United States ex rel. Lynn v. Hamilton

233 F. 685, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1671
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York
DecidedNovember 4, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 233 F. 685 (United States ex rel. Lynn v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Lynn v. Hamilton, 233 F. 685, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1671 (W.D.N.Y. 1915).

Opinion

HAZEL, District Judge.

The petition recites the arrest and imprisonment of Wilford Kennedy and Nelson Hare, tribal Indians of the Seneca Nation living on the Cattaraugus Reservation, for violation of the Conservation Law of the state of New York, in that on April 21, 1915, they were fishing with a net in Cattaraugus creek, within the boundaries of the Cattaraugus Indian reservation, in violation of section 176 of said law. The Indians were arrested by state game protectors, and arraigned before Judge William Brennan at Buffalo, whereupon a writ of habeas corpus was granted at the instance of the United States attorney to test the legality of the arrest and imprisonment. The case was ably argued before me at the Rochester term of court by A. P. Jenks, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, appearing for the state of New York, and by George P. Decker, Esq., appearing as counsel for the United States, and time for filing briefs was allowed. The Deputy Attorney General maintained that the state [691]*691of New York had jurisdiction over tribal Indians for violations of the Conservation Law on their reservations, hut recently I have received from him an admirable opinion, based on an examination _ by him of the authorities bearing upon the disputed question of jurisdiction, in which he reaches the conclusion that the position of the United States government was right, and that the New York state Conservation Law does not apply to tribal Indians living on reservations within the territorial limits of the state. I adopt such opinion, which is filed herewith, and concur in the conclusions therein reached.

An order may be entered allowing the writ and discharging the defendants.

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

Related

State v. Billie
17 Fla. Supp. 2d 68 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1985)
Mahoney v. State Tax Commission
524 P.2d 187 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1974)
Writ of Habeas Corpus of Arquette v. Schneckloth
351 P.2d 921 (Washington Supreme Court, 1960)
In RE ARQUETTE v. Schneckloth
351 P.2d 921 (Washington Supreme Court, 1960)
Application of Denetclaw
320 P.2d 697 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1958)
State v. McClure
268 P.2d 629 (Montana Supreme Court, 1954)
United States v. National Gypsum Co.
49 F. Supp. 206 (W.D. New York, 1942)
Bailey v. United States
47 F.2d 702 (Ninth Circuit, 1931)
United States ex rel. Pierce v. Waldow
294 F. 111 (W.D. New York, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 F. 685, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-lynn-v-hamilton-nywd-1915.