife has absented him !
self or herself for 1--WE successive years |
without being known to be living. (Tayior |
VS.. Taylor. Il n. Y. Supp, I'D
A person summarily adjudged guilty of |
contempt of court without hearing or |
the service upon him of any process. for |
an act not committed in the presence of |
fnr MOI W
rnent of the fine imposed. is held by Judge |
Evans of the United States Circuit Court,
* entucky, in ex parte Stricken t1O9 Fed
Rep I45) to be deprived of his liberty
without due process of law. IN VIOLATION
of the Fourteenth Amendment TO the Con
stitution of the United States. And Where
a person has been deprived of his liberty
without due process OF law oy State
court, by being committed to jan ior an
alleged contempt not committed IN tne
r.ss or hearing. and the State law
gives him no right OF appeal, he IS en-.
titled to be discharged by Federal court
on a writ of habeas corpus.
A partner cannot claim, in competition
with firm creditors, for advances for part
lership purposes or for goods sold to his
irn holds Judge Mcpherson, of the Unit ]
I'd States District Court, l. D. Pennsyl-
,ania. in re Erwin ue9 Fed. Rep. 1859.
md where a corporation entered into
partnership articles with a firm, and IN
ted money and sold goods to the nrnl, |
he corporation, TO the extent OF such
,cts, executed the contract OF partnership
AZ hecoming a partner de fact0 and could
not. BY asserting that the partnership
agreement was ultra wires. prove claim
n competition with general creditors up
IN bankruptcy of the firm.
A plaintiff was injured by being attack
ID by a stranger while a passenger on the
Tho Spla Issue /