Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1906-03-19

The superior court jury in the case
of Wheeler Bros. VS.. the City of Alb
erdeen, returned a verdict Friday in
favor of Wheeler Bros. for damages
in the sum of $1,000, distributed
as follow:
For loss by destruction of
Dulldlng... .......$ 400
For damage to stock of goods
and cost of removal. 49,. 400
For damages to business of
pldlHtluS. 0UU
lOtal ,oOO
This case grew out of the destruc-
ton of the business building Of
Wheeler Bros. on October 10 last, by
order of Mayor Lindstrom, who act
ed directly in opposition to the ad-
vice of City Attorney Taggart, who
is elected by the people as legal ad-
visor for the city.
The high handed action of the
mayor last October is likely to prove
a costly experience FOR the taxpayers
of Aberdeen. With the casts and
counsel fees, the Wheeler judgment
will foot up fully $4,000, while the
similar case of Karshner Bros; and
that of julius Efteland, and Chas. F.
Veysey and others, bids fair to cost
the city all told the sum of not less
than $4,000. The Herald was
severely criticised in some quarters
for having intimated, on October 12,
1905, that the city would be apt to
pay for the mobilize destruction Of
property on the 10th, yet there is
nothing more certain than the pro-
lection of law thrown about a mans
property, and the constitutional pro-
vision that it shall not be taken from
him without due process of law.
We publish below a summary of
the charge of Judge Chapman to the
jury in the Wheeler case, which
forces us to confess, that from tax
payers standpoint, it leaves small as
surance for reversal of the verdict
by the supreme court, Judge Chap
man having knocked the bottom out
of the leading defenses depended on
by the city.
At the time those buildings were
destroyed, the owners were in court
with the matter, having asked the
superior court for a writ to enjoin
the city from the action threatened;
that court had denied the writ, and
arbitrarily refused to permit an ap-
peal to the supreme court. The own
ers then went to the upper court and
asked that the superior judge be Or
dered to allow the appeal. 1t was
then, in an attempt to forestall the
action of the supreme court, that
Mayor Lindstrom ordered the build
ings summarily removed, in direct
opposition to the counsel of his legal
advisor. Had this counsel been heed
ed the case would have been adjudi-
Gated in the courts, with possible
chance for the city to win, and in
no event would it have cost more
than court and attorney fees.
The possibility of those heavy
damages falling on a city that now
has a tax levy of % mills on the dol
lar is not very attractive either to
the taxpayer or intending investors,
in fact, were it not for the immense
resources of Aberdeen, these lawless
acts of it's officials would prove
calamity.
The Charge to the Jury.
The issues thus presented gentle
men of the jury may be stated in Il
plaintiffs in trespass, wherein they
claim damages by reason of trespass
against their persons, and against
their stock of goods, and against
their real estate and buildings, al
legged to have been committed by the
defendants in this action. That
while the defendant interpose what
is called a general denial to these
allegations of trespass, yet, taken as
a whole, the defense may be briefly
stated as one Of general denial so
far as the alleged trespass against the
persons and the stock of goods are