The fact that a judgment was obtained through fraud or col-
lusion is universally held to constitute a sufficient reason for
opening or vacating such judgment after the term at which it
was entered.
2. Transfer of property extorted through intoxication.
Equity will grant relief where the transfer of a valuable prop-
erty has been fraudulently extorted, for a grossly inadequate con-
sideration, from a person in such a state of intoxication as not
to be in his right mind or capable of transacting any business
or entering into any contract.
Oral grub stake agreement not within, see "Mines and Minerals."
Gambling loss consideration for deed, see "Fraud."
Plaintiff was the proprietor of a saloon. He gambled with de-
fendant therein with dice, and lost $1,800. To pay his loss he
conveyed the premises in dispute. Upon a suit in equity to re-
cover, held, that equity will not assist a gambler to recover losses
at his own game.
1. Territorial jurisdiction of grand jury.
The territory of Alaska is divided into three judicial districts.
Congress has provided a district court for each district. Each
court has power to call grand juries to inquire into and return
indictments for crime. Held, that the grand jury of one district
has no jurisdiction to return indictments against persons ac-
cused of committing crimes in another district.
-United States v. Beasley......
Oral, not within statute of frauds, see "Mines and Minerals."
1. Guardian for person and estate of insane person.
The appointment of a guardian for the person and estate of
an insane person is peculiarly within the equitable jurisdiction
of the probate court; it is a proceeding for the benefit of the
insane person and the protection of his estate.
-White's Guardian v. Martin....
1. Will not lie from mere error.
Habeas corpus will not lie to discharge a prisoner convicted of
crime where the court had jurisdiction and the record discloses
-In re Habeas Corpus of P. C. Burkell..
2. Nor for excessive penalty not in fact imposed.
Where a justice of the peace added "at hard labor" to a
penalty of confinement in the county jail, habeas corpus will not
lie to cure the error where hard labor is not in fact being imposed
as a part of the penalty.
-In re Habeas Corpus of P. C. Burkell..
Navigable streams are, see "Navigable Waters."
Not subject to mining locations, see "Mines and Minerals."
Abutting on navigable waters, see "Public Lands."
Railroad right of way across, see "Railroads."
Practice in trials, see "Criminal Law."
Taking proofs in, see "Evidence."
Objections to indictments, see "Indictment and Information."
Trials and practice in, see "Trials."
1. Homicide-Self-defense-Instructions.
Where, in a prosecution for homicide, defendant claimed that
the killing was done in self-defense, an instruction that the jury
should say from the evidence whether it was necessary for de-
fendant to kill deceased to protect himself, in order that the
killing should be justified, was erroneous, since defendant was
entitled to defend himself against attack by deceased, to the ex-
tent of killing deceased, if it appeared to defendant at the time
of the encounter, acting as a reasonable man, that it was neces-
sary for him to kill deceased to prevent injury to himself.
-Owens v. United States, 130 Fed. 279, 64 C. C. A. 525.
2. Reasonable doubt-Definition.
An instruction that a reasonable ground of doubt is one which
is reasonable from the evidence or want of evidence, and must
be a ground of doubt for which a reason can be given, based on
the evidence or want of evidence, was objectionable, since a doubt
arising out of the evidence is a mental operation for which it
may be difficult or impossible to assign a reason.
-Owens v. United States, 130 Fed. 279, 64 C. C. A. 525.
3. Exceptions to instructions.
Where, in a criminal case, the court gave a long written
charge to the jury, and, immediately after sending the jury out,
defendant's counsel notified the judge that he wished to except
to portions of the charge, and asked the court if he had any rule
as to the manner of taking exceptions to instructions, and the
judge responded that he had no such rule, and directed counsel
to adopt such practice as he might be advised was proper, where-
upon, on the succeeding day, which was Sunday, defendant's at-
torney prepared a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new
trial, with written exceptions to the charge, which he handed to
the judge and the clerk on that day, with instructions to file the
papers on the succeeding day, which was accordingly done, and
the judge considered such exceptions and overruled the same,
they would not be disregarded on appeal, on the ground that
they were not filed in time to allow the trial judge to reconsider
his charge and give different instructions.
-Owens v. United States, 130 Fed. 279, 64 C. C. A. 525.
Naturalization of, see "Aliens."
Right to occupy lands, see "Public Lands."
1. Status under treaty with Russia, 1867.
By the third article of the treaty with Russia, 1867, ceding Alas-
ka to the United States, the latter nation agreed that “the unciv-
ilized tribes [in Alaska] will be subject to such laws and regu-
lations as the United States may from time to time adopt in
regard to aboriginal tribes of that country." Held, that the
Athapaskan stock, including the native bands of the Tanana, be-
long to the uncivilized tribes mentioned in this clause. As such
they are entitled to the equal protection of the laws which the
United States affords to similar aboriginal tribes within its bor-
ders.
-United States v. Berrigan.
2. Indians are wards of the government.
The uncivilized native tribes of Alaska are wards of the gov
ernment. The United States has the right, and it is its duty,
to protect the property rights of its Indian wards.
-United States v. Berrigan.
3. Status of Indian lands.
Lands actually used and occupied by the native tribes of
Alaska are reserved from sale or other disposal by the laws
of the United States. These laws constitute a direct and manda-
tory prohibition against an entry of any such lands. They for-
bid the disturbance of the Indian right of possession by force or
contract. Any contract to that end made by any such Indian is
void and of no effect.
-United States v. Berrigan.....
4. Trespassers on Indian lands excluded by mandatory injunc-
tion.
The government may exclude persons who intrude upon such
Indian lands by mandatory injunction; the remedy at law is
wholly inadequate.
-United States v. Berrigan.....
5. Congress, only, has power to dispose of Indian lands.
Congress alone has the power to dispose of lands reserved by
it for the use and occupation of Indians in Alaska, and all aban-
donments or sales thereof procured from the Indians are void.
-United States v. Berrigan.....
6. Indian property rights.
The Indians of Alaska may come into the courts on equal terms
with citizens, and maintain whatever rights the laws vest in them.
-Johnson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co........
Section 8 of the act of Congress of May 7, 1884 (23 Stat. 24, C.
53), for the protection of the property rights of the Indians of
Alaska, held to extend to the lands claimed and occupied by them
collectively in their villages and such other places as were oc-
cupied by them for fishing, hunting, and other like purposes.
-Johnson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co......
Indians, natives of Alaska, though living in villages, held not
to be entitled to claim village sites, under section 11 of the town
site act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1099, c. 561 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 1467]).
-Johnson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co... ...
The evident purpose of Congress in its legislation in relation
to the property rights of Indians in Alaska was to protect the
natives in the possession of lands continuously claimed and oc-
cupied by them, but up to this time Congress has not fixed the
terms under which they might acquire title thereto. It is evi-
dent, therefore, that the complainants in this action cannot
have so much of the relief prayed for as would declare that the
defendants were holding the lands in trust for their benefit, or
require them to convey to the several complainants.
-Johnson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co... . . . .
Lands occupied and used exclusively by Indians at the time
of the passage of the act of May 17, 1884 (23 Stat. 24, c. 53),
could not be disposed of by the Interior Department to persons
other than the native occupants, and a patent issued to such
other persons would be without authority of law and void.
-Johnson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co....
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
Corporations may be indicted, see "Corporations."
Resubmitted to grand jury, see "Criminal Law."
1. Cannot be questioned in suit on bail bond.
As a general rule, the sufficiency of the indictment cannot be
questioned by the sureties when sued for a breach of the bail
bond.
-United States v. Manthei's Bondsmen.....
Definition in divorce cases, see "Divorce."
|