The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1905-11-02
SECRET COMES OUT
Milwaukee Attorneys Bring up
Kenosha Railway Case in
Famous Pfister Suit
B0HMRICH'S ANSWER CITED

The secret surrounding the action
of Milwaukee attorneys IN seeking
to secure copies of the papers in the
suit brought by the Milwaukee E1ec-
trio Railway company came out on
Friday, when the Milwaukee Organ
of the Governor, filed its answer ia
the suit of Charles Pfster against the
company for libel. In this answer
the Kenosha case is named as one of
the cases on which the paper based
it's statements against Pfster. The
portion of the answer relating to the
Kenosha case follows:
The plaintiff is and was on Jan. 1,
1899, ever since has been and now is a
director in the Milwaukee Electric
Railway and Light company and also
of the Milwaukee Heat, Light and
Traction company.
"That on May %, 1899, there was
verified by the mayor of Kenosha and
on June 8, 1899, filed in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of Keno
sha county an answer by and in be-
half of the city of Kenosha signed L.
G. Bohmrich, city attorney of Keno
sha, Wisconsin, and Charles Quar1es
as counsel, which answer is yet a
matter of record in said court and the
contents of which we're in 1899 pub
ished in the public press and at all
times prior to the publication and
printing of the articles in the nine
several causes of action in the com
plant set forth known to this defen-
dant, which said answer among other
things charged against said traction
company, of which the plaintiff was
director in active management and
with full knowledge of its affairs as
follows:
"And this defendant alleges and
AYERS on information and belief that
the said vote in favor of the passage
OF the said ordinance (meaning a
franchise ordinance for street rail-
way was secured by the gift or
promise of money or things of value
by said Milwaukee, Racine & Keno
sha Railway company or it's officers or
agents or some of them to the mem
bers of said common council who
voted in favor thereof or some of
them, and that the said Milwaukee,
Racine & Kenosha Railway company
did in order to secure the said favor
able vote either give or promise to
give to the said members of the said
common council so voting in favor of
the said ordinance or some of them
either money or things of value and
that the whole of said transaction,
namely, the refusal of the said COM
mon council to canvass the said vote
or to declare the result of the said
election and preventing the members
of the said common council elect from
qualifying and the vote passing the
said ordinance were all the result of a
corrupt bargain and contract made by
and between said Milwaukee, Racine
& Kenosha Electric Railway company,
or it's officers, and the said members
of the said common council who voted
in favor of the said ordinance or some
of them, and that in the said corrupt
bargain and transaction the said
plaintiff (meaning the Milwaukee
Light, Heat and Traction company
actively participated and at all times
had full knowledge and notice there
Of"
And this defendant AYERS upon in
formation and belief that the plaintiff
had full knowledge and notice of all
matters and things relating to munich
pal affairs and grants or dealings in
which the said Heat, Light and Trac-
ton company was interested or par
ticipated IN, including the matter of
the corrupt obtaining of the Kenosha
franchise aforesaid and countenanced,
advised and approved of all such
matters and things.