Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-11-07
Important Decisions
Tho following notes Of caaos are
from the West Publishing Company.

MOOSE HEAD BORE NO TAG. i
Can one legally hold possessions Of
an untagsed head Of q, moose which
was lawfully killed? This - the text
Of Hanson VS.. Story. ISL Northwestern:
Reporter. 49,. Plaintiff lawfully killed
a moose in the hunting season of1S0s.
and during the open season he skinned
the neck and severed the head. The
carcass remained in his possession Tor
more than five days after the close OF
the hunting season. Neither the mooae.
nor any part thereof. was at any time
tagged. nor was any permit ever OBJ
tanned. In 1909 the head was sent to q
taxidermist to be mounted. A 81 few
days after its delivery II was seized
and tagged as the property Of the state
by Q game warden. getting under q
statute which provides for tagging
game. and that while the tags remain
the game may be kept In possession
until consumed Action was brought
to recover possession or the value Of
the head. Defendants concede that !
moose hide. whether fresh or dry
taken from moose lawfully killed
may be had In possession, under the
statute. without the tag or permit res
quired. but claim that 20 to have II
possession the head Of q moose IL .
violation Of the statute. In this COM
nection, 1t is suggested that the COM
mercial value Of the head with the
horns intact IL SO much greater than
the hide as to furnish an tnducement
for the unlawful killing Of moose. and
therefore the possession Of an untagged
head Of moose lawfully killed should
~ x,,(%N 31~S%S : Z
ute. The supreme court Of Minnesota
grants that the contention seems to af-
ford a reason why the statute should
holds that 1t can not be 80 construed
fore the possession Of an untagged
lawful.
NEW AND REDw1NE nAsAGREE
A somewhat unusual statute Is ems
forced in the case Of New w. State
1871 Southwestern Reporter. 564. One
Joe New was convicted OF violation
of section 1853. Kirby's Digest, which
provides: IF any parent. guardian
or other person from any cause, fan.
cied or real, visit any school and As-
sault any teacher in the presence Of
MS DupllS, the person OHGNUlu8 Dy
such conduct shall be liable to fn0
of s25" The facts are substantially al
follows: One Redwine was engaged In
teaching public school. when he re-
ceived from News wife a very insult-.
ing note. The following day, she called
at the school house in person and be-
came very abusive, and used vile and
profane language. While this WAS GO
ing on the husband. New. came up ana
wanted to know what all the trouble
was about. Being q loyal man. all
ways ready to defend. he advanced
upon the teacher with q drawn knife.
and invited him to come out Of the
school house and settle the difficulty.
Redwine replied that he was not in
the fighting business, and Threatened
arrest II they caused more trouble.
New replied. II will see you later" and
also used profane Language, all OF
which was in the presence OF his
pupils. They went away sthdn, hut later
on the school-teacher was eccosted BY
New, who carried his threat Into sxee
cution by giving him ., whipping. The
supreme court Of Arkansas holds. that
the uncontrolled evidence shows that
New il guilty of the Olsense With
which he was charged. and. there being
no prejudicial error. tho conviction .
affirmed.