The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-07-30
DlSBAH'lA LAWYER. For
PERIOD OF 2YFARs
Supreme Court Hands Down
Seven Decisions, One Sus.
tains SMOKE Ordinance


ney John r. Byrnes, of Litchfeld. the
proof Of which yesterday resulted in
the supremeScourt disbarring him from
practice in all the courts of the state
Tor the period of two years.
In February, 1900. Byrnes was en-
gagged by Charles Brost and three other
Eden Valley men to defend them
against indictments charging them
with hanging an inoffensive German
named Miller ia the village lookup at
Eden Valley; filler had been arrested
on the chargesof sbgeaking up a home,
and during the hight; it was claimed.
men had come to the lookup and hang
ed him.
The defense of the men arrested was
that Miller, in fear of punishment, had
committed suicide, but it was in de-
tense of the men charged with the
murder that Byrnes is shown to have
been too thrifty. For $3.50, SITS to be
paid before the trial and, $175 after
wards, he agreed to defend the prison
ers in all the courts of the state and
also to furnish the services of M. g.
Brady, Minneap polls attorney.
He was paid the first installment but
when the case came to trial Byrnes
caused one sKickbusfI, one of the &C
cused: to take the stand and swear
that he had no attorney and that he
was without means to make defense.
The court thereupon appointed Brady
as his counsel and the county paid him
a fee for his services
Fhe other Acoa1ht proved was that as
attorney for Nettie Ward, a Meeker
county, wonaan,S he recovered in 1897
judgment in her favor for $74.S9 in
oct hnra md
Honore Casey. The defendants ap
pealed to the district court and he was
engaged to defend the case on appeal.
When the caSesJwas called two years,
later there WAS no. appearance, on the
part Of the respondent and the case
was dismissed: In 1901 Byrnes caused
the Caseys to enter judgment for costs
and disbursements against his Schent.s
He drew the bill of costs, signed by
Casey. for $S5-f6, and against Casey's
wishes had the sheriff levy. an .exeeu-
ton upon which he collected the
amount and converted it all to his own
use.
Other charges in the complaint
against ByFnes, the court says, were
not proved; but on the two proved
charges he stands .6lisbarred for the.
period of two years from all the courts
of the state. The 4disbarred attorney
has been prominent in Meeker county
politics for some years. ,t5I5v.5a ,f,.:5,
- Cannot Sue the State
/ In decision handed down ,yester-
+day by Justice Lovely, the State Agri-
cultural society is held a part of the
state government. and immune from
suits brought for wrongful conduct of
Eits servants. -. -, y
The important ruling resulted from
a suit for 600 damages commenced
against the state fair management by
Samuel sBeEnan, of Minneapolis, who.
alleged that he had been falsely ar
rested and imprisoned sdufiHg, the
progress OF the fair. last September. :,
The action was started in the Hen
nepin county district court, and. on
the motion of the society the court set
aside service of the summons on the
theQrys that under the law of 1908 the
state .i had been given title and control
OF the property and funds of the soci-
ETY. and was therefore it's successor
The we'll established principle that the
state cannot be sued for acts of it's
servants was. then sinvokedNto protect
the state from suit and the Summons
was set aside by the district court
From this action the defendant APP
pealed.
In sustaining the lower court Judge
Lovely holds that under the sterlns of
the act passed by the last legislature
the logical result is that the Mime
sofa Agricultural society is now a state
department and subject to legislative
enactment. The transfer: of it's rights
and privileges agreeable to the act of
tsos has net besa made, but the robjee
tlon that the officers of the fair are
not performing governmental functions
as officers eftffe state can only be raised
by quo warranto proceedings to test
their rights in that regard.
RAISING on another point involved.
the court h6lds that the merging of
the societyin the state is not special
or class legislation Judge Douglas did
not SIT in this" case as he had been
connected with it as counsel before his
appointment on the bench - e.'.'- SO
In deciding the case of the town of
~1osce VS. ABbard of County Commits
sloners OF Waseca County, the supreme
I court n1akee an important ruling as to
Inc care OF Smallpox cases by individ9
uais and their subsequent reimburse
~Iheht by theFcounty. The syllabus is as
follows:e -,yts ~, So -
~hefe chairman of the town board
VI supervisors upon inforna ton of the
secretary of the state board of health
/ recelVeds information that an epidemic
Oh s1naHpoX was prevalent in his town
ana incurred expenses to quarantine
the persons afflicted Herewith, but
without receiving specific authority
therefor from. the town board of health,
ana the expenses were audited and
9pald by such board, the want of author
lty to order the quarantine was sufff-
Gently ratified toRauthoriZe reimburse
ment. from the county under the
statutes of this state in force at the
time. rc-s n
Where a perSen-in the town whose
reSldence was .quafantined under the
health laws is responsible for expenses
IN attention to his personal affairs DUR
ing 1.-THE quarantine the same is not a
town charge nor the subject of reiIn-
s'oufsement from the county.
: evidence considered and held that
the evidence sustains the findings of
4Iaet which support the conclusion OF
law except; In. one particular instance
where personal services were rendered
for. an Individual who was subjected to,
the quarantine. Lovely, J. -.
In the city of St. Paul VS.. c.. III. Rob-
bins, the se-ea4ed st. Paul smoke orr
1danance is again held to be valid. The
case was triedson its merits ,-and theS
decision effeetually disposes of efforts
TO break the enforcement of the ordi-
nance in st. Paul. e,.,.,5 :, gya.
. in two per curtain cases two conSti-
tutional questions are passed upon by
: the court. In thee case against M. D.
Williams. a.. Mower county case the
state Hnseed lsoil law is upheld as
proper police regulation not in viola
ton of the constitution. The case was
a test as between the big oil companies
and the stat and the court afhrms
the test required by the state TO DEM
r1cyfr- -, <,e1