페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

0.

Oregon and California R. Co., Holmes v.

262 Oregon and Washington T. I. Co. v. Shaw

52 Oregon Central Railway Co., Sayles y.

31 Orient Mining Co., North Noonday Mining Co. v. 299 Orient Mining Co., North Noonday Mining Co. v., No. 2. 503 Orton, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v.

157 Osborne, United States v..

406

P.
Parker, In re
Parrott's Case..
Pope v. Swiss Lloyds Insurance Co.
Powell, Abbott v
Price v. Dewey

248 349 533

91 493

R.

Reclamation District v. Hagar.
Richmond Mining Co., Eureka Con. Mining Co. v...
Rickards v. Ladd...
Rudolph, In re..

567 471

40 295

[ocr errors]

Sayles v. Oregon Central Railway Co....
Scott, In re.
Shainwald v. Lewis.
Shaiuwalil v. Lewis..
Sharp v. Stephens..
Sharp, Stevens v.
Shaw, Oregon and Washington T. I. Co. v.
Smiley, United States v.
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Orton.
Steamer Ancon...
Steinbart, Elfelt v.
Stephens, Sharp v.
Stevens v. Sharp.
Stratton, Lauriat v.
Strouse, Marye v
Sturgeon, United States v...
Swiss Lloyds Insurance Co., Pope v.

31 234 556 585

48 113

52 640 157 118 480

48 113 339 204

29 533 35 237 442

T.

PAOR

Temple, In re....
The Allegiance.
The Bark Antioch
The Bobolink....
The Chandos...
The Kate Heron..
The Mary Zephyr
The Steamer Ancon.
Town of Hayward, Grogan v.

77 68 328 146 544 106 427 118 498

U.
United States v. Doyle..
United States v. Griswold
United States v. Half Barrel Distilled Spirits.
United States v. Humason..
United States v. Leathers
United States v. Osborne
United States v. Smiley.....
United States v. Sturgeon
United States v. Williams.

612 255

63 199

17 406 640

29 244

W.
Williams, United States v..
Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Moreno..
Wong Yung Quy, In re.
Wong Yung Quy, In re, No. 2.

244

DECISIONS

OF THE

CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS

OF THE

UNITED STATES, FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

THE UNITED STATES 1. JOHN LEATHERS.
DISTRICT Court, District OF NEVADA.

JULY 1, 1879.

1. INDIAN Country.—The laws of the United States extending the laws

regulating intercourse with Indian tribes over the tribes in Utah, Nevada at the time of their passage being a part of Utah, do not make

Nevada Indian country. 2. RESERVATION.-The tract of country called the “Pyramid Lake Indian

Reservation ” has been set apart by competent authority for the use of

the Pah Utes and other Indians residing thereon. 3. SAME. - It is Indian country within the meaning of sections 2133 and 2139

of the R. S. 4. INTENT.-Where the statute contains nothing requiring acts to be done

knowingly, and the acts are not malum in se, nor infamous, but only wrong because prohibited, a criminal intent need not be proved. The offender is bound to know the law, and obey it, at his peril.

Before HILLYER, District Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Charles S. Varian, for plaintiff.

Robert M. Clarke, for defendant.

HILLYER, J. This is a criminal case in which the indictment charges the defendant with attempting to reside as a trader, and to introduce goods and to trade in the Indian country without a license, in violation of section 2133 of the

Opinion of the Court—Hillyer, J.

[July,

R. S., and also with introducing liquor into the Indian country, contrary to section 2139.

The indictment alleges this Indian country to be the Pyramid Lake Indian reservation.

Special issues of fact were by agreement of parties submitted to the jury, and the United States attorney now moves for judgment on the facts found by the jury. The questions in the case are:

1. Whether the now state of Nevada is Indian country in the sense of the sections above mentioned.

2. Whether the tract of country called the “Pyramid Lake Indian reservation ” has ever been set apart by competent authority as an Indian reservation.

3. Whether, admitting it is an Indian reservation, it is Indian country in the sense of the laws of congress; and,

4. The jury having found the defendant's place of business to be outside the lines of the reservation, as shown on the ground by certain posts set up by the Indian agent and certain stone monuments set up by the surveyor, but within the limits as established by the executive order, whether the defendant is guilty of the offense charged.

Upon the first point it is argued on behalf of the United States that the whole state of Nevada is Indian country by virtue of the Indian intercourse act of 1834 (4 Stat. 729), and section 7 of the appropriation act of 1851 (9 Stat. 587), which enacts “that all the laws now in force regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, or such provisions of the same as may be applicable, shall be, and the same are hereby extended over the Indian tribes in the territories of New Mexico and Utah,” Nevada, at that time being a part of Utah; and also by virtue of section 16 of the act of March 2, 1861, organizing the territory of Nevada, and section 11 of the act of March 21, 1864, enabling the people of Nevada to form a state, extending the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable over the territory and state of Nevada respectively.

It seems to me apparent that these enactments did not and do not make either the territories of Utah or Nevada or the state of Nevada Indian country. The act of 1834,

« 이전계속 »