(40 Sup.Ct.) would render no other verdict than one and later was peremptorily challenged by the which required capital punishment. Granting that this challenge for cause should have been sustained, and that this ruling required the plaintiff in error to use one of his peremptory challenges to remove the juror from the panel, we held that the refusal to sustain the challenge was not prejudicial error, as the record disclosed that the defendant was allowed 22 peremptory challenges, when the law allowed but 20. [1, 2] In the petition for rehearing it is alleged that the record discloses that in fact the accused was allowed 20 peremptory challenges and no more, and this allegation is accompanied by an affidavit of counsel giving the names of 20 persons challenged peremptorily by the plaintiff in error, and stating that no other peremptory challenges were allowed to him at the trial. In this statement the counsel is mistaken. An examination of the original transcript, as also the printed transcript, shows that a juror, H. A. Shearer, was called and examined upon his voir dire (printed transcript, page 79), plaintiff in error (printed transcript, page 143) and excused from the panel. H. A. Shearer's name does not appear upon the list of those as to whom peremptory challenges were made and sustained in plaintiff in error's behalf as given in the petition and affi- ' davit for *a rehearing. It does appear in the transcript that plaintiff in error was allowed 21 peremptory challenges, and it follows that *382 his right to exercise such challenges was not MEMORANDUM DECISIONS DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1919 (251 U. S. 565) No. 64. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. The STATE OF WASHINGTON. Jan. 5, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. For opinions below, see 97 Wash. 137, 165 Pac. 1073, 167 Pac. 1117. Messrs. E. C. Lindley, of St. Paul, Minn., F. V. Brown, of Seattle, Wash., and F. G. Dorety, of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. V. Tanner, of Seattle, Wash., for State of Washington. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. No. 80. H. TURNER et al., executors, etc., plaintiffs in error, v. J. P. WADE, sheriff of Brooks County, Georgia. Jan. 5, 1920. See, also, 147 Ga. 666, 95 S. E. 220. Messrs. John D. Little, Arthur G. Powell, Marion Smith, and Max F. Goldstein, all of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Clifford Walker, of Monroe, Ga., for defendant in error. Ordered that this case be restored to the docket for reargument. (251 U. S. 565) No. 148. MAGMA COPPER COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. Charles RISSALA. Jan. 5, 1920. In error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona. Messrs. Alex Britton and Evans Browne, both 40 SUP.CT.-12 of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. (251 U. S. 541) No. 251. George J. TWOHY, Executor, etc., plaintiff in error, v. E. J. DORAN, Commissioner of the Revenue, et al. Jan. 5, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. Mr. George Mason Dillard, of Norfolk, Va., for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. D. Hank, Jr., of Richmond, Va., for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214). (251 U. S. 556) No. 604. Carlos L. BYRON, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Jan. 5, 1920. For opinion below, see 259 Fed. 371. Messrs. P. V. Davis and Edward M. Comyns, both of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner. Mr. Frank K. Nebeker, Assist. Atty. Gen., and Mr. H. L. Underwood, Sp. Assist. Atty. Gen., for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 549) No. 625. Lillian B. PEMBLETON, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS COMMERCIAL MEN'S ASSOCIATION. Jan. 5, 1920. For opinion below, see Pembleton v. Illinois Commercial Men's Ass'n, 289 Ill. 99, 124 N. E. 355. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois granted. (251 U. S. 556) No. 626. The BALTIMORE DRY DOCK & SHIP BUILDING COMPANY, petitioner, v. NEW YORK & PORTO RICO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, owner and claimant of THE ISABELLA, et al. Jan. 5, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 485. Mr. George Weems Williams, of Baltimore, Md., for petitioner. Messrs. George Forbes, of Baltimore, Md., and Ray Rood Allen, of New York City, for respond ents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 565) No. 130. William H. GARANFLO, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America; and No. 131. Robert D. DUNCAN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Jan. 9, 1920. On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. For opinion below, see 246 Fed. 910, 159 C. C. A. 182. Mr. Chester H. Krum, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for the United States. Dismissed for want of pros ecution on motion of Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson for the respondent. No., original. Ex parte in the matter of Walter PETERSON, as receiver, etc., petitioner. Jan. 12, 1920. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus granted, and a rule to show cause awarded returnable Monday, March 1, next. (251 U. S. 566) No. 135. Joseph GORDON, plaintiff in error, v. The PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS. Jan. 12, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. For opinion below, see 283 Ill. 366, 119 N. E. 318. Mr. Louis Greenberg, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error. Dismissed with costs, pursuant to the tenth rule. (251 U. S. 566) No. 235. The UNITED STATES of America, as trustee, etc., plaintiff in error, v. SEUFERT BROTHERS COMPANY et al. Jan. 12, 1920. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For opinion below, see 252 Fed. 51, 164 C. C. A. 163. Mr. Solicitor General King, for the United States. H. S. Wilson, of Portland, Or., for defendant in error. Dismissed on motion of Mr. Solicitor General King for the plaintiff in error. Kansas. For opinion below, see 103 Kan. 347, 175 Pac. 153. Mr. Joseph G. Waters, of Topeka, Kan., for plaintiff in error. (251 U. S. 541) No. 239. W. W. HARRIS, plaintiff in error, v. The STATE OF KANSAS. Jan. 12, 1920. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Ry. Co., 228 U. S. 326, 334, 33 Sup. Ct. 510, 57 L. Ed. 857; St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 240 U. S. 240, 241, 36 Sup. Ct. 274, 60 L. Ed. 622; Bilby v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701. (251 U. S. 541) No. 591. Matty McLAUGHLIN, plaintiff in error, v. The UNITED STATES of America. In error to the District Court Jan. 12, 1920. of the United States for the Northern District Ill., and Rob. V. Phillips, of Toledo, Ohio, for of Ohio. Messrs. Daniel L. Cruice, of Chicago, Mr. Alex. C. King, Solicitor plaintiff in error. General, of Atlanta, Ga., and A. F. Myers, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Messrs. Thos. H. Tracy and George D. Welles, both of Toledo, Ohio, for Dail Overland Co. Amici Curiæ. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of juNewspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U. S. risdiction upon the authority of (1) Toledo 402, 410-411, 38 Sup. Ct. 560, 62 L. Ed. 1186; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 328-337, 24 Sup. Ct. 665, 48 L. Ed. 997; O'Neal v. United States, 190 U. S. 36, 37-38, Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 23 Sup. Ct. 776, 47 L. Ed. 945; (2) Carey v. 171, 14 Sup. Ct. 63, 37 L. Ed. 1041; Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324, 14 Sup. Ct. 353, 38 L. Ed. 179; Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. 89, 25 Sup. Ct. 208, 49 L. Ed. 398; (3) In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393, 399-401, 14 Sup. Ct. 123, 37 L. Ed. 1120; (4) Itow et al. v. United States, 233 U. S. 581, 34 Sup. Ct. 699, 58 L. Ed. 1102; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 Sup. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550. (251 U. S. 556) No. 608. HURNI PACKING COMPANY, petitioner, v. MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK. Jan. 12, 1920. For opinion below, see 260 Fed. 641. Mr. Deloss C. Shull, of Sioux City, Iowa (Messrs. Charles M. Stilwill and Edwin J. Stason, both of Sioux City, Iowa, of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. Frederick L. Allen, of New York City, and Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C. (Messrs. Ralph L. Read, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Guy T. Struble, of Sioux City, Iowa, of counsel), for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 556) No. 619. The NORMA MINING COMPAJan. 12, NY, petitioner, v. Hugh MACKAY. 1920. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 914, 991. Messrs. George Lull and Maurice T. Dooling, Jr., both of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Messrs. Frederick A. Williams, of Boston, Mass., and Robinson & Robinson, of Denver, Colo., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. (40 Sup.Ct.) (251 U. S. 556) No. 623. Wade C. KILMER, trustee, etc., petitioner, v. The FIRST SAVINGS & BANKING COMPANY. Jan. 12, 1920. For opinion below, see 263 Fed. 497. Messrs. Conrad H. Syme and F. H. Stephens, both of Washington, D. C., and Stuart W. Walker, of Martinsburg, W. Va., for petitioner. Messrs. Clarence E. Martin, and C. M. Scibert, both of Martinsburg, W. Va., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 557) No. 629. VIRGINIA-WESTERN POWER COMPANY, petitioner, v. The COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA at the relation of the CITY OF CLIFTON FORGE; Nos. 645 and 646. KANE GLASS COMPANY, petitioner, v. WINDOW GLASS MACHINE COMPANY et al. Jan. 12, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 362. Messrs. Marshall A. Christy, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Charles Neave, of Boston, Mass., and Albert W. Bright, No. 630. VIRGINIA-WESTERN POWER of Washington, D. C., for petitioners. Messrs. COMPANY, petitioner, v. The COMMON- George H. Parmelee, and Clarence P. Byrnes, WEALTH OF VIRGINIA at the relation of both of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Livingston Gifford, the CITY OF BUENA VISTA; No. 631. VIRGINIA-WESTERN POWER for writs of certiorari to the United States Cirof New York City, for respondents. Petition COMPANY, petitioner, v. The COMMON-cuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit deWEALTH OF VIRGINIA at the relation of nied. the TOWN OF COVINGTON; and No. 632. VIRGINIA-WESTERN POWER COMPANY, petitioner, v. The COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA at the relation of the TOWN OF LEXINGTON. Jan. 12, 1920. For opinion below, see 99 S. E. 723. Messrs. F. W. King, of Clifton Forge, Va., and J. M. Perry, of Staunton, Va., for petitioner. Messrs. O. C. Jackson, and Frank Moore, both of Lexington, Va. (Mr. Wm. A. Anderson, of Lexington, Va., of counsel), for respondent. Petition for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia denied. the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 557) No. 637. EDWARD HINES LUMBER COMPANY, petitioner, v. AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY COMPANY. Jan. 12, 1920. For opinion below, see 262 Fed. 757. Messrs. Jacob Newman, Conrad H. Poppenhusen, Henry L. Stern, Edward R. Johnston and Charles T. Farson, all of Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Messrs. Charles J. Hardy, of New York City. Kemper K. Knapp, Robert W. Campbell, and William D. McKenzie, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 558) Nos. 641 and 642. CONSOLIDATED WINDOW GLASS COMPANY, petitioner, v. WINDOW GLASS MACHINE COMPANY et al.; Nos. 643 and 644. PENNSYLVANIA WINDOW GLASS COMPANY, petitioner, v. WINDOW GLASS MACHINE COMPANY et al.; and (251 U. S. 558) No. 639. Emil HERMAN, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Jan. 12, 1920. For opinion below, see 257 Fed. 601. Messrs. Austin Lewis, of San Francisco, Cal., and C. E. S. Wood, of Portland, Or., for petitioner. Mr. Robert P. Stewart, Assist. Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Ridgely, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for (251 U. S. 557) No. 635. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, v. James B. CONNORS. Jan. 12. No. 220. The UNITED STATES, appellant. 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 303. Messrs. C. D. Hine and Paul J. Jones, both of See, also, Archer v. Archer, 53 Ct. Cl. 405. v. George F. ARCHER et al. Jan. 13, 1920. Youngstown, Ohio, for petitioner. Mr. W. J.The Attorney General, for the United States. Kenealy, of Youngstown, Ohio, for respondent. T. M. Miller, of New Orleans, La., for respondPetition for a writ of certiorari to the United ent. Death of George F. Archer suggested, and appearance of Kate C. Archer, as administratrix of the estate of George F. Archer, deceased, as a party, filed and entered, on motion of Mr. T. M. Miller for Archer. States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth (251 U. S. 558) No. 648. ARCTIC IRON COMPANY, petitioner, v. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON COMPANY et al. Jan. 12, 1920. For opinion below, see 261 Fed. 15. Mr. Otto C. Sommerich, of New York City (Messrs. Alexis C. Angell, of Detroit, Mich., Edwin M. Borchard, of New Haven, Conn., and Otto C. Sommerich, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. A. C. Dustin, Horace Andrews and W. P. Belden, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondents. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied. No. —, original. The STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, complainant, v. A. Mitchell PALMER, Attorney General of the United States et al. Jan. 19, 1920. Motion for leave to file bill of complaint herein granted. (251 U. S. 543) No., original. Ex parte in the matter of James F. BISHOP, administrator, etc., petitioner. Jan. 19, 1920. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus herein denied. (251 U. S. 542) No. 136. E. GOUGE et al., appellants, v. John M. HART, collector of internal revenue et al. Jan. 19, 1920. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia. For opinion below, see 250 Fed. 802. Mr. C. J. St. John, of Bristol, Tenn., | for a writ of certiorari to the United States Cirfor appellants. cuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Courtney v. Pradt, 196 U. S. 89, 91, 25 Sup. Ct. 208. 49 L Ed. 398; Farrugia v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 233 U. S. 352, 353, 34 Sup. Ct. 591, 58 L. Ed. 996; Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co v. Western Union Tel. Co., 234 U. S. 369, 371372, 34 Sup. Ct. 810, 58 L. Ed. 1356; Male v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co., 240 U. S. 97, 99, 36 Sup. Ct. 351,.60 L. Ed. 544. (251 U. S. 559) No. 664. JEONG QUEY HOW, petitioner, v. Edward WHITE, as Commissioner of Immigra tion at the port of San Francisco. Jan. 19, 1920. For opinion below, see 258 Fed. 618, 170 C. C. A. 72. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. (251 U. S. 543) No. Harmon P. McKNIGHT v. The UNITED STATES. Jan. 20, 1920. Application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the purposes of a petition for certiorari to and an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. PER CURIAM. The prayer to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of an application for certiorari to review the judg ment below, as well as for the purpose of an appeal asked to review a refusal to release on habeas corpus, made to the Chief Justice and by him submitted to the court for its action is hereby denied. (251 U. S. 566) No. 174. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Mrs. Lessie HORTON, administratrix, etc. Jan. 21, 1920. On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. For opinion below, see 175 N. C. 472, 95 S. E. 883. See, also, 248 U. S. 553, 39 Sup. Ct. 8, 63 L. Ed. 418; 39 Sup. Ct. 21, 64 L. Ed. -. Mr. Thaddeus A. Adams, of Charlotte, N. C., for petitioner. Mr. Robert W. Winston, of Raleigh, N. C., for respondent. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the petitioner. (251 U. S. 382) (40 Sup.Ct.) REX v. UNITED STATES et al. so that in all claims for property of citizens or inhabitants of the United States taken or destroyed by Indians belonging to any tribe (Argued Jan. 13, 1920. Decided Jan. 26, 1920.) in amity with and subject to the jurisdiction No. 126. COURTS 456 STATUTE REINSTATES ONLY THOSE CLAIMS FOR INDIAN DEPREDATIONS DISMISSED FOR ALIENAGE OF CLAIMANT. The amendment of Act March 3, 1891, § 1, giving jurisdiction to Court of Claims over claims for property of "citizens" taken by Indians of a "band, tribe or nation" in amity with the United States, by Act Jan. 11, 1915, so that, in claims for property of "citizens or inhabitants" taken by Indians belonging to any "tribe" in amity with the United States, the alienage of the claimant shall not be a defense, and reinstating claims that had been dismissed for want of proof of citizenship, or for alienage, of claimant, does not, as is necessary to prevent the claim being barred by limitations, reinstate a claim dismissed because the Blackhawk "band" of Utes, taking the property, was not in amity with the United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims. Suit by Mary E. Rex, administratrix of James A. Ivie, deceased, against the United States and the Ute Indians. Petition dis missed (53 Ct. Cl. 320), and claimant appeals. Affirmed. *383 *Mr. Harry Peyton, of Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Davis, for appellees. of the United States, &c., the alienage of the claimant shall not be a defence to said claims, with provisos to be mentioned. The present petition, filed September 21, 1917, alleges that the tribe of Utes was in amity with the United States. *384 The claimant contends that the amendment had two purposes-not merely to give inhabitants the same rights as citizens, but also to admit claims for damage done by hostile bands from a tribe that maintained its amity, subject to a proviso that suit had been brought upon them *theretofore in the Court of Claims. It is said that claims of that nature that still were pending in the Court have been awarded judgment under the new jurisdiction. Another proviso in the Act is that claims that have been dismissed by the Court for want of proof of citizenship or alienage shall be reinstated, and the petition prays that the former claim be consolidated with this suit, and that judgment be awarded upon the evidence filed in the former case. It is pointed out as an anomaly that the case of a neighbor of the intestate who suffered damage from the same band on the same day was reinstated and passed to judgment, his claim having been dismissed at an earlier date because he was not a citizen at the time. But we are of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Claims was plainly right. The Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opin- emphasis and primary intent, at least, of the ion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the appellant's petition upon demurrer. The claim is for depredations committed on June 10, 1866, by a band of the Ute tribe of Indians, known as Blackhawk's band. The Act of March 3, 1891, c. 538, § 1, 26 Stat. 851, gave jurisdiction to the Court of Claims over all claims for property of citizens taken or destroyed by Indians belonging to any band, tribe, or nation in amity with the United States. See Rev. Stat. § 2156 (Comp. St. § 4159). Act of June 30, 1834, c. 161, § 17, 4 Stat. 729, 731. The appellant's intestate filed his claim but on June 13, 1898, the Court of Claims held that the Blackhawk band of Utes was not in amity with the United States and dismissed the petition. The present petition relies upon the Act of January 11, 1915, c. 7, 38 Stat. 791, amending the first section of the Act of 1891 Act of 1915 was to remove the defence of alienage. When it goes on by an express proviso to reinstate claims dismissed upon that ground and says nothing as to the other class it is impossible to extend the words. According to the claimant's necessary argument Congress had claims for damage by hostile bands before its eyes. On the face of the act it had before them also the matter of reinstatement. Yet it did not purport to reinstate claims of the present class. According to the claimant's account there was something for the act to operate on in the way of damage by hostile bands and the words cannot be carried further than they go. The Court of Claims rightly held that the old claim was not reinstated and that considered as a new claim the present suit was barred by the three years' limitation in the original act. Judgment affirmed. For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes |
