grazing sheep without a permit, but the punishment is imposed by the Act itself. The offense is not against the Secretary, but as the indictment properly concludes, "contrary to the laws of the United States and the Peace and Dignity thereof." The demurrers should have been overruled." See 220 Adv. Sheets of the U. S. reports, p. 506, for full discussion.

Hon. B. F. McGarr, a prominent attorney of Muskogee, and who has been for several years Mayor of that city, was a few weeks since appointed City Attorney, under the new "Commission Form of Government" system. Mr. McGarr while yet an office holder under the old regime, took an active part in bringing about, what he believed to be a better form of municipal government; this conduct on his part has greatly increased the confidence of his fellow citizens in his integrity and desire to secure the best service to the city, even if personal sacrifice became necessary. Such conduct and fidelity to public service is rare, in this selfish Age. Mr. McGarr was also one of the active workers to secure the first Convention of the Municipal League that met in Oklahoma City last November, and which is again to meet in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on next December.

REVERSAL of 21 Okla. 630, by U. S. Supreme Court. In the opinion on page 299, the Court says: "Two ques tions arise in the (Marchie Tiger) case. First: Could a full blood Creek Indian, on and after the eighth day of August, 1907, convey the lands inherited by him from his relatives, who were full-blood Creek Indians, which lands had been allotted to them, so as to give a good title to the purchaser-although the conveyance was made without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Second: If the legislation of Congress in question undertook to make such conveyances valid only when approved by the Secretary of the Interior, is it constitutional?"

To the first question the answer is positive and direct

that the conveyance is not good. To the second, the Court says: "As we have construed the statute involved, while it permits the conveyance of inherited lands of the character of those in issue, it requires such conveyance to be made with the approval of the head of the Interior Department. For the reasons we have stated, we find nothing unconstitutional.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is reversed, and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

Hon. J. C. Starr, who has been for years an active attorney in oil and gas leasing and land title practice in the northeast part of the State, has been elected Mayor of the city of Vinita. Mr. Starr, while an able lawyer and a gentleman who has seen much of the world, was born and raised in the Territory, as he is about one eighth Cherokee. He is a member of the roster of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as that of the State of Oklahoma.

HUMOR.

A group of young fellows stood in front of a hotel as a Chinaman was about to pass them. A rollicking young Irishman among them said: "boys, I'll make you some fun," and instantly knocked the Chinaman down. He was arrested and taken to police court. There he met a lawyer and wanted him to defend on an alibi, saying that the 'boys would stay with him.' The the lawyer refused. Pat straightened up and said: "all right sor, then I'll be me own lawyer." When the State was through Pat put Mike Flarity on the stand, and said: "Your name is Mike Flarity. Now Mr. Flarity, tell the court where was I when I struck the Chinaman in front of the hotel?"

A colored aunty got on an Arkansas train for a flag station where trains did not stop without notice. As the train was passing the station she jumped out and

fell on her head, regaining her senses she got on her feet and ran into her cabin, close by. The train backed as the crew thought she was killed. The conductor ran

after her to the cabin for fear of some lawyer anticipating him, and called to her, "aunty, you much hurt?" "No, go long! This nigger is only powerful 'barrassed" was her reply.

"Well, what damage do you want?" he asked. "Now, see he'ar boss," said aunty, haint I been damaged 'nuff? What yo' want damage this nigger mo' fur?"

In compliance with a resolution adopted by the last session of the Colorado legislature, Governor Shafroth has issued a call for a public lands convention to be held in Denver, September 28, 29 and 30, "for the purpose of discussing all questions, and taking some action as the wisdom of the convention may direct, relative to the proper administration of the public domain, the natural resources pertaintng thereto, and the practical conservation thereof under state authority and of protesting against Congress enacting laws providing for the leasing of the natural resources of the West."

Perhaps no effort has proven more beneficial to clear away the uncertainty which enveloped the Choctaw and Chickasaw land questions than the work compiled by E. Hastain, of Muskogee, Oklahoma, in a volume and supplement, giving the names alphabetically arranged, of the citizens of those tribes together with the roll number, and description of the homestead and surplus allotment, and dates of patents and date of approval by the Secretary of the Interior. Every STATE LIBRARY will be benefitted and greatly enhance its reference facilities by securing a copy of this work.

For all inquiries concerning it, address:

E. Hastain, Muskogee, Okla.

THE

OKLAHOMA

LAW JOURNAL

EDITED AND PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY

D. H. FERNANDES, GUTHRIE, OKLAHOMA.

VOL. 10.

August, 1911.

No. 2.

NEW TRIALS.

This subject has been extensively discussed by great writers; such as Bouvier in his "Institutes of American Law," Hilliard on "New Trials," Baylies on "New Trials," and later by Wait on "Trial of Land Titles," and by Elliott in his great work on "Appellate Procedure." Yet when we see attorneys bringing causes before Supreme Courts without having made a motion for a new trial in the lower court, on questions that can only come before such courts for review by way of the motion for a new trial, as to the nature of the question involved, it is evident that the subject of new trials is a topic not well understood and but dimly comprehended by some. The motion for a new trial and the rules specifying its requisites, while we have never heard it so termed or spoken of, may be termed "an application for mutual fair dealing between attorney and trial court." In the hurry of a trial many courts, with the very best intentions, make some blunders which with more time at their disposal would not be made; these errors, when pointed out, will be cheerfully corrected and an appeal with its costly incidents avoided; that is, if the incumbent of the bench is fit for a judge. On the other hand, if Supreme Courts accepted the statements of every lawyer upon the rulings of the lower courts without the trial judge having the error pointed out, and by him then and there corrected.

if he is disposed to do, so, it would be unfair to him, as well as costly to clients. The usual designation, however, is an application in the trial court for a re-trial of issues of fact. The motion is a direct one, and its purpose is to specifically direct the attention of the trial court to the errors made during the trial so as to get the question into the record and corrected by a new trial, or it correction is refused by the lower court, that they may be properly presented on appeal.

The grounds that are available for new trial are declared by statute in every jurisdiction, and are usually seven. But as pointed out by Judge Elliott, "that as a general rule, subject to some exceptions, that if the ruling is connected with the proceedings at the trial, and is not made upon the pleadings, or is not made upon independent questions not relating to the trial, or is made upon the verdict, or upon the answers of the jury to interrogatories, or does not affect the form of the judgment or decree, it should be specified as one of the causes for a new trial." Such as refusing opportunity to cross-examine, 58 Mich. 527; refusing proper instructions, 43 Mississippi, 111; erroneous ruling on the evidence, 14 Ark. 502; ruling upon application for change of venue or of judge, 73 Ind. 46; ruling on application for a continuance, 11 Neb. 391; refusing to compel more specific answers to interrogatories, 120 Ind. 207; denying right to open and close, 52 Ind. 99; ruling as to competency of jurors, 70 Ind. 317.

Parties to an action only are entitled to move for new trial, the right in most states is limited to "parties aggrieved." A joint motion is good only when all who join are entitled to make it. 87 Ind., 226, and 45 Minn. 99. But the fact that a verdict or judgment is against two or more jointly does not prevent either from making the motion for himself. 8 Mo. 26, 82 Ind. 132, 16 Neb. 306.

Where several independent claimants "sought to obtain a fund on motion to distribute it, and it was awarded all to one of them, the court held that one of the defeated claimants might move for a new trial by making the suc