State v. George
| Decision Date | 24 April 1895 |
| Docket Number | 9452 |
| Citation | 63 N.W. 100,60 Minn. 503 |
| Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA v. ALEXANDER GEORGE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Certified from the district court for Winona county, Gould J., upon the motion of defendant. Questions answered in the affirmative.
At the trial defendant offered a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, which the court refused to receive. Upon the refusal of defendant to plead otherwise the court directed a plea of "Not guilty" to be entered in his behalf. At the close of the evidence in behalf of the state defendant moved that the case be dismissed and that he be discharged from custody, on the ground that it appeared the offense, if committed, was committed in the state of Wisconsin, and not within the jurisdiction of the court, and that the court had no jurisdiction to try and determine the same. The motion was denied. At the close of all the evidence the same motion was renewed upon the same grounds. Defendant requested the court to instruct the jury to acquit him, and this instruction was refused. The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict of guilty.
The two questions certified are answered in the affirmative, and the cause remanded to the court below for further proceedings.
H. W Childs, Attorney General, and George B. Edgerton, for the State.
Henry M. Lamberton, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted for the crime of larceny from the person, and was tried and convicted. The trial judge certified certain questions to this court.
1. It is certified that the offense was committed on a bridge which, at Winona, in this state, spans the Mississippi river from the Minnesota side to the Wisconsin side of that river, and was so committed on the part of said bridge which is built upon an island in the river. This island is on the Wisconsin side of the main channel of the river, and the waters between the island and the Wisconsin bank of the river are not used for navigation. Said bridge crosses said island, and is supported on piles driven into the soil of the island. The bridge is a permanent structure, used as a driveway for teams and vehicles, and the floor of the same is above high-water mark. "Said island is subject to overflow and when said river is at a stage of ordinary high water and for a period of about four months in each year is submerged to the depth of from two to four feet by the waters of said river." The question certified on these facts is, "Had the district court jurisdiction to try, hear, and determine this matter?"
It is contended by counsel for defendant that the courts of Minnesota have no jurisdiction over this offense. It is urged that the offense was not committed on the waters of the river, but on a permanent structure built on an island, and which is a part of the island, and above high-water mark; that the state of Wisconsin has exclusive jurisdiction of this permanent structure, -- citing Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward, 67 U.S. 485, 2 Black 485, 17 L.Ed. 311; Gilbert v. Moline Mfg. Co., 19 Iowa 319; Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1, 13 S.Ct. 239, 37 L.Ed. 55. In our opinion, those cases are not in point here. Rights in real property were directly affected in those cases. They were in the nature of real actions, and, as to the place of bringing the action, are governed by the same rules. The enabling act under which Wisconsin was admitted into the Union provides:
Section 2 of the enabling act under which Minnesota was admitted into the Union is an exact copy of the above section, except that the word "Minnesota" is substituted for the word "Wisconsin." 11 Stat. at Large, c. 60, § 2. This section is incorporated in the constitution of Minnesota, art. 2, § 2. It is provided by Laws 1889, c. 70 (G. S. 1894, §§ 4835, 4836), that this concurrent jurisdiction shall be exercised by the courts sitting in the counties bordering on the river, and for this purpose the part of the river bordering on each county is attached to that county. Some of the purposes of this concurrent jurisdiction are to enforce proper police regulations on the river, and to regulate and protect interstate traffic on and across the river, and the persons engaged in the same. If public travel across the river at this point was carried on by means of a ferryboat, there is no question but that this concurrent jurisdiction would attach during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial