The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1923-12-13
Claims Failure to Sell
Property Under Order
Makes Him Liable.
BETWEEN TWO FIRES
Case Involves Question Never
Raised Before in County Over
Lien Against Property.

Sheriff Fred Pabst will not have to
lock himself in Jail as result of the
action brought by Miss Madalynne
Minkel to show cause why he was not
in contempt of court for failing to
sell certain property belonging to
Thomas Rocos, formerly owner of a
restaurant in the City Square Hotel
building, on lease item held by the
Kenosha woman.
But he may have to pay the amount
of the lien, namely $26070 with in
terest.
Judge E. B. Belden has handed down
decision in the case holding that by
the failure of the sheriff to sell the
property in question as directed by
the court, the rights and remedies of
the plaintiff have been impaired. i'm
reded, prejudiced and defeated and
that the plaintiff has suffered an act
ual loss. The court orders the sheriff
forthwith to- pay to the plaintiff a
sufficient sum to satisfy her costs
and expenses, $260.70 with interest
There is no mention of contempt of
court in the decision and the court
directs that the payment of the sum
named is in lieu of imposition of any
other penalty.
1t is the first case of the kind ever
to arise in the handling of the office
of sheriff in Kenosha County. Be-
cause of bankruptcy complications
which arose in the case Sheriff Pabst
found himself between two fires and
a4i 70
cure settlement of the case.
The case started early in 1923 when
Miss Minkel went into court and Sc
cured an order for execution against
the property of Thomas Rocos for the
sum named on a claim for rent for
the property which she had subleased
to him in the building. This order
set July 9th as the date for the sale.
Meanwhile a question had arisen as
to the solvency of Rocos and finally
his afafirs were thrown into the bank
ruptcy courts. The sheriff postponed
the sale and at the order of the refer
ee in bankruptcy and on the advice
of legal counsel later turned. the prop
erty over to the trustee in bank
ruptcy.
Should Have Come to Court.
The order holds that the sheriff was
not justified in postponing the sale
from July 9th, maintaining that he
should either have sold the property
then or returned to the court for di-
rection. 1t is claimed that there are
no documents on file showing that
bankruptcy proceedings had been start
ed and that therefore the sheriff was
not empowered to turn the property
over to the trustee in bankruptcy.
The law authorizes the sheriff to
postpone sales of real estate in such
instances but does not specify that
personal property sales of the kind
may be postponed.
The decision stated that there was
no doubt but what the sheriff acted in
good faith in the belief that the course
he took was the proper one in the
carrying out of the duties of his Of
flee to protect the legal interests of
all concerned but that this dill not
avail him anything in the final dis
position of the case.
Money Paid into Court.
In keeping WITH IHe OTueF OHerIII
Pabst paid the amount named into the
clerk of the circuit court immedi-
ately. It is to be held there pending
the outcome of further court action.
1t was stated that the case would
probably be reopened before Judge
Belden it being alleged that certain
evidence tending to show that bank
ruptcy action had been started in lime
to halt the sale was not shown in the
court If such is true it will; simmer
down to question of jurisdiction of
| the circuit court or the bankruptcy
| court and as to which has precedence.
There seemed a probability that the
case would be taken to the supreme
court.
ROPN