History of Crawford and Richland counties, Wisconsin, Part 118

Author: Butterfield, Consul Willshire, 1824-1899. [from old catalog]; Union publishing company, Springfield, Ill., pub. [from old catalog]
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Springfield, Ill., Union publishing company
Number of Pages: 1298

USA > Wisconsin > Richland County > History of Crawford and Richland counties, Wisconsin > Part 118
USA > Wisconsin > Crawford County > History of Crawford and Richland counties, Wisconsin > Part 118

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

In November, 1881, W. Scott Sweet was elected superintendent and is the present in- einbent. Through a change of the law, ro- quiring all county officers to be elected in "even years," Mr. Sweet's term of office is three years, or nntil Jan. 1, 1885.

C .UNTY SURVEYORS.

James Appleby was the first county surveyor, and had held the office most of the time since the organization of the county. He was first elected in April, 1850, and was re-elected in 1852. Mr. Appleby walked to the southern part of La Fayette, Co., Wis., to obtain a compass and other necessary apparatus, paying $80 therefor, and carried the same back with him. The first survey made by him was on May 17, 1850. It was laying out a road for the town of Richmond, which is now in the town of Eagle. The road began in the village of Mononghahela (now defunct) and ran nearly due north, ter- minating at the quarter post between sections 25 and 26, town 9 range 1 west. Mr. Apple- by's second work was surveying and platting the village of Port Andrew, for Thomas Andrew, on May 30, 1850.

In November, 1854, Loreman B. Palmer was elected surveyor and served one term. Mr. Palmer was raised in Fauquier Co., Va. In 1845 he came west and located in LaFayette Co., Wis., remaining there until 1848, when he came to Richland county and settled on a farm in the town of Eagle. There he remained un- til the time of his death in 1880, and his family still occupy the old homestead. Mr. Palmer was not a practical surveyor when he came to the county, but was taught the business by his brother-in-law, James Appleby.

Joseph E. Irish was elected surveyor in No- vember, 1856 and served two years. Mr. Irish came from Ithaca, New York, in 1852, and set- tled with his parents at Sextonvil'e, Richland county. At that time Joseph was hardly twenty years of age. He worked at odd jobs for some time, then learned surveying and followed that quite extensively. Ile remained at Sextonville

835

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

for many years, marrying Lney Britton. Dur- ing the war he began preaching, and for several years thereafter was an itinerant; finally set- tled in Eau Claire. Ile was appointed register of the United States land office, at that place, and later was elected to the State Senate. Af- ter serving his term in the Senate he was ap- pointed presiding elder of this, Methodist Episcopal Church district, and for four years acted as such; then being elected president of the Appleton College, which position he still holds. Mr. Irish is a man of much natural as well as acquired ability, and holds the respect and esteem of all who know him. .

In November, 1858, James Appleby was again elected surveyor and served two years.

D. Hardenburg succeeded Mr. Appleby by the election in November, 1860.

In November, 1862, C. D. Bellville was elected surveyor and served two years.

D. Hardenburg, of Lone Rock, was again elected in November, 1864, and was re-elected in 1866 and 1868.

At the November election, in 1870, the candi- dates for surveyor, James Appleby and T.

Borland, each received an equal number of votes. Upon casting lots James Appleby was the fortunate man. Ile refused to qualify and Mr. IFardenburg, therefore, held over until the November election. 1871, when he was elected for the balance of the term. Mr. Hardenburg is still a resident of Lone Rock, in the town of Buena Vista.

James Appleby was again elected surveyor in November, 1872. IFe is the present incum- bent, having been re-elected in 1874, 1876, 1878, 1880 and 1882.

CORONER.

This is an unimportant office, and but few who have been elected to it have qualified. The following is a list of the gentlemen who have been chosen to the office, showing the years in which they were elected:

William Kincannon, 1850; Orin t aseltine, 1852; Fra S. Haseltine, 1854-56-60-62; A. S. Neff. 1864; A. Haskins, 1866; 11. Collins, 1868-70; George Jarvis, 1872-74; W. M. Fogo, 1876; John H. Carswell, 1878; D. O. Chandler, 1880; Norman L. James, 1882.

836

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE COURTS OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

When Richland county was organized it be- came a part of the fifth judicial circuit. The first term of court was held by Judge Mor- timer M. Jackson, in a rented building at Rich- mond (now Orion), commencing Sept. 11, 1850. There was but little business transacted. John J. Moreland was admitted to the bar after an examination by Amasa Cobb and Charles Dunn. There was no issue to be tried by petit jury. The grand jury found no presentments.

The first grand jury empaneled in Richland county, was composed of the following gentle- men:

*Israel Janney, Lattimore Rennick, John P. Irish, Thomas H. Daugherty, Starling MeKin- ney, Loman Parmer, O. L. Britton, Daniel II. Byrd, B. B. Sutton, William Mathews, Samuel Fleck, Stephen Finnell, Nathaniel Greene. George Goff, Thomas Mathews, Lucius Camp- bell and E. M. Sexton.

Terms of circuit court were subsequently held at Richmond, in April, 1851, September, 1851, and April, 1852. In September, 1852, court convened for the first time in Richland l'entre. Since that time terms of court have been regularly held, with a very few exceptions, every spring and fall.

In 1852 Montgomery M. Cothren was elected circuit judge to succeed M. N. Jackson. In April, 1858, he was re-elected and served for twelve years continuously.

At the fall term of court in 1857, there were some twenty-seven cases brought against Michael Carmichael, and a large number against Peter Mechan, of Richland Centre, for selling liquor without a license. They were convicted on some of the charges and acquitted on others. There had been a temperance crusade inaugur- ated at Richland Centre. One of the lawyers made the board of health of the village believe they had the right to order the abatement of liquor saloons, if they thought it injured the health of the community. They thought so and accordingly ordered that the saloons be closed up. The order was resisted. The temperance element thereupon acted under the order of the board of health and exeented it, demolishing the dram-shops and pouring the liquor into a conven- ient pond. The parties who had a hand in the affair were prosecuted for damages; they got a change of venue and took the case to Grant county ; from there it was carried to Dane county; and finally the papers were stolen or lost and the cases were dropped. These cases were the first of a series of liquor litigation which appear upon the record, cropping out every now and then, until within a very few years ago. In the history of Richland Centre will be found an extended account of the tem- perance movements of that place, from which most of the liquor cases came.

In Angust, 1858, the case of Arnest Herrlitz rx. Elizabeth Herrlitz, for divorce, appears on the records. The attorneys were James H. Miner and D B Priest for the plaintiff, and A. C. Eastland for the defendant. The case, in

* [Note .- It is a fact well worthy of note, that Israel Janney, who was a member of the first grand jury, was also a mein- ber and foreman of the last grand jury empaneled in the county prior to the abolishinent of that system].

837

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

itself, involved merely the general grounds for divorce: desertion and quarreling; but it came to a tragic termination. The notice of trial was served April 13, 1859, and between that time and the June term of court the plaintiff was murdered. Herrlitz lived in a little cabin in the town of Dayton. On the fatal evening, just after dark, he heard some one at the win- dow, as though they were trying to find the en- trance. He went to the door to tell them to come in, and just as he opened the door the cowardly assassin shot him. lle did not see who did it; but lived long enough to go to his brother's, a half a mile distant, and relate the particulars. Squire Durnford was employed to look up the facts, and enough was found to lead to strong suspicions, but not sufficient to justify the arrest of any one. No arrests were made, and the matter finally dropped from the public mind as new matters arose to draw away the attention. The matter still remains shrouded in mystery, although in the minds of llerrlitz's friends the bare hope remains that eventually "murder will out."

The case of Ransom and Sophia Ragan es. Samuel and Sidney Simpson, was only remark- able in point of the length of time it was in litigation. As the oracle says, "way back in 1856" the Ragans loaned money to the Simp- sons, and secured it by taking a mortgage upon some real estate in the town of Ithaca. In 1858 this action was brought to foreclose the mort- gage, and recover the money or property, Every possible defense was made; the case was put over several times; then compromised for a time; recommenced; continued; then aban- doned, and on and on; this and repeat, remain- ing in the courts or out, barely long enough to begin a new action, until the spring of 1883, when Samuel Simpson was finally ejected from the land. All of the attorneys of Richland county were at different times engaged upon one or the other side of the suit, besides many from adjoining counties, and several distin- guished lawyers from Madison. The amount

of the mortgage was spent several times by both parties in prosecuting and defending their cases.

Ths early records of the circuit court have not been preserved-some having been burned and others lost. The earliest records which are in the hands of the clerk of court commence with the term of court beginning May 9, 1859. At this time Judge Cothren was on the bench. The record states that "the sheriff, W. II. Joslin, opened the court by proclamation." There was considerable business to attend to at this term and court remained in session for several days. The sheriff returned the venire for a grand jury, and the following gentlemen were empaneled: W. J. Bowen, A. Mullen- dore, R. C. Field, Jacob Yoder, T. Whiteraft, William Chamberlain, D. M. Donnell, H. J. Morrison, D. L. Hubbard, John Chitwood, James A. Sharp, Henry Collins, George Nor- 'man, Sr., J. G. S. Hayward, Thomas Snyder, W. P. Lewis, H. Conner, M. D. Hankins and Roswell Hamilton.

When the court ordered that the petit jury be called, the following gentlemen answered to their names: Demas Wherry, William Sat- terlee, L. Rennieke, Sidney Rose, L. Thompson, (. Sharp, F. M. Stewart, J. Manley, John Bar- ret, William Robinson, E. Combs, G. D. Ly- brand, D. Williams, R. Barnes, James Brinley, George Krouskop, B. Graves, D. D. Mosher, C. Devoe, John Fry, E. C Walker, L. C. Gonche- nour, D. O. Chandler, John Jewell, Samuel Clayton, G. P. Derrickson and W. M Murlin. The record continues that the following were excused: "A. Nudd, because he was a mem- ber of the bar; William Janney, M. Whiteomb, Willace Joslin, George E. Hale and George L. Dyke had gone to Pike's Peak, and .I. M. Cal- loway on account of his privileges as a post- master."

At this term of court J. S. Wilson, Charles D). Stewart and William Farlin were admitted to the bar. The examining committee con-

888

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

sisted of James H. Miner, A. C. Eastland and George L. Frost.

In 1860-1 political influence was brought to bear upon the Legislature by those who were dixsatisfied with M. M. Cothren as judge, he being a democrat while this county was heavily republican, and particularly by the temperance element, and Richland county was taken from the fifth judicial circuit and attached to the La Crosse circuit.

In June, 1861, I. E. Messmore, of La Crosse, held the term of court here, and then drops forever from the records.

IIon. George Gale, of Trempealeau county, pre- sided over the term of court held in November, 1861, and continued upon the bench until suc- ceeded by Hon. Edwin Flint, of La Crosse, in 1863. Judge Flint held his first term of court here in June, 1863.

The case of Wildy Rickerson rs. J. L. Mc- Kee, an action on promissory note, which was tried at the April term of court, 1863, attracted wide interest. The following is a brief account of the cause of action: In the summer of 1862, the defendant, J. L. McKee, was nominated for county treasurer by the republicans of the county. E. M. Sexton, who was county treas- uer at the time, announced himself as an inde- pendent candidate for the office. It seems that Mr. McKee, to secure his own election, gave to Sexton his promissory note for $300 in con- sideration of the latter's withdrawing from the field and throwing his influence toward the election of the former; the note being given on Sunday. Mr. McKee was elected to the office by a majority of 246 over his opponent, Thomas C. Clark, and E. M. Sexton received seventy- eight votes. He then refused to pay the note, claiming that Sexton had worked against him, and thrown his influence toward the election of Mr. Clark. In the meantime, however, before the note became due, Mr. Sexton disposed of it and it came into the possession of Wildy Rick- erson, as an innocent purchaser. Mr. Ricker- son brought suit on the note in circuit court to

recover the amount due, employing as his attorneys Eastland & Eastland. James H. Miner, D. B. Priest and J. Allen Barber were the defendant's lawyers. The plaintiff relied upon the fact of the note being prima facie evi- dence of debt, and its being in the hands of an innocent purchaser. "The defendant's attorneys set up three strong grounds for defense: Ist. The note being given on Sunday. 2d. Want of consideration. 3d. It was against public policy. After a long and bard struggle, every point being taken advantage of, the case was decided in favor of the plaintiff, Mr. Rickerson, who recovered a judgment for the amount due on the note.

The case of Samuel Wood rs. Samuel Pat- rick, which was tried at the September term of circuit court, in 1863, was an interesting one to the citizens of Richland Centre. Dr. O. H. Wood had owned the property where Hon. James II. Miner now lives. He sold it to Samuel Patrick, taking in part payment his note, secured by a mortgage on the property. The mortgage was never recorded and both note and mortgage was sold to Samnel Wood and subsequently disappeared mysteriously. In this action Samuel Wood sought to foreclose the mortgage and recover the amount due on the note. Samuel Patrick appeared as a wit- ness on his own behalf, and swore that he had paid the note and destroyed the mortgage. Mr. Wood swore that the documents had been lost or stolen, and it appeared so conclusively that the latter was the case that Mr. Wood re- covered the amount due, and in default thereof took charge of the property. He subsequently sold the same to James H. Miner, who still lives there. A bill of indictment for perjury was soon afterwards found against Samuel Pat- rick by the grand jury and he left the country. He has never returned.

In 1864 Richland county again was attached to the fifth judicial circuit. Hon. J. T. Mills succeeded M. M. Cothren as judge of the circuit, and held his first term of court in Richland

839

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

county in April, 1865. Judge Mills served twelve years upon the bench and gave excellent satisfaction.

The case of Patrick Quinn rs. Harvey Mar- shall, is cited as a sample of a class of cases which arose during the war. It seems that af- ter one of the President's calls for men to go into the service, Marshall was drafted. He reported at Prairie du Chien. Patrick Quinn was a "sub- stitute broker" at that place, and for a certain amount procured a substitute for Marshall. The latter refused to accept the substitute which he had bargained for, and Quinn employed Hasel- ton & Dutcher as attorneys and brought this action for about $400 damages. James II. Miner was retained by the defendant. A change of venue was secured and the case was brought to Richland county for trial in May, 1866. The case was warmly contested, and was postponed several times, until finally Marshall compro- mised the matter by paying Quinn $25 and the case was dropped.

In October, 1868, the case of George Car- michael rs. Andrew Elang and Martin Banker was disposed of. It attracted a good deal of attention, on account of the principles and rights of the parties which it involved. George Carmichael lived upon a farm on Sun Prairie, in Dane county. Mr. Elang, for a long time, was his hired man. Mr. Carmichael gave to Mr. Elang a tract of land containing forty acres, telling him that he could live upon it and give a mortgage of $300 in payment thereof. No money was paid. The mortgage was not re- corded, as Mr. Carmichael had no doubt of Mr. Elang's honesty. For a long time Mr. Elang occupied the place and nothing was said about the mortgage. Finally, a man named Hawkins, who lived in the neighborhood, discovered the actual state of affairs, Ile went to Mr. Elang and succeeded in trading some other property for the forty acres. His next move was to soll the forty acres to Martin Banker, the co-defend- ant. Mr. Carmichael then brought this action to recover the amount of his mortgage. The securities amounting to $1,000; at that and un-

defense was upon the grounds that the mort- gage was not upon record and that the defend- ant Martin Banker had no notice of it; that the mortgage might be the fruit of a collusion be- tween Mr. Elang and the plaintiff. But it was shown that Martin Banker knew of the existence of the mortgage, and the plaintiff recovered judgment. The attorneys in the case were James II. Miver for the plaintiff, and Eastland & Eastland for the defendants.

At the April term of court in 1869, the case of E. M. Sexton rs. Richland county first came up for trial. The attorneys were Eastland & Cothren for Mr. Sexton, and O. F. Black, dis- triet attorney, and James H. Miner for the county. This case was one of the most impor- tant that has ever arose in Richland county. The plaintiff held the office of treasurer of Richland county during the years 1861 and 1862. In November, 1861, he had an account- ing and settlement with the board of supervi- xors. A committee of three members of the board examined his books, and found both the debits and credits so erroneous and confused (some errors being in his favor and others in favor of the county), that they rejected the books and ascertained the receipts of the office from other sources, and required him to produce proofs from other sources than his books of all disbursements allowed. They reported to the board that he had received $25,677.13 (giving the items) and had disbursed $26,592.46, "for all of which," they stated, " we find satisfactory vouchers and evidences that it had been paid ;" and, after detecting one error in the footings, they found due the plaintiff a balance of $618.33. The board accepted the report and settled with the plaintiff upon the basis thereof; and at the end of 1862 had a full and satisfac- tory settlement for that year. In 1863 the county board discovered mistakes in the plain- tiff's books, threatened him with a snit, and, for the purpose of protecting his bondsmen, he de- posited with the clerk of the board money and

840

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

der the circumstances Mr. Sexton admitting that he owed the county. In 1866 he demanded a return of this deposit, on the ground that he did not owe the county anything ; and a return being refused he brought this action to recover the amount so deposited. Eastland & Cothren were retained by the plaintiff, and James II. Miner and Oscar F. Black appeared on behalf of the county. When the case came into eir- cuit court it was referred to A. Durnford. The investigation before the referee consumed twenty-five days, and he reported as a part of his finding, that the defendants (the supervi- sors) had failed to establish, by evidence, that there was any mistake in the settlement of 1861; that "they had failed to prove that the vouchers which they produced in support of their defense did not, but ought to have entered into said set- tlement;" and that "a large number of the vouchers between towns and the county, which constituted the basis of the settlement of 1861," had been lost ; so that it was impossible to as- certain whether any mistake occurred in that settlement or not. The referee, therefore, re- ported that there was due the plaintiff, from defendants, said sum of $1,000 with interest. Upon the report of the referee coming into cir- cuit court, the attorneys for the county took exceptions to it and moved the court to set it aside. After a very lengthy argument, Judge Miner, for the county, speaking for three hours upon the point, the court found as facts : 1. That the defendants had established by evi- dence that there was a mistake in the settle- ment of 1861. 2. That they had proved that the vouchers entered in support of the defense did enter into that settlement. 3. That if any vouchers had been lost, their contents were proven by other documentary evidence equally worthy of credit (specifying them, or some of them). 4. That at the time the plaintiff de- posited the $1,000, he was indebted to the de- fendants in a still larger sum. Judgment was accordingly rendered in favor of the defendants (the county) for costs.

Mr. Sexton appealed the case to the supreme court, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed; the decision being announced at the January term 1870. As the case attracted wide attention and has now become a standard case of reference, the opinion of the supreme court regarding it, is here presented. Chief Justice L. S. Dixon and Justice Orsamus Cole, agreed in affirming the decision of the circuit court; but Justice Byron Paine dissented from their decision. Both sides are presented:

"By the court-held: That settlement of county treasurer with county board, is not conclusive:

"1st. That the court might go behind such settlement, even after a lapse of six or seven years.

"2d. That upon satisfactory evidence of a mistake in such settlement, and that there was a balance due from the plaintiff, judgment was properly rendered against him, notwithstanding an alleged loss of vouchers used upon such settlement; especially where he did not show what those vouchers were, and for what pur- poses the amounts named therein were paid."

Justice Paine in his dissenting opinion claimed:

"Ist. That the settlement should not be set aside without clear and positive proof of mis- take.

"2d. The facts that the board, in such settle- ment, charged plaintiff with a larger amount of receipts, as well as eredited him with larger dis- bursements; that his own books were then regarded as incorrect, both in debits and credits, and he was required to produce vouchers for all credits allowed him; and that these vouchers have since in part perished, forbids the setting aside of such settlement without the clearest proof of mistake; and the proof here is insuffi- cient."

The case of Andrew Soldusky es. T. P. and C. C. Derickson, at the spring term, 1870, was an important one. The parties had got into some quarrel over land difficulties, and the

841

HISTORY OF RICHLAND COUNTY.

Dericksons assaulted Soldusky, beating him very badly with a pitch fork, as he claimed. He was laid up for a long time by the injuries re- ceived, and upon his recovery he commenced this action for damages. The jury gave him a ver- diet for $800, but this was reduced by the court to $650, which amount was paid by the defend- ants. The attorneys in the case were Cothren & Black for Andrew Soldusky, and Eastland & Eastland for the Dericksons.

The case of Robert Akan vs. Alfred Parfrey and Dexter E. Pease, was first tried at the April term of court in 1870. This case was afterward carried to the supreme court, and has now become one of the most important standard reference cases in the Wisconsin re- ports. The history of the case is as follows : The defendants Parfrey and Pease, in 1865, built a dam across Pine river, at Richland Cen- tre, for the purpose of raising water to work their water mills. The dam caused the water to overflow Robert Akan's land above the dam, and he claimed damages. The defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff $200 a year for three years, for damage to the plaintiff's land, and the parties entered into a written agreement in the form of a lease, the plaintiff agreeing to take $200 per year for the flowage, and the defendant's agreeing to pay the same. At the expiration of the lease, the defendants contin- ned to occupy the plaintiff's land withont his consent. In February, 1870, the plaintiff brought an action against defendants under the mill-dam act of the State, for the purpose of having his damage assessed. The case was tried at the April term of circuit court in 1870, and the jury returned the following verdict : "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and assess the damage at $800, which shall be in full of all claim and demand for injury done to the plain- tiff's lands at the present height of water, estimated at six feet and five inches ;" or, "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and assess the damages to be annually paid the plaintiff by the defendants at the sum of $100, which shall

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of Crawford and Richland counties, Wisconsin, Part 118

Author: Butterfield, Consul Willshire, 1824-1899. [from old catalog]; Union publishing company, Springfield, Ill., pub. [from old catalog] Publication date: 1884 Publisher: Springfield, Ill., Union publishing company Number of Pages: 1298

Author: Butterfield, Consul Willshire, 1824-1899. [from old catalog]; Union publishing company, Springfield, Ill., pub. [from old catalog]
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Springfield, Ill., Union publishing company
Number of Pages: 1298