The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1896-10-21
NEW HOPE AND BUCKS COUNTY. Pa.

Samuel Scheetz, lock-tender on the
canal at New Hope, has filled his present
position for thirty-seven years with the
exception of period of six years, during
which he followed boating.
"A. ]. Solomon, of New Hope, died
suddenly at his home last Thursday morn
ing. A few moments before his death he
appeared as well as usual. Mr.. Solomon
formerly kept the ''Brick Hotel'' in New
Hope, but retired from II three years ago.
He was prominent democrat in Bucks
county, and held the office Of county COM
missioner at one time. The funeral took
place on Sunday afternoon at Q o'clock.
Services we're conducted by the pastors of
the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches.
The New Hope Fire Company, with about
$50 men, turned out in a body TO pay
their last respects to their dead fellow
member The remains were inferred at
Solebury Friends Meeting House.
A Complicated Case.
A case which took up the whole of the
afternoon session of the Bucks Co. Court
one day last week was that of j. Simpson
Belts and A. V. Manning vs.. Ann Scar
borough, Isaac Scarborough and Fletcher
D. Scarborough, executors of Hiram Scar
borough, deceased, and Rutledge f. Scar
borough, action OF trespass.
Hugh B. Eastburn, Esq, represented
the plaintiffs, and Henry Lear, Esq, and
]. F. Long, ESQ.,, and John Lilly, ESQ.,, of
Lambertville, N. j., appeared for the de-
PENDANTS.
During the whole of the afternoon but
two witnesses were examined, the balance
of the time being taken up by counsel on
both sides with arguments to the Court
upon complicated legal niceties.
The case hinges upon the question of
legal rights vested in the owners of the
old and we'll known Scarborough shad
fisheries at New Hope to use portions OF
the lands Of the plaintiffs fronting on the
Delaware River where these fisheries
are located. These fisheries are now
operated by Ann Scarborough, Isaac Scar
borough, Fletcher d. Scarborough, aud
Rutledge F. Scarborough. The former
three are executors of the late Hiram
Scarborough, who owned the fisheries for
many years.
their father had purchased the absolute
right from former owner TO use the land
In question for the purpose of landing
upon 1t their nets, etc. This, the plaintiffs
in this case hold, is not sincere claim as
rent had been paid annually for the privi-
lcge of using the ground. To return
the executors maintain the rent was paid
for tract farther up the river, adjoining
the land 10 question. 1t is asserted by the
Scarborough that the path used by tnen1,
which use is objected TO by the defendants
Is below the high. water mark and there
fore within their right. There are also
many other cross-claims which involve
many knotty questions of law and fact.
The following jury was swon to try the
case: Samuel Slifer, George Gruver,
Christian Il. Hindenach, William Ii. Holt,
Joseph Paist, Charles Thompson, Harry
G. Evans, Samuel Fenton, Jacob L.
Swartz, Henry G. Detweler, Matthias J.
Loux, Daniel f. Meyer.
The records were examined for many
generations back and offered In evidence
to show what rights had been retained by
owners OF the land when the possession de-
scended through the various families.
]. Simpson Belts, one OF the deien-
dants, who owns the property at New
Hope adjoining the Scarborough and
fronting on the Delaware River bank, tes-
tilted that path ran along the river
through his property which was used by
the horses while towing the fishing boats.
This path runs near the river at some
points. When the river is at its ordinary
height the path at its lower points just
touches the water. When the water
reaches the highest point in the path 1t is
known as "high water" The use Of this
path by the defendants constitutes the
trespass complained Of. The path had
been used for fishing purposes for many
years, and witness knew this when he
bought the place. He considered the
highest points in the path above ordinary
high water. The use of the path for fish
ing purposes, he thought, had tendency
to wear the bank away.
Richard Elias Ely, whose father owned
the property OF Mr.. Belts previous to its
purchase by the latter, testified that dur.
ing his fathers ownership of the fishery
the Scarborough had always paid him
rent for the use OF the path. This rent
could not have been paid for the tract
above as witness, father never owned that
land. Mr.. Ely also corroborated Mr..
Belts as to the location and course of the
path ON his land.