The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1903-01-30

77s. : r,- v-T ! = 2
show who should remove sign; that
has not b cen shown that Helmick
owned these signs therefore if he
did not own the; sign he had no
authority to remove them. >>y.H
Attorney Town then argued the
point and the court over ruled the
imotion to dismiss, Continued to
nine o clock Saturday morning. 81 '''
n At the opening Saturday m orning
Attorney %sCrandall, addressed the
jury said, would show that the
ordinance was not legally passed 1.-THE
case was criminal, not civil; if the
sign was 80 attached that the battle
ment had to be torn down the sign
wis q part OF the real estate and was
not under the jurisdication of this
court. = ", =? - 4 =.
j. M. Messer was called by Gran
dali and testified that ordinance was
unanimously adopted and all
members of council present, all
members vote in favor OF adoption.
.R.~H., Sain called by Crandall and
testified was carpenter, sign was up
when Helmick bought restaurant,
also when Lane bought restaurant.
Examined sign with JOS. Loveless,
described how sign was fastened up,
it could not be lifted up without
breaking some rods! Examined by
Town said stood on sign and teet
cred up and down but had no
effect on it. ...
Jos Loveless called by Crandall,
examined sign but did not go. up
on il: Mrs. Klasy, testified, rented
property to Helmick, did not know
when sign was put up, and did not
have it put up.
Adjourned to 1 p. m.
At the afternoon session no
futher evidence was taken. Attorney
Crandall made plea for defendant
occupying two hours and ten
minutes of time. Attorney Town
began plea for village at 1926
Attorney Town closed his argu-
ment about four thirty addressing
the jury only little over one hour.
The law does not permit of any
charging the jury in Justice court
therefore the jury Immediately
went to their room. About ten
thirty they brought in a verdict of
guilty. Fourt< en- ballots were taken
the first, being seven to five in favor
Of village then it reversed for two
ballots, then favored the village
again, next to the last ballot being
eight to TO ur in favor of the village.
The jury did not have any supper
and the next day being Sunday, the
fire was banked in the furnace and
the room became cold is said to have
influence the minority to arrive and
consent to a verdict. Monday the
defendant was before Justice Ander-
son to receive sentence. On motion
the case was adjourned until ten
O'Clock Friday to enable the justice
to fix his docket and records. :..
So far very few expressions have
been heard as to the result, but in
most every case it is considered the
point that was most involved has
been not settled. that is, the validity
of the ordinance or charter. The
plaintiff showed the existence of the
ordnance, the sign hanging over the
side walk and the ownership. The
defendant showed that the sign was
safe as far as they ordinarily are. 1t
appears to the ordinary person that
the case was not ono for jury, it is a
question of law. If the ordinance is
legal in all points, the fact of the
sign being there is itself evidence
that the ordinance is violated, and
it remains incumbent upon some one
to take it down, the tenant, owner
of the building or the village, on
this point, the ordinance is silent.
The case will be appealed to the
district court and the opinion is, it
won't take Judge Brown long to