New Ulm review., 1911-12-27
INTERESTING DECISIONS OF
SUPREME COURT
Strap Hangers Ordinance De-
clared Valid.
Notorious Line Case Settled.


In the batch of decisions handed
down by the Supreme Court last
Friday are three which we believe will
interest our readers and We therefore
refer to them briefly. The most OF
our readers will remember that the
city of Minneapolis passed what IS
known all over the State as the strap
hanger ordinance. making it mis-
demeanor for the Street Railway
Company to carry an excess load OF
passengers on its cars, defining Wha'
should be construed to be such excess.
The first conviction under this
ordinance was sustained by the
Supreme Court, thereby establishing
the right of q municipality to pass
ordinances controlling the traffic on
street cars, as long as such rules and
regulations are reasonable. No fight
was made on the reasonableness OF the
restrictions contained in the ordi-
nance. 1t was contended that the
police officers who constituted the
excess load should not be considered
passengers, but the Supreme Court
evidently thought otherwise. The
syllabus reads as follows:
State of Minnesota, respondent, vs..
Chris OVERLY, appellant.
l. Evidence considered and held to
sustain the conviction of the defendant
for violating the service ordinance OF
the city OF Minneapolis.
2. The municipal court of that city
takes judicial notice OF al city ordi-
nances, and it is not necessary either
to prove or give them in evidence. ).
judgment affirmed.
Under our laws the Governor OF the
State has the right to remove from
Office any public official guilty OF
malfeasance or nonfeasance in office,
and this right has been exercised at
different times without its being
questioned. Some weeks ago Governor
Eberhart removed County Attorney
John Kinsells, q Socialist, from Office
on charges of neglect of duty and he
promptly had the action OF the
Governor reviewed by the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court upheld
the Governors dismissal of Kinsella
because the facts in the case warranted
such action, but insisted upon its
right to review the action of the
Chief Executive. The syllabus OF the
case reads as follows:
State of Minnesota ex rel John Kin.
sella, relator, vs.. A. O. Eoerhart,
governor, respondent.
I, Certiorari is the proper remedy
to review the decision of the governor
in removing q county official from
Office. :.
2. The specifications charging re-
lator with mslfeasance and nom
fessance in the Office of county attor-
ney constitute legal and substantial
grounds and the evidence reasonably
tends to sustain the decision OF the
governor in removing him from Office.
Writ discharged.
The third case is Of special interest
because the litigants are residents OF
our neighboring county. Robert
Lieder commenced an action against
his neigbbor August Schroeder some
time in Februs.y 1908 seeking to re-
cover possession of trisneular tract
of land which Schroeder had had
fenced and used as his own for more
than Is years. Lieder contended that
tho line % used WAS not straight
line and that the quarter section post
should be located 81 40 links over
on Mr.. Schroeder's farm. The evi.
dence tenoed to show that the line
had been observed by MIR. Lieder and
the former owner of the farm for more
than Is years, and Judge Olsen, who
heard the case, for that reason decided
in favor of the defendant Schroeder
and Lieder appealed to the Supreme
Court which by its decision attirms the
lower court. The case was stubbornly
fought on both sides. Albert Pfaender,
and Davis Il Olsen of st. Peter
represented Mr.. Lieder and Jos. A.
Ecks,eip with Miss Ella Steed and
Alfred Mueller of st. Paul represented
Mr.. Schroeder. The latter two who
acted as counsel in the Sup eme Court
we're former law students of Mr..
Eckstein.
The decision in this case establishes
and follows the rule heretofore
RECOGNIZED by the Courts, that II the