The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-10-24
DECIDES AGAINST
GAME WARDFNS
Supreme Courts Interpretation
of the Law CurtaiIs Officers
Supposed Authority.

BY decision of the supreme court
HE'D yesterday the powers of deputy
state game wardens to confiscate prop
erty are distinctly circumscribed, and
self Invested of some of its supposed
authority
The immediate effect of the decision
is to make the game and fish depart
ment liable in the sum of 1925 for six
ty-tWo tanned deer and ten tanned
| moose hides, seized by wardens at
Grave Lake, Itasca county, about two
years ago. But that is accounted OF
slgnt importance as compared with
the broad influence of the ruling in the
enforcement of the laws for the pro-
lection of game
The language of the court in the syI-
Iabus of it's decision, which is written
| by Justice Lewis, is as follows
A person who, in good faith, has
! purchased deer and moose skins for
the purpose of tanning the same, ac-
| CURES valid title thereto, and in an
action to recover the hides or their
value from the game warden who took
possession thereof, the owner is not
required to prove that the animals
from which such skins were taken were
lawfully killed.
Seized Tanners Stock of Skins.
The case is that of Dell Linden, ree
spondent, VS.. f. F. Mccormick, Jesse
Harry, S. F. Fullerton and w. c. Tyn-
dali, appellants. Mccormick is depu-
/ ~ game warden, and Mr. Fullerton is
executive agent of the state game and
| fish commission. Mr.. Tyndali is sheriff
| OF ltaSca county, and Jesse Harry is
| one of his deputies.
Dell Linden was engaged in the bust
| ness of tanning skins at Grave Lake
ItaSca county, and on Jan. 81, 1902,
Un AEa(
! the officers named confiscated sixty
TWO tanned deer and ten tanned moose
| skins under the game law of.1S97 This
makes all wild game the property of
| the state under all circumstances-ex-
| cept as otherwise prescribed by law
and provides that the possession of any
| game, the killing Of which is prohibited
by law, shall be prima facie evidence
that 1t was the property of the state
| at the time it was killed or taken. The
law places the burden of proof upon
| the person in possession, to show that
| game was taken or killed as provided
| by law.
I Linden brought suit against the Of
| ficerS for $500, which he alleged to be
| the value of the skins taken from him,
and at the close of the testimony the
! trial court directed the jury to return
a verdict for Linden for the amount
| of the value of the property. The YER
| dict was 1926. The defendants in that
action then appealed to the supreme
| court, which has in this decision affirm
| ed the verdict.
The supreme court, in reviewing the
| case said in part:
| In the present case, according to
/ undlsputed testimony, Linden came
into possession of the skins in their
green or dry state by purchase, mostly
|. from Indians and partly from settlers
i in the county, and had been in possess
| sion of them for about year; that he
mad killed none of the game from
| which the skins were taken, and that
!. he had no knowledge that any of the
/. game had been unlawfully killed.
| SO far as the record shows, the ami
| mails may have been killed in the law
| full season and in a lawful manner.
|: Under such circumstances the pre-
| sumption is that they came lawfully
rather than unlawfully into respond
ent's possession.
''The object OF the statute is to pre-
vent the determination Of such game,
and to that end, as a police regulation,
reasonable restrictions and safeguards
may be provided; but there is a limit
to the states power in tracing the
product of animals illegally killed, and
subJecting those who in good faith
| have come into possession thereof to
\
Says 1t NuIlifies Game Laws.
| S. F, Fullerton. executive agent of the
game and fish commission, while recog
nizing the decision of the supreme court
as final, finds it no easy matter to recon-
Gle himself to the situation as it is now
presented. He says:
I'VE may as well give up all effort to
| put stop to illegal killing of game when
We find that our laws mean that we must
catch a man in the act in order to bring
aim RI rrrtT .G.sz
lions upon our authority all the deer
and moose in the state may be killed and
we cannot prevent it.
"Of course it is not for me to criticise
| the courts decision, which is an inter-
| probation of the law as it is; but l cam
not help expressing myself upon the eff
fects of the decision"
Affirms Big Personal Injury Award.
| The court upholds Judge Bum, of the
Ramsey county district court in denying
| q new trial in the case of Henry. Want
| Hui, who was awarded damages of $14,-
| 400 against the Great Northern Railway
| company.
Want HUI, who is eighteen years of age,
| was employed in the boiler shops of the
| railway company, and was set to work
| by his foreman rolling out f1ues. A fog
ging hammer which he was using split
and broken piece of the steel was thrown
into his left eye. The eye was removed,
but the other then gave him trouble and
he has become almost totally blind The
suit was brought through his mother,
as guardian, and the damages originally
demanded were 100000. The Jury re-
turned a verdict awarding the plaintiff
| $14,400 and the railroad company moved
for a new trial which motion was denied
by Judge Bunn The supreme court sus-
tains the action of the lower court.
Cannot Withhold Employees Wages.
In one of the cases decided yesterday
the court rules that a servant or employee
who leaves his place by reason of an as
Sault by his employer may collect wages
for the time he has worked, even though
he may have been under contract to stay
a longer time
The case in question comes from Chip
pewa county. and is that of Peder Erick-
son, respondent, VS.. M. H. Sorby, appel
liant. Sorby is a farmer and hired Efick-
son to work for him for a period of six
months Before the term of service had
expired the men had trouble, and it is
alleged Sorby assaulted Erickson Efick-
son sued for wages at the rate of 800 a
month. and in a justice court got a YER
the supreme court.
Other Cases Decided.
Other cases decided were:
Simon Meyers, appellant, VS.. James D.
Markham, respondent.
Judgment reversed. Brown, J.
II. c. Scott, appellant, VS.. S. M. Hay ct
al, respondents.
Order affirmed. Lovely. /