St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-11-17
Charles Chauncey, Lappellant, VS.. Cordelia
Wass, respondent.

Charles Chauncey, Cappellant, VS.. Cordelia
Wass, respondent.
Syllabus-In proceedings to enforce pay
ment of taxes against real estate the jurs-
diction of the court as to a particular tract is
not affected by the fact that the taxes upon
such tract have been previously paid. Fall
g. Wing Co. of Chicago VS.. st. Paul & Duluth
Railroad Company. 81 Mimi, 100. The rule is
not changed by sec. 19, CHI. 10, laws of 1881.
Order affirmed. GILFlLLAN, G. j.
The City of Faribault, respondent, VS.. W. J.
Wilson, appellant.
Syllabus: That justice of city in the
entries of his record and in the papers subse-
quent to the warrant entities criminal pro-
ceeding in the name of the city instead of in
the name of the state, they fully disclosing
the character of the proceeding, is mere
irregularity which will be disregarded. A
complaint for violation of a city ordinance
need not set forth the ordinance and statethe
facts alleged to have been in violation of it,
To regulate the keeping Of dogs and enforce
the regulations by forfeitures, fines and pen
alties is within the police power of the state
An ordinance of the city of Faribault for that
purpose construed and held not to be I'M
reasonable. The charter of the city Of Fari-
bault empowers the council to punish
the violation of any ordinance by
fine and Imprisonment. The spec
ifcation of the powers Of the council
cludes the power Ito regulate or prevent the
running at large of dogs, to require license
for keeping the same, and impose fee for
such license and tax upon dogs, and author
ize the destruction of the same in a summary
manner, when not licensed or when at large
contrary to the ordinance" Held, that giving
the power to authorize the destruction of
dogs does not take away the power to punish
violations of the ordinance by fine or i1npris-
onment. The charter provided for pubica-
ton of ordinances and that 1.-THE publication
thereof shall be proved by the affidavit of the
foreman or publisher of such newspaper,
which at all times and in all courts shall be
deemed and taken as sufficient evidence of
such publication Held, that in this state
ment in the affidavit that the person making
it was the foreman or publisher of the news
paper is sufficient evidence of that fact.
Judgment affil med. GTLFILLAN, G. j..
A DISSENTING OPINION. Il
In my opinion, under fair construction of
the tax law (chapter II, General Statutes
IS78) and especially of section 70, we are not
required to hold that the district court is in
vested with jurisdiction to enforce tax,
which having been paid is not delinquent.
Even if it be competent (Which l doubt for
the legislature to confer or the court to ex-
ercise, any such jurisdiction especially upon
mere constructive notice., l think the gross
injustice which will certainly result, ought to
make this court slow to sustain any such as
sumed jurisdiction unless absolutely COM
PEELED so to do by the explicit language of
the statute. 1 therefore dissent from the
opinion of my brethren in this case, although
in so doing am obliged to recant what | now
deem to be the erroneous dictum of County
of Chisago VS.. st. Paul 4 Duluth Railroad
Company, cited in the majority opinion.
BERRY, J.
OCTOBER TERM.
Joseph H. Thompson, appellant. VS.. Row
land c. Libby, respondent; submitted on
briefs.
Milton B. Pullen and Charles A. Walker.
partners as Pulen Walker, respondents,
VS.. Joseph A. Wright, appellant; argued and
submitted.
Eunice E. Farnham. appellant, VS.. Sarah
A. Thompson ct al, appellants, and Sarah P.
Butler ct al, intervenors and respondents;
argued and submitted; motion to strike from
the record the finding on the ground that
there is no settled case here.
Wilson J. Romans, respondent, VS.. Edward
rsNE-