John New v. Territory of Oklahoma

Decision Date28 November 1904
Docket NumberNo. 226,226
Citation195 U.S. 252,25 S.Ct. 68,49 L.Ed. 182
PartiesJOHN T. NEW, Plff. in Err. , v. TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs.Hugh T. Taggart and Culp & Giddings for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Percy C. Simons for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

John T. New was tried on an indictment for murder in the district court of Wichita county, Oklahoma territory, found guilty, and his punishment fixed by the jury at imprisonment for life.

The crimes act of Oklahoma provided that every person convicted of murder should 'suffer death or imprisonment at hard labor in the territorial penitentiary for life, at the discretion of the jury.' Okla. Stat. 1893, chap. 25, § 13, p. 456; Okla. Stat. 1890, chap. 25, art. 17, § 13.

Judgment was entered on the verdict, and New was sentenced accordingly. He carried the case to the supreme court of the territory, and the judgment was affirmed. This writ of error was then allowed, and the objection is made that this court has no jurisdiction to review the judgments of the supreme court of Oklahoma in criminal cases, for want of statutory provision to that effect.

By the 'Act to Provide a Temporary Government for the Territory of Oklahoma,' approved May 2, 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 81, chap. 182), 'the legislative power and authority of said territory' was vested in the governor and legislative assembly, and the power extended 'to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.'

Section 28 provided: 'That the Constitution and all the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall, except so far as modified by this act, have the same force and effect as elsewhere within the United States; and all acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are, as to their effect in said territory of Oklahoma, hereby repealed;' and by a proviso § 1850 of the Revised Statutes, requiring the submission of territorial laws to Congress, was made inapplicable to Oklahoma.

By § 11 certain enumerated 'chapters and provisions of the Compiled Laws of the state of Nebraska, in force November 1, 1889, in so far as they are locally applicable, and not in conflict with the laws of the United States or with this act, are hereby extended to and put in force in the territory of Oklahoma until after the adjournment of the first session of the legislative assembly of said territory, namely: . . . and of part three thereof, entitled 'Criminal Code."

This temporary provision was supplanted some months subsequently by laws passed by the Oklahoma legislative assembly. Okla. Stat. 1890. These statutes were elaborate and comprehensive, and embraced a crimes act, with due provision for procedure.

Section 9 of the organic act reads as follows:

'Sec. 9. That the judicial power of said territory shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and justices of the peace.

'. . . and the said supreme and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common-law jurisdiction and authority for redress of all wrongs committed against the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the territory, affecting persons or property. . . . Writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals shall be allowed in all cases from the final decisions of said district courts to the supreme court, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, but in no case removed to the supreme court shall trial by jury be allowed in said court. Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said supreme court shall be allowed and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by oath or affirmation of either party or other competent witness, shall exceed $5,000.'

So far as review by this court is concerned, this is the usual provision, and is limited to civil cases. We are then brought to inquire whether any other statute may be invoked to sustain our jurisdiction.

Section 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 827, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 549), provided that appeals or writs of error might be taken from the district and circuit courts directly to this court in certain enumerated classes of cases, among which were 'cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime.' By amendment the words 'or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Brown Shoe Co v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1962
    ...S.Ct. 22, 23, 36 L.Ed. 896; Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U.S. 225, 236, 24 S.Ct. 119, 123, 48 L.Ed. 159; New v. Oklahoma, 195 U.S. 252, 256, 25 S.Ct. 68, 70, 49 L.Ed. 182; United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 245 U.S. 166, 170, 38 S.Ct. 94, 96, 62 L.Ed. 223; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lo......
  • City Of Raleigh v. Mech.S & Farmers Bank
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1943
    ...See Durousseau v. United States, 6 Cranch 307, 3 L.Ed. 232; Buel v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 311, 312, 5 L.Ed. 624; New v. Oklahoma, 195 U.S. 252, 25 S.Ct. 68, 49 L.Ed. 182, and other cases cited in notes to 2 Digest U.S.S.C. Reports L.Ed. 23-27. Thus when the case of City of Charlotte v. Kavanau......
  • State ex rel. Schara v. Holmes
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1956
    ...See also United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 37, 38, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54; New v. Oklahoma, 195 U.S. 252, 256, 25 S.Ct. 68, 49 L.Ed. 182; Worthley v. Worthley, 44 Cal.2d 465, 471, 472, 283 P.2d 19; North Side Canal Company, Ltd. v. Idaho Farms Company, 60 Idaho ......
  • Vigeant v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1927
    ...of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents. See New v. Oklahoma, 195 U. S. 252, 256 [25 S. Ct. 68, 49 L. Ed. 182];Tefft, Weller & Co. v. Munsuri, 222 U. S. 114, 119 [32 S. Ct. 67, 56 L. Ed. 118]; United States v. More, 3 Cr. 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT