Laserfiche WebLink
igg Mattis. 15.NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES <br />precedent by permitting a single inroad, <br />however small, upon the public's share of <br />the shore line, other inroads will inevitably <br />follow, unti; the aggregate becomes a real <br />threat to the public's free access to the <br />lake. To avoid any possibility of such a re- <br />sult, the courts should with equal vigor re- <br />pulse the first, the second, and rvery other <br />assault upon the public domain. <br />If eternal vigilance is the price of pre- <br />serving the full benefit of Minnesota's lakes <br />for all members of the public —as it is of <br />liberty —public officials must gladly pay <br />that price. They must not stand by, wholly <br />unconcerned, like Nero, who fiddled white <br />Rome burned, and permit public access to <br />our lakes to be cut off or reduced for sel- <br />fish private purposes. Yet here town <br />supervisors appear to have been entirely ob- <br />livious to the full import of the petition, <br />of the filing of which they received notice. <br />Not only did they fail to protest, but they <br />actually Rave aid and comfort to the pe- <br />titioners in their raid upon the public's con- <br />servation chest. <br />The obvious purpose of providing notice <br />to the town supervisors of proceedings to <br />vacate a street or highway is to put tl.ese <br />officers on guard, so that the interests of <br />the public may be amply protected. The <br />supervisors of Excelsior township having <br />failed in their duty in this respect and <br />having permitted a default to be entered, it <br />is at least understandable why the petition <br />was originally granted by the lower court. <br />But when the court's decree vacating the <br />street was promptly attacked by appellants <br />upon their receiving notice of the proceed- <br />ing, the trial court should have been idert <br />to the public interest and, unhesitatingly, <br />should have reopened it; and this, not- <br />withstanding that appellants' motion to re- <br />open was motivated principally by the an- <br />ticipated damage to their own property. <br />Not to reopen the proceeding in the public <br />interest was a clear abuse of discretion, and <br />the order denying appellants' motion must <br />be reversed. <br />If, in view o: the importance we have <br />attached to the preservation of our lakes <br />and full access thereto for the public and <br />for posterity, respondents still deeire to <br />urge that the portion of Lake Street be- <br />tween their property and St. Albans Bay <br />has become "useless for the purpose for <br />which it was laid out," they will be ac- <br />corded that privilege. We may not have <br />all the facts. But respondents should un- <br />deistand that any decree of vacation must <br />be supported by clear proof that the street <br />has in fact become "useless" to the public <br />in the full and unrestricted meaning of <br />that term. <br />Reversed. <br />r <br />o �a mows mir0 <br />r <br />In re LIPSCOMB. <br />No. 33759. <br />Supreme Court of Minnesota. <br />June 2, 1944. <br />1. Attorney and client 0:039 <br />Conviction of a felony or a misde- <br />meanor involving moral turpitude restilts <br />in disbarment as a matter of course, even <br />though sentence is suspended. Minn.St. <br />1941, § 481.15, subd. 1(1). <br />2. Attorney and client e-39 <br />The record of conviction of a felony <br />or a misdemeanor involving moral turpi- <br />tude is conclusive in disbarment proceed- <br />ing and cannot be questioned by proof <br />..1"Inde. Minn.St.1941, § 481.15, subd. <br />1(1). <br />S. Attorney anu • 4}54 <br />That money w ient owed attor- <br />ney but refused to y. A have been <br />more than enough to tag -if another <br />client's claim did not con:. 11ch ex- <br />tenuating circumstances as w., stify <br />a reference of proceeding to dir,b., 1r. <br />ney for embezzlement of and clit <br />money. Minn.St.19.11, § 4r 1.15, subd. 1(i <br />Proceeding on order to show cause why <br />Allen 1.1. Lipscomb should not be dis- <br />barred. <br />Respondent disbarred. <br />Philip Neville, Sec'y, State Board of <br />Law Examiners, of Minneapolis, for peti- <br />tioner. <br />Henry G. Young, of Minneapolis, foe <br />respondent. <br />PER CVRIAM. <br />On October 27, 1943, respondent, an at- <br />torney at law duly licensed to practice in <br />our state, pleaded guilty to an informs- <br />