Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-06-05
BALLERINO VS.. BIGELOw.
Possession Wanted of q Piece OF
Land ON Nigger Alley.

Possession Wanted of q Piece OF
Land ON NigRer Alley.
In the City Township Court yesterday
afternoon, Justice Theodore Savage heard
the testimony in the civil action OF B.
Ballerino vs. L. M. Bigelow. The suit is
brought to obtain judgment for the
restitution of property on Niger alley,
from which plaintiff alleges he was
forcibly elected on the 4th of May by the
ag ent and employees of defendant under
her personal supervision and direction,
and for 5000 damages for illegal retainer
of said property and costs of suit.
The ase was set for trial at 80 P. NJ,
but owing to some Misunderstanding, the
plaintiffs attorney was not ready
and waited a continuance until
Wednesday. This however, defendants s
attorney would not agree to, and after a
brief argument Allen left the courtroom
to hunt up Major Bell, who was interested
in the case, the Court informing him that
at the end of ten minutes time he would
proceed with the case. However, it was
fully half an hour later before the case
was called, and the plaintiff, B. Ballerino,
was put upon the stand. Before asking
any question, plaintiffs attorney laid the
case before the Court, stating, among
other things, which caused a smile, that
he did not pretend that the defendant
committed the murder. but she certainly
held the candle to the throat of the victim
SO as to guide the knife of the assassin !;
in brief, she was, he said, the accessory
before the fact. The plaintiff then pro-
ceeded to give his testimony, which was
to the effect that on the 4th inst. he was
in peaceful possession and occupancy of
his property on Niger Alley, on which
he had stored considerable quantity
of hay within q fenced enclosure.
During the afternoon Mrs. Bigelow and
her son drove up in buggy, and a
gang of men appeared almost stimuli
taneously with picks and shovels. Under
her direction and that of her son, these
men proceeded to demoish his fence,
throwing away the broken pie es, some
of which struck the witness and drove
him off and after scattering the hay all
over the street and vacant lots in the vicin-
ity, they put up another fence with lumber
which they had brought with them for
the purpose. Ever since that date the
defendant had retained possession of his
land in spite of his objections, and still
continued to do 30.
Upon cross-examination the attorney
for defendant endeavored to introduce
testimony showing that the plaintiff had
leased his property to Cinnamon for ten
years, only two years of which lease had
expired and that therefore the property
was not in fact in his posses
sion. The attorney for plaintiff argued
that this was wholly incompetent as the
case was not one involving any title to
the land, but was merely brought to re-
cover restitution of land which was then
and there in the peaceful occupancy of
the plaintiff. Defendants attorney re-
piled that the fence across the street OBJ
structed defendant's land and that she
had right to destroy it, whereupon
plaintiff IS attorney retorted that it was
the business of the Chief of Police or
the Superintendent of Streets to remove
it and not that of a citizen. However,
the Court allowed the defendants attor.
ney to continue his questions, and the
case proceeded. Six more wit
nesses were examined for the
prosecution, all of whom corrobo-
rated the testimony of the
plaintiff. Only two witnesses were ex-
amined for the defendant, J. X. Bigelow
and Ed. Kinney, both of whom testified
as to the fence put up by Ballerino OBJ
structing Mrs. Bigelow's land, and that
no force was used in ejecting plaintiff,
because he ran away Immediately the
men began to tear it down. The de-
tense then rested its case, and the Court
continued the case for argument until
9:30 O'Clock this morning. At its con-
same affair, will be heard, in which the
against the defendant, who is charged
with malicious mischief in tearing down
the fence.