Evening Republican, Volume 18, Number 244, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 October 1914 — FOUNTAIN PARK CO. WINS HENSLER SUIT [ARTICLE]

FOUNTAIN PARK CO. WINS HENSLER SUIT

Decision in Appellate Coart Sustains Finding in Suit Affecting Chautauqua Assembly. ' 1. ._. . - _ » The Famous suit instituted after the failure of #ie Barker bank at Remington by Hensler against the Fountain Park Co., of Remington, and which was decided adversely to Hensler in the Jasper circuit court, has just been affirmed in the appellate court. The following brief of the finding was prepared by Judge Caldwell, of the appellate bench. This means* victory for the Chautauqua association. The opinion reads: - ■ “P was a wealthy public-spirited man, who became owner of the former Remington fair grounds and adjoining farm. The fair grounds property was suitable for a natural park and P organized a Chautauqua association, with shares of small value, which caused Chautauqua and athletic events to be hSld on the property,'and a 25-year lease was executed to the association and additional buildings built, but the association was financially loosely run, and the bank of which P was head carried its floating debt until P became a bankrupt, and the farm, including grounds used for Chautauqua, was sold to appellant, who attempted to curtail appellee’s privileges, tore down part of buildings and sued for additional claims outside of rent in lease. On appellees’ cross-complaint the court decreed appellee had right to premises and a roadway during July and August, and a reconstruction of destroyed buildings or S2OO damages. Motion for new trial and application for new trial of right, which were overruled. There was no error. No title was involved as gave new trial of rvgjit, as-title to arid nature of road were but incidents to protect appellee’s rights. (2) The evidence sufficiently upholds judgment to overcome motion for new trial for cause. (3) The written contract was sufficiently-, ambiguous to warrant the introduction of the oral , evidence to assist in its construction. (4) Oral statements of the former owner, after parting with title, relative t 6 ownership of the buildings, could not be cause for new trial when not objected to at time of admission.