Truher_Gottlieb Kaszubs Jones Island, Milwaukee, 1872 as property custodians
• The first four files are taken from Jack's genealogy research folder of filename, Truher_Gottlieb Kaszubs Jones Island, Milwaukee. There are the files marked most pointedly in RED indicating they were critical in understanding the circumstance. This is a wealth of other information in the main folder which I may add later to this TBF collection.
• 1 - Gottlieb-sumCourtCases1872-1902-e.doc , dated 2009-12-24 is a MSword file which Jack has made to gather a court case, pointing to a living and property stewardship arrangement which Gottlieb established within the first year or two of his arrival as an immigant.
Two court cases involving Gottlieb Truher:
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Aug Term 1902
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68
-- and another case --
March 1901
Illinois Steel Company v. Bilot. [109 Wis. 418, 85 n. w. 402.]
"Bilot" really is "Bilot", no spelling error.
quotes and sources collected by Jack Truher, 2009-12-24
See page 74 of Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz
Report 115, Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin,
July 19 -- November 28, 1902, by Frederic K. Conover,
Official Reporter.Chicago Callaghan and Company 1903.
http://books.google.com/books?dq=Truher%20wisconsin&q=Gottlieb&id=DUkMAAAAYAAJ&output=text&pg=PA74
by following that link, then searching "Gottlieb" in left search box we find that the name, Gottlieb, appears only once in the whole book, and on page 74: on the case:
Illinois Steel Co v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68
"Prior to 1872 several persons, strangers to tho patent title, occupied parts of the island. The adverse holdings were apart from each other. They were, as stated by some of the witnesses, all over the island. One of the settlers was Gottlieb Truher. He sold his place to Jacob Muza in 1872 for $100, not making any written conveyance. Muza occupied such place, with slight interruptions, continuously from the time he purchased the same till the commencement of this action. Some time prior to 1890, and not earlier than 1885, Muza designated a place on the island for one Peer to locate. The latter made a fill at the place designated, of sufficient size for the foundation of a house, and constructed one thereon. Thereafter he enlarged the filled space and inclosed the same on three sides with a fence, leaving an opening at the back part of his lot, and thereafter continued to extend the fill till he occupied the entire premises described in the complaint. He occupied the same continuously from the time the house was built till 1890, when he sold his right to the premises to the defendant, who immediately took possession thereof and occupied the same till the commencement of this action.
"There was evidence to the effect that Truher, in 1872, claiming possession of and dominion over the entire island, sold all his rights to Muza, and that thereafter the latter exercised dominion over the territory continuously till this action was commenced, except as he surrendered portions thereof from time to time to persons desiring to locate homes thereon; that in 1887 there were upwards of 200 settlers on the island; that the number largely increased thereafter before the commencement of this action. The acts of possession which witnesses testified that Muza exercised were as follows: As soon as ho purchased of Truher he explored the island, traveling part of the time on foot and part of the time in a boat. Immediately thereafter he commenced to improve the island. He continued to improve it till this action was commenced. The improvements were made chiefly by permitting persons to settle on the island, not exacting any compensation therefor except that they should aid in making the territory suitable for habitations. All the settlers did more or less work in improving the island under Muza's direction. The brush on the island was all cleared off and put into the low places. Filling was done by using ashes and all material that could be obtained. Some trees were planted. Some structures were made to prevent inroads from the waters of the lake. During all the time it was generally understood that Muza controlled the island. Persons who desired to settle thereon looked to him for directions in improving the territory. Undesirable characters 'were prohibited by him from' coming upon the island. Some persons who came to fish and hunt were compelled by him to go away. Truher, being called as a witness, testified that he never claimed any interest in any part. of the island except that occupied by his house, and that he did not sell or pretend to sell any other interest to Muza."
========================== ==========================
We also have a second link, next page, which I think Michael sent Jack is:
http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=gyA8AAAAIAAJ&dq=truher&q=truher#v=snippet&q=truher&f=false
AMERICAN STATE REPORTS, CONTAINING THE CASES OF GENERAL VALUE AND AUTHORITY
SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE CONTAINED IN THE "AMERICAN DECISIONS" AND THE "AMERICAN REPORTS,"
DECIDED IN THE COURTS OF LAST RESORT OF THE SEVERAL STATES.
BY A. C. FREEMAN Vol LXXXIIL
where I have here extracted about Gottlieb in the attached rtf file.What follows is the language that tells us most about Gottlieb:
case begins on page 905
quote begins page 908 of ILLINOIS STEEL CO. v. BILOT. [109 Wis. 418, 85 N. W. 402.] really is Bilot
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission. In 1872 Truher made a verbal transfer of his house to one Jacob Muza, and authorized the latter to exercise the same control that he had over the entire territory, but there was no paper transfer, Muza took such possession as was practicable, and exercised dominion as Truher did. Muza testified that when Truher gave him the property it was all submerged by water and mud as deep as over his head; and that the particular place allotted by him to Bilot was of no use until artificially raised above the level of the water."
...
skip much text argumentation until page 919, then read on:
...
"Complaint is made because, in the statement of facte upon which the former opinion was based, it was said that Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory, and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission. Notwithstanding the confident assertion of counsel that there is no such evidence in the record, either in a literal sense or within the range of reasonable inferences, we still think that, on the whole, what was stated and is so criticised is a fair inference from the testimony of Muza. Certainly Truher, according to Muza's evidence, pretended to own the island. He was living there when Muza came upon the scene. He asserted the right of dominion over the island. He pretended to sell and deliver possession thereof to Muza, asserting at the time that no one could take it from him but Lake Michigan. "
Two court cases involving Gottlieb Truher:
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Aug Term 1902
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68
-- and another case --
March 1901
Illinois Steel Company v. Bilot. [109 Wis. 418, 85 n. w. 402.]
"Bilot" really is "Bilot", no spelling error.
quotes and sources collected by Jack Truher, 2009-12-24
See page 74 of Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz
Report 115, Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin,
July 19 -- November 28, 1902, by Frederic K. Conover,
Official Reporter.Chicago Callaghan and Company 1903.
http://books.google.com/books?dq=Truher%20wisconsin&q=Gottlieb&id=DUkMAAAAYAAJ&output=text&pg=PA74
by following that link, then searching "Gottlieb" in left search box we find that the name, Gottlieb, appears only once in the whole book, and on page 74: on the case:
Illinois Steel Co v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68
"Prior to 1872 several persons, strangers to tho patent title, occupied parts of the island. The adverse holdings were apart from each other. They were, as stated by some of the witnesses, all over the island. One of the settlers was Gottlieb Truher. He sold his place to Jacob Muza in 1872 for $100, not making any written conveyance. Muza occupied such place, with slight interruptions, continuously from the time he purchased the same till the commencement of this action. Some time prior to 1890, and not earlier than 1885, Muza designated a place on the island for one Peer to locate. The latter made a fill at the place designated, of sufficient size for the foundation of a house, and constructed one thereon. Thereafter he enlarged the filled space and inclosed the same on three sides with a fence, leaving an opening at the back part of his lot, and thereafter continued to extend the fill till he occupied the entire premises described in the complaint. He occupied the same continuously from the time the house was built till 1890, when he sold his right to the premises to the defendant, who immediately took possession thereof and occupied the same till the commencement of this action.
"There was evidence to the effect that Truher, in 1872, claiming possession of and dominion over the entire island, sold all his rights to Muza, and that thereafter the latter exercised dominion over the territory continuously till this action was commenced, except as he surrendered portions thereof from time to time to persons desiring to locate homes thereon; that in 1887 there were upwards of 200 settlers on the island; that the number largely increased thereafter before the commencement of this action. The acts of possession which witnesses testified that Muza exercised were as follows: As soon as ho purchased of Truher he explored the island, traveling part of the time on foot and part of the time in a boat. Immediately thereafter he commenced to improve the island. He continued to improve it till this action was commenced. The improvements were made chiefly by permitting persons to settle on the island, not exacting any compensation therefor except that they should aid in making the territory suitable for habitations. All the settlers did more or less work in improving the island under Muza's direction. The brush on the island was all cleared off and put into the low places. Filling was done by using ashes and all material that could be obtained. Some trees were planted. Some structures were made to prevent inroads from the waters of the lake. During all the time it was generally understood that Muza controlled the island. Persons who desired to settle thereon looked to him for directions in improving the territory. Undesirable characters 'were prohibited by him from' coming upon the island. Some persons who came to fish and hunt were compelled by him to go away. Truher, being called as a witness, testified that he never claimed any interest in any part. of the island except that occupied by his house, and that he did not sell or pretend to sell any other interest to Muza."
========================== ==========================
We also have a second link, next page, which I think Michael sent Jack is:
http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=gyA8AAAAIAAJ&dq=truher&q=truher#v=snippet&q=truher&f=false
AMERICAN STATE REPORTS, CONTAINING THE CASES OF GENERAL VALUE AND AUTHORITY
SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE CONTAINED IN THE "AMERICAN DECISIONS" AND THE "AMERICAN REPORTS,"
DECIDED IN THE COURTS OF LAST RESORT OF THE SEVERAL STATES.
BY A. C. FREEMAN Vol LXXXIIL
where I have here extracted about Gottlieb in the attached rtf file.What follows is the language that tells us most about Gottlieb:
case begins on page 905
quote begins page 908 of ILLINOIS STEEL CO. v. BILOT. [109 Wis. 418, 85 N. W. 402.] really is Bilot
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission. In 1872 Truher made a verbal transfer of his house to one Jacob Muza, and authorized the latter to exercise the same control that he had over the entire territory, but there was no paper transfer, Muza took such possession as was practicable, and exercised dominion as Truher did. Muza testified that when Truher gave him the property it was all submerged by water and mud as deep as over his head; and that the particular place allotted by him to Bilot was of no use until artificially raised above the level of the water."
...
skip much text argumentation until page 919, then read on:
...
"Complaint is made because, in the statement of facte upon which the former opinion was based, it was said that Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory, and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission. Notwithstanding the confident assertion of counsel that there is no such evidence in the record, either in a literal sense or within the range of reasonable inferences, we still think that, on the whole, what was stated and is so criticised is a fair inference from the testimony of Muza. Certainly Truher, according to Muza's evidence, pretended to own the island. He was living there when Muza came upon the scene. He asserted the right of dominion over the island. He pretended to sell and deliver possession thereof to Muza, asserting at the time that no one could take it from him but Lake Michigan. "
• 2 - Gottlieb-goonsDominion.doc is a filed dated 2009-12-25 which explains the setting in an email exchange between Ron Haack and Jack Truher in 2010.
Ronald H. Haack wrote:
> Anyone like to hazard a guess as to where on attached Earth map is that Gottlieb marsh land?
>
> Ron Haack
> cookierhh@verizon.net <mailto:cookierhh@verizon.net >
Jack Responds on 2009m1226 at 7:35 a.m.
No question: The property in question was called Jones Island. That original triangular space has been expanded by fill to become an industrial area with a sewage treatment plant, among other things. Jones Island sits as an ithsmuth just East of the University of Wisconsin Great Lakes Research Facility (increase magnification on last image of attached PDF).
The PNG attachments have text which I captured a few days ago from the record in my summary, which we have all seen. One reads on these PNG the circumstance under appeal.
Without complete certainty, I understand the appeals case in Wisc supreme court as follows:
In the 1872-1902 era squatters could sometimes assume Prima Facie title by exercising what I would call de-facto ownership by acceptance of peers and a record of good stewardship. Gottlieb may have implied some such presumed rights over the whole island, when he accepted $100 from Musa, who then assumed such a role as senior among squatters. For $100, Musa said he took ownership of Gottlieb's house and also the whole of the Island. Over time, things changed gradually until Illinois Steel Co became the dominant controlling operator on the growing Island. At this point, Musa attempted to assert his presumed Prima Facie title as a plaintiff in a civil suit against Illinois Steel, which suit was rejected in a court case that Haack-Truher in 2009 has not yet discovered. Musa appealed.
In the course of testamony to the original court hearing, Musa insisted that Gottlieb represented himself as a Prima Facie owner of Jones Island. Gottlieb said contrarily that he exercised only had such prima facie relationship to his house and perhaps its immediate property, not the entirety of Jones Island.
Musa appealed to the Wisconsin superior court, resulting in the record that we are reading in Wisconsin Superior court and American State Report google books. I don't recall reading a resounding rejection of Musa appeal in the record of appeal, but I assume that's what he got. Illinois Steel is presumed by me to have won the appeal. By the definition below, absence of of endorsement of a plaintiff's appeal by a court means the plaintiff lost.
Gottlieb's apparent refusal to join Musa may have been the basis for the bad vibes with Gottlieb that Ron has learned about elsewhere, and/or there may have been other tensions about a later property that Gottlieb had shared interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
prima facie [Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).
For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission."
We read in Illinois Steel Co. v. Bilot - about Jones Island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Island,_Milwaukee
We can find a nice historical map of Jones Island, at the terminus of the Menominee River and Kinnickinnic River..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menominee_River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinnickinnic_River_%28Milwaukee_River%29
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullRecord.asp?id=6921
------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================
Jack writes again on 2009m1226 at 1:07 p.m.
on subject: "Gottlieb's Goons and Musa De Niro
MICHAEL TRUHER wrote:
This whole thing is really weird but interesting. why would gottlieb turn "states evidence" so to say? gottlieb and musa had some dispute apparently.
Ron said recently that he recalled that both Gottlieb and Jakob were employed by the Steel Company. The company could easily make it worthwhile that one or both of the brothers could be paid off or otherwise benefit from a favorable testimony in a legal contest for prime industrial waterfront property at the intersection of major riverways. Since Gottlieb arrived first, and had established himself, he would have had advantage over Jakob in such a back room negotiation, breeding the sort of competition for advantage that might damage a relationship.
Gottlieb's living on a swamp fill is not likely to have been a choice that Caroline and 6 year old August would have endorsed, or even endured. The wind whistling off Lake Michigan had to be unimaginable for long periods. The company might have planted August there among the squatters, specifically to favor a later settlement in favor of the company and eject the squatters.
It seems unlikely that laborers Gottlieb and Jakob would be situated in their own two story family dwellings not long off the boat, unless they had exploited some angle. We know that Jakob never rose above a laborer. Gottlieb as well, though he was a failed farmer for a decade in another comfortable house, until he moved his family into a third in Minneapolis. Pretty good for laborers: one with like 5 children and the other with eight or whatever.
All speculation, but more than possible, given the stories of family tension that persisted for generations.
Attached (again) is picture Ron sent of Jakobs nearby family home and grave stone.
================================================
Jack writes again at 2:53 pm
on subject: Poles vs German tension on Jones Island.
remember this segment of court text:
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission."
following the speculations just offered, how indeed did Gottlieb "exercise dominion" or "prevent any person". He did not appear in pictures to be particularly dominant physical personage. Perhaps the company provide the muscle. Rather than actually living on the property with his family, it would make more sense that Gottlieb spent enough time there to look legitimate to earlier squatters, with constant visitors and company from company enforcers, almost certainly armed, because it was "hunters and fishing" excursioners that Gottlieb is reported to have repelled. All it would take is a few big fellows with attitude and weapons.
If the company lost interest, or the racket looked shakey, or the game was exposed and stopped by police, perhaps Musa came on the scene, with a more subtle approach. Managements change. Later Musa may have thought he was on his own, and so behaved in court.
Gottlieb's mental instability may have come from emotional trauma for living conflicted by threat of retaliation in response to his use of goon squads. What better place to escape than the Plains of Minnesota. Why not settle a distance away, more comfortably, after things cooled off. Minneapolis would be far enough.
Who will write the novel on this screenplay? Robert De Niro could be old man Musa telling the story, about how everybody got something out of the deal alive. Good ending, even if our Gottlieb went nuts for a time. He probably started out a little crazy.
====================================================
Brother Jim writes also on 2009m1226 at 1:39 p.m.
There was a lot going on back then…….
*Bay View Massacre*
*From Wikipedia*
Wisconsin Historical Marker
The *Bay View Massacre* (sometimes also referred to as the *Bay View Tragedy*) was the culmination of events that began on Saturday May 1, 1886 when 7,000 building-trades workers joined with 5,000 Polish laborers who had organized at St. Stanislaus Catholic Church <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stanislaus_Catholic_Church_%28Milwaukee,_Wisconsin%29 > in Milwaukee, Wisconsin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee,_Wisconsin > to strike <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action > against their employers, demanding an eight-hour work day <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day >.
By Monday, these numbers had increased to over 14,000 workers that gathered at the Milwaukee Iron Company rolling mill in Bay View <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View,_Milwaukee >. They were met by 250 National Guardsmen under order from Governor Jeremiah M. Rusk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_McLain_Rusk > to "shoot to kill" any strikers who attempted to enter. Workers camped in the nearby fields and the Kosciuszko Militia arrived by May 4 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_4 >. Early the next day the crowd, which by this time contained children, approached the mill and were fired upon. Seven people died as a result, including a thirteen-year-old boy.^[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre#cite_note-0#cite_note-0> Several more were injured during the protest.
Jim Truher
====================================================
One of the tensions here is that between Poles and Germans at the time that Gottlieb arrives on Jones Island. The text below explains that Germans arrived on Jones Island in "1870". Residents remained as squatters until 1940, when the island was surrounded by fill, as part of the city shipping port, undoubtedly by eminent domain.
Magnify a google map of Jones Island and you learn about a tiny park on the Island named after the earlier-than-Gottlieb Polish fishermen, Kaszubes among others:
http://wikimapia.org/1191775/Kaszubes-Park
Kaszubes-Park
"This is the smallest park in the milwaukee county park system. The park is named after the Kaszubes who once inhabited Jones Island before it became a peninsula. The park is marked by an anchor with a plaque and the stump from a large willow tree that until recently was at the center of the park. The park has been landscaped since the demise of the tree, and a portion of the dismembered trunk can be seen on the other side of the chain link fence bordering the park."
and from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Milwaukee
Jones Island
Main article: Jones Island, Milwaukee
"Jones Island is a peninsula located at the Milwaukee Harbor. It began as a fishing village populated by Polish settlers from the Kaszub region as well as some German immigrants in 1870. The settlers made their living by fishing Lake Michigan. Having never officially obtained a deed for the land, they were considered squatters by the City of Milwaukee and evicted in the 1940s. The city then proceeded to make way for a shipping port as part of an inner harbor design.
"The area is now heavily industrialized, containing only a few mature trees. Jones Island hosts much of the city's municipal services, including the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. The area supports the Hoan Bridge and includes a shipping port, the Port of Milwaukee."
In support of my earlier screenplay, explain how a German in 1870s manages to take dominion over an island long inhabited by a dozen polish fishing families. Not done without muscle. The contempt that the Truher's had for Poles was explained to me at length as a child.
Ronald H. Haack wrote:
> Anyone like to hazard a guess as to where on attached Earth map is that Gottlieb marsh land?
>
> Ron Haack
> cookierhh@verizon.net <mailto:cookierhh@verizon.net >
Jack Responds on 2009m1226 at 7:35 a.m.
No question: The property in question was called Jones Island. That original triangular space has been expanded by fill to become an industrial area with a sewage treatment plant, among other things. Jones Island sits as an ithsmuth just East of the University of Wisconsin Great Lakes Research Facility (increase magnification on last image of attached PDF).
The PNG attachments have text which I captured a few days ago from the record in my summary, which we have all seen. One reads on these PNG the circumstance under appeal.
Without complete certainty, I understand the appeals case in Wisc supreme court as follows:
In the 1872-1902 era squatters could sometimes assume Prima Facie title by exercising what I would call de-facto ownership by acceptance of peers and a record of good stewardship. Gottlieb may have implied some such presumed rights over the whole island, when he accepted $100 from Musa, who then assumed such a role as senior among squatters. For $100, Musa said he took ownership of Gottlieb's house and also the whole of the Island. Over time, things changed gradually until Illinois Steel Co became the dominant controlling operator on the growing Island. At this point, Musa attempted to assert his presumed Prima Facie title as a plaintiff in a civil suit against Illinois Steel, which suit was rejected in a court case that Haack-Truher in 2009 has not yet discovered. Musa appealed.
In the course of testamony to the original court hearing, Musa insisted that Gottlieb represented himself as a Prima Facie owner of Jones Island. Gottlieb said contrarily that he exercised only had such prima facie relationship to his house and perhaps its immediate property, not the entirety of Jones Island.
Musa appealed to the Wisconsin superior court, resulting in the record that we are reading in Wisconsin Superior court and American State Report google books. I don't recall reading a resounding rejection of Musa appeal in the record of appeal, but I assume that's what he got. Illinois Steel is presumed by me to have won the appeal. By the definition below, absence of of endorsement of a plaintiff's appeal by a court means the plaintiff lost.
Gottlieb's apparent refusal to join Musa may have been the basis for the bad vibes with Gottlieb that Ron has learned about elsewhere, and/or there may have been other tensions about a later property that Gottlieb had shared interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
prima facie [Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).
For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission."
We read in Illinois Steel Co. v. Bilot - about Jones Island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Island,_Milwaukee
We can find a nice historical map of Jones Island, at the terminus of the Menominee River and Kinnickinnic River..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menominee_River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinnickinnic_River_%28Milwaukee_River%29
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullRecord.asp?id=6921
------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================
Jack writes again on 2009m1226 at 1:07 p.m.
on subject: "Gottlieb's Goons and Musa De Niro
MICHAEL TRUHER wrote:
This whole thing is really weird but interesting. why would gottlieb turn "states evidence" so to say? gottlieb and musa had some dispute apparently.
Ron said recently that he recalled that both Gottlieb and Jakob were employed by the Steel Company. The company could easily make it worthwhile that one or both of the brothers could be paid off or otherwise benefit from a favorable testimony in a legal contest for prime industrial waterfront property at the intersection of major riverways. Since Gottlieb arrived first, and had established himself, he would have had advantage over Jakob in such a back room negotiation, breeding the sort of competition for advantage that might damage a relationship.
Gottlieb's living on a swamp fill is not likely to have been a choice that Caroline and 6 year old August would have endorsed, or even endured. The wind whistling off Lake Michigan had to be unimaginable for long periods. The company might have planted August there among the squatters, specifically to favor a later settlement in favor of the company and eject the squatters.
It seems unlikely that laborers Gottlieb and Jakob would be situated in their own two story family dwellings not long off the boat, unless they had exploited some angle. We know that Jakob never rose above a laborer. Gottlieb as well, though he was a failed farmer for a decade in another comfortable house, until he moved his family into a third in Minneapolis. Pretty good for laborers: one with like 5 children and the other with eight or whatever.
All speculation, but more than possible, given the stories of family tension that persisted for generations.
Attached (again) is picture Ron sent of Jakobs nearby family home and grave stone.
================================================
Jack writes again at 2:53 pm
on subject: Poles vs German tension on Jones Island.
remember this segment of court text:
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission."
following the speculations just offered, how indeed did Gottlieb "exercise dominion" or "prevent any person". He did not appear in pictures to be particularly dominant physical personage. Perhaps the company provide the muscle. Rather than actually living on the property with his family, it would make more sense that Gottlieb spent enough time there to look legitimate to earlier squatters, with constant visitors and company from company enforcers, almost certainly armed, because it was "hunters and fishing" excursioners that Gottlieb is reported to have repelled. All it would take is a few big fellows with attitude and weapons.
If the company lost interest, or the racket looked shakey, or the game was exposed and stopped by police, perhaps Musa came on the scene, with a more subtle approach. Managements change. Later Musa may have thought he was on his own, and so behaved in court.
Gottlieb's mental instability may have come from emotional trauma for living conflicted by threat of retaliation in response to his use of goon squads. What better place to escape than the Plains of Minnesota. Why not settle a distance away, more comfortably, after things cooled off. Minneapolis would be far enough.
Who will write the novel on this screenplay? Robert De Niro could be old man Musa telling the story, about how everybody got something out of the deal alive. Good ending, even if our Gottlieb went nuts for a time. He probably started out a little crazy.
====================================================
Brother Jim writes also on 2009m1226 at 1:39 p.m.
There was a lot going on back then…….
*Bay View Massacre*
*From Wikipedia*
Wisconsin Historical Marker
The *Bay View Massacre* (sometimes also referred to as the *Bay View Tragedy*) was the culmination of events that began on Saturday May 1, 1886 when 7,000 building-trades workers joined with 5,000 Polish laborers who had organized at St. Stanislaus Catholic Church <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stanislaus_Catholic_Church_%28Milwaukee,_Wisconsin%29 > in Milwaukee, Wisconsin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee,_Wisconsin > to strike <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action > against their employers, demanding an eight-hour work day <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day >.
By Monday, these numbers had increased to over 14,000 workers that gathered at the Milwaukee Iron Company rolling mill in Bay View <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View,_Milwaukee >. They were met by 250 National Guardsmen under order from Governor Jeremiah M. Rusk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_McLain_Rusk > to "shoot to kill" any strikers who attempted to enter. Workers camped in the nearby fields and the Kosciuszko Militia arrived by May 4 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_4 >. Early the next day the crowd, which by this time contained children, approached the mill and were fired upon. Seven people died as a result, including a thirteen-year-old boy.^[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre#cite_note-0#cite_note-0> Several more were injured during the protest.
Jim Truher
====================================================
One of the tensions here is that between Poles and Germans at the time that Gottlieb arrives on Jones Island. The text below explains that Germans arrived on Jones Island in "1870". Residents remained as squatters until 1940, when the island was surrounded by fill, as part of the city shipping port, undoubtedly by eminent domain.
Magnify a google map of Jones Island and you learn about a tiny park on the Island named after the earlier-than-Gottlieb Polish fishermen, Kaszubes among others:
http://wikimapia.org/1191775/Kaszubes-Park
Kaszubes-Park
"This is the smallest park in the milwaukee county park system. The park is named after the Kaszubes who once inhabited Jones Island before it became a peninsula. The park is marked by an anchor with a plaque and the stump from a large willow tree that until recently was at the center of the park. The park has been landscaped since the demise of the tree, and a portion of the dismembered trunk can be seen on the other side of the chain link fence bordering the park."
and from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Milwaukee
Jones Island
Main article: Jones Island, Milwaukee
"Jones Island is a peninsula located at the Milwaukee Harbor. It began as a fishing village populated by Polish settlers from the Kaszub region as well as some German immigrants in 1870. The settlers made their living by fishing Lake Michigan. Having never officially obtained a deed for the land, they were considered squatters by the City of Milwaukee and evicted in the 1940s. The city then proceeded to make way for a shipping port as part of an inner harbor design.
"The area is now heavily industrialized, containing only a few mature trees. Jones Island hosts much of the city's municipal services, including the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. The area supports the Hoan Bridge and includes a shipping port, the Port of Milwaukee."
In support of my earlier screenplay, explain how a German in 1870s manages to take dominion over an island long inhabited by a dozen polish fishing families. Not done without muscle. The contempt that the Truher's had for Poles was explained to me at length as a child.
• 3 - GottliebGoons JonesIsland1870c.rtfd, dated 2009-12-26 is another file with describes the circumstance.
Gottlieb's Goons - Dominion on Jones Island 1870
collected facts on the first Truher American Immigrant, adding a little speculation on the side, by Jack Truher
Cousin Ronald H. Haack wrote:
>Anyone like to hazard a guess as to where on attached Earth map is that Gottlieb marsh land?
Ron Haack
mailto:cookierhh@verizon.net >
Jack Responds on 2009m1226 at 7:35 a.m.
No question: The property in question was called Jones Island. That original triangular space has been expanded by fill to become an industrial area with a sewage treatment plant, among other things. Jones Island sits as an ithsmuth just East of the University of Wisconsin Great Lakes Research Facility (increase magnification on last image of attached PDF).
The PNG attachments have text which I captured a few days ago from the record in my summary, which we have all seen. One reads on these PNG the circumstance under appeal.
Without complete certainty, I understand the appeals case in Wisc supreme court as follows:
In the 1872-1902 era squatters could sometimes assume Prima Facie title by exercising what I would call de-facto ownership by acceptance of peers and a record of good stewardship. Gottlieb may have implied some such presumed rights over the whole island, when he accepted $100 from Musa, who then assumed such a role as senior among squatters. For $100, Musa said he took ownership of Gottlieb's house and also the whole of the Island. Over time, things changed gradually until Illinois Steel Co became the dominant controlling operator on the growing Island. At this point, Musa attempted to assert his presumed Prima Facie title as a plaintiff in a civil suit against Illinois Steel, which suit was rejected in a court case that Haack-Truher in 2009 has not yet discovered. Musa appealed.
In the course of testimony to the original court hearing, Musa insisted that Gottlieb represented himself as a Prima Facie owner of Jones Island. Gottlieb said contrarily that he exercised only had such prima facie relationship to his house and perhaps its immediate property, not the entirety of Jones Island.
Musa appealed to the Wisconsin superior court, resulting in the record that we are reading in Wisconsin Superior court and American State Report google books. I don't recall reading a resounding rejection of Musa appeal in the record of appeal, but I assume that's what he got. Illinois Steel is presumed by me to have won the appeal. By the definition below, absence of of endorsement of a plaintiff's appeal by a court means the plaintiff lost.
Gottlieb's apparent refusal to join Musa may have been the basis for the bad vibes with Gottlieb that Ron has learned about elsewhere, and/or there may have been other tensions about a later property that Gottlieb had shared interest.
----------------------------------------------------
prima facie [Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).
For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie
-------------------------------------
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission."
We read in Illinois Steel Co. v. Bilot - about Jones Island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Island,_Milwaukee
We can find a nice historical map of Jones Island, at the terminus of the Menominee River and Kinnickinnic River..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menominee_River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinnickinnic_River_%28Milwaukee_River%29
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullRecord.asp?id=6921
-------------------------------------------------
Jack writes again on 2009m1226 at 1:07 p.m.
on subject:
"Gottlieb's Goons and Musa De Niro
brother MICHAEL TRUHER wrote:
This whole thing is really weird but interesting. why would Gottlieb turn "states evidence" so to say? Gottlieb and Musa had some dispute apparently.
Ron said recently that he recalled that both Gottlieb and Jakob were employed by the Steel Company. The company could easily make it worthwhile that one or both of the brothers could be paid off or otherwise benefit from a favorable testimony in a legal contest for prime industrial waterfront property at the intersection of major riverways. Since Gottlieb arrived first, and had established himself, he would have had advantage over Jakob in such a back room negotiation, breeding the sort of competition for advantage that might damage a relationship.
Gottlieb's living on a swamp fill is not likely to have been a choice that Caroline and 6 year old August would have endorsed, or even endured. The wind whistling off Lake Michigan had to be unimaginable for long periods. The company might have planted August there among the squatters, specifically to favor a later settlement in favor of the company and eject the squatters.
It seems unlikely that laborers Gottlieb and Jakob would be situated in their own two story family dwellings not long off the boat, unless they had exploited some angle. We know that Jakob never rose above a laborer. Gottlieb as well, though he was a failed farmer for a decade in another comfortable house, until he moved his family into a third in Minneapolis. Pretty good for laborers: one with like 5 children and the other with eight or whatever.
All speculation, but more than possible, given the stories of family tension that persisted for generations.
Attached (at bottom) is picture Ron sent of Jakobs nearby family home and grave stone.
=======================
Jack writes again at 2:53 pm
on subject:
Poles vs German tension on Jones Island.
remember this segment of court text:
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission."
Jack continues:P
following the speculations just offered, how indeed did Gottlieb "exercise dominion" or "prevent any person". He did not appear in pictures to be particularly dominant physical personage. Perhaps the company provide the muscle. Rather than actually living on the property with his family, it would make more sense that Gottlieb spent enough time there to look legitimate to earlier squatters, with constant visitors and company from company enforcers, almost certainly armed, because it was "hunters and fishing" excursioners that Gottlieb is reported to have repelled. All it would take is a few big fellows with attitude and weapons.
If the company lost interest, or the racket looked shakey, or the game was exposed and stopped by police, perhaps Musa came on the scene, with a more subtle approach. Managements change. Later Musa may have thought he was on his own, and so behaved in court.
Gottlieb's mental instability may have come from emotional trauma for living conflicted by threat of retaliation in response to his use of goon squads. What better place to escape than the Plains of Minnesota. Why not settle a distance away, more comfortably, after things cooled off. Minneapolis would be far enough.
Who will write the novel on this screenplay? Robert De Niro could be old man Musa telling the story, about how everybody got something out of the deal alive. Good ending, even if our Gottlieb went nuts for a time. He probably started out a little crazy.
============================
Brother Jim writes
also on 2009m1226 at 1:39 p.m.
There was a lot going on back then…….
*Bay View Massacre*
*From Wikipedia*
Wisconsin Historical Marker
The *Bay View Massacre* (sometimes also referred to as the *Bay View Tragedy*) was the culmination of events that began on Saturday May 1, 1886 when 7,000 building-trades workers joined with 5,000 Polish laborers who had organized at St. Stanislaus Catholic Church to strike against their employers, demanding an eight hour work day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee,_Wisconsin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
By Monday, these numbers had increased to over 14,000 workers that gathered at the Milwaukee Iron Company rolling mill in Bay View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View,_Milwaukee
They were met by 250 National Guardsmen under order from Governor Jeremiah M. Rusk to shoot to kill any strikers who attempted to enter. Workers camped in the nearby fields and the Kosciuszko Militia arrived by May 4
to "shoot to kill" any strikers who attempted to enter.
Early the next day the crowd, which by this time contained children, approached the mill and were fired upon. Seven people died as a result, including a thirteen-year-old boy. Several more were injured during the protest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_McLain_Rusk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre#cite_note-0#cite_note-0
Jim Truher
=================
Jack writes:
One of the tensions here is that between Poles and Germans at the time that Gottlieb arrives on Jones Island. The text below explains that Germans arrived on Jones Island in "1870". Residents remained as squatters until 1940, when the island was surrounded by fill, as part of the city shipping port, undoubtedly by eminent domain.
Magnify a google map of Jones Island and you learn about a tiny park on the Island named after the earlier-than-Gottlieb Polish fishermen, Kaszubes among others:
http://wikimapia.org/1191775/Kaszubes-Park
Kaszubes-Park
"This is the smallest park in the milwaukee county park system. The park is named after the Kaszubes who once inhabited Jones Island before it became a peninsula. The park is marked by an anchor with a plaque and the stump from a large willow tree that until recently was at the center of the park. The park has been landscaped since the demise of the tree, and a portion of the dismembered trunk can be seen on the other side of the chain link fence bordering the park."
and from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Milwaukee
Jones Island
Main article: Jones Island, Milwaukee
"Jones Island is a peninsula located at the Milwaukee Harbor. It began as a fishing village populated by Polish settlers from the Kaszub region as well as some German immigrants in 1870. The settlers made their living by fishing Lake Michigan. Having never officially obtained a deed for the land, they were considered squatters by the City of Milwaukee and evicted in the 1940s. The city then proceeded to make way for a shipping port as part of an inner harbor design.
"The area is now heavily industrialized, containing only a few mature trees. Jones Island hosts much of the city's municipal services, including the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. The area supports the Hoan Bridge and includes a shipping port, the Port of Milwaukee."
In support of my earlier screenplay, explain how a German in 1870s manages to take dominion over an island long inhabited by a dozen polish fishing families. Not done without muscle. The prejudice that the Truher's had for Poles was explained to me at length as a child. -- Jack
=============================
2009m1227
Jack writes again on Gottlieb's Kaszubian friends from Koscierzyna.
We learn from this exercise the Poles from Kaszub were dominant as fishermen on Jones Island in 1870, which became an important connection in 1870-72 for arriving immigrant Gottlieb Truher. It is reasonable to think that Gottlieb had known Kaszub people near Danzig from which he claimed to emigrate, and the first port of departure on the ship which he used, along with wife Caroline and son, August.
We find the Kaszubs in Pomerania, the term which Elsie Brink used from her childhood memory, in a conversation with me nearly a decade ago.
We are led to
http://www.ka-na.org/kaszubia.html
which is a web site all about the Kaszub people and their place of origin. From the first link,
http://www.ka-na.org/rekowski.html
read:
"The heart of Kaszuby would be around the cities (10 - 15 thousand) of Kartuzy and Koscierzyna for the central and southern Kashubs and around the larger city of Wejherowo in the region adjacent to the peninsula of Hel for the northern Kashubs."
This is pay dirt. I have been looking for the Truher city of origin near Danzig for a decade.
My conversation with Anita Enander, a few years ago, (a Gill descendent of Florentine Truher's 2nd husband, Lietzau), directed me most clearly to Koscierzyna (German Berent), and two or three other nearby villages, still there today in Poland (which I have noted elsewhere).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bcierzyna
There are too many connections now. The place to look for European records on the Truher-Lietzau families is in Koscierzyna.
-===============================
2009m1227
about 8:00 a.m.
Jack writes again on Gottlieb's Kaszubian friends from Koscierzyna.
We learn from this exercise the Poles from Kaszub were dominant as fishermen on Jones Island in 1870, which became an important connection in 1870-72 for arriving immigrant Gottlieb Truher. It is reasonable to think that Gottlieb had known Kaszub people near Danzig from which he claimed to emigrate, and the first port of departure on the ship which he used, along with wife Caroline and son, August.
We find the Kaszubs in Pomerania, the term which Elsie Brink used from her childhood memory, in a conversation with me nearly a decade ago.
We are led to
http://www.ka-na.org/kaszubia.html
which is a web site all about the Kaszub people and their place of origin. From the first link,
http://www.ka-na.org/rekowski.html
read:
"The heart of Kaszuby would be around the cities (10 - 15 thousand) of Kartuzy and Koscierzyna for the central and southern Kashubs and around the larger city of Wejherowo in the region adjacent to the peninsula of Hel for the northern Kashubs."
This is pay dirt. I have been looking for the Truher city of origin near Danzig for a decade.
My conversation with Anita Enander, a few years ago, (a Gill descendent of Florentine Truher's 2nd husband, Lietzau), directed me most clearly to Koscierzyna (German Berent), and two or three other nearby villages, still there today in Poland (which I have noted elsewhere).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bcierzyna
=================================
Jack wrote around noon 2009m1227
-------------------------
Jim sent us the following link and story from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre
James Truher wrote:
There was a lot going on back then…….
> Bay View Massacre From Wikipedia Wisconsin Historical Marker
-------------------------
The Bay View Massacre (sometimes also referred to as the Bay View Tragedy) was the culmination of events that began on Saturday May 1, 1886 when 7,000 building-trades workers joined with 5,000 Polish laborers who had organized at St. Stanislaus Catholic Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to strike against their employers, demanding an eight-hour work day.
Jack adds: This story points out an important clarification:
Reading in German-Polish history over what became Polish Territory after WW2 includes comments that Germans dominated commercial life, and were generally thus advantaged by comparison to their Polish neighbors. (Dad would sometimes say that the Truhers came from the Polish Corridor).The point is made by published descriptions that the Germans there did not mix with Poles, nor integrate, nor intermarry in numbers. Instead the German were a separatist elite. This separatism was finally punctuated at the end of WW2, when many German civilians fled the region by crowding onto transport carriers on the Baltic toward West Germany. These unarmed, civilian transport ships were sunk by angry Poles, and nearly all passengers died.
The "7000 building-trades workers" were most likely German, with perhaps a minority of English. Milwaukee was known as perhaps the most popular German point of immigration. Laborers of the time would have been Polish or Irish in some local mix. Segregation was in part by training and experience, but also enforced by importing values of the European Guild system.
But there is a possible source of tension here. Jakob was always listed as "laborer" on census data, and I think Gottlieb as well. If the Truher brothers were working along the down-trodden Poles, no wonder they were playing a high stakes game, and perhaps we have another explanation for Gottlieb to "get out of Dodge" in 1886 when labor strikes became a shooting gallery.
On another branch of the family:
One such "skilled tradesman" elsewhere: Nellie Truher's Austin-Minnesota father Barrett was a career brick mason who worked on all the Austin municipal structures, and others. Probably some of those pictured (attached)
That was his legacy. Mother HBT sent us an obituary or wrote separately about that. I found a series of Historical books on Austin, Minnesota that were for sale perhaps in 2002 or so, when I nearly bought the book for the late 19th Century period. They are out of print now, and I find no obvious source. (Someday on Google Books)
http://www.ci.austin.mn.us/mayors/history.html
Nellie Truher (August's wife) probably got her teaching credential locally:
"In 1897 Charles Boostrom opened the Southern Minnesota Normal College and Austin School of Commerce. " (or it's predecessor).
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genealogyInfo.php?locIndex=20823
==========================
Jack wrote again 2009m1228 about 0800 hours
Michael sent us a link to the Kaszubian origins:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20147702
Michael found that article (image attached) which emphasizes the early Kaszubians' IndoEuropean origins, traced as far back as 2200 BC, and that their language is closely related to slavs, poles, etc. Like our male line, they came out of the steppes north of the Caspian Sea, Kazackhstan, central Asia.
Kaszubians could indeed have been carriers of our male line on that detour some 10 thousand years ago out of Africa that delayed our arrival, perhaps indeed to 2000 BC when the Kaszubians arrived in Eastern Europe. If so, they had 4000 years to mix with the Earlier Cro-Magnon Europeans on a propagation task that only takes a few minutes.
Recall I had a genetic test done by the National Geographic Society, which determined that the Truher male line out of Africa did not follow the dominant European path, as did the Germanic Tribes.
Nat Geo found the male Truher line (and the Kaszubians') carry a genetic marker M17, unique to that detour, as follows from Nat Geo:
"Haplogroup R1a originated about 10,000 years ago, most likely on the
grassy steppes of the Ukraine or southern Russia. Its defining
genetic marker, M17, first appeared in a man of the M173 lineage.
His descendents spread from Europe to the Middle East, India, and
even Iceland. Early M17 peoples were nomadic steppe farmers and
possibly the first to domesticate the horse, which might have eased
their numerous migrations. From the Czech Republic to Siberia, and
south through Central Asia, some 40 percent of all men are members
of this haplogroup.
"This interesting line of descent may be responsible for the birth of
Indo-European languages. The world's most widely spoken language
family includes English, the Romance Languages, Farsi, and various
Indian tongues. But many Indo-European languages share similar words
for animals, plants, tools, and weapons―suggesting a common ancestor
that linguists call proto-Indo-European.
"Some linguists believe that the nomadic Kurgan people were the first
to speak proto-Indo-European languages, some 5,000 to 10,000 years
ago. Geneticists subsequently theorize that these people may have
been descendents of M17. The Indo-European time line and linguistic
distribution interestingly mirror this lineage's genetic and
physical journey.
"Further language parallels are seen in India where speakers of
Indo-European languages, such as Hindi, are predominately M17.
Speakers of India's unrelated Dravidian languages show much lower
frequencies of this marker―even when they live in close proximity to
one another. These data suggest a striking relation between the
spread of language and the arrival of a unique genetic lineage
brought to India by migrants from the steppes.
----------------------------
The same M173 genetic signature occurs in more than half the Levites of Ashkenazi descent, Jews. Dad might have questioned that finding.
-- Jack
Picture which follows is of Gottlieb's brother, Jakob's house and gravestone.
Gottlieb's Goons - Dominion on Jones Island 1870
collected facts on the first Truher American Immigrant, adding a little speculation on the side, by Jack Truher
Cousin Ronald H. Haack wrote:
>Anyone like to hazard a guess as to where on attached Earth map is that Gottlieb marsh land?
Ron Haack
mailto:cookierhh@verizon.net >
Jack Responds on 2009m1226 at 7:35 a.m.
No question: The property in question was called Jones Island. That original triangular space has been expanded by fill to become an industrial area with a sewage treatment plant, among other things. Jones Island sits as an ithsmuth just East of the University of Wisconsin Great Lakes Research Facility (increase magnification on last image of attached PDF).
The PNG attachments have text which I captured a few days ago from the record in my summary, which we have all seen. One reads on these PNG the circumstance under appeal.
Without complete certainty, I understand the appeals case in Wisc supreme court as follows:
In the 1872-1902 era squatters could sometimes assume Prima Facie title by exercising what I would call de-facto ownership by acceptance of peers and a record of good stewardship. Gottlieb may have implied some such presumed rights over the whole island, when he accepted $100 from Musa, who then assumed such a role as senior among squatters. For $100, Musa said he took ownership of Gottlieb's house and also the whole of the Island. Over time, things changed gradually until Illinois Steel Co became the dominant controlling operator on the growing Island. At this point, Musa attempted to assert his presumed Prima Facie title as a plaintiff in a civil suit against Illinois Steel, which suit was rejected in a court case that Haack-Truher in 2009 has not yet discovered. Musa appealed.
In the course of testimony to the original court hearing, Musa insisted that Gottlieb represented himself as a Prima Facie owner of Jones Island. Gottlieb said contrarily that he exercised only had such prima facie relationship to his house and perhaps its immediate property, not the entirety of Jones Island.
Musa appealed to the Wisconsin superior court, resulting in the record that we are reading in Wisconsin Superior court and American State Report google books. I don't recall reading a resounding rejection of Musa appeal in the record of appeal, but I assume that's what he got. Illinois Steel is presumed by me to have won the appeal. By the definition below, absence of of endorsement of a plaintiff's appeal by a court means the plaintiff lost.
Gottlieb's apparent refusal to join Musa may have been the basis for the bad vibes with Gottlieb that Ron has learned about elsewhere, and/or there may have been other tensions about a later property that Gottlieb had shared interest.
----------------------------------------------------
prima facie [Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).
For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal of the case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case, the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie
-------------------------------------
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission."
We read in Illinois Steel Co. v. Bilot - about Jones Island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_Island,_Milwaukee
We can find a nice historical map of Jones Island, at the terminus of the Menominee River and Kinnickinnic River..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menominee_River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinnickinnic_River_%28Milwaukee_River%29
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullRecord.asp?id=6921
-------------------------------------------------
Jack writes again on 2009m1226 at 1:07 p.m.
on subject:
"Gottlieb's Goons and Musa De Niro
brother MICHAEL TRUHER wrote:
This whole thing is really weird but interesting. why would Gottlieb turn "states evidence" so to say? Gottlieb and Musa had some dispute apparently.
Ron said recently that he recalled that both Gottlieb and Jakob were employed by the Steel Company. The company could easily make it worthwhile that one or both of the brothers could be paid off or otherwise benefit from a favorable testimony in a legal contest for prime industrial waterfront property at the intersection of major riverways. Since Gottlieb arrived first, and had established himself, he would have had advantage over Jakob in such a back room negotiation, breeding the sort of competition for advantage that might damage a relationship.
Gottlieb's living on a swamp fill is not likely to have been a choice that Caroline and 6 year old August would have endorsed, or even endured. The wind whistling off Lake Michigan had to be unimaginable for long periods. The company might have planted August there among the squatters, specifically to favor a later settlement in favor of the company and eject the squatters.
It seems unlikely that laborers Gottlieb and Jakob would be situated in their own two story family dwellings not long off the boat, unless they had exploited some angle. We know that Jakob never rose above a laborer. Gottlieb as well, though he was a failed farmer for a decade in another comfortable house, until he moved his family into a third in Minneapolis. Pretty good for laborers: one with like 5 children and the other with eight or whatever.
All speculation, but more than possible, given the stories of family tension that persisted for generations.
Attached (at bottom) is picture Ron sent of Jakobs nearby family home and grave stone.
=======================
Jack writes again at 2:53 pm
on subject:
Poles vs German tension on Jones Island.
remember this segment of court text:
"In 1872 some nine families resided on the territory called "Jones island." It was then, and had been theretofore and was thereafter, all covered by water, except as artificially changed. In 1872 one Truher had a house on the submerged territory, supported in some way in the shallows, or resting on a piece of made land, but just how did not clearly appear. Truher pretended to exercise dominion over the entire territory and prevented any person from locating thereon without his permission."
Jack continues:P
following the speculations just offered, how indeed did Gottlieb "exercise dominion" or "prevent any person". He did not appear in pictures to be particularly dominant physical personage. Perhaps the company provide the muscle. Rather than actually living on the property with his family, it would make more sense that Gottlieb spent enough time there to look legitimate to earlier squatters, with constant visitors and company from company enforcers, almost certainly armed, because it was "hunters and fishing" excursioners that Gottlieb is reported to have repelled. All it would take is a few big fellows with attitude and weapons.
If the company lost interest, or the racket looked shakey, or the game was exposed and stopped by police, perhaps Musa came on the scene, with a more subtle approach. Managements change. Later Musa may have thought he was on his own, and so behaved in court.
Gottlieb's mental instability may have come from emotional trauma for living conflicted by threat of retaliation in response to his use of goon squads. What better place to escape than the Plains of Minnesota. Why not settle a distance away, more comfortably, after things cooled off. Minneapolis would be far enough.
Who will write the novel on this screenplay? Robert De Niro could be old man Musa telling the story, about how everybody got something out of the deal alive. Good ending, even if our Gottlieb went nuts for a time. He probably started out a little crazy.
============================
Brother Jim writes
also on 2009m1226 at 1:39 p.m.
There was a lot going on back then…….
*Bay View Massacre*
*From Wikipedia*
Wisconsin Historical Marker
The *Bay View Massacre* (sometimes also referred to as the *Bay View Tragedy*) was the culmination of events that began on Saturday May 1, 1886 when 7,000 building-trades workers joined with 5,000 Polish laborers who had organized at St. Stanislaus Catholic Church to strike against their employers, demanding an eight hour work day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee,_Wisconsin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
By Monday, these numbers had increased to over 14,000 workers that gathered at the Milwaukee Iron Company rolling mill in Bay View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View,_Milwaukee
They were met by 250 National Guardsmen under order from Governor Jeremiah M. Rusk to shoot to kill any strikers who attempted to enter. Workers camped in the nearby fields and the Kosciuszko Militia arrived by May 4
to "shoot to kill" any strikers who attempted to enter.
Early the next day the crowd, which by this time contained children, approached the mill and were fired upon. Seven people died as a result, including a thirteen-year-old boy. Several more were injured during the protest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_McLain_Rusk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre#cite_note-0#cite_note-0
Jim Truher
=================
Jack writes:
One of the tensions here is that between Poles and Germans at the time that Gottlieb arrives on Jones Island. The text below explains that Germans arrived on Jones Island in "1870". Residents remained as squatters until 1940, when the island was surrounded by fill, as part of the city shipping port, undoubtedly by eminent domain.
Magnify a google map of Jones Island and you learn about a tiny park on the Island named after the earlier-than-Gottlieb Polish fishermen, Kaszubes among others:
http://wikimapia.org/1191775/Kaszubes-Park
Kaszubes-Park
"This is the smallest park in the milwaukee county park system. The park is named after the Kaszubes who once inhabited Jones Island before it became a peninsula. The park is marked by an anchor with a plaque and the stump from a large willow tree that until recently was at the center of the park. The park has been landscaped since the demise of the tree, and a portion of the dismembered trunk can be seen on the other side of the chain link fence bordering the park."
and from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Milwaukee
Jones Island
Main article: Jones Island, Milwaukee
"Jones Island is a peninsula located at the Milwaukee Harbor. It began as a fishing village populated by Polish settlers from the Kaszub region as well as some German immigrants in 1870. The settlers made their living by fishing Lake Michigan. Having never officially obtained a deed for the land, they were considered squatters by the City of Milwaukee and evicted in the 1940s. The city then proceeded to make way for a shipping port as part of an inner harbor design.
"The area is now heavily industrialized, containing only a few mature trees. Jones Island hosts much of the city's municipal services, including the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. The area supports the Hoan Bridge and includes a shipping port, the Port of Milwaukee."
In support of my earlier screenplay, explain how a German in 1870s manages to take dominion over an island long inhabited by a dozen polish fishing families. Not done without muscle. The prejudice that the Truher's had for Poles was explained to me at length as a child. -- Jack
=============================
2009m1227
Jack writes again on Gottlieb's Kaszubian friends from Koscierzyna.
We learn from this exercise the Poles from Kaszub were dominant as fishermen on Jones Island in 1870, which became an important connection in 1870-72 for arriving immigrant Gottlieb Truher. It is reasonable to think that Gottlieb had known Kaszub people near Danzig from which he claimed to emigrate, and the first port of departure on the ship which he used, along with wife Caroline and son, August.
We find the Kaszubs in Pomerania, the term which Elsie Brink used from her childhood memory, in a conversation with me nearly a decade ago.
We are led to
http://www.ka-na.org/kaszubia.html
which is a web site all about the Kaszub people and their place of origin. From the first link,
http://www.ka-na.org/rekowski.html
read:
"The heart of Kaszuby would be around the cities (10 - 15 thousand) of Kartuzy and Koscierzyna for the central and southern Kashubs and around the larger city of Wejherowo in the region adjacent to the peninsula of Hel for the northern Kashubs."
This is pay dirt. I have been looking for the Truher city of origin near Danzig for a decade.
My conversation with Anita Enander, a few years ago, (a Gill descendent of Florentine Truher's 2nd husband, Lietzau), directed me most clearly to Koscierzyna (German Berent), and two or three other nearby villages, still there today in Poland (which I have noted elsewhere).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bcierzyna
There are too many connections now. The place to look for European records on the Truher-Lietzau families is in Koscierzyna.
-===============================
2009m1227
about 8:00 a.m.
Jack writes again on Gottlieb's Kaszubian friends from Koscierzyna.
We learn from this exercise the Poles from Kaszub were dominant as fishermen on Jones Island in 1870, which became an important connection in 1870-72 for arriving immigrant Gottlieb Truher. It is reasonable to think that Gottlieb had known Kaszub people near Danzig from which he claimed to emigrate, and the first port of departure on the ship which he used, along with wife Caroline and son, August.
We find the Kaszubs in Pomerania, the term which Elsie Brink used from her childhood memory, in a conversation with me nearly a decade ago.
We are led to
http://www.ka-na.org/kaszubia.html
which is a web site all about the Kaszub people and their place of origin. From the first link,
http://www.ka-na.org/rekowski.html
read:
"The heart of Kaszuby would be around the cities (10 - 15 thousand) of Kartuzy and Koscierzyna for the central and southern Kashubs and around the larger city of Wejherowo in the region adjacent to the peninsula of Hel for the northern Kashubs."
This is pay dirt. I have been looking for the Truher city of origin near Danzig for a decade.
My conversation with Anita Enander, a few years ago, (a Gill descendent of Florentine Truher's 2nd husband, Lietzau), directed me most clearly to Koscierzyna (German Berent), and two or three other nearby villages, still there today in Poland (which I have noted elsewhere).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bcierzyna
=================================
Jack wrote around noon 2009m1227
-------------------------
Jim sent us the following link and story from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre
James Truher wrote:
There was a lot going on back then…….
> Bay View Massacre From Wikipedia Wisconsin Historical Marker
-------------------------
The Bay View Massacre (sometimes also referred to as the Bay View Tragedy) was the culmination of events that began on Saturday May 1, 1886 when 7,000 building-trades workers joined with 5,000 Polish laborers who had organized at St. Stanislaus Catholic Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to strike against their employers, demanding an eight-hour work day.
Jack adds: This story points out an important clarification:
Reading in German-Polish history over what became Polish Territory after WW2 includes comments that Germans dominated commercial life, and were generally thus advantaged by comparison to their Polish neighbors. (Dad would sometimes say that the Truhers came from the Polish Corridor).The point is made by published descriptions that the Germans there did not mix with Poles, nor integrate, nor intermarry in numbers. Instead the German were a separatist elite. This separatism was finally punctuated at the end of WW2, when many German civilians fled the region by crowding onto transport carriers on the Baltic toward West Germany. These unarmed, civilian transport ships were sunk by angry Poles, and nearly all passengers died.
The "7000 building-trades workers" were most likely German, with perhaps a minority of English. Milwaukee was known as perhaps the most popular German point of immigration. Laborers of the time would have been Polish or Irish in some local mix. Segregation was in part by training and experience, but also enforced by importing values of the European Guild system.
But there is a possible source of tension here. Jakob was always listed as "laborer" on census data, and I think Gottlieb as well. If the Truher brothers were working along the down-trodden Poles, no wonder they were playing a high stakes game, and perhaps we have another explanation for Gottlieb to "get out of Dodge" in 1886 when labor strikes became a shooting gallery.
On another branch of the family:
One such "skilled tradesman" elsewhere: Nellie Truher's Austin-Minnesota father Barrett was a career brick mason who worked on all the Austin municipal structures, and others. Probably some of those pictured (attached)
That was his legacy. Mother HBT sent us an obituary or wrote separately about that. I found a series of Historical books on Austin, Minnesota that were for sale perhaps in 2002 or so, when I nearly bought the book for the late 19th Century period. They are out of print now, and I find no obvious source. (Someday on Google Books)
http://www.ci.austin.mn.us/mayors/history.html
Nellie Truher (August's wife) probably got her teaching credential locally:
"In 1897 Charles Boostrom opened the Southern Minnesota Normal College and Austin School of Commerce. " (or it's predecessor).
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genealogyInfo.php?locIndex=20823
==========================
Jack wrote again 2009m1228 about 0800 hours
Michael sent us a link to the Kaszubian origins:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/20147702
Michael found that article (image attached) which emphasizes the early Kaszubians' IndoEuropean origins, traced as far back as 2200 BC, and that their language is closely related to slavs, poles, etc. Like our male line, they came out of the steppes north of the Caspian Sea, Kazackhstan, central Asia.
Kaszubians could indeed have been carriers of our male line on that detour some 10 thousand years ago out of Africa that delayed our arrival, perhaps indeed to 2000 BC when the Kaszubians arrived in Eastern Europe. If so, they had 4000 years to mix with the Earlier Cro-Magnon Europeans on a propagation task that only takes a few minutes.
Recall I had a genetic test done by the National Geographic Society, which determined that the Truher male line out of Africa did not follow the dominant European path, as did the Germanic Tribes.
Nat Geo found the male Truher line (and the Kaszubians') carry a genetic marker M17, unique to that detour, as follows from Nat Geo:
"Haplogroup R1a originated about 10,000 years ago, most likely on the
grassy steppes of the Ukraine or southern Russia. Its defining
genetic marker, M17, first appeared in a man of the M173 lineage.
His descendents spread from Europe to the Middle East, India, and
even Iceland. Early M17 peoples were nomadic steppe farmers and
possibly the first to domesticate the horse, which might have eased
their numerous migrations. From the Czech Republic to Siberia, and
south through Central Asia, some 40 percent of all men are members
of this haplogroup.
"This interesting line of descent may be responsible for the birth of
Indo-European languages. The world's most widely spoken language
family includes English, the Romance Languages, Farsi, and various
Indian tongues. But many Indo-European languages share similar words
for animals, plants, tools, and weapons―suggesting a common ancestor
that linguists call proto-Indo-European.
"Some linguists believe that the nomadic Kurgan people were the first
to speak proto-Indo-European languages, some 5,000 to 10,000 years
ago. Geneticists subsequently theorize that these people may have
been descendents of M17. The Indo-European time line and linguistic
distribution interestingly mirror this lineage's genetic and
physical journey.
"Further language parallels are seen in India where speakers of
Indo-European languages, such as Hindi, are predominately M17.
Speakers of India's unrelated Dravidian languages show much lower
frequencies of this marker―even when they live in close proximity to
one another. These data suggest a striking relation between the
spread of language and the arrival of a unique genetic lineage
brought to India by migrants from the steppes.
----------------------------
The same M173 genetic signature occurs in more than half the Levites of Ashkenazi descent, Jews. Dad might have questioned that finding.
-- Jack
Picture which follows is of Gottlieb's brother, Jakob's house and gravestone.
• 4 - Gottlieb-islandPropertyMilwaukee-Budzisz.doc
Wisc Reports 115 Supreme Court Budzisz Gottlieb 1902m0619-1128 is the folder hold filename = Gottlieb-islandPropertyMilwaukee-Budzisz.doc . This is another MSword .doc file which Jack created to document our discovery of Gottlieb's relationship to Jones Island, at the juncture of 2 major rivers on the port of Milwaukee.
Report 115, Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, July 19 -- November 28, 1902
Illinois Steel Ca v.Budzisz, 115 Wis. 6& Illinois Steel Company, Appellant, vs. Bodzisz and wife, Respondents.
April 5―September 23, 1902.
(1-4) Public lands: Swamp lands or lakef
Evidence: Original survey: Court and jury. (5-12) Adverse possession: Evidence: Presumptions: Continuity of disseisin: Re-entry by owner: Attornment: Marsh or overflowed lands.
1. The official platting of lands by authority of the United States,
indicating the character thereof as regards whether swamp or marsh lands or lands covered by the waters of a lake, as the same appeared to the official surveyors at the time the original survey thereof was made, is prima facie evidence as to their then character in fact in an action involving the question of whether they were a part of the public domain and subject to sale to private parties.
2. A prima facie case made by evidence of the character indicated
in the preceding paragraph, after the lapse of a term of years so long that it is difficult to establish definitely, if at all, from the mouths of witnesses, the conditions existing at the time of the original survey, should be deemed conclusive in the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence to the contrary.
3. A prima facie case made in the manner indicated in the first
paragraph should not be deemed so disturbed as to reasonably permit a finding contrary thereto, by evidence of witnesses whose personal knowledge does not reach back further than to within ten years of the time of the original survey and who do not agree between themselves as to the conditions during the time covered by the testimony, there being evidence of changes during the time intervening between the survey and the period covered by their testimony, which will account for the difference between the conditions claimed to have been observed by them and those apparently discovered by the government surveyors.
4. Mere flat, marshy lands along a river bank, submerged In many
or most places by water on a level, substantially, with that of the river,―the stream, with its bed, banks and current, being well defined through the entire territory,―cannot be legitimately considered as having the physical characteristics of the bed of a lake or the legal characteristics thereof, especially where the lands were surveyed and sold as part of the government domain.
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68.
5. The facts essential to adverse possession must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence, the presumptions being In favor of the true owner till facts are so established indicating continued disseisin of such owner for the full period necessary to divest him of his title. The foregoing rule is not satisfied by mere general statements of witnesses not based on facts warranting them, nor in the face of facts conclusively established rendering adverse possession not within reasonable probabilities.
6. The facts, that during substantially the whole period of an alleged adverse possession of land the alleged hostile possessor exercised no more dominion over one part of the land than of another, that many persons located thereon and appropriated parts thereof in severalty for homes without consulting him or recognizing him as proprietor in any way, that he made no objection to their conduct as an invasion of his rights, and that ho never treated the premises as his property in the manner that an owner naturally would, are inconsistent as a matter of law with adverse possession by such alleged possessor, and such facts being established, they should rule the controversy as to such adverse possession as a matter of law.
7. If an owner of land be disseised thereof by another, any notori
ous re-entry by the former in person or by his authorized 'agent for the purpose of dispossessing the disseisor, will effectively interrupt and put an end to the latter's adverse possession, re-. gardless of the length of time the interruption continues.
8. That which actually breaks the continuity of adverse possession
ends it for all purposes. The disseisor of the true owner may, by a fresh disseisin, start a new period of adverse possession, but cannot thereby obtain any benefit whatever from prior possession.
9. The essentials of an entry effective to break an adverse posses
sion will vary according to the character of the premises involved.
10. A re-entry of a mere casual or secret character will not Inter
rupt an adverse possession. The re-entry, to have that effect, must be animo clamandi, and either known to the occupant or characterized by acts or circumstances from which knowledge on his part would be reasonably Inferred.
11. If an adverse occupant of land attorns to the true owner the dis
seisin of the latter is thereby interrupted.
12. Entry by the true owner, upon premises not physically occupied
adversely so as to permit physical disturbance thereof, the premises being marsh or overflowed land not Inclosed and having no artificial objects thereon maintained by the adverse occupant, susceptible of physical, visible interference, and a survey Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68.
of the premises, stakes being located to Indicate the bound-
aries thereof, and exploring and traversing the premises from
day to day for a considerable period of time, animo clamandi,
so as to reasonably charge the adverse occupant with knowl-
edge that his possession is challenged and that an opportunity
exists for him to vindicate the same if he desires, is sufficient
to break the continuity of the disseisin.
[Syllabus by Mabshall, J.]
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Eugene S. Elliott, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
Action of ejectment to recover possession of part of government lot 2, section 33, town 7, range 22 E., in Milwaukee county, Wisconsin, particularly described in the complaint, which is in the usual form. The answer contains a general denial and a claim of title in the defendants by adverse possession.
The following was established by the evidence: The section referred to was surveyed as part of the public domain of the United States prior to the year 1835. That part east of the east meander line of the Milwaukee river was designated as lots 1 and 2, lot 2 being the southerly part thereof. The course of the river, as per the first government survey, and a second made in 1836, and other surveys since made and maps admitted in evidence, from the north boundary line of the section to the outlet of the river into Lake Michigan at the southerly end of lot 2, is as follows: Southeasterly from said north boundary to a point where the east meander line of the river reaches to within about 300 feet of the lake at a point north of the east and west center line of the section ; thence southwest about forty-three rods; thence south southeast about sixty-two rods; thence east to Lake Michigan. In a state of nature the territory hetween the meander ljne on the east and that on the west side of that part of the section between the outlet of the river and an artificial channel from the river to the lake, constructed after the government surveys before mentioned, about one half mile north of the Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68. natural outlet, consisted of a long sandy ridge of land from 100 to 300 feet wide on tho east side, and wet, marshy land on the west side, the ridge and low marshy land being separated by a bayou connecting with the river at the south and north ends thereof. The territory west of the bayou was highest at the north end. From as early as 1845 it was mostly covered with water of sufficient depth for navigation, in many if not most places, by canoes and rowboats. The water, generally, was too deep for marsh grass to grow in. The land, where submerged, was generally covered by weeds, flags and wild rice, but the growth was not so dense as to prevent navigation with boats. The land on the west side of the river, for a considerable distance, was of the same marshy nature. In 1835 the water was not as high within a foot or two as later. The low land was covered mostly with marsh grass. It had the appearance of and was called a marsh. Although the water became higher in subsequent years, so that weeds and flags and wild rice to some extent took the place of the marsh grass, the territory continued to be called a marsh. That part of fractional section 33 east of the Milwaukee river, since the time of the government survey, has commonly been called Long Point. Daniel Darnell was the first person to have any private interest therein. It took his name to some extent, being called "Darnell's Float." From about 1845, for a few years, a shipyard was operated west of the north end of the bayou, by a man named Jones. From that, the territory between the bayou and the east meander line of the river came to be called "Jones Island." In 1835 the entire territory between the river and the lake was examined by Daniel Wells, Jr., and others, with a view of purchasing the same. The land consisted of seventy-seven acres and a fraction. The result of such examination was that Wells purchased an interest in government lots 1 and 2. The entire section was entered at the government land office by Daniel Darnell July 30, 1835. Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wig. 68.
About that time he assigned his certificate of entry and interest in the land to Albert G. Ellis, to whom the land was patented as early as 1838.
The meander lines, as established by the government survey, are not shown by the evidence produced on the trial. They are as follows: Commencing at the meander post between sections 28 and 33 on the west bank of Lake Michigan, S. 11 chains, S. 5 degrees E. 51 chains, south 10^ degrees E. 18 chains to the mouth of the Milwaukee river and a meander post there set on the lake shore. From such post S. 79 degrees W. 2 chains, N. 6 degrees W. 9.25 chains, N. 42 degrees W. 8￡ chains to the mouth of the bayou; N. 44 degrees W. 16 chains, N. 5￡ chains, N. 37 degrees E. 3^ chains, N. 44 degrees E. 12^ chains, 6 to the head of the bayou, 1ST. 22 degrees W. 16 chains, N. 38 degrees W. 15i chains, N. 51 degrees W. 13.77 chains to the corner of sections 28, 29, 32 and 33.
Prior to 1845 the title to the territory described became vested in many persons, each having an undivided interest therein. Such judicial proceedings were duly had that in 1846 a judgment in partition was duly rendered, awarding to each of such parties in severalty his just proportion of the land, the whole tract having been previously surveyed and platted so as to enable the court to make such award. The disputed land is located in block 195 and a platted street between such block and block 194. Block 195 is the southwesterly part of the island. Block 194 is on the westerly side of the island. The two blocks are bounded on the east by a platted street. They are bounded or limited on the west by the meander line of the Milwaukee river. Block 195 is bounded on the south by the bayou. The plaintiff, by mesne conveyances, was the owner in fee of the two blocks mentioned, at the time of the commencement of this action. On the trial it established the right to recover if Jones Island, so-called, was part of the public domain of the United States
The above sketch was taken from the map made in 1840 at the time of the partition proceedings.―Rep.
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 6a
which it had a right to transfer to private ownership and the patent title had not been divested by adverse possession. Prior to 1872 several persons, strangers to tho patent title, occupied parts of the island. The adverse holdings were apart from each other. They were, as stated by some of the witnesses, all over the island. One of the settlers was Gottlieb Truher. He sold his place to Jacob Muza in 1872 for $100, not making any written conveyance. Muza occupied such place, with slight interruptions, continuously from the time he purchased the same till the commencement of this action. Some time prior to 1890, and not earlier than 1885, Muza designated a place on the island for one Peer to locate. The latter made a fill ajt the place designated, of sufficient size for tho foundation of a house, and constructed one thereon. Thereafter he enlarged the filled space and inclosed the same on three sides with a fence, leaving an opening at the back part of his lot, and thereafter continued to extend the fill till he occupied the entire premises described in the complaint. Ho occupied the same continuously from the time the house was built till 1890, when he sold his right to the premises to the defendant, who immediately took possession thereof and occupied the same till the commencement of this action.
There was evidence to the effect that Truher, in 1872, claiming possession of and dominion over the entire island, sold all his rights to Muza, and that thereafter tho latter exercised dominion over the territory continuously till this action was commenced, except as ho surrendered portions thereof from time to time to persons desiring to locate homes thereon; that in 1887 there were upwards of 200 settlers on tho island; that tho number largely increased thereafter before the commencement of this action. The acts of possession which witnesses testified that Muza exercised were as follows: As soon as ho purchased of Truher he explored the island, traveling part of the time on foot and part of the Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68.
time in a boat. Immediately thereafter he commenced to improve the island. He continued to improve it till this action was commenced. The improvements were made chiefly by permitting persons to settle on the island, not exacting any compensation therefor except that they should aid in making the territory suitable for habitations. All the settlers did more or less work in improving the island under Muza's direction. The brush on the island was all cleared off and put into the low places. Filling was done by using ashes and all material that could be obtained. Some trees were planted. Some structures were made to prevent inroads from the waters of the lake. During all the time it was generally understood that Muza controlled the island. Persons who desired to settle thereon looked to him for directions in improving the territory. Undesirable characters 'were prohibited by him from'coming upon the island. Some persons who came to fish and hunt were compelled by him to go away. Truher, being called as a witness, testified that he never claimed any interest in any part. of the island except that occupied by his house, and that he did not sell or pretend to sell any other interest to Muza.
There was evidence tending to show that during some portion of 1875 Muza was absent from the island and at Oshkosh; that his house was, during such alienee, occupied by another party, though his household furniture remained therein. There was some dispute as to whether he sold the house to such occupant and thereafter purchased it back. He explained that his absence Avas only temporary, that it was without any intention to change his home or abandon the island, and that while he was away he kept an agent at the island to look after his interests. The evidence was undisputed that Muza made no claim whatever that any person who lived on the island at the time he went there was a trespasser'upon his rights or that he had any control over those portions of the island occupied by such persons; that many Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68.
of the settlers who located on lie island subsequent to 1872 did not consult or recognize him in any way as proprietor of the territory; that he made no claim that their conduct was an invasion of his rights or collected or attempted to collect any rent from any of the settlers, or demanded or received any compensation from any of them for the privilege to locate on the island, other than in the making of improvements, as before indicated, for the mutual interests of the settlers; that in 1876 blocks 194 and 195 were surveyed and the exact location of all settlements thereon determined at the instance of the owner of the patent title; that considerable time was occupied in making the survey; that stakes were placed by or under the direction of the surveyor, indicating the boundaries of the blocks, and that all of the houses were numbered; that thereafter an agent was sent to the island to interview the occupants of such houses and to make leases with them; that a largo number of such leases were made; that all of such transactions were open and notorious; that none of the settlers made any claim to a right of possession under Muza; that he made no claim that the attitude of the owner of the patent title was an invasion of his rights, or any objection to the acts of such owner; that in 1887 the territory was again canvassed for leases by an agent of the owner of the patent title; that a large number of leases were thereby obtained; that such canvass was open and notorious, the agent going to substantially all the settlers; that no one, during such time, disputed the claim represented by such agent; that thereafter the lessees generally refused to recognize the leases and pay rent.
At the close of the evidence plaintiff's counsel moved the court for a verdict in its favor, which motion was denied. The jury rendered the following verdict: ....
"(1) At the time referred to in the complaint, was and is the paper title to the premises described in the pleadings, in the plaintiff? A. (By the court, by consent of counsel) Yes.
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 6&
"(2) Was the property in question at the time the patent therefor was issued by the United States, naturally a part of the bed of Lake Michigan, or some arm or bayou thereof ? A. Yes.
"(3) Was the property in question at the time the patent therefor was issued by the United States naturally a part of the bed of some meandered lake or pond ? A. Yes.
"(4) Was the property in question at the time the patent therefor was issued by the United States, naturally a part of the bed of a river? A. No.
"If you answer either one of questions 2, 3 and 4 'Yes/ the remaining two of such questions need not be answered.
"(5) Have the defendants and their grantors and predecessors in title combined, usually cultivated or improved tho premises in question continuously for a period of twenty years or more immediately preceding the commencement of tins action? A. Yes.'
"(6) Had the defendant, Budzisz, and his privies, Treher (or Reher) and Muza, occupied the premises in question continuously for twenty years prior to the beginning of this action, on the 1st day of July, 1897, by such actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous possession as such premises were adapted to and as was reasonably sufficient to attract the attention of the true owner and put him on an inquiry as to the nature and extent of tho invasion of his rights ? A. Yes.
"(7) At the time of the commencement of this action were the defendants in possession of the property in controversy ? A. (By the court) Yes.
"(8) Did the defendants unlawfully withhold from the plaintiff the possession of the propertv in controversy ? A. No."
Plaintiff's counsel moved the court to set aside the findings of the jury, except the first, as contrary to the undisputed evidence, and for judgment in its favor. Later such counsel moved the court to set aside the verdict and grant a newtrial. Thereafter judgment was entered on the verdict in favor of defendants.
For the appellant there were briefs by Van Dyke & Van Dyke & Carter, and oral argument by W. E. Carter.
Wisc Reports 115 Supreme Court Budzisz Gottlieb 1902m0619-1128 is the folder hold filename = Gottlieb-islandPropertyMilwaukee-Budzisz.doc . This is another MSword .doc file which Jack created to document our discovery of Gottlieb's relationship to Jones Island, at the juncture of 2 major rivers on the port of Milwaukee.
Report 115, Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, July 19 -- November 28, 1902
Illinois Steel Ca v.Budzisz, 115 Wis. 6& Illinois Steel Company, Appellant, vs. Bodzisz and wife, Respondents.
April 5―September 23, 1902.
(1-4) Public lands: Swamp lands or lakef
Evidence: Original survey: Court and jury. (5-12) Adverse possession: Evidence: Presumptions: Continuity of disseisin: Re-entry by owner: Attornment: Marsh or overflowed lands.
1. The official platting of lands by authority of the United States,
indicating the character thereof as regards whether swamp or marsh lands or lands covered by the waters of a lake, as the same appeared to the official surveyors at the time the original survey thereof was made, is prima facie evidence as to their then character in fact in an action involving the question of whether they were a part of the public domain and subject to sale to private parties.
2. A prima facie case made by evidence of the character indicated
in the preceding paragraph, after the lapse of a term of years so long that it is difficult to establish definitely, if at all, from the mouths of witnesses, the conditions existing at the time of the original survey, should be deemed conclusive in the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence to the contrary.
3. A prima facie case made in the manner indicated in the first
paragraph should not be deemed so disturbed as to reasonably permit a finding contrary thereto, by evidence of witnesses whose personal knowledge does not reach back further than to within ten years of the time of the original survey and who do not agree between themselves as to the conditions during the time covered by the testimony, there being evidence of changes during the time intervening between the survey and the period covered by their testimony, which will account for the difference between the conditions claimed to have been observed by them and those apparently discovered by the government surveyors.
4. Mere flat, marshy lands along a river bank, submerged In many
or most places by water on a level, substantially, with that of the river,―the stream, with its bed, banks and current, being well defined through the entire territory,―cannot be legitimately considered as having the physical characteristics of the bed of a lake or the legal characteristics thereof, especially where the lands were surveyed and sold as part of the government domain.
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68.
5. The facts essential to adverse possession must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence, the presumptions being In favor of the true owner till facts are so established indicating continued disseisin of such owner for the full period necessary to divest him of his title. The foregoing rule is not satisfied by mere general statements of witnesses not based on facts warranting them, nor in the face of facts conclusively established rendering adverse possession not within reasonable probabilities.
6. The facts, that during substantially the whole period of an alleged adverse possession of land the alleged hostile possessor exercised no more dominion over one part of the land than of another, that many persons located thereon and appropriated parts thereof in severalty for homes without consulting him or recognizing him as proprietor in any way, that he made no objection to their conduct as an invasion of his rights, and that ho never treated the premises as his property in the manner that an owner naturally would, are inconsistent as a matter of law with adverse possession by such alleged possessor, and such facts being established, they should rule the controversy as to such adverse possession as a matter of law.
7. If an owner of land be disseised thereof by another, any notori
ous re-entry by the former in person or by his authorized 'agent for the purpose of dispossessing the disseisor, will effectively interrupt and put an end to the latter's adverse possession, re-. gardless of the length of time the interruption continues.
8. That which actually breaks the continuity of adverse possession
ends it for all purposes. The disseisor of the true owner may, by a fresh disseisin, start a new period of adverse possession, but cannot thereby obtain any benefit whatever from prior possession.
9. The essentials of an entry effective to break an adverse posses
sion will vary according to the character of the premises involved.
10. A re-entry of a mere casual or secret character will not Inter
rupt an adverse possession. The re-entry, to have that effect, must be animo clamandi, and either known to the occupant or characterized by acts or circumstances from which knowledge on his part would be reasonably Inferred.
11. If an adverse occupant of land attorns to the true owner the dis
seisin of the latter is thereby interrupted.
12. Entry by the true owner, upon premises not physically occupied
adversely so as to permit physical disturbance thereof, the premises being marsh or overflowed land not Inclosed and having no artificial objects thereon maintained by the adverse occupant, susceptible of physical, visible interference, and a survey Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68.
of the premises, stakes being located to Indicate the bound-
aries thereof, and exploring and traversing the premises from
day to day for a considerable period of time, animo clamandi,
so as to reasonably charge the adverse occupant with knowl-
edge that his possession is challenged and that an opportunity
exists for him to vindicate the same if he desires, is sufficient
to break the continuity of the disseisin.
[Syllabus by Mabshall, J.]
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Eugene S. Elliott, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
Action of ejectment to recover possession of part of government lot 2, section 33, town 7, range 22 E., in Milwaukee county, Wisconsin, particularly described in the complaint, which is in the usual form. The answer contains a general denial and a claim of title in the defendants by adverse possession.
The following was established by the evidence: The section referred to was surveyed as part of the public domain of the United States prior to the year 1835. That part east of the east meander line of the Milwaukee river was designated as lots 1 and 2, lot 2 being the southerly part thereof. The course of the river, as per the first government survey, and a second made in 1836, and other surveys since made and maps admitted in evidence, from the north boundary line of the section to the outlet of the river into Lake Michigan at the southerly end of lot 2, is as follows: Southeasterly from said north boundary to a point where the east meander line of the river reaches to within about 300 feet of the lake at a point north of the east and west center line of the section ; thence southwest about forty-three rods; thence south southeast about sixty-two rods; thence east to Lake Michigan. In a state of nature the territory hetween the meander ljne on the east and that on the west side of that part of the section between the outlet of the river and an artificial channel from the river to the lake, constructed after the government surveys before mentioned, about one half mile north of the Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68. natural outlet, consisted of a long sandy ridge of land from 100 to 300 feet wide on tho east side, and wet, marshy land on the west side, the ridge and low marshy land being separated by a bayou connecting with the river at the south and north ends thereof. The territory west of the bayou was highest at the north end. From as early as 1845 it was mostly covered with water of sufficient depth for navigation, in many if not most places, by canoes and rowboats. The water, generally, was too deep for marsh grass to grow in. The land, where submerged, was generally covered by weeds, flags and wild rice, but the growth was not so dense as to prevent navigation with boats. The land on the west side of the river, for a considerable distance, was of the same marshy nature. In 1835 the water was not as high within a foot or two as later. The low land was covered mostly with marsh grass. It had the appearance of and was called a marsh. Although the water became higher in subsequent years, so that weeds and flags and wild rice to some extent took the place of the marsh grass, the territory continued to be called a marsh. That part of fractional section 33 east of the Milwaukee river, since the time of the government survey, has commonly been called Long Point. Daniel Darnell was the first person to have any private interest therein. It took his name to some extent, being called "Darnell's Float." From about 1845, for a few years, a shipyard was operated west of the north end of the bayou, by a man named Jones. From that, the territory between the bayou and the east meander line of the river came to be called "Jones Island." In 1835 the entire territory between the river and the lake was examined by Daniel Wells, Jr., and others, with a view of purchasing the same. The land consisted of seventy-seven acres and a fraction. The result of such examination was that Wells purchased an interest in government lots 1 and 2. The entire section was entered at the government land office by Daniel Darnell July 30, 1835. Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wig. 68.
About that time he assigned his certificate of entry and interest in the land to Albert G. Ellis, to whom the land was patented as early as 1838.
The meander lines, as established by the government survey, are not shown by the evidence produced on the trial. They are as follows: Commencing at the meander post between sections 28 and 33 on the west bank of Lake Michigan, S. 11 chains, S. 5 degrees E. 51 chains, south 10^ degrees E. 18 chains to the mouth of the Milwaukee river and a meander post there set on the lake shore. From such post S. 79 degrees W. 2 chains, N. 6 degrees W. 9.25 chains, N. 42 degrees W. 8￡ chains to the mouth of the bayou; N. 44 degrees W. 16 chains, N. 5￡ chains, N. 37 degrees E. 3^ chains, N. 44 degrees E. 12^ chains, 6 to the head of the bayou, 1ST. 22 degrees W. 16 chains, N. 38 degrees W. 15i chains, N. 51 degrees W. 13.77 chains to the corner of sections 28, 29, 32 and 33.
Prior to 1845 the title to the territory described became vested in many persons, each having an undivided interest therein. Such judicial proceedings were duly had that in 1846 a judgment in partition was duly rendered, awarding to each of such parties in severalty his just proportion of the land, the whole tract having been previously surveyed and platted so as to enable the court to make such award. The disputed land is located in block 195 and a platted street between such block and block 194. Block 195 is the southwesterly part of the island. Block 194 is on the westerly side of the island. The two blocks are bounded on the east by a platted street. They are bounded or limited on the west by the meander line of the Milwaukee river. Block 195 is bounded on the south by the bayou. The plaintiff, by mesne conveyances, was the owner in fee of the two blocks mentioned, at the time of the commencement of this action. On the trial it established the right to recover if Jones Island, so-called, was part of the public domain of the United States
The above sketch was taken from the map made in 1840 at the time of the partition proceedings.―Rep.
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 6a
which it had a right to transfer to private ownership and the patent title had not been divested by adverse possession. Prior to 1872 several persons, strangers to tho patent title, occupied parts of the island. The adverse holdings were apart from each other. They were, as stated by some of the witnesses, all over the island. One of the settlers was Gottlieb Truher. He sold his place to Jacob Muza in 1872 for $100, not making any written conveyance. Muza occupied such place, with slight interruptions, continuously from the time he purchased the same till the commencement of this action. Some time prior to 1890, and not earlier than 1885, Muza designated a place on the island for one Peer to locate. The latter made a fill ajt the place designated, of sufficient size for tho foundation of a house, and constructed one thereon. Thereafter he enlarged the filled space and inclosed the same on three sides with a fence, leaving an opening at the back part of his lot, and thereafter continued to extend the fill till he occupied the entire premises described in the complaint. Ho occupied the same continuously from the time the house was built till 1890, when he sold his right to the premises to the defendant, who immediately took possession thereof and occupied the same till the commencement of this action.
There was evidence to the effect that Truher, in 1872, claiming possession of and dominion over the entire island, sold all his rights to Muza, and that thereafter tho latter exercised dominion over the territory continuously till this action was commenced, except as ho surrendered portions thereof from time to time to persons desiring to locate homes thereon; that in 1887 there were upwards of 200 settlers on tho island; that tho number largely increased thereafter before the commencement of this action. The acts of possession which witnesses testified that Muza exercised were as follows: As soon as ho purchased of Truher he explored the island, traveling part of the time on foot and part of the Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68.
time in a boat. Immediately thereafter he commenced to improve the island. He continued to improve it till this action was commenced. The improvements were made chiefly by permitting persons to settle on the island, not exacting any compensation therefor except that they should aid in making the territory suitable for habitations. All the settlers did more or less work in improving the island under Muza's direction. The brush on the island was all cleared off and put into the low places. Filling was done by using ashes and all material that could be obtained. Some trees were planted. Some structures were made to prevent inroads from the waters of the lake. During all the time it was generally understood that Muza controlled the island. Persons who desired to settle thereon looked to him for directions in improving the territory. Undesirable characters 'were prohibited by him from'coming upon the island. Some persons who came to fish and hunt were compelled by him to go away. Truher, being called as a witness, testified that he never claimed any interest in any part. of the island except that occupied by his house, and that he did not sell or pretend to sell any other interest to Muza.
There was evidence tending to show that during some portion of 1875 Muza was absent from the island and at Oshkosh; that his house was, during such alienee, occupied by another party, though his household furniture remained therein. There was some dispute as to whether he sold the house to such occupant and thereafter purchased it back. He explained that his absence Avas only temporary, that it was without any intention to change his home or abandon the island, and that while he was away he kept an agent at the island to look after his interests. The evidence was undisputed that Muza made no claim whatever that any person who lived on the island at the time he went there was a trespasser'upon his rights or that he had any control over those portions of the island occupied by such persons; that many Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 68.
of the settlers who located on lie island subsequent to 1872 did not consult or recognize him in any way as proprietor of the territory; that he made no claim that their conduct was an invasion of his rights or collected or attempted to collect any rent from any of the settlers, or demanded or received any compensation from any of them for the privilege to locate on the island, other than in the making of improvements, as before indicated, for the mutual interests of the settlers; that in 1876 blocks 194 and 195 were surveyed and the exact location of all settlements thereon determined at the instance of the owner of the patent title; that considerable time was occupied in making the survey; that stakes were placed by or under the direction of the surveyor, indicating the boundaries of the blocks, and that all of the houses were numbered; that thereafter an agent was sent to the island to interview the occupants of such houses and to make leases with them; that a largo number of such leases were made; that all of such transactions were open and notorious; that none of the settlers made any claim to a right of possession under Muza; that he made no claim that the attitude of the owner of the patent title was an invasion of his rights, or any objection to the acts of such owner; that in 1887 the territory was again canvassed for leases by an agent of the owner of the patent title; that a large number of leases were thereby obtained; that such canvass was open and notorious, the agent going to substantially all the settlers; that no one, during such time, disputed the claim represented by such agent; that thereafter the lessees generally refused to recognize the leases and pay rent.
At the close of the evidence plaintiff's counsel moved the court for a verdict in its favor, which motion was denied. The jury rendered the following verdict: ....
"(1) At the time referred to in the complaint, was and is the paper title to the premises described in the pleadings, in the plaintiff? A. (By the court, by consent of counsel) Yes.
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 115 Wis. 6&
"(2) Was the property in question at the time the patent therefor was issued by the United States, naturally a part of the bed of Lake Michigan, or some arm or bayou thereof ? A. Yes.
"(3) Was the property in question at the time the patent therefor was issued by the United States naturally a part of the bed of some meandered lake or pond ? A. Yes.
"(4) Was the property in question at the time the patent therefor was issued by the United States, naturally a part of the bed of a river? A. No.
"If you answer either one of questions 2, 3 and 4 'Yes/ the remaining two of such questions need not be answered.
"(5) Have the defendants and their grantors and predecessors in title combined, usually cultivated or improved tho premises in question continuously for a period of twenty years or more immediately preceding the commencement of tins action? A. Yes.'
"(6) Had the defendant, Budzisz, and his privies, Treher (or Reher) and Muza, occupied the premises in question continuously for twenty years prior to the beginning of this action, on the 1st day of July, 1897, by such actual, open, notorious, exclusive and continuous possession as such premises were adapted to and as was reasonably sufficient to attract the attention of the true owner and put him on an inquiry as to the nature and extent of tho invasion of his rights ? A. Yes.
"(7) At the time of the commencement of this action were the defendants in possession of the property in controversy ? A. (By the court) Yes.
"(8) Did the defendants unlawfully withhold from the plaintiff the possession of the propertv in controversy ? A. No."
Plaintiff's counsel moved the court to set aside the findings of the jury, except the first, as contrary to the undisputed evidence, and for judgment in its favor. Later such counsel moved the court to set aside the verdict and grant a newtrial. Thereafter judgment was entered on the verdict in favor of defendants.
For the appellant there were briefs by Van Dyke & Van Dyke & Carter, and oral argument by W. E. Carter.