OCR Interpretation


The Sisseton weekly standard. (Sisseton, Roberts County, S.D.) 1892-1929, March 13, 1914, Image 2

Image and text provided by South Dakota State Historical Society – State Archives

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn99062049/1914-03-13/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

?3®i
Every two years K. .Jorgen
son has a spoil of running for
office ami accusing pretty nearly
everybody of general crooked
ness and grafting, lie is having
another one ol these spells at the
present tune- Ho has made such
accusations against such men as
M. Ij. Mickloson, l'eter Moe.John
S. Lwanson. Hurry Granbois, .1.
J. Hatte rton, John L. Minder, S.
L. Rem und. M. L. Sateren John
H. Lewis. Ivor .1 oilnson, Thomas
Mani, .J. A. liny, D. F. Stevens,
Jolin Swenumson, IT. M. Knight,
James McGee, Miss Bonnie An
drews, Ivor Stadstad, John Me
lau d, Öle JO. Lien, N. J. Pry or,
whom lie has designated as the
"Court House Bunch," and a lot
more reputable citizens whom
we do not happen to recall now.
When one man accuses so many
men of general crookedness, it
is a pretty good sign that there
is something wrong with him.
Especially when that man wants
an office, it is well to look him up
and see whether he is worthy ol
the office. We made a little in
vestigation as to the record of
this man Jorgenson who is so
anxious to be states attorney of
Roberts county and below give
you the facts. After reading!
them, determine for yourself
whether or not he is a fit man
for the office.
The First Time He Was in Jail.'
In order to properly appreciate
the character and bent of this man!
Jorgenson, it is necessary to go
back several years in his history.
In the year 1895 we find him a
young man living at Wilmot by
referring to Justice Docket then
kept by Jno. A. Munro, Justice of
the Peace at Wilmot, we find that
on the 22nd day of May, C. R.
Jorgenson was ai rested, tried and
convicted on the charge of break
ing the windows of J. P. Croat's
printing office, for which he was
adjudged to pay a fine of $13.20,
or be imprisoned. The fine was
paid. Dan Babb acted as marshal
and made the arrest.
On a subsequent page of tliFs
same docket we find that this
same C. R. Jorrenson was charg
ed with the offense of appearing
on the streets of Wilmot in a
state of open and notorious drunk
enness, 011 which charge he was
tried and convicted, and was by
Justice Munro sentenced to pay
a fine and costs of $9.00, or be
imprisoned in jail for nine days.
J. L. Minder, now sheriff ot the
county, was the marshal who
made the arrest.
By studying this same justice
docket of Jno. A. Munro at Wil
mot, we gain still more light on
the character of this ambitious
man from a subsequent page
iwhere it appears that C. R. Jor
genson was arrested and brought
before the Court chärged with the
Offense of using abusive and ob
scene language and disorderly
conduct, on which charge he was
tried and found guilty, and by
Justice Munro sentenced to pay
fine of $6.80, or be imprisoned
in jail. The record shows that a
(commitment was duly issued and
Mr. Jorgenson was committed to
|a3 on this conviction. We are
informed by old residents of Wil
mot that this is the first'time Mt
Jorgenson was ever committed
to jail. J. L. Minder, now sheriff
of the county, was the marshal
who made the arrest, fey
wfcg The Roberts Casief!
In the fall of 1910, one J. E.
f'Jtoberts Of Minneapolis, Minn.,
jtad 1^0 formerly resided at 01
*esu" Britbon, in this- state, nude
iJni|e »gäinst Mr. Jorgenson of
More Jorgenson Cases
The Widow's Claim, the Roberts Case and
the Case When He was in Jail.
Jorgenson is Strong in His alk About "Cases" and
"Records," So Some of His Cases and
His Record arc Given:
S S a
having omitted make return
remittance a collecti'm which
lie had intrusted V. Mr. Jorgen
»11 in the year \i '. while r
gensi was practicing law at
Summit, and liefere his removal
to \hcrdcen.
Mr. Roberts states
matter is substantially
That in the month
her I'joCi. he sent.
a promissory note given
X. A. 1 licks to Roberts
that thin
is follows:
if Xovcm
Jorgenson
om
it was
stated in the letter to Jorgenson
that it was sent for collection and
1 cinittancc. ami requested Jorgen
to acknowledge receipt and
get as large a payment as lie
could, and that Roberts might
advise taking renewal for the
balance for a year. A feu days^
afterwards Jorgenson wrote Rob-1
crts acknowledging receipt of the'
note and stating that he would
see 1 licks as soon a* he came to!
town.
According to Mr. llicks' state
ment, in October 1907. Mr. or
genson saw him and asked him!
to pay the note. Mr. llicks stat
ed that lie was then threshing fori
F. G. Eastman and that there was'
one job between that and bis own
job, and then they would thresh
his crop and he would pay the
Roberts note. When the machine
was 011 the next job (the one just,
before Hicks') Hicks was in Sum-1
mit one day to get provisions fori
his own threshing, when a circuit
court summons and complaint,
issued by Mr. Jorgenson. were
served on him by Richard Ohm in
an action of Roberts against
llicks to recover the amount due
on the Roberts note. Then Hicks
says he saw Jorgenson and asked
him what was the matter, if he
did not believe what lie told him,
that he would pay the note, and
Jorgenson replied that he did be-j
lieve him and did not want Hicks
to get mad about the matter, and
that on account of suing him
there was $15.00 more in it for,
him (Jorgenson).
The records of the office of
Clerk of Courts show that judg-.
ment was rendered in this suit in
favor of Roberts by default on
November 30, 7907, for the total
sum of $91.77.
Mr. Roberts states that, not,
having heard from Jorgenson with
any report on the note, he wrote
him in October 1907. in regard to.
it and that he received a letter
from Jorgenson 01, October 21.
1907, in which he states that a
few days before he had served
papers on Hicks in suit brought
on the claim, that he did not
know whether a judgment could
be collected, and also stated if the
claim were "shaved" somewhat
that he might be able to get it,
and inquired what sort of a settle
ment Roberts would be willing
to make. A few days later Mr.
Roberts' wrote Jorgenson ac
knowledging receipt of the letter
and stating that he was surprised
that he had brought suit on the
claim as he had not ordered suit,
and that if Jorgenson could get
the money soon he could make
Hicks a
12
per cent discount 011
the total principal and interest,
and that if Hicks could not pay
it all and wanted a portion of the
claim carried over until the next
year at 8 per cent interest, he
could settle with him on that
basis. Roberts states that he
heard nothing further from Jor
genson until in February 1908,
when Jorgenson informed him
that he had put the claim in judg
ment and had been unable to col
lect it, but that the sheriff had
written to him that he thought
Hicks would pay $25.00 and
costs if Roberts would accept
that in full settlement, and that
if such a settlement was nol sat
isfactory, for Roberts to remit to
JoVgenson $4,25 clerk's fees, to­
gether with $25.00 attorney's ,x
and that he would then send
Roh-
crts a transcript of the judgment.
Mr. Roberts states that he heard
nothing further from Jorgenson
until the following month,
v, iiv:i
he received a letter stating u,'
lie had been unable to make a -cr
llement with llicks upon the
terms authorized by Roberts' let
ter and that he would like to ii .\.
Roberts remit tue amount of ca.-'
that he had been compelled to i\
out S4.25. together with hi at
torney's fees ot $25.00. 11 stcii.s
that Mr. Roberts felt somehut
indignant at the treatment ac
corded him by his attornev
Jorgenson, and 111 March 1 00.x ie
wrote Mr. Jorgenson with refer
uici. to this claim for $4.25 cah
paid out, and 025.00 atturm
fees, and informed Jorgenson
as the claim was sent for collec
tion and remittance and that
v.-
genson never had any instructio
to place the claim in judgmen.
lie would hold him responsible
for the amount of the claim, and
that he would look into the deal
with Hicks as soon as he had an
opportunity to see liini, and that
he had never cared to crowd
Hicks in the way of getting a
judgment against him.
The records of the office of the
Clerk of Courts show that the
judgment in this case was satL
fied by C. R. Jorgenson in iirowr
county. South Dakota, on June r.
1908, and the acknowledgmcr.
was made before his law partnci
McNaghten. But in the mean
time some things had been hap
pening. It seems that 011 April
16. 190S. acocrding to the state
ment of Mr. Hicks, he gave a
mortgage for $100.00 to sails!)
this judgment to Richard Oh
who was at that time and for
many years past had been one of
Jorgenson's particular friends and
associates, and which chattel
mortgage covered seven head of
cattle owned by Hicks in Grant
county, and which notes and
mortgage were afterwards paid
by Mr. Hicks in full. Mr. Hicks
states that at the time of settling
the judgment, Richard Ohm, who
was then deputy sheriff, told him
that he had the judgment for col
lection and that Jorgenson order
ed him to levy an execution un
less it was settled, and that he
was authorized to settle the judg
ment for an even $100.00 Ohm
offered to take secured notes and
said that the judgment belonged
to Roberts but that Jorgenson
was the attorney and the notes
could run to Jorgenson. Hicks
objected to the notes running to
Jorgenson but offered to give the
note and mortgage direct to the
deputy sheriff Ohm, and it was
so made out and was transferred
to the bank at Summit by Mr.
Ohm at the time, and Mr. Ohm.
deputy sheriff, received the full
$100.00 in cash from the bank on
the day the notes and mortgage
were given. It is well to remem
ber then that so far as Roberts,
Jorgenson and Ohm were con
cerned, the deal was closed and
money paid over on April 16,
1908.
The record now appears to be
a blank until the fall of 1910.
As Ohm, the deputy sheriff and
agent of Jorgenson, now had pos
session of the money to square
the matter up, it would be reason
able to presume that a settlement
would be made at once with Rob
erts, but Mr. Roberts states that
he heard nothing whatever in re
gard to this matter from Mr. Jor
genson, or any one else until*the
fall of 1910, when he wrote Mr.
Jorgenson, stating that he was
informed that he had collected the
Hicks claim in full sometime be
fore. and the he was surprised
that he was still holding the mon
ey. Roberts states that on No­
vember 9, 1910, which was a few
days after Mr. Jorgenson had
ceased to be a candidate for state's
attorney for that year, he 1 ccciv
ed a letter from Jorgenson in
which he stated that suit was
brought on the claim in October
1907. and that after bringing suit
lie wrote him to send the amount
ot costs and fees, which he never
did, and that he "disposed oi the
claim to Mr. Ohm for the amount
he had in it and costs," and that
he'does not know what settlement
Ohm made with llicks.
Mr. llicks states that in No
vember or December
1910,
at the
1 eqtiest of Mr. Roberts, he ac
companied him to Sisseton where
they went to Mr. Jorgenson of
fice and Mr. Roberts asked for
his money on that claim, and that
Jorgenson said to Roberts, "to
hell with your claim," and rclnsed
to pay him anything: and that
he understands that he never has
paid him any part of the Si00.00.
The Widow's Home.
I will now tell you about the
Johnson home, ami what became
of it. The facts are these: ()n
July 13, 1S9S, 1 ngcvold Johnson
Myron, usually called Johnson,
made homestead entry on the S.
W.
1
4 of N.
1
i, section 11.
and the S. "f X. 1'-. '4 and \.
W
.4
of S. K. 4. section to,
township 123. range 52. 111 Rob
erts county. South Dakota: he
and his wife and children lived
there until about the year 1903.
when he died. The family were
poor and lived in poverty tin
oldest son, Xels Johnson, was
about 21 years old when his fatli
er died the other members 01
the family requested the Land Of
fice to allow this son, Xels John
son, to file his homestead entrv
011 this land, which was the fam
ily home this application was
granted and notice was issued,
giving Nels Johnson the right to
'file on the lf.id, his father's entry
being cancel, \. This notice was
misdirected *r miscarried so that
the family nc fcr received it. The
widow and family worried about
their home, and she, with some
of her family, went to C. R. Jor
genson, who was then practicing
law at Summit, in regard to the
matter.
I The neighbors down there will
tell you that when they came back
the widow told them that she had
1 employed Jorgenson to look after
the matter and placed the whole
matter in his hands to get their
land straightened out and that he
was going to attend to the mat
ter for her. They will also tell
you that a short time afterward
this same widow, with her fam
ily, went down to see this Mr.
Jorgenson again in regard to her
land that she came home grief
stricken and in tears, and told them
while her frail form was convuls
ed with sobs, that Jorgenson said
someone else had filed on the
land, that he did not know who
it was that had filed, ,but that
nothing could be done about it,
and they had lost their home.
These same neighbors will tell
you that time and time again this
poor widow told them about her
tiouble, about losing her home,
weeping as she told them the
story that a little later she told
them of getting a letter from Jor
genson telling her that she must
get off the land that still later
she told them again of getting
another letter from Jorgenson,
giving her a certain number of
days to move off from the land.
These same neighbors will tell
you that her oldest boy, when
they lost their home, went away
to find work, and how that poor
widow remained there in her
cheerless shanty on that claim
and mourned and cried and faded
away and sickened and died, died
of grief and disappointment and
discouragement. They will tell
you too, how one of the neigh
bors went to town for a coffin in
which to bury the remains of that
poor widow, and that before he
returned another team drove up,
with another coffin, which con
tained the remains of the widow's
son Nels Johnson, who went
away to find work "when the
Johnsons lost their home." They
will tell you how they buried the
victims of this tragedy side
by side in the little ceme
tery up there, the grieving
widow and her unfortunate son.
The records of the Land Office
show that on December 8, 1904.
this land was filed on by Caroline
Jorgenson, and the neighbors will
tell you, that, after the widow and
her son were laid at rest in the
cemetery, the sister of this C.
Jorgenson came out and settled
1
011 this land and proved it up.
Today in the court house the title
of this land stands in the name
of Caroline Jorgenson, and is
worth about $4,000.00.
And that is what became of the
widow's farm.
When C. R. Jorgenson became
an attorney at law he held up
his hand before Almighty God
and the Court and
took
the fol­
lowing oath
"I, C. R. Jorgenson, do
solemnly swear that 1 will
support the constitution of
the I'nited States and the con
stitution of the State of
South Dakota, and that
will do
110
falsehood or con­
sent that any be done in
court, and if 1 know of any
that I will give knowledge
thereof to the Judge of the
Court, or some one of them,
that it may be reformed:
I will not willingly, wilfully
or knowingly promote, sue
or procure to be sued any
false or unlawful suit, or give
aid or consent to same will
delay no man for lucre or
malice, but will act in the of
fice of attorney and counselor
at law according to riy bo
learning and discretion, with
all good fidelity, as well
to the court as to my client,
so help me God."
From the facts above, you can
judge with what fidelity C. R.
Jorgenson has observed his oath
and protected the rights of his
confiding clients.
S. W. BUK DIN 10.
Still Another Case
The following, taken from
1 court records, will show you how
the '"only honest man" in Rob
jerts county treated poor Fried
richs after he had published all
of those defamatory articles
against the above named people
and in aid of his own candidacy
as Friedrichs says it was. After
reading this article, ask yourself
this question, "Wouldn't Jorgen
make a peach of a states attor
ney?"
Complaint
State of South Dakota, County
of Roberts, ss. In Circuit
Court, Fifth udicial Circuit.
|E. 0. Friedrich, Plaintiff,
vs.
IC. K. Jorgenson, Defendant.
The Plaintiff complains and al
leges:
I. That 011 and between the
da,ys of January 10th, IUI3. and
May 28th, IIII, and prior there
I to, be was the owner, publisher
and editor of the Kobert-s Coun
ty Record, a weekly newspaper,
printed and published at Sisse
ton, South Dakota, with a gener
al circulation in Roberts county
and the surrounding country.
That during the month of
January, 1913, the above named
defendant entered into an agree
ment with this plaintiff, by the
terms of which agreement the
said plaintiff agreed to pr'nt
in the sitid Roberts County Rec
ord, certain data, statements and
reading matter of and concern
ing certain public officers in
said Roberts county, and more
particularly concerning John S.
Lwanson, ex-sheriff of Roberts
county and the county commis
sioners of said Roberts county,all
of which was to be made for the
purpose of assisting the said
defendant in his future political
campaigns, to be furnished by
the said C. R. Jorgenson, for
which printing, publishing and
circulating the said defendant
then and there promised to pay
the said plaintiff.
3. That pursuant to the said
agreement the above named de
fendant furnished to the said
plaintiff seven thousand seven
hundred forty-four (7744) lines
of data, statements and reading
matter as aforesaid, which was
printed, published and circulat
ed by the said plaintiff in the
said Roberts County Record.
That the said number of lines
was printed in different weekly
issues of the said Roberts Coun
ty Record on and between the
days of January 10th, 1913, and
May 28th, 1913, and that during
all of this said time, the said
paper was being circulated
generally in Roberts county,
South Dakota, and the surround
ing territory, containg the said
data, statements and reading
matter as aforesaid.
4. That the printing, publish
ing and circulating as above of
the data, statements and read
ing matter as aforesaid was
reasonably worth the sum of
fifteen cents per lino and that
the demand for the payment
thereof has been made and pay
ment refused and that there is
I now due and owing to the plain
I tilt' from the defendant the sum
of one thousand one hundred
I sixty-one ($1161.00) which the
defendant promised and agreed
to pay to the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff de
mands judgment against the de
fendant in the sum of one thous
and one hundred and sixty-one
I f$l llil) dollars with interest
thereon at the rate of 7 per cent
from the 28th day of May, 1913.
besides the costs and disburs
nients of this action.
Iv SUTULIFFE,
Attorney for Plaintiff.
Milbank, S. I).
State of South Dakota, County
of Roberts', ss.
'. hi. SntclilTe being first duly
sworn says that lie is the attor
ney for the plaintiff in the above
entitled action: that he has read
the foregoing complaint and
knows the contents thereof and
that the same is true according
to his best knowledge, informa
tion and belief
That the reason this verifica
tion is not ade by the plaintiff
is that said plaintiff is not a res
ident of the County of Grant,
South Dakota, and is not now
within said county where this
affiant resides and has his law
office.
C. E. SUTCLIFFE.
Subscribed and sworn to be
i'_re me this 1st day of Decem
ber, 1913.
Thad L- Fuller, Notary Public-
Grant Co., S. IX
State of South Dakota, County
of Roberts, ss. In Circuit,
Court in and for said County
and State.
I. the undersigned, Clerk of
the above named Court, do here
by certify that the hereto an
nexed instrument to wit: Copy
of Complaint is a full, true and
correct copy of the original Com
plaint in the case of E. C. Fried
rich vs. C. R. Jorgenson as the
same appears of Record in the
office of the Clerk of said Court.
In witness whereof I have
hereunto set my hand and affixed
the seal of said Court at Sisse
ton, S. D., this 5th day of March.
A. D. 1914.
D. F. STEVENS,
Clerk of the Circuit Court,
Roberts County, S. D.
Taxe» Oppressive
The total taxes on farm lands
east of Missouri river, in South
Dakota in 1900 was $2,242,549.45:
in 1912 $4,008,629.29 and in 1913
$4,720,4410.55. Over 200 percent
increase in six years.
The total state tax, in the state
in 1900 was $442,803.78 in 1912
$1,318,015.31 and in 1.913 $1,195,
455.22. An increase of about 300
per cent in six years, whre the
population has increased less
than 30 per cent and the 1913
state tax will not pay the state
expense within $427,000 accord
ing to the state auditor's figures.
For the present state regime
to compare the state tax of
1913 with 1912, when the 1913
tax is short of paying state ex
penses, and the 1912 tax is its
own high water mirk of expen
ditures, is juggling. How about
the increase of 362 new state
jobs? Don't you want to clean
up the spoils system and hold
down taxes b.v voting for R. O.
Richards for governor at the
primary election, March 24th.—
Adv.
Hand in or phone in—new*
items, no matter how email. The
Standard wants all of the hap
penings of the community and
county.

xml | txt