Last Move To Restrain School

Officers Halted By Order Of Court.

——–

ROW ABOUT LOCATION

OF NEW SCHOOL SITE

——–

Controversy Has Now Been On For Over Year. End Not In Sight.

——–

The school officers of school district No. 65 of Brown County are evidently between the devil and the deep blue sea. Hardly had they been man-dam used by the District Court of Brown County after an appeal to the Supreme Court in which the lower court was sustained, to acquire title to the new school house site and to proceed to erect, construct and equip a new school house thereon and were preparing to obey the order of the court when papers were served on them asking them to show cause why they should not be restrained from doing what they had been ordered to do. In addition there-to the officers were also cited to appear and show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for not having obeyed the restraining order served on them August 25. Both matters were heard before Judge Olsen Saturday and the temporary re-straining order was dissolved and the order to show cause in the contempt proceedings dismissed.

Resume Of Controversy

This means that the turbulent spirits of district No. 65 have not buried the hatchet and that the legal battle still goes merrily on. They have a row on in that district simply because the designation of a new school-house site does not meet with the approval of all the voters of that district. July 21,1923, the voters of the district at the annual meeting voted bonds in the sum of $8,000 for a new school-house. The money for the school bonds was received May 10, 1924.July 24, 1924, at a school election then held, it was voted to change the site for the school-house to a point 222 feet west of the old site. Another election was held April 15, 1925 and the majority of those present and voting adopted a resolution changing the site back to the old one. As there seemed to be doubt if this resolution had been legally adopted, another special election was held on June 23, 1925, and at that time the majority again favored the new site.

Mandamus Order Issued

In the meantime those dissatisfied with the selection of the new site commenced legal proceedings. These were dismissed October 20, 1924. As the school officers apparently made no attempt to carry out the wishes of the voters as registered at the school election, mandamus action was started to compel the officers to proceed with the erection of the new school-house. This was heard by Judge Olsen January 24, 1925, and he issued an order directing the officers to proceed with the erection of a new school-house. From this order an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court with the result that the mandamus order of Judge Olsen was sustained.

Move For New School District

Apparently expecting an adverse decision in the mandamus preceding, those opposed to the new site with the help of some property owners in two adjoining districts filed a petition with the County Auditor asking for the formation of a new school district. This petition was heard by the board of county commissioners July 24,1925, and by unanimous vote the petition was denied. From this order an appeal was taken to the district court of Brown County and this matter will come up at the December term of court.

In order to comply with the mandamus order the school officers advertised for bids for the erection of the new school-house. The bids were to have been opened August 31 and altho the notice had been published for two consecutive weeks, the time set for the opening of the bids did not give the 14 days, notice required by law.

Injunction Suit Next Move

On the strength of this error, the opponents to the new site again commenced legal proceedings. In their complaint they set forth the insufficiency of the published notice, the pendency of the appeal from the board of county commissioners denying their petition for the formation of a new school district and also that they would suffer irreparable damage if the officers of the district proceeded with the erection of a new school-house and that so much animosity had been created that no proper school could be maintained in the district and that permitting the officers to enter into a contract for the erection of the school house would practically vitiate their appeal in the new school district petition matter.

Both Proceedings Dismissed

On the strength of this showing Judge A. B. Gislason on August 25, 1925, issued a temporary restraining order and required the school officials to appear at New Ulm on the 10th of September to show cause why the restraining order should not be made permanent. When the district officers found out that they had not given the required published notice a new notice was published calling for bids September 18. This was alleged by the opponents to the new site to be a flagrant violation of the restraining order and the officers were cited to appear before Judge Olsen and show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court. Both proceed-gins were heard Saturday and Judge Olsen denied both petitions.

New Ulm Daily Journal,

September 18, 1925

————————