Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1909-08-18
TO wHor DOES HE BELofG7
Bone of contenIan Between Monroe so'
Vernon Counties

Another chapter in the warmly cons
tested case between this county and
Vernon county as to the support Of
CLAUS Sletten, insane, was olseTsd nhefI
Judge Iljgbee on application # District
Attorney Abel and Naylor ~ MeCaal
of ToInah as counsel granted a wsst 81
certior2ri, directing the state bost1<Rf
control TO send up its records n fh
matter for review.
Vernon county is also party 0.e
fendant arid tire action of the board 0ht
January 6. 1908, will be attacked aA
having been without any Jurisdiction
and void
1t will be remembered that Sies Sen
was committed to the iusanS asylllas
from THE county in January iSa5. sild
his support was charged to MsS yss
county. Mr. Naylor, who was dishaNf
attorney at the siiIue later claims te hNfH
discovered that Sletten had not res 99Ii
in this county for one year and hadie<
fact come in here from Vernon co9IfIt
the previous March, He made a{l
cation 20 tie state board of contrib On
this ground and a hearing was had ak
which Vernon county made no appeaS1
auce and Sietten was charged to Ver2
non county instead of Monroe.
After two wears had elapsed VernoH
county made an application to the4 tate
board Of control to have Sletten ch4rNe1
back 20 Monroe county DistricN As*
torney Naylor appeared and appose1
the motion but the board after holdiuN
the matter under advisement lTsE iass-
uary, decided To charge Slettsn lae6
to Monroe county and it is this aclo51
which Monroe county now seeks se -
aside. N
The contest is taker. with the e.
operation of the board for the purpose
of settling the vexed and open ques-
ton of the residence of an insane per
person as regards his suppolt by
county and the outcome viii be ~attched
with interest. The argument vii prob
ably be at IA Crosse. Sparta fdver
tiser.
Moqr3s county claimed before the
board that the fact that former Dis
tries Attorney Harkin neglected to apa
pear at Madison forever barred Vernon
county from seeking or obtaining anyz
benefit even though the man WAS a.
bona fide resident of Monroe county
| District Attorney Bennett Obtained
from Mr. Harkin an affidavit, which
was filed with the board, freeing him
| from negligence and asserting chat the
action of the board charging the sup
| port of the patient 10 Vernon was OBJ
tail4vd by means of a breachpf an
agreement between himself and Nay
lor Whether Mr.. Harkin protected
the legal rights Of the county ar not
District Attorney Bennett, when re-
elected to the position, Immediately
took IL up. He ascertaincd that the
patient was committed from Monroe
county on petition reciting chat be
was d resident Of that county. chat be
! owned farm ia Monroe county WhlcsH
Twas later sold by guardian appS1s
| ia that county aud the proceeds k5ki
never reached the county treasury sNf
| Vernon county. When Mr.. Bennetts
took the matter up depositions were
taken and the undisputed evidence
showed that the man had never been Il
legal resident of Vernon county, The
board of control held in view uf
that admitted fact, 1t being the book
keeper, so TO speak, between the two
counties. that it was not powefiess 10
correct 50 grave an error and ancprdr
inglY charged the mans support u
Monroe. Mr.. Bennett contended that
no lack of attention or failure to act on
the part Of Mr.. Harkin could right
fully prejudice the interests Of the taxss
payers He made his contention spE
clear to the board Of control that thats
body reversed its former decision iIn
accordance with the facts. Judge HiK-x
beh will on September l8 consider the
matter at La Crosse.