Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-10-23
THE LIE DROIT Pack FENCE.
The Controversy Brought Before the
Equity Court To-day.

L
| AN ANSWER FILED DENYING MI. BARBER's CLAIMS
4 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE HARK AND OF TEE
| FENCE
In the Equity Court to-day the casesof AMI L.
| Barber agt. Tnos. Z. Waggaman, John +. Wagga-
| man, Henry d. Boteler and Chaa E Banes, grow
ing out Of the controversy over the LIE Droft PARK
fence. was heard. Messrs A. s. Wortnington and
/ l. A Heald appeared for the compliments ana
| Messrs VIM. Birney and A. A. Birney for the de-
PENDANTS. July 81 the defendants sought TO use
Linden street as a thoroughfare from the SETTLE
| ment north to Boundary street and tore down the
\ fence. The fence, however. was temporarily re-
| constructed, and then q bill for an injunction
stopped both parties, ieaying the temporary fence
| standing. The Defendants owning lots on the
edge OF the park, claimed the right TO pass over
the same TO the streets On hearing, In which
some OF the members Of the lot holders association
ants nothaying any title In the streets were not
| the proper parties TO the bill
Mr. BAKBERs CLAIMS.
Then the present bill was filed by Mr. A. L. Bar.
Der for the same object, claiming that he has the
right TO maintain the fence, he is the original
proprietor or was acting for them. Mr.. BARRIERS
bill set forth that In January, 1874, notice was
given on the plat OF the park recorded June ],
enclose the whole or part OF the park and to con-
troll the entrances, with the understanding that
the purchasers or lots and their friends Should
nave the ngnt-otway In the street. &C.
THE CLAIMS DENIED
The respondents, John F. Waggaman and Messra
Boteier and Banes deny that;Barber is q resident,
and asserts that he is a resident of New York
where ne has his business and that at the time Of
sne deed TO Langdon the right Of way over Linden
street was existing and appurtenaut to four build.
ings which had been built by Howard University,
and Langdon had no right 10 deprive the owners
inlaw OF Langdon, the ORIGINAL PROPRIETOR and had
Oeen Ior several years professor In Howard Uni
versity prior TO 1873 ana was the secretary OF the
aged the purchase for his brother-in-law which was
completed on February Is, 1873 and as secretary
a e See 81 the maps and Of How
opening south TO the Boundary; that secretary
signed the deed to Langdon, and nve days afer-
was formed under the name Of A. L Barber Co
Iney say further that on February Is, 1873 q
memorandum OF agreement was made with David
McClelland by A. l. Barber & Co., by which Nc
Clelland gave the latter the right 70 sell large
portion OF his lands and plat the lots and the net
pronts over 10 cents TO be shared by both parties
1t was, however, not sealed or recorded. and no
sale was made under 1t before september l6 when
the nrm OF Langdon, Barber Albright was
1877, the firm was dissolved and that OF A. L.
Barber & CO. was formed by Barber and LangdOn
McSaa 10 tay CUT tneir own land and
further written authority, On April 26 McClelland
revoked his agreement and 1t was recorded, and
Barber co. the following day placed on record
paper denying McCIelland's right TO terminate the
contract For seven years following there was a
cessation OF friendly relations between McClelland
ana the nrm, but on september II, 1885, Barber
executed release to McCleliand oil all the estate
OF McClelland In the subdivision. McClelland then
SOLD TO VIM OBrien several lots In blocks 8 and
13-l1O,S21 square feet-and a few days after he
tOBrien) offered TO sell the same to John f. Wagga-
man, but he refused unless McClelIand would con-
urn the subdivision and dedication OF the Streets
which the latter did by deed october 3, 1885
These lots now belong to one OF the defendants
and they assert that the complainant never had,
an % mr. frlfn the nfd Lofts
nor in the part OF Elm street between them, and
assert that every part OF the outer fence the
corner OF lot 4, block 7532 feet In lengths built
on land which
NEVER BELONGED TO COMPLAINANT
They admit the recording OF the plots January
1, 1873, and January %, 1875, and say as to the
first 1t was a dedication without any limitation or
reservation whatever, but eight months after
Barber caused a reservation to be written thereon
and say that he had right TO do so, and his re-
vocation OF the dedication is void AS to the
second plot, they say the omission Of the reServa-
tlon was reproduction or the reservation. They
admit that the reservation was added but not be-
fore March, 1876. and quote from Mr.. BARRIERS
testimony IN the case OF Moore against Langden
and Barber; that the second certificate was not In
his hand writing or any member OF the nrm, and
been long since dedicated 10 the public use, and
these DEFENDANTS have no interest therein so long
as it shall be used as street" They further
assert that the second plot OF March %, 1876,
is the one In common use by sellers ana buyers
and they have never given deed to proper
ty reserving any control over fencing on
lots or streets, nor any right TO erect
or retain a fence. They submit that the reser-
walton OF July 80, 1874, was personal to Andrew
the reservation was never applied 70 fhe blot Of
75. and does not limit the rights OF purchasers
and the case involves nothing but the defendants
right OF way over the streets and the right TO
control the outer fencing on their lots.
THE DISPUTED FENCE.
They state that an iron fence was erected on the
south and west boundaries, and a board fence on
the north line, but gap OF $50 feet was left open
before reaching Moores Lane, and 1000 feet on
the north and the east line was not fenced, and
the DETECTION Linden street they say was TO ex.
clude persons OF color, and TO compel the cOOred
owners OF six lots III block 8 TO sell out. All sold
excepting Criah Daily, milkman, and a new
fence was brought TO enforce his submission and
IL was standing In 1875, when the second plot was
recorded with q clear dedication. This ADDED Elm
street open and clear from Larch street to the
east line and Linden street to the north line.
They say that about the same time Barber & Co
issued and circulated printed map, on which ap-
enclosed with Jennings patent combination
Ienee." This they say was untrue They also
uon Is made Of the fence, and they say ITS issue
marks the abandonment OF the projectors OF the
original plan OF fence with gate entrances and it
fence. They state also the fence plan was early
abandoned by the purchasers, and refer to Messrs
Barber, Langdon smith, Albright and Others hay-
ing, March %, 1875, petlUiOned the Commissioners
10 lay out new road on the east line Of the park
which would have Involved the demolition OF the
fence OF George T. Moore
REMOVING THE GATES
They state that Barber soon after his removal in
1884 caused the gates at the entrance OF Maple
avenue to be removed; that he about the same
time sold three lots in block ) to Caverly and the
latter tore down part OF the iron fence on Boup-
dairy street and the fence and gates on Linden
street without remonstrance from Barber and
within nve years every other gate on the southern
and western entrances have been removed. They
say further that they not parties to apy agree
ment with Barber under which he has any ease.
ment In their lots or hight 10 maintain INSTRUCTIONS
In Elm or Linden streets. They state they own no
real estate between the Howard University and
LeDroit Park subdivision, but they own within the
latter 10 square feet, nearly four times the
amount owned by Barber. and that the aggregates
owned by those sharing these views as to the fence
Is 1000 square feet
Mr.. Banes admits asking Mr.. Paul the written
order 10 certain persons understood to have ra
ceyed permission from Barber TO erect cow sheds
on Elm between Lincoln and Larch streets bur
they say they do not base their rights on verbal
assurances OF Barber or Paul. but on the cnsfom
AIRY and recognized measurements OF title to real
estate. They admit the service OF notice 10 re-
move cow sheds, and state that Prince has re-
moved his.
THE ASSOCIATION.
They state the association Is composed partly NJ
property owners and partly OF residents but a re
quest for Information TO how many of each clasa
has not been complied with. They state that at
the meeting at which w. Scott smith was elected
president eight or nine we're present and the aver
| age attendance Is but 10. They deny that one of