United States v. Sacramento

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Parties: UNITED STATES, respondent, v. SACRAMENTO, appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

2 Mont. 239

UNITED STATES, respondent,

v.SACRAMENTO, appellant.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana.

January Term, 1875.

Appeal from Third District, Lewis and Clarke County.

THE action was tried before WADE, J.

SHOBER & LOWRY, for appellant.

M. C. PAGE, United States Attorney, for respondent.

SERVIS, J.

At the November term of the district court, A. D. 1874, sitting as a court for the trial of causes arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, the appellant was indicted for a violation of an act of the congress of the United States, passed March 15, 1864, amending an act regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians, passed June 30, 1834, whereby it is provided that, if any person shall sell, exchange, give, barter or dispose of any spirituous liquors or wine to any Indian, under the charge of any Indian agent appointed by the United States, or shall introduce or attempt to introduce any spirituous liquors or wine into the Indian country, such person, on conviction thereof, etc., shall be imprisoned, etc. 13 U. S. Stats. 29.

The indictment charges, in substance, that, on the 22d day of September, 1874, the appellant did unlawfully dispose of one gill of spirituous liquors, to wit, whisky, to one John Doe, an Indian, whose real name was unknown to the grand jury; said Indian being then under the charge of the Indian agent for the Blackfeet and other neighboring tribes of Indians within the Territory of Montana.

To this indictment the appellant, upon being arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and demanded an immediate trial. The United States attorney then moved the court, upon affidavit, for a continuance of the trial until the next succeeding term of the court. The affidavit set forth: That one Strangle Wolf and one Mary Kite were material witnesses for the prosecution, and without their testimony he could not safely proceed to trial; that he expected to prove by said witnesses all the facts charged in the indictment; that said witnesses were present and saw the appellant dispose of said spirituous liquors to said John Doe, as alleged in said indictment; and averred his inability to procure said witnesses at said term, assigning a good cause therefor.

The defendants' attorney, in open court, then offered to admit that the witnesses named in said affidavit would, if present in court, testify to the facts set forth in said affidavit, whereupon the court refused to continue the case, and a jury was duly impaneled to try the cause.

Upon the trial the prosecution offered to read in evidence, to the jury, the...