The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1911-05-25
THROW UP HANDS
"TranSient Merchants" Pay Fine
and Quit Business
THEY'VE DISAPPEARED
/. D. Coddon of St. Paul Comes to
Sank Centre and Takes Charge
of the Stock

/. Frankel and A. Haskell, the
"transient merchants who opened
store in the Wesley building on THIRD
street April 26, who were arrested
and convicted, under the law OF 1911,
of doing business without a license,
have thrown up their hands and quit.
|. Frankel, as announced in last
weeks issue of The Herald, was con-
victed, A. Haskell acquitted. A fine
of sl65. 90 was imposed upon l. Fran
KEEL by Judge Taylor of the Stearns
county district court, and he was
warned not to resume business in
Sank Centre without first taking out
a license. Bruner & Ahles, attorneys
for defendants, talked of an appeal to
the supreme court and Judge Taylor
fixed the appeal bond at $4,000. But
after thinking the matter over, Fran
KEEL decided not to carry the case up
to the higher tribunal. So he paid
his fine like little man and then
disappeared Neither he nor Haskell
have been seen in Sank Centre since
early last week, when they left for st.
Cloud to appear in the district court.
On Monday, L. d. Coddon of st.
Paul, Of whom Frankel and Haskell
claim to have purchased the goods
which they offered forsale in the Yes
sey building, came to Sank Centre
and took charge of things. He said
to The Herald Monday evening, that
he would at once move the stock
away. Mr.. Coddon is a member of
the firm of L. d. Coddon & Co., of
st. Paul, who do a large business in
buying up bankrupt and damaged
stocks of clothing, and disposing of
them to dealers and through agents
in small towns He was witness in
the district court when Frankel and
Haskell were on trial, and at that
time testified that he sold those gen.
tlemen the goods, though the details
of the transaction, as brought out on
cross examination, were rather hazy.
Frankel's action in paying his fine
and refraining from taking an appeal
to the supreme court is generally re-
garded here as tacit admission of
of the validity of the 1911 law regu-
lating transient merchants and pro-
viding for yearly county license of
$4,000. Both Frankel and Haskell
claimed, while here, that they were
not transient merchants but that they
had come to stay and asserted that if
the case in the district court went
against them they would surely take
an appeal. They met with change
of mind right away after hearing the
jury's verdict.
Possibly the testimony of Frankel
himself, while on the stand during
the trial in the district court, had a
strong bearing on the case. When
Attorney Geo. w. Stewart, who as
sisted County Attorney j. B. Himsl,
took Frankel in hand for cross eX-
animation, he had little difficulty in
making him appear ridiculous. He
even brought him to the point we're
he was forced to admit that he had
made previous false statements in his
testimony. Frankel certainly did not
shine while on the stand.
The city authorities will take no
action against Frankel and Haskell,
now that the states case has been
won and that the goods are being
moved away. The city ordinance re-
curing license fee of $4,000 per
year to be paid before a transient
merchant" can do business in Sank
Centre, still stands.
Alderman L. w. Gingery, president
of the city council, naturally feels
elated over the outcome of the case.
He it was who filed the original COM