Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1892-02-27

portion of the Ruche-a-Cree church. which
withdrew FROM the synod of the Norwe-
gian Lutheran churches in Wisconsin.
They now seek to restrain the defendant, 1
as trustees OF the other anti Missourian
faction of the church, which has remained
loyal to the synod, from withholding the
use and occupation of the old church bnild
ing and property from the plaintiffs and for
damages for such detention. A judgment |
was obtained in the circuit court in favor
the secessionists from the synod per-
petually epjoining the defendants from
depri ing them of the use and enjoyment |
of the church, and decreeing the same to |
be common property of the two factions,
and granting the plaintiffs s10749 dam
ages for its unlawful detention. An |
appeal was then taken to the supreme |
court. The two factions have both been
separately incorporated, but some time
before such interpretations an incorpora
ton of the whole society had been effected |
by the anti Missourian faction, a notice
sufficient in law, though. one which |
the Missodriaus refused to ac-
knowledge or accept having been served /
on the members of that faction. The in.
corporation seems to have been made in
proper form and by the proper parties,
aud the supreme holds that former incor.
poration coed in spiteo of The withdrawal
of the Missourian faction and their
charges of heresy against the defendants,
and, as regards the church property, SUI
perior to the subsequent interpretations,
that tie legally appointed trustees of the
cooperation were the defendants in this
action, and that they lawfully con-
tlolled the church property. Thr com
paint was therefore dismissed
Taxes Must be Paid.
In. The case OF Sarah Megget VS. the !
city Of Eau Claire tie plaintiff seeks to
have certain pavement and Improvement
taxes assessed by the city agaidst Der lots
On Barstow street set aside and to have
suchdaxes declared rull and void. The
complaint alleges hattie amount SO as
sessed, which. by he by, was only 5000,
was in excess Of the plaintiffs
just proportion of the cost; that
the improvements had leen made arbi-
trarily, at an unnecessary cost; we're
Of no benefit to the AUDITING lot owners on
Barstow street, but only TO the city geper
ally and 10 It's business men, and that she
had been served with no notice of such |
Improvements and had no opportunity to
protest against the intended action of the
city council. The city demurred to the
complaint on the ground that it did not
constitute cause Of action, ard the order
Of the circuit court sustaining that demur
rer is now sfirmed by the supreme court.
Verdict Sustained.
A. X Delaney, then Of Mayville, but
now Of Alaska, sued C. H. Kaetel for
SANDER the Objectionable words being
that plaintiff was :. rascal who would
steal sheep" Plaintiff got verdict for
$500 and defendant appealed The
judgment of the court below is affirmed
Deoisionsin Brief
The following is full list Of decisions,
given in brief;
Soule VS., Tcmah Judgment reversed
and rtmanded fer a new trial.
c. Aultman & Co. VS.. Ritter ct al.
Judgment affirmed.
Lcomis VS. Rockford Insurance com
pany. judy ment reversed and rfmanded
for a new trial.
James VS.. Davidson ct al Judgment
affirmed
Richard VS.. State. Judgment affirmed.
Delaney VS. Kaetel. Judgment affirmed.
Murphy VS.. Gates Judgment affn med
Wltter VS.. DANTE. Judgment affirmed.
H. D. Lauer Co. vs, Magdenburg.
Order affirmed,
Schneider vs. Wisconsin Central com
pany. Order affirmed.
Holm ct al. VS. Holm ct al. Judgment
reversed and remanded with direction to
dismiss the complaint. Pinney, J. took
no part.
Meqgett vs.. Eau Claire Order az
fiImed
Park ct al. vs.. Richardson 4 Boynton
Co. Judgment reversed and ramanded
for new trial
Plnkum vs. Eau Claire. Order az
firmed
Fitzgerald VS.. Anderson. Judgment
reversed and remanded Tor q new trial.
Stevens vs.. Queen Insurance company
Judgment reversed and remanded for a
new trial.
Friemark VS. Rosenkrans. Judgment
affirmed.
Chase vs.. Oshkosh. Judgment reversed
and Temapded tor a new trial.
WInnebago Furniture Manufacturing {
company. vs.. Wisconsin Midland RAILROAD
company Motion to dismiss appeal de-
MED. and order reversed and remanded for
further proceedings according 10 law.
Robinson vs.. lov1 Of Washburn. Order
reversed and remand ed for further proceed 1
ings according TO law.
Motions Answered
IN tie following cases motions were I
,-4.J