The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1919-11-07
RESIDENCE IN QUESTION
Point Raised As To Whether the
Federal Court Has Jurisdic-
ton Over Case

there. If you ever show your fac,
in Minnesota or Rock county agar
you will be strung up to the high
est limb on it. he pointed to tn,
road going west, told me to take il
and never return and | went. AND
j know the man who said it," de.
clared John Meints, plaintif in thu
100000 action on trial in the fed.
eral court. Meints was evidently
greatly agitated when he made the
statement. So carried away was hi
that he stood in the witness stand
and wildly gesticulated with his
arms
81 never intend to live in Mime
sofa again" he said emphatically.
These remarks were elected from
Meints during cross examination
by Attorney Pierce Butler, in ar
examination before Judge Wilbur Booth
yesterday Afternoon TO show where
court has Jurisdiction to try his
case. The defense argued that his
home was in Rock county and the
case should be tried there while the
plaintiffs maintained that ever since
August 19,191S. his home had been
in South Dakota.
Afraid to Live in Minnesota.
You intend TO remain in South
Dakota now with you. wife" asked
Attorney Butler.
81 doA't thing it's safe for me here
in Minnesota" said the plaintiff
do you?"
I'm sure I can't say" answered
the attorney dryly.
"Men who did what those men did
to me are capable of doing anything
declared Meinrs.
Then you are afraid to live here?''
questioned Mr.. Butler.
Eyes. It's not SAFE" was the reply.
"Why not"
In answer to this Meints made
the startling declaration Of the
threat TO string him up if he ever
returned TO the state and the as
sertion that he knew the man who
said it."
Attorney Butler Immediately ask
ed Meints the exact place on the Da-
kota line where this supposed threat
took place He then asked him who
the man was Attorney Arthur lie
Sueur strongly objected to the in
PRODUCTION of testimony such as the
answer would bring forth. He
claimed that it would go directly
to the heart of the case before the
facts were ever brought before a
jury. m
Plaintiffs Had Started Inquiry.
Attorney Butler replied that the
plaintiffs had introduced the testi
mony, that it had been given to show
the reason why Meints was a resi-
dent of South Dakota and he did not
see how the case could go farther
without a fuller knowledge of the
facts. The question was argued over
to considerable length and attorneys
became heated in their side of the
case before Judge Booth finally took
the matter under consideration, say
ing he would pass his opinion when
all the testimony relating to the
threat made against Meints was
given.
John P. Iverson, postmaster at
Hartwig, Mimi, was called to the
stand and testified that mail adj
dressed to John Meints, Sr. passed
through his office. He was question
ed TO considerable length by attor-
neys on both sides. Mrs. Dorothy
Kelly of Sioux Falls was next call
ed. Mrs. Kelly is the woman from
whom Meints rented furnished rooms
when he fed from Minnesota to
South Dakota. She testified he left
there last May. Asked if she knew
why he left, she replied she under
stood it was because of some suit
he intended to bring.
Woman Caused Laughter.
81 heard that he had been tarred
and feathered but il was about two
months after he took the rooms or
i would never have let him in the
house" said Mrs. Kelly warmly. Her
remarks brought a roar of laughter
from the spectators.
Judge Booth took up the motion Of
the defendants for dismissal because
the case was not under jurisdiction
here after the testimony of Mrs.
Kelly. He said that the original
complaint Of the plaintiff was to the
effect that he be given damages be-
cause he was compelled to remain in
the state of South Dakota against
his will If he was held there by
compulsion the court stated he
could not very well be said to assume
citizenship in that place.
Court Took Matter Under Amusement
Attorney lie Sueur. interposed the
objection at this point that the de-
PENDANTS themselves forced the
plaintiff to remain out of this state
and that they could not very well
raise an objection for what they had
done.
Judge Booth replied that il was i'm
material whether the defendants rails
ed the question or not, that it was
always the dutyFof the court to see
at all stages of the case whether or
not he had Jurisdiction over it,
Judge Booth took the matter under
advisement until Monday however,
giving no ruling at that time.
The court also indicated that the
same question of jurisdiction might
be raised in the case of N p. S.
Miller VS.. s., p. Duea ct al, when he
asked attorneys if they were ready
TO present arguments in this case
Attorney lie Sueur stated that they
were not ready to take the matter
up at that time. Court then adjourn
ed until Monday morning.