Ma-ka-ta-wah-qua-twa v. Rebok

• Decision Date: 24 October 1901
• Docket Number: 115.
• Citation: 111 F. 12
• Parties: MA-KA-TA-WAH-QUA-TWA v. REBOK.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

111 F. 12

MA-KA-TA-WAH-QUA-TWA v. REBOK.

No. 115.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

October 24, 1901

J. W Lamb and Wm. G. Clark, for plaintiff.

Caldwell & Walters and Struble & Stiger, for defendant.

SHIRAS District Judge.

It is averred in the petition filed in this case that the plaintiff is a tribal Indian, being a member of that portion of the confederated tribe of Sacs and Foxes who reside on a reservation in Tama county, Iowa. It is further averred that during the years 1895, 1896, and 1897 the defendant was the agent appointed by the United States and placed in charge of the Indians in Tama county; that the defendant wrongfully charged the plaintiff with making a false declaration to secure the payment of a double annuity for his son, in fraud of the United States, and caused his arrest and indictment by the grand jury of the United States district court at Ft Dodge, Iowa, at the November term, 1897; that the plaintiff cannot read or speak the English language; that the defendant, by certain alleged false representations, and in violation of his duty as agent for said tribe, brought about the entering of a plea of guilty to the indictment by the plaintiff, upon which plea he was sentenced by the court to imprisonment in the penitentiary at Anamosa for the period of two years; that plaintiff was so imprisoned until April 4 1899, when he was released under a pardon granted him by the president of the United States. On the 1st day of April 1901, plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the wrongs alleged to have been suffered at the hands of the defendant. To this petition the defendant demurs on the grounds that the court is without jurisdiction, and that the action is barred by the statute of limitation. Upon the question of the jurisdiction it appears on the face of the petition that the plaintiff is a tribal Indian, and that the defendant, when the acts complained of were done, was the agent in charge of the tribe, and the question presented is whether the plaintiff, in the action taken by him in connection with the annuities paid to his son, violated the laws of the United States in such sense that he was chargeable with a crime by reason thereof, and it is apparent that this question is dependent upon the laws and treaties of the United States, and their applicability to the plaintiff as a tribal Indian; and therefore it is made plain that this case arises out of the...