The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1925-07-16
Atty Gen. Tells Dist. Atty
Municipal Court Has
Jurisdiction.
PUTS ON LIMITATIONS
Next PadIocking Cases Started
Here May Be Tried Be-
fore Judge Slater.

try the next padlocking cases that
may be brought into court by District
Attorney Lewis Powell acting as
United States attorney were given to-
day when a communication was re-
ceived from Attorney General Her
man Ekern, of Wisconsin, giving an
Interpretation Of the court jurisdic-
tion provisions of the state laws
Which allows the Kenosha county
municipal court to take such cases
under certain conditions.
The Interpretation of the statutes
was asked for by the district attorney
sometime ago when the first paddock
ing injunctions were started. At that
time they were taken to Racine to be
signed by Judge E. B. Belden of the
circuit court, since there was doubt
in the mind of the district attorney
as to the possibility that the munich
pal court had jurisdiction in the case.
The letter from the attorney general
declares that the municipal court
may hear such action but only in
cases where the value of the property
named in the paddock proceedings does
not exceed $4,000 All other cases
must be started in the circuit court.
This limitation, it was pointed out,
would automatically bar most Ken
osha soloons which might find them
selves the butt of federal action since
the value of most city property ex-
ceeds the amount named in the limi-
tation by the statutes. 1t would, how
ever, allow places in the county to be
tried in the municipal court. The re-
cent action closing the soft drink
parlor and confectionery store of
Robert Rein, known as Lucky
Strike" was such place and could
ave been tried before John Slater.
Defines Provisions.
The letter from the Office of the at
torney general at Madison bears the
signature of C. A. Erickson, deputy
attorney general, and the approval Of
Herman L. Ekern, attorney general of
Wisconsin, and reads as follows:
You call attention to section % of
title 2 of the national prohibition act
which provides, among other things,
regarding an action TO enjoin nuis-
ance under said act, that "such action
shall be brought and tried as an ac-
tion in equity and may be brought in
any court having jurisdiction to hear
and determine equity cases"
You inquire if such actions can be
brought in the municipal court of
Kenosha county.
The eighteenth amendment to the
United States constitution prohibits
the manufacture, sale or transporta-
tion Of intoxicating liquors, or the
importation thereof into or the ex-
portation thereof from the United
States or any territory thereof, and
declares that Congress and the sever
al states shall have concurrent power
to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Under this amendment, the Nation
al Prohibition act was passed, Sec.
S351t declares any place where in
toxicating liquor is manufactured,
Sold kept or bartered in violation of
that act, and all such liquors to be
common nuisances.
Sec. s351q provides that an action
enjoining such nuisances may be
brought in the name of the United
States by the United States Attorney
General or by subdivision thereof. 1t
further provides that such action
shall be brought and tried as an &C
tion in equity, and that it may be
brought in any court having jurisdic-
tion to hear and determine. equity
eases,
Quotes State Statutes.
The above provisions of the nation
al prohibition act appear to he clear
~ justified under the authority of the
eighteenth amendment The question
presented, then, is whether the NUM-
cipal court of Kenosha county is such
a court as is contemplated by the pro-
visions of the act
The jurisdiction of your municipal
court is prescribed by section 4, chap
ter IS, laws 1908, which provides:
"Said municipal court shall have
and exercise power and jurisdiction in
all civic actions and special proceed
ings within the county of Kenosha, in
law and equity concurrent with and
equal to the jurisdiction of the cir
cult court for Kenosha county where
the value of the property in contro-
versy or the amount of money claim
cd or sought to be recovered after de-
Quoting all payments and set-offs
shall not exceed $4,000, and also of all
actions for the foreclosure of mort
cages and mechanics liens in which
the amount claimed does not exceed
the sum aforesaid, although the value
of the property to be affected exceeds
that sum-"
This act, it will be noted, confers
jurisdiction concurrent with circuit
courts where the value of the proper
ty in controversy does not exceed
$5,000 The circuit courts have juris-
diction of actions to abate nuisances.
The limitation in the. statute cannot
be construed as "a limitation giving
jurisdiction only in cases where pro-
perty value or money is involved, but
1t is admiration merely upon the
amount that can be involved.
You are, advised therefore, that
your municipal court has jurisdiction
70 try equity cases brought to enjoin
nuisances under the national prohibit
ton act.