Falkenberg and John Thornton. For the respondent there was a brief and oral argument by B. James Colbert, Chippewa Falls city attorney. The plaintiff-towns contend that the annexation ordinance is invalid for two reasons: 1 The majority of the qualified electors residing in the annexed area did not sign the petition as required for direct annexation by sec.
The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in concluding that a majority of the electors residing at Northern Colony and Training School had signed the petition for direct annexation as required by sec. None of the patient-residents at Northern Colony signed the petition for direct annexation.
Twenty-four individuals who were patient-residents of Northern Colony at the time the petition was circulated testified at the trial. Their testimony indicated, and the trial court found, that all met the age and residence requirements for an elector and that none were under a court-appointed guardianship at that time.
The plaintiffs dispute the trial court's finding of fact that none of those who testified at the trial and none of the other residents who met the age and residence requirements at the time the petition was circulated "were capable of managing themselves or their affairs by virtue of their mental deficiency, and all were non compos mentis and under the guardianship of the State of Wisconsin.
An annexation ordinance is presumed valid and the party attacking or challenging it bears the burden of proving it invalid. The term "guardianship" is not defined in ch. Plaintiffs contend that the definition of the term in sec. That section provides:. Plaintiffs point out that none of the patient-residents at Northern Colony who testified at the trial were subject to a court-appointed guardian at the time the petition was circulated.
