Rosencranz

Rosencranz v. United States

Good Law
155 F. 38·2 Alaska Fed. 762·83 C.C.A. 634·1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4628
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 20, 1907No. 1,404California4,135 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

The first contention of the plaintiff in error is that the District Court of Alaska had no jurisdiction because by the act of Congress approved April 28, 1904 ( 33 Stat. 529 -534 c. 1778), which was “An act to amend and codify the laws relating to municipal corporations in the District of Alaska,” Congress conferred upon municipal corporations in Alaska the power to prohibit gambling, houses of ill fame, and other misdemeanors, and to prescribe the punishment therefor, and that thereby it repealed section 127 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1899 (Carter’s Code), providing for the prosecution and punishment of such offenses in the District Courts of the territory. The particular clause of the act of" April 28, 1904, which is relied upon by plaintiff in error, reads as follows: “Sec. 8: That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are, to the extent of such inconsistency hereby repealed: and the provisions of this act shall apply to and govern all municipal corporations heretofore created in the District of Alaska.” 33 Stat. 534 .

It is established by the plea filed by plaintiff in error that the city council of Nome did on August 1, 1904, pass an ordinance…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.