Omaha daily bee., 1899-05-19
JOHN LINDT WINS HIS CASE
shrewd Attorney Comes Into Possession Of
Valuable Property.
RAISES GOOD POINT UNDER LIQUOR LAW
SchIitz Brewing Company is Com
pIetely Knocked out-An Inter-
estinE story is Connected
with Long Litigation.
RAISES GOOD POINT UNDER LIQUOR LAW

Judge Thornell OF the district court yes
terday handed down his decree dismissing
the temporary injunction granted in the
suit of Linder G Filter against John Lindt
This is in keeping with the ruling of the
supreme court of few days ago in the
case OF John Lindt against August Uhlein
and the Schlitz Brewing company, and gives
Lindt possession of the property, which is
the lot and building occupied by the Schlitz
Brewing company near the Northwestern
passenger depot on Broadway. The case has
a number of important and interesting points
connected with 1t. The property, which
now comes into possession of Attorney Lindt,
after being in litigation for several years,
was formerly owned by Mrs. Annie Pralor. a
colored woman, who conducted a saloon
which was the favorite resort for the negro
population of this city Mrs Pralor sold
the property to the brewing company, s5 900
being the purchase price named, and of this
amount $3,50O was to be paid in cash and
the rest in beer.
Shortly before her death Mrs Pralor be-
came involved in a lawsuit with the Schlitz
Brewing company over the title to the prop
erty Pending the settlement of the litiga-
tion she died, and some time afterward John
Lindt, who had acted as her attorney, laid
claim to the property by virtue of a deed
alleged to have been given to him by Mrs.
Pralor Lindt took judgment in the district
court and got possession of the premises,
which were occupied by Linder E. Filter as
a saloon. Linder & Filter brought suit to
enioin Lindt from interfering with their
possession, and the Schlitz Brewing com
pany, which claimed to hold the title to the
property, insisted on being made a party to
the suit.
Lindt also brought action against the
Schlitz Brewing company to have the con-
veyance from Mrs. Pralor to it set aside on
the ground that 1t was utterly illegal, mas
much as part of the consideration had been
intoxicating liquors, the sale of which is pro-
hibited by the laws of Iowa.
The lower court held that Attorney Lindt's
contention was good the law providing that
any transfer of property or any payment of
any account which shall be made in whole
or in part in Intoxicating liquors shall be
invalid and held for naught. The fact that
part of the price of the property had been
paid for by the Schlitz Brewing company
in beer was not denied.
The case was appealed to the supreme
court which affirmed the decision of the
lower court. The brewing company showed
that it had expended $4,000 in improvements,
and asked that this be returned to 1t. The
supreme court however, in its ruling de-
clined to allow this, and John Lindt secures
possession of the property with all the i'm
provements. which consist of new three
story brick building. The supreme court in
it's decision found that Annie Pralor and the
brewing company had virtually conspired to-
gether to violate the law of the state and
that it was not worth while to discuss now
the question of whose act was the most rep
| rehensible. Both violated the law and con-
spired to violate it. Such was the ruling OF
the court.
During the course of the litigation Attor-
ney Lindt took advantage of the Iowa pro-
hibtion law and in his answer to the amend
ment filed by the Schitz Brewing company,
in which it asked to be made party to
the suit of Linder Filter against Lindt,
asked that an injunction be issued against
the brewing company restraining it from en-
gaging in the business of selling intoxicat-
ing liquors. Lindt, however, at the time dld
not press the matter, but under the laws of
this state he had it in his power to prevent
the Schlitz Brewing company from selling
liquor anywhere in the state of Iowa