Deragon v. Sero

• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Parties: DERAGON v. SERO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

137 Wis. 276

118 N.W. 839

DERAGON

v.SERO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 15, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ashland County; John K. Parish, Judge.

Action by Daniel Deragon against Norbert Sero. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Civil action for assault and battery.

Both plaintiff and defendant were partly of Indian blood. The occurrence was at Odanah railway station on the Indian reservation in Northern Wisconsin. The defendant justified upon the ground that he was an Indian policeman lawfully acting in the performance of his duties.

There was evidence showing, or tending to show, the following situation: Defendant was a subordinate United States officer on the Indian reservation having authority to enforce observance of the regulations of the Interior Department for the preservation of peace and good order and the observance of law thereon. Plaintiff knew, or ought to have known, of that fact. The latter went upon the depot platform to meet his wife and child, whom he expected, presently, to arrive by train. Defendant ordered him back from the front of the platform and persisted in enforcing his command in that regard after being informed of plaintiff's purpose. The latter persisted in carrying out such purpose after the train arrived and his wife was about to alight therefrom notwithstanding defendant indicated a determination to prevent it by force. The result was that defendant pushed plaintiff back, roughly, and knocked him down with a policeman's club and then incarcerated him in a badly kept jail for two nights and a day and then set him at liberty.

There was evidence on defendant's side tending to show he acted in good faith to enforce, as he supposed, lawful rules made by the Indian agent, his superior officer; that he assaulted plaintiff to prevent being assaulted by him; that he took him into custody because he was, and persisted in being, disorderly; that he kept him the two nights and one day because of the time, the intervening day being Sunday, and that he set him at liberty, without further pursuing the matter, as a favor. There was evidence on the other side tending to show, the assault was needless and perpetrated, revengefully, to prevent plaintiff from going to meet his wife and child. There was evidence that the Indian agent had given orders to keep persons away from trains on their arrival who were not desirous of boarding the cars, but there was no rule of the Interior Department on the question, nor any rule of such department which plaintiff violated up to the time the assault occurred. The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor. The amount allowed thereby was reduced to comply with terms of denying a motion for a new trial, and judgment was rendered accordingly.William G. Wheeler and Henry H. Morgan, for appellant.

Victor T. Pierrelee, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Counsel for appellant cover a broad range in their printed argument, bringing to our attention many federal statutes and decisions and some authorized rules promulgated by the Interior Department. Such brief recognition of counsel's industry in that regard will, in the main, suffice, since it is conceded, and properly too, that notwithstanding the occurrence took place on the Indian reservation, the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and the parties, if appellant's act was not performed in the proper execution of a federal statute or rule authorized by law.

The laws of this state for the peace and good order of people within its boundaries extend over Indian reservations and apply to...