Notes of Recent Cases. an innocent and honest intention to accom plish a good object in the disposition of the property, are not enough to relieve a trans action of this kind from its fraudulent char acter in reference to its effect on the legal rights of the creditors. The court then comes to the conclusion that the conveyance in this case was fraudulent as to the grantor's credi tors and cites in support of its holding Kimball v. Thompson, 4 Cush. 441-446, 50 Am. Dec. 799; Marden v. Babcock, 2 Mete. 99104; Norton v. Norton, 5 Cush. 524-528; Winchester v. Charter, 12 Allen, 606-609; Gray v. Chase, 184 Mass. 444, 68 N. E. 676; Bullard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 533-537, 19 Am. Dec. 202; Jaquith v. Massachusetts Baptist Association, 172 Mass. 439, 52 N. E. 544. HIGHWAYS. (RIGHTS OF OWNER OF SOIL то GAME THERKON.) SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA.
L. Realty Company v. Johnson, 100 North western Reporter 94, was an action brought by an owner of land over which a highway passed to enjoin another from shooting wild fowl in their passage over and across the highway. The only question at issue was . in what respect the right of possession and control by the owner of the soil over the game on its premises was changed by the fact that the public had acquired a right of passage across the land. The court says that the law is well settled that the easement in a public street or highway is the public and common right to use the same for the pass age of persons and property and the pur poses incidental thereto. But the killing of game belonging to the adjacent premises and found temporarily in the highway is in no manner connected with or incidental to the right of public passage and transportation. In Lamprey z: Danz, 86 Minn. 317, 90 N. W. 578, it was held that inasmuch as every person has exclusive dominion over the soil which he absolutely owns, an owner of land has the exclusive right of hunting and fish ing on his land and the waters covering it. This being true, the court says that it neces sarily follows that in dedicating a highway
633
to the public the owner of the soil reserves to himself all of the other privileges and rights pertaining to the premises which in clude the right to foster and protect for his own use the wild game thereon, and that such right and privileges are in no manner surrendered to the public in granting the easement. It also follows that the public in accepting the easement thus granted ac quires no right to kill or molest the game in habiting the property while it is passing to and fro across the highway. IMMIGRATION. (PORTO RICAN NOT AN ALIEN.) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
In- Gonzales v. Williams, 24 Supreme Court Reporter 177, the question was in volved as to whether or not a native of Porto Rico who was an inhabitant of the island at the time of its cession to the United States could be detained as an alien on arrival at New York. Counsel for the government contended that the test of Gonzales' rights was citizenship of the United States and not alienage, but the court did not think so. On the contrary, it was of the opinion that as Gonzales was not an alien within the mean ing of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1891, vhkh provides for the detention and depor tation of alien immigrants likely to become public charges, he could not be detained on arrival at the port of New York. Having narrowed the question down to whether or not Gonzales was an alien within the mean ing of the act of 1891 the court says: "We think it clear that the act relates to foreign ers as respects this country, to persons ow ing allegiance to a foreign government, and citizens or subjects thereof; and that citi zens of Porto Rico, whose permanent al'egiance is due to the United States; who live in the peace of the dominion of the United States; the organic law of whose domicil was enacted by the United States; and is enforced through officials sworn to support the Constitution of the United States.—are not 'aliens,' and upon their ar rival by water at the ports of our mainland are not 'alien immigrants,' within the intent
