River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1891-06-18
Circuit Court Proceedings.


by the court This was an action to foreclose
a tax deed taken by f. b. Holmes on tract Of
land in the city of River Falls, described by
meets and bounds-the plaintiff being his lega-
tee The description in the tax deed covered
part of the tract of land owned by defendant a
part of an adjoining tract owned and occupied
al the time the deed was issued by J. 7. White,
also part of the street highway at the north
end of the defendants land. The defendant
answered the complaint and claimed she was
not Justly chargeable with the taxes on the land
described in the tax deed as it was not a de-
seriptlon of her land; that il included within
its boundary only part of her land and part
Of an adjoining tract and part of the street;
that she could not separate her share of the tax
from the adjoining lands included in the de-
scription, none of which she owned or occupied
and that the imperfect description went TO the
groundwork of the tax. To this answer plaintiff
demurred. claiming that the description in the
tax deed was intended to cover the defendants
land and that the assessment was upon her land
and the tax was no more than she would have
paid had her land been correctly described on
the assessment roll; the limitation of one year
for contesting the tax had expired and the
defendant debarred from relief on that ground.
The Court sustained the demurrer, with time
to answer in 20 days. The defendant had no
alternative but to take her case to the Supreme
Court or deposit the amount paid by plaintiff
with . per cent interest with the Court and
attack the deed. The amount involved would
hardly Justify the former course, and as there
we're defects in the tax sale sufficient to inyali-
date the deed she took the latter course, paying
taxes on a description which only covered
three fourths of her land and one-fourth OF the
tod fiaf
it ard abandoned her claim to title under the
tax deed, and the Court thereupon rendered
Judgment for costs against the defendant.
The disposition of this case would seem to
open a wide field for land sharks as well as Civ
ing those who make up our tax rolls plenty of
license in describing the property of tax payers.
Under these rulings it would seem that howey
er imperfect or uncertain the description may
be, if it covers part OF ones land he must eth
er pay the tax or bring action to set it aside
within one year If one negleets to do this and
some souless land shark takes tax deed on the
imperfect description and brings an action to
foreclose il is compelled to pay not only the
tax but all subsequent costs and penalties and
the costs of foreclosing the tax deed though it
may not be worth the paper it is written upon.
There were but two jury cases tried at the
June term one civil and one criminal
Henry Mcmahon VS. Peter Foley and Margaret |
Foley. The jury was fmpanneled in this case |
Wednesday morning and the day spent in taking |
testimony. The case was summed up and given |
to the jury Thursday morning. 1t was an ac- |
ton for ejectment brought by plaintiff to get |
possession of the undivided one-half of certain |
lots in A. f. Harris plat of River Falls near the |
south Fork bridge. 1t appears that Martin |
Mcmahon purchased and occupied the property |
in question for some time as his homestead; |
that he rented part of the house to his son-in-
law Peter Foley one of the defendants; that |
Mrs McMahon and the Foley family did not get |
along well together and she went back to the !
farm two or three miles south of River Fails to
live with one of her sons; that about this time |
Martin Mcmahon gave Mrs. Foley, his daughter, |
a deed of the property in question, but Mrs
Mcmahon did not Join in the deed; that |
after this the family cot together and the mis- |
understandings were adjusted and in this ar |
rangement Mrs. Mcmahon gave to her daugh liter |
quit claim deed of the property in question;
that soon after Mrs Foley gave her daughter liar
garet Foley one of the defendants, girl about |
u or Il years of age deed to the same property
and has since died Since Mrs. Foleys death
Martin Mcmahon and wife gave the plaintiff |
and his brother a deed of the property, taking
security and upon this deed the action was
brought by the plaintiff. The Court held that
the husband could not convey the homestead
without the consent of the wife; that she must
join in the deed; that the subsequent quit claim
deed of the wife did not make the husbands
deed good The defendants claimed that they
had abandoned the property as a homestead by
going back to the farm which they did for part
ofthe time but still held part of the house and
kept some part of their furniture there. The
case submitted to the jury by The court on
some twelve or fourteen interrOgations One of
the questions was as to whether the property
was the family homestead at the time the first
deed was given to Mrs. Foley by her father.
The Jury answered "yes." Another question
submitted TO the jury and answered ia the
affirmative was whether ii was the intention of
Mr.. Mcmahon to give his daughter, Mrs. Foley,
the property at the time he executed the deed to
her. The defendant moved TO set the verdict
aside on account of uncertainty and the court
took the motion under advisement
The case of the State VS.. Hans Anderson was
next tried by jury. This was an action for an
assault aud robbery and was one Of those cases
that Dever ought to be brought in the Circuit
Court yet 1t seems to be dificnlt to keep them
out. The complaining witness was Larry
O'Connel. 1t appears that Larry was ON his way
home from Maiden Rock on horseback and Hans
on his way home from Woodvllle with load of
shingles that there an old feud between
them: that some threats had been made on both
sides; that they met in the woods on the range
line road between Salem aud Union not far from
IarrYis home that there was collisions Larry
swearing that he was pulled off his horse while
riding peaceahly by the defendant, and the
defendant swearing he was pulled off his load
of shingles by the complaining witness. Visit
ors to the battle ground the next morning found
some blood, some hair and fome fragments of
torn garments. and it claimed a shingle
Ratchet was picked Up. Larry appeared to have
got the worst Of it as he was badly cut and
bruised about the head and face while Hans
appeared to have got of with one slight bruise |
on the face and some mutilated garments. The |
Jury returned verdict Of not guilty and the |
county pays the cost.
At the close Of this case the Court adjourned |
fgr tie ten.
The following persons were admitted to citi- |
zenship during the term: Oscar J. Olson, John /
Nelson. Nicholas Hoffman, Lorenzo Burg, Hans |
p Wahi, John Hoyer,