The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1913-10-30
COURT TERM CLOSES
Last Case ON Calendar is Disposed of
and Judge Roeser Leaves for
His Home in St. Cloud,
Jury in Number Ten Ditch Case Re.
turns a Verdict in Favor of
Plaintiff in Sum of 5000.


being in session more than eight
days, four of which we're consumed
in trying the No. 10 ditch case, and
Judge Roeser left Princeton for his
home at ST. Cloud on the JAP train.
Court Reporter Woodward autoed to
ST. Cloud last evening. Cases dis
posed of since Union went to press
last week:
County of Mile Laos VS.. S. L.
Kennedy and the National Surety
company of New York. Action to
recover 81, 900 for cost of preliminary
survey of ditch No. 10. E. L. Nc
MILAN tor plaintiff, J. F. D. Meighen
for defendant Kennedy, and Henry
A. Morgan for the defendant surety
company. The jury, after being out
all night, returned verdict this
morning in favor of plaintiff for $780,
A stay of proceedings for so days was
granted.
A short history of the No. 10
ditch case from the time of it's in
cipiency is hereunder given:
Ditch No. 10 was originally petit
toned for in the fall of 1908 by Chr.
Carl Eberhardt ct al. In the spring
of 1909 R. S. Chapman was ap
pointed engineer and, after complet-
ing survey of the proposed ditch.
he filed his engineers report with
County Auditor Doane on May %,
1911. The viewers appointed on this
ditch by the board of commissioners
were Jas. r. Edmunds, Peter Jensen
and E. P. Olson, who proceeded to
view the proposed ditch and assess
the benefits and damages as required
by law.
Engineer and viewers, in their re-
port, found that the proposed ditch
was feasible and necessary for the
public benefit and utility, and rec
commended that the ditch be con-
structed according to said report.
The matter came on for final hear
ing before the county board on July
II, 1911. At said hearing all inter-
ested landowners along the proposed
line of the ditch, together with the
engineer and viewers, were present
and the matter was thoroughly
argued. 1t was brought out at the
hearing that about three-fourths of
the interested parties were opposed
to the ditch on account Of it's being
too costly. The board attempted to
compromise on the proposition and,
in so doing, lost jurisdiction as later
advised.
New proceedings were then started
by Chr. Carl Eberhart ct al. with a
view of reducing the size and cost of
the ditch to overcome the opposition
which had developed at the first
final hearing. The board then re-
appointed r. S. Chapman as en-
gineer on the ditch and he refused
to serve in consequence of his being
particularly busy at that time with
state highway work.
The board then appointed S. L.
Kennedy as engineer to make re-
survey of the proposed ditch in &C.
cordance with views brought out at
the final hearing on the Chapman
survey the understanding being
that the size and cost of the ditch
was to be reduced.
Kennedy made a new survey and
the same viewers who acted in the
first proceeding were appointed and
acted in the same capacity in the
second proceeding. The enginee,
and viewers completed their work,
filed their report, and the matter
came on for final hearing before the
county board OH May q, 1912. Al
this hearing it was brought out thai
Engineer Kennedy had extended the
Chapman survey from it's source
about miles additional and that
his plans and specifications called fol
dredged ditch, which it was esti
mated would cost Sl1, 900, whereas
the Chapman survey called for about
~ 81, 800 ditch. The board rejected
the Kennedy survey on the grounds
that it was too expensive, too big {
proposition, and not what the land
owners wanted.
The county board then brough
action against Chr. Carl Eberhard
ct al. to recover on petitioners
bonds for costs of preliminary sur
vey, and this case came up for hear
ing at the April, 1913, term Of court
s when defendants motion for judg
ment on pleadings was granted.
At the present term of court tn
county board brought action agains
S. L. Kennedy and the Nationa
Surety company Of New York to re