State v. Bowman

• Decision Date: 22 February 1909
• Parties: STATE v. BOWMAN.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

116 S.W. 896

STATE v. BOWMAN.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 22, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; Daniel Hon, Judge.

William Bowman was indicted for rape, and, from an order quashing the indictment on demurrer, the State appeals. Reversed and remanded.

William Bowman was indicted by the grand jury of the Ft. Smith district of Sebastian county, Ark., at the December term, 1908, of the circuit court, for the crime of rape committed, as follows, to wit: "The said defendant in the county and district aforesaid, and in that part of the county and district aforesaid, described by act of Congress of the United States, approved February 11th, 1905, and by the acts of the General Assembly of the state of Arkansas, approved February 16, 1905, and March 14, 1905, and which is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south bank of the Arkansas river, one hundred paces east of old Fort Smith, where the western boundary line of the state of Arkansas crosses the said river, and running southwesterly along the south bank of the Arkansas river to the mouth of the Poteau; thence at right angles with the Poteau river to the center of the current of said river; thence southerly up to the middle of the current of the Poteau river opposite the mouth of Mill creek and where it is intersected by the middle of the current of Mill creek, thence up the middle of Mill creek to the Arkansas state line; thence northerly along the Arkansas state line to the point of beginning," on the 12th day of October, 1908, upon one Ella Banks, a female, unlawfully, feloniously, and forcibly did make an assault, and her, the said Ella Banks, then and there forcibly and against her will, did ravish and carnally know, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas. The defendant demurred to the indictment. The demurrer was sustained by the court. The state elected to stand on the indictment, and it was ordered quashed by the court for want of jurisdiction to try the same. A judgment was entered dismissing the case. The state properly saved exceptions, and has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Wm. F. Kirby, Atty. Gen., and Dan. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. S. F. Lawrence, for appellee.

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

The demurrer to the indictment raises the question of whether the circuit court of Sebastian county for the Ft. Smith district has jurisdiction to try persons for offenses alleged to have been committed over the land locally known as the "Choctaw Strip." The act of Congress approved February 10, 1905 (Act Feb. 10, 1905, c. 571, 33 Stat. 714 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 378]), entitled "An act to extend the west boundary of the state of Arkansas, reads as follows: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that the consent of the United States is hereby given for the state of Arkansas to extend her western boundary line so as to include all that strip of land, in the Indian Territory lying and being situated between the Arkansas state line adjacent to the city of Fort Smith, Arkansas, on the Arkansas and Poteau rivers, described as follows, namely: Beginning at the point on the south bank of the Arkansas river, one hundred paces east of old Fort Smith, where the western boundary line of the state of Arkansas crosses the said river, and running southwesterly along the bank of the Arkansas river to the mouth of the Poteau river to the center of the current of said river, thence southerly up the middle of the current of the Poteau river (except where the Arkansas line intersects the Poteau river) to the point in the middle of the current of the Poteau river opposite the mouth of Mill creek, and where it is intersected by the middle current of Mill creek, thence up Mill creek to the Arkansas state line, thence northerly up the state line to the point of beginning provided that nothing in this act shall be considered to impair any right now pertaining to any Indian tribe or tribes in said part of said Indian Territory under the agreements or treaties of the United States or to affect the authority of the government of the United States, to make any regulations or to make any laws respecting said Indians or their lands which it would have been competent to make or enact if this act had not been passed." The act of Arkansas approved February 16, 1905, entitled "An act extending the western boundary line of the state of Arkansas over that strip of the Choctaw Nation between the Arkansas state line and the Poteau river, adjacent to Fort Smith," after reciting a part of the act of Congress of February 10th, above referred to, is as follows (Acts Ark. 1905, p. 124): "Section 1. That the western boundary line of the state of Arkansas be and is hereby extended as follows, so as to include all that strip of land in the Indian Territory, lying and situated between the Arkansas state line and Fort Smith, Arkansas, and the Arkansas and Poteau rivers, described as follows, namely: Beginning at the point on the south bank of the Arkansas river, one hundred paces east of old Fort Smith, where the west boundary line of the state of Arkansas crosses the said river, and running southwesterly along the south bank of the Arkansas river to the mouth of the Poteau, thence at right angles with the Poteau river to the center of the current of the said river, thence southerly to the middle of the current of the Poteau river (except where the Arkansas state line intersects the Poteau river) to a point in the middle of the current of the Poteau river opposite the mouth of Mill creek and where it is intersected by the middle of the current of Mill creek, thence up the middle of Mill creek to the Arkansas state line, thence northerly along the Arkansas state line, to the point of beginning."

By comparison of the description used in the indictment with that of the act of Congress and of our Legislature above quoted, it will be seen that there is no uncertainty or confusion as to the lines, nor that the boundary has been fixed and established by the acts referred to; but it is contended by the appellee that the...