St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-09-25
EXPENSIVE CONTEMPT.
Waterman Failed to Heed the
Courts Restraining
Order.
a Lively Rumpus on the Polk
County Farm Re
suited.

G. r. Waterman, of Minneapolis,
whom w. H. Fisher, of Polk county,
charges with conniYing with r. M Dor
man, money lender Of Minneapolis,sin
tWeedling him out of a large amount of
farm property and crops, was fined BIS
by Judge Cornish yesterday for con-
tempt of court. The fine carried With
il about $50 costs incurred by the sheriff
in arresting and bringing Waterman be
fore the court to answer for alleged con
Tempt. D.
GLOBE readers viii remember tn at
Fisher began an action in the district
court here week ago, alleging that
DoTTnan and Waterman had been con-
Dlvlng together 10 get control OF the
stock and crops ON Fishers farm in
Polk county, consisting Of 81 horses, 13 33
head of cattle, 80 hogs. 10 Irvine binders.
a mowers. a nGmDtr of gang ptuRS.
farm wagons, two threshers and q large
amount Of other farm and household APP
planes, besides an extensive crop.
Fisher -had given DorIDan q bill of sale
on the property IN return for a deed Tor
number of lots in Minneapolis, on
part OF which were four brown stone
blocks, containing ten fats. Fisher
also gave back a mortgage T0r
sg7-06e. Dorman then gave q
bill Of sale of the personal
property TO Waterman. Fisher charges
that DoTman had neither the legal nor
equitable title 10 the real estate, which
he purported 10 convey. and that Dor
man had eonsDired with Waterman to
get control OF the personal property. 1t
WAS also asserted that neither Dorman
nor Waterman were men Of means.
The court here issued an injunction
restraining DOIman and Waterman
from disposing Of the personal property
or interfering with Fishers possession
thereof until further order OF the
court. Dornan was subsequently ar
rested and taken before The municipal
court in ST. Paul Oh charge of fraud
preferred by Fisher, but was discharged
10y Judge Cory on the theory
that the court had DO jurisdic-
ton. Waterman went to Polk county
and sought to get possession Of the
property. both before and after the tenn
pOraTy injunction was Issued. This
contest was going on upon the farm in
the midst Of threshing. The friends of
eacfl side ordered the men on the other
side of tie farm and some evicuons oc-
CURED by force OF arms. As result
2 considerable commoton was ere
ated on The farm and the threShing of
days OF completion. and the large force
OF men On the farm were stopped i'll
their work, Fisher men claimed that
they still remained in possession and
Waterman. III person claimed that he
mad constructive possession since some
time IN July Waterman was arrested
on warrant served by one Of Sheriff
Beams deputies on the farm. and
brought TO ST. Paul yesterday 10 answer
for contempt. The matter vas argued
at length yesterday before Judge Cor
nish. ". A. Barr appeared for MIR.
Fisher, and 9. G. Justin. of MINNEAPOLIS,
appeared for Waterman and Dorman.
Tie attorneys had a number OF sharp
passages in addition to making several
speeches apiere before the court The
whole case was gone over. Mr. Barr
stated 10 the court that part OF the Eeal
estate purported 10 be conveyed 10
Fisher belongs to Mons Anderson. 4
prominent. wholesale dry goods mer-
chant and lumberuan Of La Crosse.
WIS.
When Judge Cornish was delivering
his decision in the matter he was inter
rupted twice by Mr.. JEslin with sugges-
tons. which were evidently intended 10
be appeals fer lenleHey, when he saw
that his client was IN for punishment
The court stated that much had been
said that might be urged on a motion
10 dissolve the Injunction, or adduced
on the trial OF the main issue, yet Wa
terInan wsS brought before the court
10 purge himself of contempt i'll yiolat-
Ing the Injunction OF the court or for an
iDfraction of its order duly served upon
him. There had been no answer to the
contempt proceeding Counsel had
pleaded that he was busy in defending
Doraan upon the criminal charge as
an excuse for act fling an answer in
the contempt proceeding. The court
continued and stated that paper title
had been assaulted III the proceeding Oh
the ground Of alleged fraud. This was
not the time to pass upon the merits OF
the case or to near a motion to dissolve
tie Injunction. The original case is
not only one OF repleYIn. but one of al
legged fraud. and upon the hearing Of
the main case a court would consider
the equities OF the case. Whilst Wafer
man may have believed that he was
pursuing his rights, yet he went so far
as 10 dlS0bey the order Of the court. and
Ii is right to punish him in way TO
sustain the dignity of the court, and
the fine Of SO and costs OF the arrest
was imposed by the court. Waterman,
In company with his attorney. repaired
TO the clerks office, and deposit of SSI
was made by the attorney and Water
man was allowed 10 have his liberty.
Attorney J0slin viii apply for a remis-
sion OF the fine if he carries out his in
timatiOn 10 the court.