Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1907-10-24
SUSTAINED ON ALL EIGHT
CLAIMS SET UP BY DEFEND
ANTS.
CHARGE OF BRIBERY IN MILWAu.
kEE COUNCIL LIKELY TO BE
PROBED.
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS GRANTED
TO BRING CASE TO SUPREME
COURT.

| MhWduhee, CCl. Zl,-JuuSe j. y.
Ludwig in the circuit court Saturday
decided every point In favor of the
state in the fight of the street rail-
way company, ex-Mayor David S.
Rose, the aldermen of 1900. Charles f.
Pfster, John l. Beggs and other de-
PENDANTS. in their efforts to escape ex.
animation under the discovery statute
before Court Commissioner Joseph G.
| Donnelly.
Attorney General Frank L. Gilbert
desires the examination for the pur-
pose of getting material for CON-
plant against the defendants, particu.
larly to take the 1900 franchise from
the street railway company. He
charges as basis for his action that
money was corruptly used in obtain
ing the passage of the ordinance, and
its approval by the then Mayor Rose.
The petition of the defendants for a
permanent injunction against the pro-
posed examination is denied and an
order has been entered setting aside
the stay of proceedings which Judge
Ludwig granted when the petition for
injunction was filed
Goes to Supreme Court.
The court, however, has ganted an
other stay of proceedings pending an
appeal to the supreme court. Thus
the question of whether the examina-
ton will ever be held depends upon
the decision of the justices at Madi-
son.
The decision of Judge Ludwig is
long and goes deeply and carefully
into the legal phases of the matter
He takes each of the eight objections
of the examination and analyses each
thoroughly, then disposes of them in
their order with his opinion.
HAS the state any interest in the
proceedings" asked the judge. The
defendants had objected that the state
had no interest. Judge Ludwig decides
that it has.
Corporations are creatures of the
state" says the decision, land exist
only by virtue OF its will. The inter
ests which the state has arise from its
duty to supervise and control its
creatures and to protect it's citizens
from any abuse of powers conferred
upon the corporation"
! Objections of Defendants. &.
The defendants objected to the ex-
animation on the following grounds
(1.) That a bill of equity will not
apply to cancel franchise alleged to
be passed by bribery, even though
the franchise be of a contractural ma
ture.
CO. That no public interest is in
volved-
81 That as to the claim for the re-
covery of moneys under the circum-
stances, the affidavit states a cause Of
action at law solely.
a. That If the facts set forth In
the affidavit should constitute more
than one cause of action, then such
CduSto Ol dCJlOn 5BOulu uOL DC uuibeu.
(5.) That if the plaintiff be entitled
to relief, it must be sought by quo
warranto under section 3466. instead
OF in equity under section 1897.
CO. That section 1895 as amended
by section /, chapter $685., laws of
1905, is unconstitutional.
a. That the action is barred by
the statute of limitation.
49, ExMayor Rose and the ex-al-
dermen further object to examination
under special grounds that they are
not necessary or proper parties.
II was also claimed that 1t is the
duty Of the court not only to prevent
the examination, but to dismiss the
action.
On every one Of the eight objec-
lions the attorney general was sug.
tanned.