The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-07-19

One Against Police Officer Burke
O'Brien.
Three decisions, all relating to the
municipal affairs of the Twin Cities.
were handed down by the supreme
court yesterday, and in each instance
| the action of the lower court is af-
| flrmed.
In one of these decisions, in which
the opinion is written by Justice Love-
/ ly, the court affirmS the condemnation
of property in West st. Paul for the
4 approach to the Wabasha street bridge
and the assessment levied against GER
! tain abutting property for the purpose
of paying for the improvement, thus
affirming the order of Judge Kelley, of
| the Ramsey county district court, in
the proceedings to set aside the assess
| ment. This action was brought by M
p. Ryan, the ST. Paul Homestead COM
pany w. A. Scott, the Villaume Box
and Lumber company, Emma j. Sper-
ry, Alfred Villaume and Constantine
Bailey, all West side property owners,
to set aside an assessment of $35 per
| lot against their property to pay for
| the property condemned for the new
approach to the bridge at the time it
was widened. On behalf of of the OBJ
| jectors it was argued that the charter
4 commission had not power to author
| ize the city government to exercise the
power of eminant domain or to pre-
scribe methods for the exercise of that
power or to prescribe to the courts in
! the charter.
Guilty Of Contempt.
The court upholds the action of the
! Minneapolis municipal court in filming
Police Officer Burke O'Brien $25 for
| contempt of court, and in this case the
circumstances which led to the action
| of the lower court were somewhat pc
| culiar. 1t was charged against O'Brien
/ that having learned, in his capacity as
! a member of the Minneapolis police
! department, that a warrant had been
issued for the arrest of one Charles
l.. Loomis keeper of a gambling house,
he warned Loomis Of that fact in time
4 to enable him to destroy the evidence
/ upon which the authorities were rely
| Ing to secure a conviction. The evil
| dence tended to show that O'Brien was
| on duty in Judge Hollis court room and
| was present when the court ordered
| warrant issued for the arrest of Loom
lis, but that he was excused from duty
4 at his own request soon afterward, and
| WHGH Tie pOllC0 OI1lC0r arrived at
4 LOOMS place to execute the warrant
| he found OBrien at the door talking
| to some person on the inside. When
l. the officer was admitted to the rooms
| he found that the evidence for which
ne had been sent, consisting Of gam
4 bling tools and appliances, had been
| either removed or destroyed
| On trial, O'Brien refused to testify
and the court holds that under the cir
cumstances he is not entitled to the
same presumption of innocence ordi
nar1ly accorded to persons accused of
| crime who refuse to testify in their
| own behalf. In this case the court
hoids that the refusal of the officer to
explain his suspicious conduct author
! ICES the inference, taken into 4consid-
Grafton by the court, in the conclu-
sion 1t must draw from his silence. ar
In the other decision the court deals
with the question of Mayor Ames' con-
tlngent fund, UNFOLDING the Hennepin
county district court in the Judgment
that the mayor must abide by the ap-
| preparation of $1,000, as made by the
I city council, and that mandamus pro
ceed1ngs against the council to compel
| an increase of the amount to $4,000
under chapter So, Laws of 1885, will
not lie.
Mayor Ames Turned Down.
In the apportionment of the Mime
apolls tax levy for the current wear
mayor Ames demanded $4,000 as his
contingent fund, basing that demand
on the law of 1885, allowing that sum
10 the mayor. The levy was not, how
ever, sufficient to permit the apnra-
priation of more than 81. 900 for the
purpose named, and as the council ha6
LOT some years fixed the @fnount ac-
cord1ng to it's judgment. anywhere
from 81, 900 to $1,000, the usual custom
followed
The syllibi in all three Of the case;
| mentioned are as follows:
Assessment Is Valid.
otate OF Minnesota ex REL. M p Ryan
/ ct al petitioners; VS.. District Court
VI ramsey county, Minnesota and Will
nam Louis Kelly, judge of said court,
1. The citizens charter of ST Pan,
adopted May 1, 1900, lawfully Conferred
upon the common council of that city the
rlg a 70 take private property for public
use upon just compensation being first
made or secured and is not in yi0lafion
OF the nome rule amendment to the con-
stitut1 ion OF 1898 section SO, article A.
z: Inc right to exercise the power of
eminent domain by cities and villages of
TINS state IN laying out, opening and i'm
69eovt1ng streets streets Is an essential and Incl
oentaI element of municipal government
is implicitly given to the commission nro
Vlded Tor in the home rule amendment of
me organic law and effectuated by the
| legislature IN the enabling act Of 1899
| chapter 351 In re Getchell vs. O'Con-
nor, 81 Mimi, 70, approved and followed
.. The amendment to the state con
| Stltutlon, section l, article g. so far as it
apples to making assessments tor local
improvements and the manner in which
the same is to be prescribed by the Iegis-
lature construed in connection with the
nome rule amendment of 1898, and held
., not in conflict Herewith.
4. charter adopted under the consti-
tutional amendment of 1898 nrescrihine
appropriate means by which the power Of
eminent domain may be exercised under
due process of law, considered and held
valid, and that such provisions were i'm
phedly authorized by the legislature in
chapter 351. General Laws 1899, under
Whlcn the freehoiders commission might
lawfully impose duties upon the courts of
this state In the condemnation of private
property for public uses Order affirmed
Lovely, J.
No Relief for O'Brien.
State of Minnesota, respondent, VS.. Burke
F. OBrien, appellant.
/ l. Evidence in this case considered and
held that it was sufficient to Justify the
punishment of an officer of a court of
record for contempt of it's authority in
giving information derived by him while
in attendance thereon to third parties ac-
cused OF crime against whom a warrant
had been issued out of such court
2. Under such circumstances an Of
fcer of a court accused of contempt in
giving information of the issuance of a
criminal warrant If he refuses to explain
suspicious acts cannot claim the benefit
| of the absolute presumption of innocence
accorded to persons accused of crime
who decline to testify in their own behalf
under section 565S, General Laws 1894.
3. In contempt proceedings by court
against one of it's officers for using in
formation obtained therein to convey no.