Jasper County Democrat, Volume 17, Number 55, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 October 1914 — REMINGTON CHAUTAUQUA WINS [ARTICLE]

REMINGTON CHAUTAUQUA WINS

In Controversy Over Grounds In the Appellate Court. VICTORY IS A COMPLETE ONE For die Chautauqua Organization, Lease Holds Good Until 1020, the Full 25 Years of Contract. Ihe appellate court has affirmed, the Jasper circuit court in holding that the Fountain Park Company, of Remington, has a right to hold the buildings and conduct its Chautauqua and other activities on the ground formerly owned by Robert Parker and now owned by Christian L. Hensler. C. The lawsuit which the decision ot the appellate court disposes of is one which is the outgrowth of the loose business methfids of Mr. Parker in dealing with a society for the betterment of the community, wherein he acted as both chief supporter and controller. Robert Parker was for many years a banker and a public spirited man, of Remington, owning a natural park, to which'had been added the old fair ground, and which he and his neighbors sought to use as a Chautauqua ground. A company was organized, composed of small shares of stock subscribed for as donations for the betterment of the neighborhood. The society prospered intellectually, and, to some extent, financially, in the way of better improvements, until Robert Parker’s bank failed and he was declared a bankrupt, and his property sold by his trustees in bankruptcy. The Chautauqua society had been operating under a written ifease for twenty-five years, which was executed in 1904, ybut Mr. Parker had been rendering oral reports to the society of the income and expenses of its operation and improvements, and had borrowed for the society out of the bank of which he was head, any money necessary to keep the society prosperous. When Christian L. Hensler bought the Parker farm, including the Chautauqua grounds, at a bankruptcy sale in 1908, he sought to abridge l the society’s privileges and to exclude it as far as possible from its enjoyment of its former opportunities. He tore down the judges’ stand and amphitheater connected with the old race track and demanded extra rent for another building used by the society. He finally sued the society on an alleged debt and the society filed as cross complaint which the trial court sustained and judgment was given against Hensler and in favor of the society, enjoining Hensler from interfering with the society's enjoyment of the ground during the months of July and August and providing he should rebuild the judges’ stand and amphitheater or pay 's2oo as damages for its removal. It is this judgment which the appellate court has affirmed, saying that the trial court committed no error at the trial, that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment, and that the case was of such nature that Hensler could not demand a new trial as a right, such as is given when the title to real estate is in question.