A move to have Brown County pay the $5,000 damages plus interest from an old false arrest suit against the sheriff and a deputy failed Thursday by a 3 to 2 vote.

County Commissioner Denis Warta introduced a resolution calling for such payment by the county.

Voting in favor of the resolution were Warta and board chairman Leo Hoffmann. The other three board members voted ‘no’.

It was the second time the matter had come to a vote before the board.

THE VOTE came after William O’Connor, assistant county attorney who defended the sheriff and deputy at the January 1973 civil trial, reviewed the facts of the case at Warta’s request.

The $5,002 damages had been awarded to James and Shari Lundt by a six-member jury here after Judge Harvey Holtan ruled the October 1971 arrest of the couple and their subsequent imprisonment had been false.

The Carpenter, Iowa, couple had been arrested by Deputy Ray Hager at the Sleepy Eye Auction Mart on a Saturday and held at the Brown County jail for two days.

THE LUNDTS finally collected their $5,000 damages last April from the bonding company which handled the bond posted by the sheriff in his position as an elected official.

The bonding company, in turn, wrote the county board Nov. 11 asking that the county pay the company. Damages plus interest totaled $5,682 as of Nov. 22.

The letter said the company was hopeful it would not have to resort to “garnishment, attachment or other legal proceedings” to get its money from Sheriff Ervin Weinkauf and Deputy Hager.

O’CONNOR SAID Judge Holtan had never ruled on whether the county was liable for the damages because the county was not a party to the suit.

He said state law leaves it up to the county board whether to pay the damages or not, it’s discretionary.

WARTA SAID the money was not a big amount but there was a big principle involved. He said Hager’s share of about $3,000 was a big amount to Hager. Hager was present at the board meeting.

“If we want these people to work for the county we have to back them up. This is an employer’s responsibility, maybe not a legal responsibility but a moral responsibility,” Warta said.

Warta’s resolution stated the suit had been grounded upon an error in judgment made by Deputy Hager when confronted with a conflicting fact situation requiring an immediate decision on his part.

The resolution said Hager’s action was not taken at the direction of Sheriff Weinkauf, who was in fact out of town at the time.

WARTA’S RESOLUTION said the county “should support and protect its officials and employees who find themselves in a predicament such as this when their actions are deemed to be just, reasonable and proper under all circumstances such as Hager’s actions.”

It said, “To expect these officials to personally pay this sum of money would be unjust and a tremendous personal financial hardship and may result in causing other employees and officials to be reluctant to perform their various functions and duties for fear of a similar problem.”

THE OTHER time the board voted on this question was in March 1973, immediately after the final judgment against Weinkauf and Hager was handed down by the judge.

At that time the board had been called together on four hours notice at the request of the sheriff, who said he had to have an immediate decision so he could decide whether to appeal the damages.

The board vote then was unanimously opposed to the county paying the damages. Warta was absent at that meeting.

New Ulm Daily Journal

Dec. 19, 1974