The Redwood gazette., 1936-02-20
INJUNCTION

lCOntlnued from page one)

lCOntlnued from page One)
English requested.
Mrs. Appleton, "To me as a
home, yes.
English, "How much would you
say the depreciation was"
Mrs. Appleton, about $4,000
or $14,5OO.'
English, "Did you ever offer
your house for sale?'
Mrs. Appleton, Il have offered
my home for sale with the furn-
isnings but never without them.
At the figure l set, l would be
getting nothing for the house..
| English, Didn't you try to sell
your property to DR.. Feigal?"
Mrs. Appleton, mo, 1 never
considered DR.. Feigal as pros
pect for this property in any size,
shape or manner"
When English finished, Murphy
in his deliberate, straight to the
point manner, inquired as to
whether the negotiation for the
settlement with the highway de-
partment was honestly conducted.
at was honest and above
board" Mrs. Appleton replied.
She added that anyone could have
her house without the furnishings
for $1,000 if it is removed from
the lot by June l, the date set by
the highway department for va
eating the lot under the stipula-
tiOnS of the settlement.
An attempt by Katzmarek to
prove that a political motive was
behind the institution of the pro-
ceedings marked the quizzing
during the morning session of
White, the only witness produced
by the prosecution whose testi-
mony was accepted into the court
records.
Katzmarek and Murphy had
just completed subjecting White
tO a gruelling examination in
in which they charged that his
replies to their questions were
evasive.
Murphy was questioning White
concerning the market values of
homes, when abruptly he asked,
"Who started this proceeding 2"
Il. "Mr. Werder, Mr.. Duea and
myself"
@. "Do you know who original
ly mentioned the idea to you?"
A. "No, l don't"
@. "Where did you first hear
about it,"
A. "In Mr.. Dolliff's office when
| was there on other business"
@. "Was the petition already
drawn up?"
u A. "Yes."
@. "Did you ever have the idea
that Dolliff originated the pro
ceedings 50"
81 don't think that makes a
difference" Judge Emerson inter-
rupted. j..
81 think it does, your honor"
Murphy asserted.
At the start of the examination
White had testified that he believ-
ed the home had a market value
of $4,000 while the lot was worth
$4OO. While Katzmarek question
ed the witness he paced the floor
in front of the stand, yardstick
in his hand which he shook at
White as he fired his queries.
This caused the judge to caution
the attorney with, "Please, Mr..
Katzmarek, would you sit down
and put that ruler down."
English objected to Murphy's
line of questioning concerning
where the petition originated,
Judge Emerson sustaining the OBJ
lection.
Murphy then inquired as to
whether White knew what the
Appleton's paid for the house and
lot when they bought it from
King.
"S2, 700 to $4,000 in cash." White
said, "with an additional consider
able amount in trade in the APP
pleton's tire company"
Katzmarek, rising with the
petition signed by the three tax
payers, in his hand, demanded,
"what made you change your
mind, Mr.. White, from two weeks
ago, when you signed this petit
ton in which it states that the
Appleton lot is worth $3.50 and
now on the stand you say its
value is $400?"
81 didn't remember that figure
being in the petition" White an
swered.
"Do you know if there is any
motive behind these proceedings
other than the saving of the tax
payers money!" Katzmarek in
quired.
White, 'No."
English again objected to this
type of questioning and was sus-
tained by Judge Emerson. Katz-
market explained to the judge
that through the witness he was
trying to find out if there was an
other motive for the proceedings
and if the purpose was for ac-
quiring political propaganda.
Judge Emerson still overruled the
states attorney and White was
excused.
The testimony of D. L. Grim
Minis, former Redwood Falls tax
| IdSSeSSOT, was OlOCICO AA(hOh
from the records through the
claim by Bundle that it was not
proper evidence and based on
hearsay. Crimmins cited that the
value of the Appleton property
before the construction of the
bridge and highway was $4,000
as he assessed it in 1928 while it
was his opinion that it was the
same in December 1884 and $4,000
in October 1885 after the erection
of the bridge. He would regard
the lot as poorly situated, he said.
At the beginning of the ses-
sion English revealed that he had
asked permission for his client,
White, to inspect the inside of
the Appleton house but that Mrs.
Appleton and her counsel had re-
fused it.
Murphy, defending his stand,