Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1880-08-18
The MiU Dam Suits.

Neal Brown, of Wausau, has furnish
ed the editor of The Jefferson County
Union with the following account of the
present status of the various mill dam
suits originating in this county, which
will doubtless prove of interest to num-
Der of our readers
DEAR SIR.-At your request give you
brief sketch of the mill dam suits in
Jefferson County.
In the last series of actions brought, the
first case to be adjusted on by our Su-
preme Court was what is known as the
Indian Ford Dam case, reported in vol.
As, Wis. reports, page $50.
This was a criminal prosecution for
maintaining public nuisance brought
against the owners of the Indian Ford
Dam, which is situated five miles below
Lake Koshkonong. A criminal warrant
was issued by III. A. Porter, Justice of the
Peace in Jefferson County, for the arrest
of the defendants. On the hearing of
writ of Habeas Corpus, obtained by the
defendants, the question as to the juris-
diction of the Justice of the Peace in
Jefferson County to issue the warrant,
arose. Judge Conger decided in favor of
its legality. The defendants carried the
case to the Supreme Court, where the
decision of Conger was reversed, and the
warrant held to be void, on the ground
that the offence was committed in Rock
Co., where the dam was situated, under
the constitutional guarantee to the ac-
cused in criminal prosecution, of trial
in the county where the offence is COM
mitted. G. j. Ryan delivered the opini-
on of the Court, which is long, labored
and elaborate. Judge Taylor dissented,
and Judge Orion took no part in the de-
cision.
AS the majority of the Court decided it
to be fact, that the nuisance was COM
mitted in Rock Co., of course they could
find that the offence must be tried there.
We take the liberty, however, to state
that this decision was matter of great
surprise to the legal fraternity through
out the State.
The court intimate that statute might
be passed making similar cases, of which
there are many throughout the State, tri-
able III the county where the injury oc-
ours. But it is hard to see why such
statute would not be unconstitutional if
the doctriue held by the Court is correct
The civil action for damages by Capt. J.
w. Lohmiller is still pending.
The case of Shredder as Held reported
in AZ, Wis, page 341, was an action for
damage caused by defendants dam, stu
ated at Rome, ON Rock River, on various
questions of law connected with the suffi-
cheney of the pleadings in the case.
Judge Conger decided in favor Of the
plaintiff The case finally reached the
Supreme Court, and Conger's decision
was reversed, and the case sent back for
further proceedings. We. believe it is
still waiting a trial on the merits. The
main question raised and decided was as
to whether the statute of limitations run
against the State, so as to effect the title
to land, derived from the State, during the
time the land was overhowed, so as to
give title to the land by prescription to
the owners of the dam.
A number of suits against the owners of
the Milford Dam, Messrs. Greene & Son,
have been carried on with varying sue
cess. Some of these were sent to Rock
Co. for trial, and on the hearing of a pre-
liminary plea in abatement of the actions,
before Judge Conger and jury.
We believe Conger instructed the jury
to find for the defendants The test case
was then appealed to the Supreme Court,
and the other cases sent to Dane Co., for
trial. 1t is impossible to say when these
cases will reach a trial on the merits.
The case of Giese Us Green ct. al, and two
other cases against the same defendants.
appealed from the Dodge Co. Court, to
the Supreme Court, were recently decid-
ed on question of demurrer, to the juris-
diction of the County Court, over the
cases.
The Court below decided against the
defendant, and the Supreme Court sus-
tanned the decision, leaving the plaintiffs
victorious at the present writing, though
whether they will remain so long enough
to reach trial On the merits, is a matter
of uncertainty. We are told by an at
torney engaged in the cases, that this
decision contravenes the decision of Judge
Conger, on the case tried at GAINESVILLE.
We are not informed as to the status of
the litigation concerning the Jefferson
dam. In all these cases the ablest legal
talent is employed on both sides, and it is
impossible to predict the res ult.