ILNews

Fire closes courts at historic courthouse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A fire heavily damaged historic Jefferson County Courthouse Wednesday evening. Remodeling and restoration to the courthouse and cupola were completed yesterday and bunting made by women in the Indiana Department of Correction was scheduled to be hung Friday. The fire has displaced the offices and courts located inside.

The first 911 call came in to dispatchers at 6:18 p.m., said Madison Mayor Tim Armstrong. Investigators are still on the scene, but it looked like the fire may have begun in the dome or roof area. He urged people not to jump to conclusions and let investigators do their job.

At a press conference this morning, Jefferson County Commissioner Julie Berry described Wednesday as "the best of times, and the worst of times," alluding to the Charles Dickens' classic "A Tale of Two Cities." She said the courthouse looked the best it ever had in her lifetime - with nearly $175,000 invested in renovations - but then later that day it was the worst of times when the fire broke out.

The third floor had a lot of damage; the second floor had water damage and some fire damage; and the first floor and basement had water damage, it was reported at the press conference. The city hopes to salvage and restore as many documents as it can and had made backups to many documents like marriage licenses and records.

County commissioners and council members met at 8 a.m. to discuss where to relocate the offices and courts located in the courthouse. The courts are closed today while details are being worked out, Armstrong said. The city offered the courts its council chambers because it's set up similar to a courtroom, and the Madison school system has offered use of a school located about a block and a half away from the courthouse. He said neighboring Switzerland and Jennings counties also have offered use of their facilities. Officials hope to determine where the courts will be relocated by later today.

The courthouse was built around 1854 or 1856, said the mayor, and it was to be a focal point for the city's bicentennial celebration this summer. This is at least the second fire to happen in the courthouse, he said. While the city is saddened by this fire, he said they will rebuild the courthouse.

Kathryn Dolan, public information officer for the Indiana Supreme Court, said the high court is expecting a petition from the Jefferson County judges and clerk requesting Administrative Rule 17 relief. If the Supreme Court grants the petition, it would allow the courts to suspend deadlines related to civil and criminal cases for a period of time.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT