FEDERAL· 'R1!:PORTER,
vol. 48.
·, nt)verceded by-the fact." ,L;·'L.. fal< the UnitiedStates. 'Olia'rte8.E. StfJArt, for defendant; , .' " ", ,-. '.", '-, -,,', \- I,e " !., I ',' · i-, '_,,"',
The
at a thereof was based . . I
,
"E!1qGHES,J'.d Jl1heieightb; ,seQtion of the first artl9le of.the cODstitutI9fl inthesevepteenth clause, giv.es the right of excluaive 'to to exellcise authority aver all places purchnsed by the consent of the Jegislature, of the,stitteiinvhichthesame shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and oth'iW needful 'buildings. ' :-The purchase oilands. for the United States. for 'public pUl'poses,'does not of itselLoust the jurisdiction of such state 'Ovetzthe S. v.Oof.tltU, 2 MallOOj60.The constitg. ti6h prescribes'the onlyn:iod:eby whiehrthey can:la:cquire land as a sov. ereign power; and therefbre'they hold only as an individual when they ob· tain itin any!6thermanner. :a,m.v.'¥ottng. BrightlY,N. '\1'; Godfrqy, 17 Johns. U; S. v.Travers, 2 Wheeler,Crim.. Cas. 490; Poople v; Lent, Id. 548LO If Ithete benO'cessionby a state,the statejllrisdietion !'ItiU reniairtsl}C'otn. v.,YtlUng, ,1 Hall, Law,J.47j 1 Kent Comm. 403. 404; and Story, Const. §'U27 · where Judge Story States. fOL'a Jort,arsellal. JRt other tion still perfect."
"'.,:
corlst'antlyoccupied and1l8ed,under purchase O.L' otherwise, by the .lTnIted
"If there has
cessi'Onby the stllteof the place, although it haa been
purpofle, the state jurisdic'.' ,''. "
It seems too plain for, doubt, much as we may regret the fact in, this particular case, that this!court has Do.jurisdictioD in the premjaesj alld the demurrer accordingly must be overruled, and
, t.
,OtrcuCt Oourt, D. Montana. November 28,189L) .'
itOt.UfS-FEDERAL JmUSDICTION-RAPlII IN "INDIAN COUNTRY."
Rev. St. U. s. I li84ll, prov:idea for the punishment Of rape oommittEid ,Ill any of theplaoes mentioned in section 51:89, and the latter section speoifies, among ,qtners, "anyfort * * *ordlBtr.iot of country under' the exoluaive jurisdiction, of the United States." .Section 2145 deolares that, "except aa to crimes the puniabment ofwhioh ia expressly pro'V:i.ded ifor in thiatitle, the general laws ofthel1nited States as to the punishment of orimes oommitted within the aole and exolu.iye jurisdiotionoftheUnitedStates * * * shall extend to the Indian country." Beld. that, as the punishment of rape is not specified in the title mentioned, a rape oom. mitted in "the Indian COtintry" is section 0845. . ,
8.
SUlB-WHAT IS "INDI.UI COUNTRY "-RBSEliIY4TIONS.
Prior to the admission of Montana as a "tate, the Crow Indian reservation aituated therein was tllirt(jf, tbe "Indian countrlY," within.. the meaning of Rev. St. § 2145, extending the general oriminallawa of the United States over the IJildian ooun-
try.
UNITED S.TATES 8; SAME-EFFECT OF A'J)IlITTJNG TERRITORY.
v.
PARTELLO. ,
671
,Act. Congo for the admission of Montana and other territories into the Union, prOVides, in section 4, that "the people inhabiting said proposed states do agree and declare that they forever disclalril "aUright to the lands therein held by Indian tri};les, and that uIJ,til the IndiaI!- title is extinguished the same shall remain SUbject to the disposition and "under the' absolute' jurisdiction and control" of'Oongre&ll, and ,this p'rovision incorporatecUnto the constitution' of Montana. Hf'ld that, in view of the, fact that the United States, by the treaty of 1868 with the Crow Indians, agreed tltat no perilons except Certain employes of tbe government should ever be permitted to "pass over,settle up<>n,-or reside in" the thereby set. apart tQ tllem in Montana, the jurisdiction reserved to the tTnited States was intended to apply to persons,as well as to'the lands the.m.selves; 8.nd bence, under Rev'.' St.' U; S. § 2145, which extends the ,general criminal law, .of the ,United 'States' to "the Indian conntry," the federal courts have jurisdiction .to. .. r!lope on, the by a white. against a white woman. .. ' . . . ,
4. S,l.ME-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
,,., The people of MontaD.'abl'll full pQwer, under' the constituti,on, to thus relinquish tQ the UlJ,ited States jurisdiction over the reservations. PURPOSE. . . , '" '
.. " In 'ttew I1f the fact thJt the United States has· always assum4ild control over the Indian&. A tlle ,WArds of. to the exclusion of,the s1il'tes, .the ment b1; ,tbe, state ofjurisdi,ction over the tndiaDs' reservation was for 8 eral PU.rpoSll; .. '.' ,
,At Law." .6£ Fred, Partello fot rape. plea to the ipdictment. 'petpurrer s)1stained. Elbert: D.: Hieed, U. S. Atty. , Rufus p.'Garland. for defendant.
On' demurrer to a
in an indictment found by a grand jury I impaneled in this court, with
KNOWL:E1:l,
J.
In this caSe the defendant,
is charged
seas;' or.it} ILny arm of the Sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay;
the crime'Of rape, committed upon a white woman Within the limits of the Crow Indian reservation, state of Montana. Defendant interposed a plea to the indictment, and specified asa ground therefor that this court had nO jurisdic,'tion of the offense charged, by reason of the fact that the.defendant is a white man, and the person on whom the of.. fense was committed isa white woman. The United States interposed a demurrer to· this plea. Defendan.t urges. that 8S it is admitted defendant is a white man,and.the woman upon whom the offensewaa or it is was, committed, is a white woman, the of.. Hat all, in the state courts of Montana. A por. tion ofseetion 6339 of t,he Revised Statutes of the Uniteli States provides:, ," "Every person who commits murder-First, witbinanyfort, arsenal; dQ9k.. yard. other place or district of cQuntry under the exclu,of the United StateS: ... ... "'. second, or upon the 1Iigh ,> · · , ,
within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States"ll,nd out of'tbejurisdiction of any particular state; third. or'whOopon SUch waters .maH.ciouslystrikes. stabs. wounds, pois()ns. or at any person, of or such other pel';dlf's·. on land .or sea. wlthln or, tlie UJl1ted States, suffer " . ..,. ' . . :' .:' :! i' ;: '. · t , " -'.
f,
;. ,section,5i34l) of said Statutes provides:,
FEDERAL REl'ORTER,
witl1in any 9f the places,or nponany.oftbe fifty-three hnndred and tIiirty-niIie,,'(lOmmltBitbe crime of rape: sbaUsuffer death." , Thel;le .of the construed together, make' the' 'crime Of rape comm,itted in aplooe within theexclusivajurisdiction of laws. " "., ' of said Revised Statutes provides: .' ' fCEx<ltipt a$ to criml'!!l.thepunisOmimt of whicllis expressly provided in this laws of the United States as to the punishment of crimes any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Uniteal::ltates. except the District 'of Columbia, sha1l''extend to the Indian country." TheLcrifue not pl'ovided for in that title, and His a crime for which the general laws of the 'Uniten States provide a' punishment, as I ·haV'eshoW'D1 when committed in a place and ,hence must bean. offense against such laws when committed in the Indian country. The next point, then, for determination is, what is Indian country? In the case of Bates v. S. surrell16 ,: , , . "The simple criterion is that, as tpalll!\l1ds thusdescribM, it was Indian conntry whenever the Indian title had been extinguished', and' it continued to be Indian country so long as. tile Indians bad, title to it, and no longer. As soon as tlley parted with the.title, it ceased to be Jndian country, without any further act of cDllgress, unless by the treaty by which the Indill,ns, their title, or by s()ql.e ot congress, a difl:erent rUleyas made In " . ' ',', . " :,'" ' . '":''' '. .', as, tpw,hat. Gonsbtuted, country was 1Il thE! case of)1M parte Or:ow Dog,109 U. ,8. 55p, 3 Sup. Ct. and of the ·d!lfinitioDthe supreme court said: , " ' :' " that d,efinition nqw,i\pplies to all thecqul'!trX,to which the not blleo ,withi!1 the limits Qf,theUnited States! even when not within a reservationexptessly set apart fot the excl usive oc. muchiofit:llas been si'nce the passage formal detlmtloll1n tllat act llas ot'the'1\ct'oflS34, beendtoppedt'rom tile stututes, excludhig, however, anyterritpryembraced withinttlei1lxoterior geographical limits of a ,state. not excepted Jrom its juris,; dictjon by at, t.be .tiflllilof, its admissiQp. the Union, in xel:\pec,t to tE1rri tory no(tp \IS e){,cep,tEld,aJJaactually in the bllt sllo.vin.J exclusive occupancy of lridians, the authotityof congrells6verit under the constitutional power to regulate commerce witll the Indian tribes. and under anytreatyrrnade in purauance of it;" , of U.S: ';.'Le Bria, 121 U. S. 278, 7Sup.Ct. Rep. the supreme .cc:mrt held that "the of the Lake and Pembinalndians in Polk county, Minn., is Indian country." In the case of U. 'S.(..,. Martin, 14 Fed. Rep. 817, Judge DEADY held that "Indian <'Indian country." Many other decisions from StateS cir'cuitcourt might be cited to the same , Considering the Crowlildian reservation, which will hereafter scribed, and the above definitions of "Indian country," and there can be no doubt but it belongs to that,cl}aracter of country denominated f
UNITED STATES lJ. PARTELLO; ,
673
(( Indian," unless the admission of Montana ft' state in the Union changed its character in this respect. The point is presented, then, did this admission of Montana as a state in the Union cause the Crow Indian reservation to cease, being that character of a region classed uS In- , dian commy? The ablecounselfof' defendant maintains that it did, and that it came under the jurisdiction of the state, at least to the extent of allow'ing iti to punish offenses committed by one white mati against another white man. In other wotds, the 'United Statel'\ had over this Indian reservation before Montana waS' admitted into the Union was aprogated and repealed by the apt of admissipn, and the state of Montana acquired full authority over the same, and the right to legisbttefortbe inhabitants thereof; except as to those cases pointed out for national legislation in of the United States, or which a,re, implied from the constitutional right of congress to regulate cOllunerce among the Indiantribesjhence no longer could congress exercisethe combined power of a stateahd national government reservatitin, but only the powers which pertained to it national goverament>', The point here presented is, 'it appears to me, aneof consider;. able difficulty and importance, and; to some extent the court is left without' adequate judicial determinations for the decision of the same. Let us consider whether 01' notthere could be any limit upon the au': thority ofthe state government over this reservation by allY proceeding on its part coupled with resetvatiodeiil:the act admitting Montana into the .' Unioll as 'a state. " Iil tbe,case of U; S. v. 'McBratney,104 U.S; 621, We supreme court" while holding that the act admitting Colorado into the,t!nion so modi,., ned the term "Indian country" that the United States had no jurisdiction. of the crime of mUi'der committed by one white man upon another on the Ute reservation, used this language as to the admission act of Col()o rado: the actcontainsn6 exception oHhe Utereservlltion, or of jurisdiction overitj" clearly intimatiug that it might;have made a differencewith the rule established in if it bad. . In the case of, Ez parte Cr.O'W Dog,8'Up'I'a, it will be, observed that thiS language was used in defining Indian country: "Excluding, however, any territory em.., braced within the rocterior geographical limits of a state not excepted :mom its jurisdiction by treaty,. or: by statute, at· the time of its admission into the Union." Here it is intimated that, if bya statute, at the time of admission of a state in the Union, any portion· of the same was excluded thereby .from the jurisdiction of the state, such portionofsllid state would remain Indian ,country. It would seem, also, from that decision, that, although a portion of a state was not excepted from the jurisdiction thereof by treaty or statute, yet, if occupied. by Indians, congress might have jurisdiction over the same under the constitutional power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and under any treaty made in pursuance of it. Under the last power, it would have to appear that the oflense charged in some way interfered with commerce with the Indian tribes. But the right to legislate for Indian country wlls.not Bolimited. In the .case of U. S. v. Ward, 1 v .48F .no.8-43
vol. 48., States over any portion·of the state which had befo.re that time classed as Indian country within it8borders,which was not excepted from the limits of the state. by treaty with the Indiaas and some .provision in the admission act, says: : ".And the converse of this proposition is infetable;that is, that congress to and did concede to the new state, and it acquired and holds irrevojlably,ellicept as it see,s fit to, the same, ·fuU right and authority to enforce her laws !lnd, to, exercise plenar>, jurisdiction over all Bucb oIlier territory as werenJot covered by sucb treaties." :ael'eit is intimated that,':ifKansas had seen fi1to its jurisany portion of ;qer territory to the United it would not lla/\w plenary over .' these decisions together, and there ,is an intimationthat in the IOOhinrJJ.dmiWng,a Union, there might be a or a treaty bywbicba.portion of such state might remain under the Pnited or the state cede· its jurisdiction, oVer to the United States. Judge DILLON, .in the case of U. $'rV.Yellow Sun" 1 Dill. 272.1 said of theopiniou of .Justice MeLEAN,in, U..S. ,234, upon which the counsel for defenliantplaces much reliance:: i ' "Jnv,iew of the .ot Indian tl'ibes, I think I ought to obsel,e that I am not at present prepared to yield assent to the opinion whicb Mr., JusticeM<;JLEAN Seems to have, entertained in lJaiZey Case, that congress had no power to pass the act of 1817 (3 St. 383;) that is, that congress could not, if it fit,· make punishable in national colirts offenses comm itted by or against Indians upon restlrvations in state limits.' And it might be wortb tbe consideration of congress whether some such!egislation might not be expedient." Here is an intimation that,.dri:the opinion of that distinguished jurist and writel', enact a statute punishing a white man for an offense· committed. upon all upon a· reservation within the limits ofa state, and this right is not placed upon the power to regulate com;' meree·among Iudian tribes. This would· be the assertion of jurisdiction over a white man upon an Indian reservation; by the ,United States in matterS other than those within tile pecqliar and specific jurisdiction of the general·government ' Let Uluee what congress and Montana have done toward conferring the jurisdiction of: the United States oVer the Crow Indian reservation. In an actentitledi " An act to provide for the division of Dakota into two states,'and to enable the peopIeof·North Dakota, South Dakota, Mon· tana, andiWashirtgton to ,form c,onstitutions and state govermuents, and to be admitted into, the Union: ,on an equal footing with the original litates," ebil ,I flpprovad February'22,1889,inreferen<;e to the convention in each territory named, organized to form a constitution for the proper state, we:filldthe following, in'8ection 4: "That the people inhabiting said proposed state do agree and declare tbat they forever .disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands ly-
sas into the.Uuion repealed the jurisdiction of the
Woo1w.l'i\ J'ustice, MILI$R:, ,while holding that the (lct
UNiTED STATEs ". PAltTELIh.
675
lng wlthln the boundaries tbereof,alid to all lands 'Iyiing within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and thatunt.il the title thereto United States the same shall be and reshall have been extinguished by main subject to the disposition of the United States, and said lands shall remain under the abso)ute jurisdiction and control congress of the United States. * * *' But nothing herein, or in tPll ordinances herein provided for, shall preclUde the said states from taxing. as other lands are taxed. any lands ,owned or held by any Indian who has seVered his tribal relations/' In c6fupllance with this proviSion of the statute tinder which Mon,tans w8sadmitted into the Union, the convention that framed the con'stitntion adopted by the people of Montana, provided by follows: _ ', i "That tbe people inhabiting the said proposed state of Montana do agree that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated pUblic lands lying withiuthe boundariE's thereof, 'Snd to aU lands lying Within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that lintil the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States they sl)all be andrE'UJain' subject to the disposition of the United Sti'Ltes; and llaid Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the l United States; * * . . that the ordinances of this article shall be irrevoca-: ble, without the consent of the United States and the people of the state of Montana;." , It is evident that the lands referred to'inthis ordinance, and the in the statute mentiOlied, over which the congress of the United States was to retain absolute j\1Tisdiction, were the Indian lands to which the In·1 dians held but the right of occupancy. The question-here presented is, I what did congress intend by the c}auRe, "and said Indian lands shall reniain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Ullited States;" and what did the convention that framed the Montana constitution intend by it? This provision doas not occur, as far as I have been able to iqvestip;ate, in the acts providing for the admission of any other states into the Union than in the one above referred to. And I am not apprised that any ordinances similar to the one named above were ever adopted by any other states than those enabled to form constitutions under the same act which gave that privilege to the people of Montana., In the first part of the portion of section 4 of said act quoted above it appears that, as an individual proprietor, the United States was fully protected in regard to its rights to Indian lands, and the Indians were protected in their rights ofoccupancy. It does not seem that the clause under donsideration could add anything to the rights of the United States, in regard to these lands as a proprietor. In Montana there were no Indian lands save those included in Indian reservations, except some lands held by certain of the FlatHead Indillns in the Bitter Root valley. These lands Were held in severalty, and they had a title from the United States to the same different from that of the rig'ht of occupancy. Evidently they were no part of the Indian lands referred to. As I have said, these were lands to which the Indians held only the title ofoccupancy. and Which, the United States reserved the right to dispose of, not lands granted to Indians in severalty. It is reasonable to suppose that congress pasSed
as
I
FEDERAl, REPORTER,
act. people of¥ontana l1dopted the above ordinances, :with reference to the fact that Indian lands proper were those included in the Indian reservations. It was agreed by the ordinance above referred to that congress was tore-tain the absolute jurisdiction and control ovei' these Indian lands within the. Indian reservations in Montana. The word "jurisdiction," as used in the above clause, when applied to C9ngress, means the powerofgovernin,g such lands; tolegislate for them; .the power or right of exercising authority over them. These are the of this word which will be found in WcbstE!r's Dictionary. When speak of the; right to govern certain lands, we not only mean to do some thing with the land itself,but to legislate for and control the people upon said lands, as well as to legislate concerning the h!.nd itl1elf. When we say congress has the right to legislate Jar a place exclusive jurisdiction, we mean for the people who are there, 8$ ,weH as concerning the land itself. In the case of U. S.. Ward, supra, Mr. Justice MILLEn, after speaking of the treaty with the Shawnee Indians which excluded their reservation fronl the state of Kansas, and after declaring to some extent the effect of the act admitting .Kansas into . the "UniQD, said, furtber:' to express the matter,more exnctly, all territory which was not covered by such treaties was included within the state. its jurisdiction, and within its territory, and this irrevocably and exclusively." In a treaty with the.Crow Indians m.ade by the United States in 1868, afterde!!cribing the .tract of land, Bet apart as a reservation for these Indians, ,there.is this clause, in reference to this tract: -"Shllll the is set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use an<l of the lndians named. and for such otber friendly tribesoripdlvidual Indians as from time to time theymay with the consent 'of th,e United amongst them; and the United States 'now 'solemnly agrees t!J.at n!,ivers'on except those herein designated and authorized 'So to do, and except 'Stich officers. agents, and employes of the govemment as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations fndisenjoined by.law, shaUever be permitted to pussov.er, settle in this article .for the., use of said upon, pr ,r!¥l,ide in t.he Indial)s, and henceforth the.}', will do hereby relinquish any portion of the territorjaf the United States excevt Buchas is embraced within the limits aforesaid." . ' . .' "
'N9W , iHt,should beheld that,in the language ofMr,Justice MILI,ER in U. S. v·. Ward, Bttpra, the Ret ,of congress admitting Montana into awarded, it Hall territory, which was not oovered by such the that with the Shawnees, which the Crow treaty is not,] was treaties, included. withinthe state, within its jurisdiction, and w.i:thin ,its territory, and this irrevocably, unqualifiedly, and exclusively ," what became of this treaty. with. the. Crows, so entered into? In its main features it ,was broken by that act, with that construction forced upon us. Did congressOi,ntend to do this? Is it not more reas<;mable to infer that congress iptended by the clause ref!il.rred to to reserve the power to observe that treatyafld 9ther8 of a It does appear tome that not ;lapguage. of said claul!e, but the circumstanGes which
UNITED STATES V. PARTELLO.
fj77
fronted congress, must have been such as to leave no room to doubt that it was the intention thttt such Indian reservations as the Crow should be left under the jurisdiction and control of the national government, as long as the lands therein remained Indian lands. It was urged upon the court, upon the argument of this case, that the people of Montana would· have no right to agree as they did in the ordinancebefore mentioned, and permit a portion of its territory to remain under the jurisdiction of the national In the case of Railroad CU. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 995, the supreme court, while holding that a state could not cede any of its lands to a foreign country because of the rights of the national government, said: ' "In their relation to the general government. the states of the Union stand in a very different position f!'Om that which they hold to foreign governments. 'Thollgh the jurisdiction and authority of the general government are essentially diJ;Ierent from those of the state. they are not those ofa different country and the two-the state lind general govern men t-may deal with each other in any way they may deem best to carry out the purposes of the consti, tution." . J
. And it was held in that case that a state could cede to the United States for federal purposes a tract of land within its limits in a manner not provided for specifically in the constitution of the United States. It would by the peoseem that there is no legal objection to the agreement ple of the state of Montana in convention assembled to the effect that congress should retain jurisdiction and control over the Indian reservations within its borders. Was this relinquishment of jurisdiction and control It federal purpose? The United States, from the earliest organization of the national government, has assumed contr:ol over the, several hdian tribes in the United States, and has denied' stlch control to the state governments. In the case of U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. $. 375, 6 Sup. Ot. Rep. 1109, the supreme court held thaHhe'Indlan tribes were subject to the control of the United States, and could be made subject to its laws; that the states have no power to subject ItilHans 'to their laws as 1011g' as the Indians maintain their tribal relations; that the Indians owe no, to the states wJthin which their reservations may be established, and the state gives them nO It was also pointed out that the United States had undertaken to control Indians longer by treaties, but by laws; and that this right did not come wholly from the power of congress to regulate,co$merce among the Indian tribes, but from the fact congress had always assumed the control over them, as the wards of the nation, and as dependents upon the national government, and had always refUEled to accede such powers to the states. It appears to me, with such a view of the law, the United States would have the right to. retain and reserve lands within a state upon which to place these wards,-these dependents,-with a view to their government,.and that the states would have the right to agree to such a reservation. It would be an anomaly in government if it should be conceded that tIJe United States has fullrightto
no
'678
FEDERA,L: REPORTER,
vol. 48,
[nrlians, and yet 1:I3s,no right to any lands upon which to 'placethen;l with that object., Considering what the relation ;of ,the Indians to the· state go.vernrnents in [J'. S· .v. Kagamq, sUpra, with such a view, we would hehold government The PQsition which such a contention United States is not in .this would maintain. AS,.anincident to the. right to govern such people hy its own laws would be the right to hold la.nds upon whi<::h t910cate and maintain them. It was also urged that,while the United States could have jurisdiction over such lllnde as fllr ,as the Indians areooncernE:d, it would havana right over white mel} found witbil) an Indian. reservation, such as the Crow reservation. The statute and thpordinancewe have been considering say the jurisdiction and control is absolute, nota divided jurisdictiop.or control; al[ld it would seem to me thnt this proper. Any other view might bripg on collisions between the authorities of the two .governments. The white men it was contemplated who would be upon this 1'eservation would be employes or officers of the national government; and with the view of protectin'g the Indians, the United States should have control over the'white mell t1pOn an Indian reservation as well as of the Indians. The Crow Indian reservation, notwithstanding the act admitting Montana into the Union, Temains, then, bdian country, absolutely within the jurisdiction of the United States. The general criminallnws of the States were then in force upon it. With this view, the defendant" it must"be held, was properly charged. The demurrer to the plea to the indictment is sustained.
FALX".
BRETT LITHOGRAPHING
Co.
BAlfE. fl.
BRoWNet ale December 81,1891.)
(C{rcuit Court, So D. New
In Equity. Separate suits by Benjamin J.F:alk against the Brett Lithographing Company in the one case, and Davis S.Brown and Delaplaine Brown in the other, for infringement of a. copyrighted photograph. Decrees for complainant. ]fJa(U; N., ,Falk, for plaintiff. J.T·. Hurd and A. W.T&nneJJ, for defendants.
