The Redwood gazette., 1936-02-20

great deal of bitter feeling to-
ward her and would not alter his
opinion.
Tne proceedings did not get un-
derway Monday until 1870 a. m.
when Katzmarek and Green ar
rived an hour and half late due
to car trouble encountered while
driving from Minneapolis.
After brief arguments present
ed by Brechet in a short session
conducted before noon in the Of
ice of the clerk of court, during
wnicn English read newspaper,
the hearing settled to more SER
ious business in the chilly court
room. Practically all available
seating space for listeners was ia
ken.
Auditor King who arrived for
the afternoon session asked
enrough his attorney, r. I. DAILY
or Kenville, to be excused on the
grounds that he is only nominal
party TO the proceedings. The re-
quest was granted on the acquies-
cence of the defense counsel who
contended at the hearing Feb
ruary l that Kings interest in the
case was nominal, a point on
which King then disagreed.
Katzmarek and Bundle argued
that the court had no jurisdiction
over deciding the merits of the
payment, claiming that the state
legislature had specifically dele
gated the highway commissioner
70 acquire property for right-of-
way purposes in connection with
une construction of trunk high
ways according to his discretion
and that the court was assuming
new rules or duties in judging on
the proceedings.
Filing a demurrer, objecting to
Judge Enersen's jurisdiction
Katzmarek stated, I'VE do not
consent to this kind of proceed
ings as any taxpayer could come
into such a proceeding and ques-
ton the authority and discretion
OF the highway commissioner.
Il wouldn't worry about that.
Judge Emerson retorted.
Bundle, reading from the stat
u;es, again brought in the high
way commissioners authority Ov-
er acquiring property for right
Ofways and the judge concluded
ais reading with the remark, 1--WE
won't spend any more time on
that.
Both Bundle and Murphy sug-
gested that the hearing be certi-
lied to the state supreme court,
stating that the district courts de-
cision would be in doubt if read
as opposed to the payment of the
$4,000 inasmuch as the defense is
protected by the Minnesota stat
utes, adding that the case should
go to the supreme court before
unnecessary expense is incurred
by continuing the proceedings
here and the taking of testimony
Attorneys for the complainants
offered no objections to carrying
the hearing to the states high tri-
bunal but requested that testi-
mony be presented nevertheless in
order that the facts of the case
might be made known.
Judge Emerson replied that
there should be no expense con-
Jlacted through hearing witnesses
and, over-ruling the demurrer, or
dered counsel for both sides to
proceed with their questionings.
1T appears queer to me-, the jud-
ge added, "that after the apprais-
ers had performed their duty, 9TH
er negotiations should be conduc-
ted over their heads.
The judge added bit of COM
edy to the trial when in answer to
suggestion by Murphy that he in
spect the interior and exterior of
the Appleton property before tes-
timony began, if the proceedings
were to be concerned with the
question Of value of the property,
he said, 'I'm not going to do it
now, its too cold, but I'll keep it
in mind.
Green was the first witness to
be called and was sworn in by
Clerk of Court Frank Baldwin.
Katzmarek, Brechet and Muir
ply all objected to Green being
called to the stand again question
ing the jurisdiction of the court
ard asserting that Green was pro-
tected by the statutes. The OBJ
jections were overridden.
Following the routine questions
as to his name and position and
his past experience in connection
with highway and engineering ac-
tivities, Green was asked by Eng
lish why the Appleton property was
not included in the original con-
demnation proceedings, April 16,
1884, on the H. G. Werder and E..
II. Bollum properties which were
appropriated by the state because
they were in line with the propos-
ed route of the new pavement.
Green replied that at that time
the Appleton property was not af-
fected by the construction activit-
les, stating that the work was a
roadside development project for
which funds were allotted by the
federal government and that the
original plans for the project in
cluded the Appleton property.
when did you consider the Ap-
pleton property, English ques-
toned.
"The property was included in
the original plans which are con-
tained in my files, the witness re-
piled.
Green explained that an option
had been obtained on the Apple
ton property for $4,000 February
27, 1884 by Harold D. Olson, an
engineer in his department.
Asked by Katzmarek concern
ing the departments appeal from
the appraisal of $4,000 damages
for the property, the official, re-
piled that the highway depart
ment would have received no par
ticular value from the payment of
damages as there was nothing to