The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1901-05-31

- 80 -
He Moon & Kerr Lumber com
pan1 has operated a logging and
sawmill business in the vicinity of
Virginia for ten years. It's plant
thenWas cleaned out by the fire,
anditis said that one great reason
whyit was never rebuilt was that
the Citizens Of Virginia who had
losses in ] the fire threatened : to
bring suit. -. .. -.
About noon on June I, 1900, fire
broke out in the sawmill of the
company,in the city of. Virginia.
White the mill was burning fire
started in the butcher shop of the
plalntiff;aOle Halverson, and swept
ove1the principal portion Of the
citysntterly destroying it.
The claim of the losers is that the
fire etarted at the mill because Of
defeStive Z. machinery -: connected
with the waste-burning portion of
the plant, and that, therefore, the
connpany's negligence was respon-
sible for the fire. It is also claimed
that the fire in the city proper re-
suited from flying brands from the
millfire, which the wind carried
oveEto the city and which started.
thesblaze that destroyed tile city.
The company, on the other hand,
denies the allegations of neglig-
ence, claiming that the mill was
properly equipped. Its most i'm
portant defense, however, was de-
nialahat the mill fire had anything
to dp with the burning of the city.
1t Claimed that the wind was not
blowing in a direction that would
have carried any brands to the city,
and8t that the only buildings that
were burned from the mill fire were
feHin a different direction from
the&mill than the city. It was
claimed that the negligence of Hal
version and his employees was res
ponsible for the fire.. The story of
the defense was that Halverson's
butcher, who is now dead, was fry
ing put fat in a large kettle when
the hill fire broke out. He went
out look at the fire, and in his alb
senqa the kettle boiled over and
cauSht fire. The fire spread rapid
" hder the influence Of the heavy
wif4and destroyed the ,towp.a.,.,, 4. ..sss :
= 3 1l1
With much confusion IN the tesfi-
mony to make the case an intricate
one. The time of the fire was, of
course. period of great excitement
and it was, therefore, to be expect
ed that the stories of many of the
witnesses would be of necessity
somewhat confused and uncertain.
That or something else certainly
produced considerable variety of
opinion among the sixty-three wit
nesses that appeared on the stand
during the trial. The trial took
considerable time, the case going
to the jury on the tenth day.
J. L. Washburn, one of the attor-
neys in the case, was seen todaysand
gave NJ. c. Palmer, the Virginia
lawyer and former mayor of the
city, large part of the credit for
the victory which the plaintiff OBJ
tanned.
Mr.. Washburn said that the case
was won with truth testimony from
reputable witnesses, the best peo-
pie in Virginia, and that the evil
dence of many witnesses for the de-
fendant, all who were worthy of
credence, tended more or less to
corroborate the plaintiffs Witness
es, and the verdict could not have
been otherwise than it was on the
evidence. He said no new princi-
pie of law was involved in the case,
and that the law books are full of
such cases and that our own su-
preme court has severol times de-
clared the law on which the action
was based:
He said the Moon & Kerr COM
Pany wassorganized under the man.
ufacturing act, and that there is no
individual liability of stockholders,
and that the suit was against the
corporation. That it appeared in
the evidence that the corporation
had disposed of all it's property and
divided the assets. He said that
the sufferers by the fire had been
willing all along to make some
reasonable compromise on a basis
that would in no wise cripple the
defendant company, and had 80 in
dicated to defendant, but that no
response had ever been made indi-
eating any willingness on the part
of the Lumber company to make
any restitution whatever to the los
ers by the FIRE: Herald. .,... il
THREE IN ONE -. .