Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-09-14
LIE DROsr PARK FENCE CASE,
Another Move I'm the Equity Ceart To-
Day.

In the Equity Court, Judge Cox, to-day, Mr.. A
8 Worthington appeared In the lie Droit Park
renee case-Boteler agt Barber-for the defend
ants w. s. Smith, Howard L Prince, and c. h.
Gannett 1led cross Dill against the complainants
on which rule TO show cause was issued 70 II. d.
boteier and C. 3. Banes, returhable on Tuesday
next The prayer OF the cross bill asks that
Boteler and Banes be enjoined, peoding the suit
ana perpetually thereafter, from permitting an
opening In the fence on the west side OF Linden
street and across Elm street to remain, and from
allowing said fence on the north side OF lie Droit
PARK TO remain otherwise than substantially In
tne CONDITION In which II was when part OF the
% rn aGnn BY SAID and sss
fence and be restrained from ipjuring or mutilat-
Ing any part OF the fence around lie Droit Park;
tnat tney oe enJoined from interfering with COM
plainants while replacing the fence, and that
boteier and Banes snail permit them 70 enter on
lots and Z, block II. to rebuild and maintain
The cross bill sets out that the park was laid out
10 June, 1873 and The plat placed on record; that
tinn ara 49, Saroer placed on record reserva,
when Land out AeasfA Langdon and M.Clelland
were the only occupants and II was contemplated
in the I'LL Of 1878: that Langdon agreed in FeO-
ruary, 1879, 70 purchase the Milton tract west OF
McCieland's tract and including Linden street
university had agreed to eel TO other persons SIX
small parcels OF land on what Is now the north
WEST Cofncr Oh OiOck D, lOtS 10 D, and barOer q
Co expected 10 acquire these lots and bring them
In tue PARK. but were unable because OF persons
Claiming LOT 8 refusing 70 sell except at an ex-
noroltant price. They, however, acquired the re-
malnder VI The six lots II IL set form that hen
the fence was built 1t was detected so as TO ex-
ciude the six lots, the line crossing Linden street
at the southern boundary OF lot G. and running
northward on the west line OF Linlen street TO the
nortn Slde OF Elm street, ana thence westerly with
the northern boundary OF the park; that when
Barber Co. acquired 4. 5, and 8 the fence was re-
moved Sufnclentiy 10 blng them into the park,
ana with III it exception the fence remained unds-
turDed I'LL 1887 when first interior with. They
state tnat Tue sales were made after the fence had
Deen erected, and TO persons who stipulated that
the fence should remain, because OF the protection
tney state the organization OF the Park AsSOcia-
ton and the act OF the complainants, Bote.er and
BaneS,
NEW POINT ABOUT TIE FENCE.
Mr.. N. 7. Halter, the architect who has been re-
fused by the Commissioners permission to build
three frame cottages in lie Droit Park because the
park Is now In the IRE limits. writes TO the Com.
mssonerS as follows: "II that is the case Is there
any law which allows any one to barricade the
streets In the IRE limits without q special permit
for the same? This Is the case In LIE Drot Park.
There are several persons In there who want The
nre limits extended 80 as 10 take in their park and
still retain che fence. Now, suppose there was a
fire on the north side OF the fence at night; then
the most direct route for the IRE department
would De through the p TX. Now, what would be
done about the ience7 Why, The house could burn
down by the time the f.nce was removed enough
for the tire department to pass through. Nov,
this does not seeln lair that there should be any
dividing line In the ire limits account OF color
which certainly looks to be the case and that only.
the fire limits. then you should clear all roadways
within the same.