The Virginia enterprise. [volume] (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.) 1893-19??, 1913-04-11

HuaElt OF n. b AlHOiu hereto at
! tached, the grounds thereof being
| more particularly stated in the Motto e
Of Motion hereto attached, a copy of
which is herewith served upon the
attorney for the defendants in said
| action. and which Notice of Motion is
hereby made part hereof.
Dated this 4th day of April, 1913
ARNOLD &. PICKERING,
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Titger Building,
Virginia, Minnesota.
State of Minnesota County of St.
! Louis-ss.
| District Court, Eleventh Judicial Dis
trict.
! Joseph Backus,
Plaintiff,
Michael Boylan, George Harvey,
Charles ". Lundstrom, Adolph Kel-
Ter, Fred J. NOLAN, Conrad Matt
son. r. J. McGhee. and Dan Coffey,
aldermen composing the council of
said city of Virginia.; M. A. Murphy,
Mayor; \. E. Bickford, City Clerk;
and VIM. B. Pratt, Treasurer, of
oe
Defendants.
State of Minnesota, County of st.
I-ouis-sS. ~
y. E. Arnold being first duly sworn
says that he is one of the attorneys
for the plaintiff in the above entitled
action and makes this affidavit for
and on his behalf; that on the hear
ing Of the above entitled action, the
defendant served its answer immedi-
ately before the time for argument of
said cause and when same was called
for argument, and this deponent did
not have time and opportunity to- sex-
amin said a nswe. 81 % as certafn the
contents thereof; that deponent Gid
not know until the service of said
answer that the contracts set forth
as exhibits therein We're entered into
Iy the city and did not know that
defendants claimed or were likely to
claim that all of the Six Thousand
Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars
($6750.00) to be paid to Bolger,
Mosser d Willaman was claimed to
cover attorneys fees, printing Of
honGs and expenses incidental to and
connected with the issue of and legal
opinion as to the validity of saiu
bonds; that this drponent called the
Courts attention to certain facts
which We're not in the complaint nor
set forth in the answer, and the Court
suggested that such matter should be
in the reply and at the time deponent
was Of the impression and relied upon
the fact that such reply could be
served subsequent to the hearing and
e considered by the Court as part
of the record in the case and for that
reason did not request time in which
| to draft and serve such reply; that
since the hearing on said order to
show cause herein. this deponent has
; been engaged in the trial of case IN
, District Court and unable to draft 4
reply herein and other papers setting
forth facts called to the attention OF
the Court upon the argument herein:
| that at the conclusion of the argu-
inent and upon the LIST day of April,
| 1913, in order to as( ertain what would
he a proper legal charge for exam
ination and opinion as to the legality
of the bonds in question, deponent
sent a telegram to the attorneys men
toned in the answer Of defendant, via.
Wood 4 Oakley Of Chicago, Ill.,, and
Storey, Thorndike, Palmer & Dodge
Of Boston. Mass; that the telegram
sent to the attorneys at Chicago, ILL.,,
viz Wood & Oakley. is as follows:
'Nirginia, Minn., April /, 1913.
"WOOD & OAKLEY, Attorneys,
"Chicago, III.
What will you charge us for an
| ho lao Of
of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars of Water and Light bonds OF
City of Virginia, Minnesota? Answer
fully at our expense.
ARNOLD & PICKERING, Attorneys
That on April 2, 1913, deponent re-
ceived the following message ir
response thereto:
"Chicago, Ill. 2.
"ARNOLD & PICKERING, Virginia.
Cannot act We are retained by
; another firm.
"WOOD & OAKLEY
That at the same time deponen
sent the message to said firm abov,
} named, deponent also sent a MESA g,
to Storey, Thorndike, Palmer & Dodg,
of Boston. Mass, the firm Of attorney
mentioned by defendants in thei
answer herein, as follows: ...
i Virginia. Mimi. April l. 1913.
5.-.-4 E =lt s$ sG 2, E$ $