Omaha daily bee., 1897-01-09
HISTORY OF THE POOR FARM CASE.
Claims Against the County Aggregate
About I2OO.OOO.

About S2O0.OOO.
The decision OF the supreme court is
adverse to the county and afirms for the
second time the judgment of the lower court
against the county The total amount in
volved, and for which judgment is rendered
against the county of Douglas is in the
nelghborhood of 100000.
The case Just decided by the supreme
court grew out of the sale of large number
Of lots in what Is known as Douglas addi-
tion, an addition lying east of the present
county hospital which was plated by the
county and sold for the purpose of aid
Ing in the construction of the
county hospital building. The validity of the
title given to the purchasers of these lots
was brought into question and a number of
the buyers demanded the return of their
money. 1t was alleged that the PROPOSE
tion authorizing the county to sell the lots
and which had been submitted to the vote
of the people of this county, was not car
ried and that, therefore, the county COM
mssioncrs were not empowered to deed the
property to purchasers of lots The matter
was taken into the district court and the
county was defeated. The case was appealed
to the supreme court and the finding of the
lower court was sustained Later a man
damus suit was started against the county
TO compel the commissioners to make a levy
to pay the judgment Again the county was
defeated, and levy was made in 1895. The
and granted rehearing upon a showing
made by the county, and the merits OF the
case were again argued. II Is the decision
In this rehearing which has Just been rem
dered, and 1t Is believed that all the county's
legal resources have been exhausted
Tho plaintiffs involved in the suits thus
adjudicated and the amount for which judg-
ment was entered in each case are as fol-
lows: G. b. Keller, $4,S32 CO; Christ Hart
mann; S2.676,O2; Alvin Saunders and John T.
AppN onDg
Robert Doherty, $4,411.92; Eric II. Thomson
sl,453.7S Edward M. Anderson, 50, ,63l. 10 I;
Henry Pundt and George Heimrod, 81, ,637 so /;
Orlando Teft, $1,62S1S; James S. Gibson
sl,O9O,5S; William Cleburne, S2,2S1.4O; Will
liam Gyger, $5.S243S; Herbert NJ Rogers
49, 965 William Rogers, S353l73: John NJ
Wilson, $445.S3; William II. Bruner, $500 80 /:
Thomas G. Goss, $355.S9; Alfred Il. Gcss,
Sl,34S.S2; Neil Bertelsen. 1885; Caroline
s. Kuhn, S1,466.97 These sums, with in
terest, amount to about 100000 A num-
ber OF The parties have sold their judg-
ments, so that many are held by other parl
ties than those whose names appear, but all
are directly affected by the decision OF the
court
In addition to these judgments. forty-six
claims have been filed with the county
board since February 13, 1895. which have
never bea1 taken into court. These amount
to another 100000. The claimants hold
that they have just as good claims against
tHe county as luOSe WLO nave obtained
judgments, but the county board takes the
position that these claims are barred by
the statute OF limitations and will contest
the payment on that ground.
In 1895 q levy OF 81 mills was made by
the county 10 pay the poor farm judgments,
The amount which this levy was intended to
raise was SGO7506S, ard OF this amount
there was collected the sum OF St403l0 03.
OF the amount collected 12.2Sl,67 is tied up
in the defunct Midland State bank. and
s67iSS4 In the German Savings bank. leav-
ing but little over 5000 In the treasury
with which to meet the judgments. This
will necessitate a levy II the judgments
are to be paid
The annual tax levy is made In June of
each year, but the commissioners are re-
quired by law to make an estimate at the
beginning OF the year OF the funds which will
be required to run the county affairs dur
ing the year, so that the payment of these
judgments will be a live issue very soon.
The statutes provide a maximum levy for all