The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-12-07
FIVE ACTIONS IN
COURTS INVOLVE
CITY EXTENSION
Three Before Supreme Court
and One Each :. store
Burr and Ternpletols. hxs<
MOST REMARKABLE
CASE IN HISTORY
Establishes New Record for Munici.
pality Of Grand Forks In the Matter
Of Ldtigation-NewestF Feature WIN
be Argued Next Saturday.
MOST REMARKABLE
CASE IN HISTORY
Estsblislaes New Record for Munici.
pality of Grand Forks In the Matter

When Judge Templeton on satur-
day, December II, hears arguments
on the new restraining order that has
been issued against the city officers Of
Grand Forks from passing the most
secent ordinances proposing the an.
nsxation Of certain property lying ad-
3aeent to the city. ana Including prop
stop In a long contested movement
will be taken. The city extension case
has assumed proportions attained by
few actions. extending from August,
1911. to the present time, with the
decks still far from being cleared.
There now are three actions in tho
supreme court. ono in the district
court before Judge Burr. and another
in the district court before Judge
Templeton.
Record Of the Movement.
Here ie the record Of the extension
August, 1911, city council passed
Scsolutions of extension.
October 1. 1911. city council for.
mally enacted the fnnl resolution Of
annexation following hearing Of pro-
tests.
January, 1912, city council passed
ordinance parceling territory annexed
to various wards. and all that terri
tory in Grand Forks township for
merly in the Seventh legislative dis
March. 1912. townships. school dis
trict and property owners affected In
stttuted action to prevent council from
attempting to assert jurisdiction over
the territory involved.
April, 1912. trial on an action
brought by property owners held be-
fore Judge Templeton.
City Council Loses.
May 8. 1912, Judge Templeton de-
cided against the city council, holding
the annexation null and void and en-
over. The city appealed from this de-
cision and the case is now In the su-
preme court:
In May. following perfection Of ap-
peal to the supreme court, the city
began assessing property in the dis
trtct. The same district was assessed
by each Of townships so there was q
double assessment.
AFFIDAVIT presented to Judge Tenn
pleton who issued order to show
cause why city officials should not be
previously issued.
On June 10. 1912, Judge Kneeshaw,
called in by Judge Templeton's ILL
ness ordered proceedings dismissed.
From this order an appeal was taken
to the supreme court, where it Is now
pending.
June s saw another order against
the city officers, and Judge Kneeshaw
dismissed 1t. An appeal was taken to
the supreme court and Is now pend
ing there.
Supreme Court Acts.
Immediately after the dismissal Of
the contempt Proceedings by Judge
Kneeshaw, an application was made to
the supreme court for 1t to exercise
It's jurisdiction and power Of superin-
tending control over inferior courts,
and to issue writ directed to Judge
kneeshaw and the district court Of
Grand Forks county. requiring 1t to
vhcate and annul the order Of dis
mtssal entered In the contempt pro-
ceedings and in place thereof to make
!ts order finding the city guilty Of con-
tempt and to punish 1t and its officers
IL. accordance Herewith; the supreme
court In it's opinion afflrms it's power
and Jurisdiction to issue the writ pray
ed for but declines to issue the writ
because 1t was held that the remedy
by appeal was sufhcient and adequate:
this action leaves the contempt pro-
ceedings to come before the supreme
court In the usual way by the method
Of appeal which has already been
availed of.
Judge Burr's Case.
Immediately after the entry Of the
judgment Of May 8 finding the origin-
al annexation null and void, the city
instituted new proceedings ana ADOPT.
cd a new resolution Of annexation.
which was set for hearing June 5. At
this time the facts were laid before
Attorney General Miller who there
upon authorized the school district.
the townships and property owners to
use the name Of the state and Of the
attorney generals ofiice for the pur-