File:Arthur Conrad Gjelhaug (1889-1945) in The Minneapolis Star of Minneapolis, Minnesota on April 5, 1939.png

Fight Against 'Exile'. Attorney Clement J. Tierney, Mathilda Gjelhaug, Arthur C. Gjelhaug. They Fight Removal From Minneapolis To Duluth. Father Fights Move To Evict Him From City. A fight against eviction from the city was launched in District Judge Levi M. Hall's court today by Arthur C. Gjelhaug, 49, 2710 Lyndale avenue S, garage mechanic and father of two children. lie sought an Injunction against the state, county, city,- board of public welfare, Chief of Police Frank E. Forestal and O. A. Pearson, relief superintendent, to prevent them from sending him back to Duluth, where the family formerly, lived. He claimed they have lived here continuously since July, 1937, that he earns $15 a week, and that Mrs. Gjelhaug, a former teacher, works when she can. On March 30, he charged, two police officers read him an ejection order. If ejected, he claimed, he would lose his job, and the school year of his two children would be interrupted. One daughter is the editor of a high school literary publication and won national honors in a Columbia university short story contest. In the city's answer, it was charged the family has not lived here continuously since July, 1937, and that its members are legal residents of Duluth. Duluth authorized their return there in July, 1938, the reply stated. The city reply said the family applied for relief when they came here, and reapplied last February. The city's contention was it was within its legal rights in returning them to Duluth. Mrs. Gjelhaug, on the witness stand, said the family now did not want relief. They had had trouble in February, she said, but by the time the relief department got around to serving the eviction order, the need was past. She said she was going to get job to help out the family.

This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart and the copyright renewal logs. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (70 years p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 years p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 years p.m.a.), Mexico (100 years p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 years p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties. العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ українська ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Works copyrighted before 1964 had to have the copyright renewed sometime in the 28th year. If the copyright was not renewed, the work is in the public domain. No renewal notice was found for this periodical for issues published in this year. For instance, the first New York Times issue renewed was from April 1, 1928. Some publications may have renewed an individual article from an earlier time, for instance the New York Times renewed at least one article published on January 9, 1927. If you find any contrary evidence, or the renewal database has been updated, please notify me.