Notes of Recent Cases. detected." The court remarks that as the plaintiff did not seem to require the super vising care of a committee to conduct his case, his statement that he believed he was to get $3000 in good money for $300 in old, worn government bills, seems beyond belief, and they state that they doubt whether the law books contain a case which will parallel in audacity this case, excepting, perhaps, the famous case of Everett v. Williams, 9 L. Q. R. 197, which was a bill for an account ing of the partnership business of highway men, though the true nature of the partner ship was veiled in ambiguous language. This bill set up the partnership between the plain tiff and the defendant, "who was skilled in dealing in several sorts of commodities; that they proceeded jointly in the said dealing with good success in Houndslow Heath, where they dealt with a gentleman for a gold watch; that the defendant informed plaintiff that F. was a good and convenient place to deal in, such commodities being very plenty there, and if they were to deal there, it would be almost all gain to them; that they accord ingly dealt with several gentlemen for divers watches, rings, swords, canes, hats, clocks, etc., to the value of 200 pounds and up wards; that a gentleman at Black Heath had several articles which defendant thought might be had for little or no money in case they could prevail on the said gentleman to part with said things; and that after some little discourse with said gentleman such things were dealt for at a very cheap rate. The dealings were alleged to have amounted to 2OOO pounds and upwards." This bill was dismissed for scandal and impertinence. The solitictors were taken into custody and lined 50 pounds each for reflecting upon the honor and dignity of the court. The counsel whose name was signed to the bill was re quired to pay the costs, and both the litigants were subsequently hanged. It is pointed out that the fact that a like judgment did not overtake the parties litigant in this case marks the lapse of our modern procedure from that vigorous integrity with which the ancient judges administered the common law in its primitive virtue.
503
INDIANS. (SALE OF LIQUOR— SCOPE or PROHIBITIVE STATUTE—CARLISLE STUDENTS.) UNITED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
In United States v. Belt, 128 Federal Reporter 168, the defendant was indicted for selling liquor to Indian boys attending the United States Indian School at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. On a ruling for a new trial, the court held that the Act of Congress of January 30, 1897, c. 109, 29 St. 506, pro hibiting the sale of liquor to "any Indian, a ward of the Government, under the charge of an Indian agent or superintendent, or any Indian, including mixedbloods, over whom 'the government—through its departments exercises guardianship." extends to Indian students at a school which is maintained at the expense of the Government under the direction of the Interior Department. The court says that there can be no doubt that this language extends to the Indian boys at Carlisle. "Temporarily transferred from the reservations to which they belong, which are themselves in the nature of schools, they are potentially if not actually under the superin tendent or agent there in charge. And, main tained and educated as they thus are, at the expense of the government, under the dir ection of the Interior Department, they are the unquestioned wards of the nation which has as much concern to protect them from the debasing influence of liquor as if they were on the Western Plains."
The Act of May 20, 1886, c. 362, 24 St. 69, requiring the nature and hygienic effects of alcoholic drinks, etc., to be specially taught to Indian pupils, is referred to as evidence of the concern the government has in this matter. Previous legislation on the subject of selling liquor to Indians is reviewed and the following cases cited: United States v. Hollirtay, 3 Wall. 407, 18 L. Ed. 182, United States v. Osborne (D. C.), 2 Fed. 58; United States v. Earl (C.C.). 17 Fed. 75: United States v. Hurshman (D. C.) 54 Fed. 543; United States v. Flynn, t Dull. 4.41, Fed. Cas. Xo. 15124; United States v. Bur3;ck. i Dak. 142. 46 N. W. 571; • Renfrew v. U. S. 3 Ok!. 170, 41 Рас. 88.
