The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-08-12

such purchaser MIR. Beard has assumed to have the
absolate right to the whole Of the cemetery
or plots only the mere Of such lots or plots 0r
burial purposes wr0ngiuly
privileges and interests which they have under the
original purchase OF these lots or plots, and
having having associated with himself William A. cum,
mings, Charles Goodwin (snce deceased), Robert
1. French, Demas Barnes, Joseph J. O'Donohue
and William X. Grace, they have proceeded 10
file certificate OF incorporation by the OF The
Evergreens, constituting themselves the trustees
thereof, and they now claim 10 have the absolute
disposition OF the whole unsold lands in the ceme.
terry, without recognizing the rights OF former Iot
owners These parties under the corporate name
are now and Tor long time have been se!lng
for. in the cemetery, without having consulted
with the plaintiff and other lot owners emitted 10
0e eonsalted ana claiming to oe entirely rg nSe,
OF the plaintiff and other lot owners. None OF the
lot owners, as such, were made parties to any o,
and all the other original lot owners became and
still are, incorporatOrs by the purchase OF their
several lots in the cemetery and still remain such
incorporators retaining all the rights which they
originally had, among which was the franchise oil
voting for officers, and holding office as trustees,
and other positions in the cemetery by reason OF
being such lot owners, and that persons but lot
owners are eligible In violation or these rights,
trust ana em0lument IN the cemetery persons
ENTIRELY INELIGIBLE TO SUCH POSITIONS,
acting and pretending to discharge the duties of
trustees OF the cemetery. BY virtue OF the act OF
the legislature, under which the Cemetery OF the
Evergreens was originally Incorporated, passed
April 81 1s47 1t was provided that one half at least
OF the sales OF lots and plots should be set apart for
applied to embellishing and Keeping in order the
cemetery and that wnen the whole OF the purchase
OF ots and plots should be set apart and applied to
s su purposes, and none other Mr. Burgess lur,
Their states that Mr. Beard, with Others purchased
the lands comprising the Cemetery OF the Ever
greens Tor about thirty-nve thousand dollars, and
sold to himself, as trustee, in collision with
These trustees then issued bonds to the amount OF
$7S0,000, which the Courts have since declared to
nave been illegally issued and invalid, and in con.
sequence OF these wrongful acts the cemetery has
been declared nsolvent Under the sale last made
Mr.. Beard became the purchaser again for the sum
ton OF the bonds held by him and deemed valid,
while very large amount are still out and I'm.
paid In the hands OF innocent holders The value
OF the lands Ut the present prices Is about four mil
lion dollars
GREAT DAMAGE TO THE CEMETERY.
In concluding, the plaintiff charges that the de-
PENDANTS have by their mismanagement OF the
affairs, caused the cemetery loss that ST. 500 600
been guilty of gross wrong and outrage to various
lot owners, under the guse OF authority to remove
encroachlng trees and shrubs, having entered
cut down and removed trees and shrubbery that
adorned the plots and grounds Of the cemetery,
that were not encroachlng upon the grounds Of
any other owner, that were purchased by private
individuals as they stood upon their plots because
Oh tneir beauty. dne proceeds OF sales they have
grounds; cattle are allowed to roam at large in
the grounds Improper persons are allowed to
range through the grounds night and day, and
MOWERS and shrubs are allowed to be wrongully
plucked from the graves and lots when 1t is within
the power OF the proper officers to prevent the
same
Mr.. A. II. Daley, for the plaintiff, presented a
large number OF ahidavits sustaining MI. Burgess
allegations as to the outrages upon the property in
the cemetery.
The defence is general denial.
Counsel for the corporation questioned the juris-
dtctlon OF the Court III this case and charged that
Mr.. Burgess had broken down the fences OF the
cemetery and allowed the cows to enter. As to the
removal OF trees, &C, counsel asserted that they
were nuisances, as they interfered with surround
ing lots. The charges OF acknowledgement and
neglect were emphatically denied.
Decision reserved.