The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1893-09-07
DISTRICT COURT.
A Heavy Calendar-The Term Will Last
ST. Into Next Week-Grand Jury
~ Still In Session.

A Heavy Charlottesville Term will Last
Into Next Week-Grand Jury
84Rs Still In Session.
District court cow ened Monday af-
ternoon. It was Judge Searle's turn to
preside at this term of court, but i'm
portant business engagements called
him to Duluth and Judge Baxter had
to take his place. A few minutes after
the arrival of the 3 P. NJ. train Judge
Baxter was on the bench and the
wheels of justice commenced torevolve.
The calendar was gone over and dates
set,for trial of causes. There were sc
civil and IL criminal cases to dispose
of. W hen the case of the State of
Minnesota VS.. c., A. Smith & Co. was
reached a motion was made by defend
ants attorneys for a change Of venue to
Hennepin county on the ground of
convenience of witnesses and because
it was right guaranteed by the stat
utes.# Harris Richardson, of the firm
Of Warner, Richardson & Lawrence,
who appeared in behalf Of the State,
enlightened the attorneys for the
defense by quoting from the law and
showing conclusively that in any case
where the State of Minnesota was
plaintiff the general rule that civil
/ ri, %,,io in, hn f1y
in which the defendant resides did not
apply. Thecourt took the matter under
s advisement, and late yesterday after
noon denied the motion. The Judges
memorandum is given in full.
MEMORANDUM. +
The State of Minnesota brings suit
to cancel permit to cut pine timber
growing upon a school section in
Mile Laos county, owned by it, and to
recover the value of timber cut and re.
moved therefrom by defendants. They
, now demand a change of venue from
Mile Laos county to Hennepin county
where they live. First: Because they
live there. Second: Because of the
convenience of witnesses. Under sec
ton 40, chapter s66, general statutes
1878, the venue of actions may be
changed under certain circumstance
to the county where defendants reside
It says, I'm all other cases, excep
where the State of Minnesota is plant
81 if if Il &C ton shall be- tried in tn
county in which the defendants or an,
of them reside" The words, I'm al
: other, cases. obviously refers to case
other than those enumerated in sec
lions At and 46. On Inspection
, clearly appears that being of an equita
BILE nature this suit is not covered b
the terms of section 48. If it relates t
!, real estate within the meaning of sec
! ton AZ as amended in 1885 the sui
was properly brought here and ca
III only be}removed on the ground of cor
ID venience of witnesses or local prejl
- dice or by stipulation as set forth
section 81. Defendants, asking a IT
% moval because of convenience OF wi
l. nesses, have submitted an affidav
I tending to show that four of their wi
: nesses reside in Hennepin county, bl
as plaintiff presents a counter affidav
= setting forth that at least six necessa1
y and material witnesses on its pa
: reside in Mile Laos county, defendan
I-1, c11ffi n on
ground. But timber attached to tt
"A soil is generally held to partake of tt
Il nature of real estate. In order to r
=; move it under this permit an entl
upon the land would be- necessary, al
an unlawful removal would UNIQUE
tionably be an injury to the realt
n. An action to cancel a permit to emit
and remove the timber and to recov
! the value of that unlawfully taxi
must be held to come within the mea
ing of the amendment of 1885 and +
= that reason the suit was proper
brought here. But even if the natu
of this action is not such as to bring
. within the terms of Sec. Al as amend
in 1885, then Sec. 40 must be held to
ply to it and the second limitation, v
Except when the the State OF Minr
g sofa is plaintiff must be construe
Certainly these words as used here G
only mean that the State may brl
: = suit in any county it pleases and tn
the action must be tried there becar
that is the proper county, even thou
the defendants reside elsewhere.
the case at bar the State has We
K. properly selected as the place OF tr
the county where the land is situat
(. and the unlawful taking of the TINT
n. is alleged to have occurred, and
~ these reasons the defendants appli
ton is denied. =. LIB
q On Tuesday morning the jud
charged the grand jury briefly I