Bovee v. McLean

24 Wis. 225
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 Wis. 225 (Bovee v. McLean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bovee v. McLean, 24 Wis. 225 (Wis. 1869).

Opinion

Colts, J.

This cause has been submitted on the part of the defendant without any argument or briefs. We are therefore in the dark as to what rulings he relies on to reverse the judgment. A number of questions were [228]*228asked the witness Chicks, who was sworn for the defendant on the trial, as to whether he was one of the commissioners elected under the act of congress (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, ch. 101, p. 645) to make partition of the lands therein named among the individual members of the tribe; and whether he acted as such commissioner. These questions were objected to, and ruled out. The act of congress provides how the commissioners should be elected, and how the evidence of their election should be preserved. (§ 3.) The certificate made by the officer 'was made a matter of record, and a certified copy thereof was the proper evidence.

The same remark applies to the communication of the commissioner of the general land office, dated September 4, 1867, and addressed to the register and receiver at Menasha, Wisconsin. The object of introducing this communication, doubtless, was to show that the entry and receiver’s certificate of lot No. 124, issued to Moon September 1, 1865, had been canceled by the land department at Washington. But this communication was not authenticated, as it should have been, to render it, admissible in evidence. Sec. 104, ch. 137, R. S. And we know of no law which makes the letter of the commissioner of the same date, addressed to the defendant, admissible. If there is any, the attorney for the defendant should have furnished a reference to it.

As we have not been able to discover any error in the rulings of the court below, excluding testimony, the judgment must be affirmed.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carpenter v. Ohio River Sand & Gravel Corp.
60 S.E.2d 212 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1950)
Bell v. Peterson
81 N.W. 279 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1900)
Cornelius v. Kessel
10 N.W. 520 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1881)
Ansley v. Peterson
30 Wis. 653 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Wis. 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bovee-v-mclean-wis-1869.