The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-06-23
COURT REFUSES TO
DECLARE AGAINST
down TOWN PARK
Judge Lewis Denies Interested
Property Owners Application
for Injunction Restraining
George e. Lennon.

Judge Lewis yesterday handed down
a decision denying the application for
a temporary injunction restraining
President George E. Lennon from COM
pleting the work on the new down.
town baseball park. which is located in
the vicinity of Central park.
AS soon as the decision was made
known, Mr.. Lennon announced that
workmen would commence work today
on the new grand stand and fence, and
the remaining work to be done on the
grounds will be pushed to completion
as rapidly as a large force of men can
do it.
I expect to have the park completed
early in July" said Mr.. Lennon to
T h G o b e last night IF our plans
do not miscarry and We are able to Sc
cure the help desired we will be ready
to play baseball at the new park July
Z. 1 have been receiving congratulate
tons all afternoon on our victory in the
injunction case. which goes to show
that the people favor downtown
park"
The application for a temporary in
junction was made by property own
ers in the vicinity of the new park,
who contended that the game of base
ball was disorderly and that the es tab
lishment Of a park on the site pro-
posed would prove a nuisance. 1t was
also charged that a baseball park
would result in a decrease in the value
of the adjacent property. The case was
argued before Judge Lewis Saturday.
Judge Lewis, in denying the injunc-
tion5 does so without prejudice to the
rights of the plaintiffs, who are privI-
legged to make such farther application
as they may deem advisable when the
circumstances permit. In the memo
randum attached to his decision. Judge
Lewis says ~fe@
The Memorandum.
"The general rule of law is to the ef-
feet that where an answer under oath
denies the equities of the complaint
temporary injunction will not be
granted
1T is also a rule of law that tenn
porary injunction will not be granted
unless it clearly appears that such a
remedy is necessary to protect the
rights OF the persons applying therefor
pending suit, and, where the case is
not free from doubt and it does not ap-
pear that the denial Of the temporary
injunction will deprive the court Of it's
power to afford the plaintiff relief on
hnaI- hearing, such an application
should be denied.
The question whether the encroach-
ment of business interests destroys the
desirability of residence territory is nor
one of law, but it is a question for the
local authorities and the legislature to
determine, and is not question for the
court, for it concerns public and not
prlVate rights; 1t does not appear, nor
Is II claimed here, that the mere erec-
ton OF the fence or the amphitheater
will, in itself, constitute a nuisance.
Neither VIII mere possibility Of injury,
or anything short Of reasonable prob
ability in that respect be sufficient to
warrant resort to this remedy.
The law is well settled that an in
junction will not lie against a lawful
business, simply because it is feared it
VIII become offensive, for the presume
ton is that it will be conducted in an
orderly manner, and an injunction will
not issue in such case unless it ap-
pears that the conduct of the business
Itself is necessarily a nuisance.
"Great American Came"
CAS- is well stated in cited cases.
Among the rights to be enjoyed by a
large class of persons in a crowded
city, is the privilege of attending
places OF Open-air amusement such as
are sought to be condemned in this
complaint 1t cannot be said that the
game Of baseball is a nuisance per Sc
On the contrary it has taken rank al
the great American game,' more gem
orally patronized, perhaps, than any
other. OF course, if permitted to de-
generate into mere raIIying place for
drunkards, rowdies, DULLES and men OF
IKE kind, both the criminal and the
civil law would furnish adequate relief
70 aDate such nuisance, but we can
not in advance anticipate such to be
the necessary consequences Of it's In
auguratiOn.'
My conclusion upon the pleadings
and aff1davits is that the answer fully
ana fairly negatives all of the equities
IN the complaint and contains no mat
ter which entities plaintiffs to take ad-
vantage Of any one of the exceptions
70 the general rule. For these reasons
this application is denied, with the
privilege to plaintiffs to make further
application, should the subsequent con-
duct of these grounds constitute a.
nuisance" @