The Wisconsin tobacco reporter. (Edgerton, Wis.) 1877-1950, 1900-03-23
EDGERTON WIS, March 20, 1900

EDGERTON WIS.,, Marcn ~, lJUU.
The council met in regular session and
the meeting was called to order by May
or Mansfield. All members were pres
ent except Aid. Earle Minutes of last
meeting were read and approved.
The following report was received from
the special committee:
To THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDGERTON, WIS.
Your committee to whom was referred the
charges of Geo. D. Mansfield against F. j.
Hartzhe1m, beg to report as follows:
City Attorney L. E. Gettle was applied to for
an opinion as to whether the charges of Geo.
D. Mansfield against F. j. Hartzheim would
warrant the Council in citing said Hartzheim
to appear before them to show cause why his
license should not be revoked; the opinion
which was duly filed reads as follows
EDGERToN, WIS. March 18th, 1900.
OPINION OF CITY ATTORNEY L. E. GETTLE.
In the matter of the varified complaint Of
Geo. D. Mansfield against Frank Hartzheim,
filed with the city clerk, March 7th the follow
ing question was submitted to me for opinion
by Aid. Knapp Under said complaint what is
the proper proceeding for the Common Coun-
Gil?
Sec. 1858 w. S. provides that when such COM
plant, verified is filed with the city clerk the
common council shall issue q summons, to be
signed by the clerk directed to any constable
in said municipality, commanding the person
so complained Of to appear before them on a
day and at place in the summons named not
less than three nor more than ten days from
its date and show cause why his license should
not be revoked. The summons must be served
at not less than three days before the said
hearing.
Whether the said complaint is sufficient, if
proved, to sustain revocation of said Hartz-
helms license probably is not within nv prov
ince to give an opinion since the council is the
judge on said hearing to determine that mat
ter. II the form and offenses of the complaint
are primafacie correct it seems that the coun-
Gil should issue said summons.
L. E. GETTLE
City Attorney
This opinion was wholly unsatisfactory in as
much as the very point which the committee
asked for advice upon was evaded by the City
Attorney in his opinion whether the COM
plant is sufficient says the City Attorney,
IF proved, to sustain a revocation of said
Hartzhe1m's license probably is not within my
province to give an opinion since the council
is the judge on said hearing to determine the
matter" 1t appeared to your committee that
the City Attorney should have expressed an
opinion as to the validity of the complaint
thereby advising further procedure or a dis
missal of the case. This he failed to do and
we deemed 1t advisable to seek further for ad
vice in the matter that you might have clear
understanding as to whether the charges pre-
ferred were sufficient to warrant the council in
citing Mr. Hartzheim to appear and show
firm of Fethers, Jeffris & Mouat, of GAINESVILLE,
were furnished copies of the complaint as we'll
copies of Mr.. HSrtZheim'S testimony in the
Trial Of Marshal Rae, and also copies of the
petition and resolution praying the council to
revoke Mr.. HartZheims license Immediately,
and their opinions solicited. In answer, Feth-
ers, Jeffris & Mouat advise as follows:
EVANSVILLE, WIS, March 9th, 1900.
To George w. Doty, T. B. Earle and H. B.
Knapp, cOmmitte of the Common Council Of
the City OF Edgerton. to whom the complaint
against Frank Hartzheim has been referred
by said Council:
GENTLEMEN
Pursuant to your request that we give you
a written opinion relative to the complaint of
George D. Mansfield against Frank Hartzheim,
we advise you as follows
The complaint in substance charges three
offenses:
1st.-That Frank Hartzheim did on divers
and ma ny days since the first of July, 1892 sell
Intoxicating and malt liquors after ten o'clock
at night in violation OF one OF the provisions OF
ordinance No. as amended by Chapter Is of
said city of Edgerton
2d.-That Frank HartZheim did since the 1St
day Of July, 1899. sell intoxicating and malt
liquors on the first day of the week, commonly
called Sunday.
3d.-That said Frank Hartzheim, under oath,
before the Common Council of said city stated
that he would continue so to sell Intoxicating
and malt liquors after ten o'clock at night and
on Sundays in defiance of Mayor, Marshall, or
Common Council of said city.
The first two charges are made upon 1nfor-
nation and belief. The complainant has evil
IDENTIFY attempted to proceed under Section
consin. The Supreme Court Of our state has