Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-01-03
IN THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION IN REGARD TO PORTO
RICAN COIN.
Grazing in the Flathead Reservation
Right Of Way In Portland, Ore.
Title to Land in Arizona.

Several interesting decisions were handed
down by the Supreme Court of the United
States after The Stars report closed yes
terday. In opinion in the case of Ser
rales agt. Esbri, coming from the supreme
court of Porto Rico, the court construed
the effect of the provision of the act of
Congress of 1900 relative to the exchange
of money in provinces there recently ac-
quired from Spain. In 1894 citizen of
Porto Rico named Cartagena sold to Ser
rales a share in a sugar plantation on that
island for $4,000 pesos, to be paid In in
stallments, and Sin money current in COM
merce Of whatever coin of money might be
circulating In this province at the rate Of
100 cents Of the current money for each
peso"
This contract was made while Porto Rico
was Spanish territory, and after the trans
fer of sovereignty to the United States Ser
rales refused to make the payments re-
naming due on the basis of dollar IN
American coin for a peso in Porto Rican
coin. He took the position that as the
Spanish coin was worth only GO cents, he
should be required to pay only the equiva-
lent of the provincial money and not 100
cents for each peso. The Porto Rtcan court
held that the terms of the contract required
the payment of 100 cents in American
money for each peso called for in Serrales'
notes. That decision was reversed
Grazing on Indian Reservation.
The court yesterday affirmed the decision
of the United States circuit court for the
district of Montana in refusing to take
Jurisdiction in the case of the Montana
Catholic missions agt. Missoula county,
Montana. The organization designated as
the Catholic missions is a corporation
which holds the property of the Jesuit
fathers in Montana, including large herd
of cattle held on the Flathead Indian res
ervation in MiSsOula county, and this pro-
ceeding arose out of an effort on the part
of the county authorities to take the cat
tie. This resisted by the association
on the ground that authority to run the
cattle on the reservation had been given
by the Indians and by the federal govern
ment and that the object in holding them
there was purely charitable. The circuit
court for the district of Montana dismissed
the bill on the ground that 1t was without
jurisdiction in the case. Justice Peckham
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court,
affirming the decision of the court below
Right of Way in Portland, Ore.
Justice McKenna has handed down the
opinion of the Supreme Court Of the United
States In the case of ]. R. Mead and Others
trustees, against the city of Portland, Ore
This was a suit brought by the heirs OF
Stephen Mead, late of Portland, to restrain
that city from closing the passageway in
the approach to the Morrison street bridge,
across the Willamette river, leading to the
lower floor of Wharves owned by the Mead
estate. The Meads claimed that per-
petual grant Of the right to keep this pas
sageway open had been given in an ordi-
nance of 1878, authorizing the erection OF
their wharves- and they asked for compen-
sation. This was denied by the state court
and also by the federal court in yesterdays
opinion. In passing upon the rights of the
claimants Justice McKenna said: Their
occupation of the street and construction
of the wharf and landing at the foot there
Of were permissive, under ordinances of the
city, defining their rights. They could not
street not conferred by the ordinance, be-
cause their use could not, in law, be ad-
verse"
Title to Arizona Land.
In the opinion of Justice Brewer the court
affirmed the decision of the supreme court
Of Arizona in the case of Howard against
Perrin, involving title to certain land
within the Atlantic and Pacific railroad
grant in Coconino county, Ariz. The case
involved the Arizona statute Of limitations
and the right to use seepage water for ir-
rigation The decision on those points was
as follows:
A statute prescribing a period of limita-
ton in actions between parties claiming
only possessCry rights cannot be invoked
by one having only possessory right as
against one having legal title by patent
or grant from the government.
A statute giving the right to appropriate
for purposes of irrigation water from any
convenient river, creek stream OF run
ming water gives no right to sink a we'll,
collect in it the water percolating through
the soil and draw 1t off in pipes or aque-
ducts for irrigation purposes.
Controversy Over 1885 Acres.
The court affirmed the decision of the su-
preme court of Arizona in the case of H. C.
Herrick and others agt. the Boquillas Land
and Cattle Company. This case involved a
controversy over the Boquillas land grant In
Cochise county, Arizona, embracing 1885
acres. The action was brought by the set
tiers on the land, amounting to about thirty
in number, who claim to have been on the
land from twenty years prior to 1901, when
the cattle company took possession They
asked for the restoration of the lands, for
$4,000 damages and for rental at the rate
of $4,000 year since 1901. The cattle
company purchased the property from w.
r. Hearst. and he from the claimants I'M
der grant made in 1888. The Arizona
court decided in favor OF the cattle COM
pany, and that decision was upheld.