Bruguier vs. the United States.
testifying upon the ground that he was an Indian. The court overruled the objection, and he testified.
The defendant requested the court to charge the jury, that the "government must prove either the giving or selling of whisky, as stated in the indictment, or the jury must find a verdict of not guilty," which the court refused to do, but did instruct them, among other things, that "if the defendant * * * gave or sold to the said Strike-the-Ree any whisky or spirituous liquors, knowing it to be such, then the defendant is guilty and the jury must so find." He further instructed them that proof of the selling, or giving of wine, gin, whisky, or brandy, or any spirituous liquor to the Indian mentioned by the defendant is sufficient to support the indictment." Exceptions by the defendant were taken to the said ruling and charge of the court.
The jury returned a general verdict of guilty. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment on the grounds that the indictment did not charge the defendant with having committed the act with a felonious intent; and that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted, because there was a general verdict of guilty on the two counts in the indictment. The court overruled both motions. Exceptions by the defendant.
There were other questions raised on the trial and are in the record, but these mentioned before are the only ones relied upon by the defendant in argument.
William Tripp, for plaintiff in error,
Cited 30 Maine, 29; 7 do., 132; Stark. on Evidence, 1530–1-2; State o. Godfrey, Fairfield's (Me.) R., 361; Eastman's Dig.,(Me.) R., 385, paragraphs 7,8,9 and 10; Wharton on Cr. Law, 196, 73, 74, 996, 1037; Greenleaf's Ev. 134, 135, $ 65; 24 Arkansas R., 620.
George H. Hand, U. S. Attorney, for defendant in error.
Jurisdiction on ceded lands (4 Wallace, United States v. Halliday, 407.) What is a felony? (1 Arch. Cr. Prac., 2:) offenses under $ 21, P. O. Act, 1825, not felonies; (Bright. Dig.,
