The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-05-24
A STRIP OF LAND.
Subject OF Dispute in Case Before
the Appellate Court.
Some Interesting Testimony Given by Mrs.
Joh son and Other Witnesses.

The first case heard by the Appellate
Court this morning was that of Mary L.
Johnson VS.. Henry 4. Grant. 1t was an
action of trespass on the case In which
Jury trial had Seon waived. The subject
In dispute was "A strip of land between
two pieces OF property at the corner OF
brigham and Carpenter streets that was
formerly part OF the William a. How
ard estate, the plaintiff claiming that
the defendant had broken down fences
belonging to her and entered upon tho
land referred to, claiming IL was. though
called a gangway, land to which he had "a
right to use and keep open for an en-
trance TO other land TO High street. The
damage laid in the writ was 500
Mrs. johnson testified that she had
known the property about four years,
and during all that time the piece OF land
claimed as a gangway was not marked
oil rs SUCH but there were flower plots
and grass upon il, the flowers ana grass
being kept up by her tenants ana besides
a concrete walk there was fence at the
sidewalk and one across the so-called
gangway Witness also testified that on
January 9 of the present year Mr.. Grant
took down tho fences and Mrs. Johnson
after a good deal of trouble found the
fences ON the land OF Mrs Tyler After
consulting her attorney Mrs. johnson had
the fences again put up, but Mr.. Grant
not only took thon down again, but made
kindling wood Of the timber that they
were bailt of.
The defendant testified that the land in
question belonged 10 his wife and william
"A. Howard Jr, and their right TO posses
sion was never disputed until four years
and a half ago whom James Il. johnson,
the husband of the plaintiff, put UP the
fences. There had been 10 controversy
between Mr.. johnson and witness TO the
land but Johnson had made four attempts
10 purchase the gaDgway, none OF which
were successful and thon Mr. Johnson put
up the fences and Mr. Graat demanded
they be taken down, asking only an equal
right with Mr.. johnson and his tenants TO
use the gangway. There was grass grow
ing on the gangway but no flower plots
were there until after tho fences were put
up.
j. Il. Trask in behalf of the plaintiff
testified that he had known the premises
since 1860 and that the fences were put
across the gangway when the houses on
both sides of 10 were built in 1884. Wit
ness is carpenter and worked on the
houses and got some OF the stock out for
the fences.
Another witness called by the plaintiff
was Edward Il. Eagan, who painted the
house, built by johnson in 1884 Testified
that the fences across the gangway were
built shortly after the houses were finished.
r. w. Burbank, counsel for the defen
dant. argued that the title 10 the land
described as "a gangway had never been
transferred to tho defendant or her hus-
band and that only by adverse possession
could tho plaintiff secure title and long
time enough had not elapsed since 1884 to
divert defendant of his rights. He maln-
tained that tho Grants owned the gang
way and could not be considered as tres
passers.
Clarke H.JohDson, counsel for tho plain
tiff argued that his client claimed title
by deed not by adverse possession, and
that the law tnat each party bought to the
middle Of the gangway when they bought
the adjoining land, was too we'll estab-
lished To require argument. That the de.
fendant had parted with all his rights TO
adjoining land and was therefore guilty of
trCspaSs.