Case Name: UNITED STATES v. DEGUIRRO et al.
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1906-10-02
Citations: 152 F. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES v. DEGUIRRO et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. DEGUIRRO et al.
(District Court, N. D. California.
October 2, 1906.)
Woods and Forests — Forest Reservations — Violation oe Regulations.
The violation of the rule of the Secretary of the Interior forbidding the pasturing of live stock on a forest reservation without a permit is punishable criminally, under Act June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 35 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1540], which authorizes the making of such regulations and prescribes the punishment for their violation.
On Motion in Arrest of Judgment.
This action was begun upon an indictment filed February 2, 1906, charging the defendants with unlawfully pasturing sheep over the Stanislaus forest reserve without having secured permit. A motion in arrest of judgment was interposed. The motion was denied by the court on October 2, 1906, and each of the defendants was fined the sum of $20. The motion in arrest of judgment was made upon the ground that the violation of the regulation in question was not a crime, and that it was beyond the authority of Congress and the Secretary of the Interior to make violation of the said regulation punishable.

Opinion:
DE HAVEN, District Judge.
The general reasoning found in the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit in the case of Dastervignes v. United States, 122 Fed. 30, 58 C. C. A. 346, has created in my mind such doubt of the correctness of my prior decision in the case of United States v. Peter Camou, filed June 24, 1902 (not reported), that I deem it proper at this time to overrule the motion to defendants for an arrest of judgment; and if dissatisfied with this ruling, the defendants have the right to bring the question involved before the Circuit Court of Appeals for decision.
The motion in arrest of judgment will be denied, and each of the defendants fined in the sum of $20.