The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1898-04-02
TITLE
DECIDED.
Feature in the Torbert-
Riffert Case.
The BOROUGH WAS INTERESTED !
Some Of the Land From Which the Claim
ant Tried to Eject Torbert is That
Taken For the Public Water
Works Near Brandonville.

The result Of the eicctment suit Of j. T..
Riaert against w. /. Torbert, decided at
Pottsvile yesterday is of far more import
ance to the people of Shenandoah than many
people suppose. The case WAS decided in
Mr.. Torbert's favor Had it been decided
otherwise the borough would have been
placed in a somewhat embarrassing position,
owing to the fact that the land purchased for
the public water works and upon which the
pumping station near Brandonville stands is
included in the land involved in the suit.
The suit was brought by Riiert to eject
Torbert and recover possession of the Walter
Beatty tract of 400 acres in East Union town
ship on which Girard Manor is located. The
suit was brought in the latter part Of 1897.
The plaintiff made his claim as one of the
heirs of Valentine Brobst, deceased, a resi-
dent Of Reading, Pa. The defendant
Torbert, set up defonse that he had been in
continuous and undisputed possession of the
land for more than twenty years. and there
fore his title could not be assaied. At the
trial yesterday Mr.. Torbert showed that his
possession had EXTENDED over period of
twenty-six years and Judge Eudlich directed
the jury to find a verdict for the defendant
1t will be remembered that several years
ago the borough condemned and took
possession Of land and streams owned by Mr.
Torbert for the public water works and upon
an arbitration to assess damages Mr.. Torbcrt
was given an award for S25, 600. A little over
year ago, in order to avoid more litigation
and expense, Mr. Torbert and the borough
got together and made an agreement whereby
Mr.. Torbert was to transfer all title to the
condemned land in consideration of three
notes from The borough for the aggregate sum
of $4,000. The agreement was carried out.
Within a month after the borough had re-
ceived the deed for the land and Mr. Torbert
had received the notes a communication was
received by the borough, notifying it that j.
L. Ritlert, of Reading, claimed ownership of
the land in question and warned the borough
that Mr. Torbert had no title to give. When
the communication was read it created
a stir of uueasiness among the Coun
cilnen, but was quickly dispe!led when
j. H. Pomeroy, Esq, the then Borough So
licitor, told the Councilmen that they need
feel no uneasiness as the deed received from
Mr.. Torbert was full warranty one and hi
estate was good for any damages the Dor
ough might sustain by any claim to the lane
Mr.. Rilert might establish This had an
assuring effect upon the Council, yet there
was more or less feeling Of interest in the
case and the final outcome is received witt
much qualification, as it not only establshe.
the title of Mr.. Torbert, but is q iudca
stamp of legality upon the borough's title
that will last for all time to come and ther,
are no longer visions of litigation with Mr.
Riilert as to additional payment for the
land, or with Mr.. Torbert to collect damage
the borough might have sustained through
decision contrary to the one made yesterday