The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1901-11-08
RECORDS CONSULTED.
What They Say About the In.
junction.
SoHe Pertinent Testimony in Regard to
Points Raised in W. L. Rixon's
communication,

W. L. Hixon, president of the Man
ksto Mills Co., having made certain
statements in regard to the manner in
which the contest between his COM
pany and. the Milwaukee road has been
handled in the local columns of this
paper, in his communication published
Tuesday, the Free Press will be par
doned for going into the matter lit
tie more in detail today than hitherto.
In the first place 1t has made no state
ments but what can in substance, ii
believes, be verified by the records and
by palpable facts known toall citizens.
Mr.. Hixon says: 1.-The article re-
ferred to states that an injunction OBJ
tanned by the Mankato Mills Co.
against the c. NJ. & st. P. railway is
dissolved, - etc. The fact is, the ar
ticle referred to by Mr.. Hixon said
that the Injunction was dissolved as
regards everythingsbut lots lone, two
and three, and gave Judge Cray's de-
cision in fall, so that the public could
know just what it was We do not
know what could be more fair than
that.
Further on, Mr.. Hixon says: "In
the first place, a temporary restrain
ing order was obtained, and the ques-
ton of an injunction was not even
passed upon until Friday last. So how
could the injunction (2) be dissolved in
any event?" In answer to this, we
will refer Mr., Hixon to Judge Cray's
order, dated Oct. 22d, in which he
says: SIN the meantime and until fur
Their order Of the court herein, the de-
PENDANT herein and its agents. officers
and employees are hereby restricted and
enioined from entering upon said pre-
misses, - etc. If this was not tenn
porary injunction, what was it? In
his order OF Nov. I'd, Judge Cray says:
The temporary restraining order
heretofore made herein is hereby va
Gated In it's headline, the Free
Press made use of the W ord dis
solved" Perhaps vacated" would
have been more in accord with legsl
phrsseology, but the article itself gave
the meaning in no unmistakesble
form.
Mr.. Rixon says: 'ENext, you pro-
coed to state that the road is allowed
to go onto the property disputed by
Page. The road was on that property
before we applied to the court =" ETC.
The action of the mill officials and en-
ployes on Sunday is a sufficient ans
wer TO this. The public can Judge as
to whether the Free Press was right.
AS bearing on the point made by Mr..
Hixon that the Free Press did not
fairly state the case Saturday when it
said that the. temporary injunction was
dissolved as regards sufficient property
covered byit to permit of the Mil
waukee road extending its track by
the mill property, we will quote from
the complaint upon which the tenn
porary injunction and order to show
cause was obtained, and which was
drawn up and signed by A. E. Clark,
attorney for the Mankato Mills Co.
In describing the property which Judge
Cray covered in his restraining order,
the complaint says: 'The northwest
erly one-haIf of block 1877 in the town
(now city of Mankato according to
the plat thereof made by E. D.
Bruner, which lands may be otherwise !
described in part as lots one, two and
three AND. OTHER LAND CON
NECTED WITH SAID LOTS AND
THERTO, all in said
northwesterly one-half of the said
block 1877, the said lands being the en-
tire one-half of said block before de-
scribed, being tract of land $50 feet
in length by. 1871 feet wide.
The injunction (which Judge Cray
granted last Saturday covers only lots
one, two and three, upon which the
mill buildings are ~situated. 1t is the
portion Of the half block
that is claimed to be owned by John
Page, and that was wanted by the
company. For all practical J
purposes, the injunction might have
been vacated in its entirety, for the !
railroad company has its track laid by |
the mill on the property that was re-
leased from the temporary injunction.
We learn from source that is con-
sidered reliable that John Page claifns
to have occupied the land now claimed
by him for the past thirty seven years
that he claims title to the land by ad- |
erse possession; and that the mill
placed cinders on some of
this land about ten years ago and has
since claimed possession. The point is
also raised by this party whether the
mill company has deed to the pro-
oerty which is in dispute, and whether
it is not asking the Milwaukee road
to pay it $4,000 for something for
which it never paid anything. The re-
cords ought to show whether the mill
company has a deed to the properly,
md how much it paid, if anything,
put this is matter of no concern to the
Free Press. When the courts inyesti-
yate the ownership of the land, the
ruth will be brou ght out.