Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-10-13
Z DIrisi0x LINE DJspUrE.
Edgar Houn#feii, Truatee, Claims Three
Frct OF wtIlinm Aledholat,a Prenisss.


Fest Of william Msdhoidt's Premisss.
William Medholdt and his attorney,
William 3. Hilles, arc eager to have
the person of Edgar Hounsheld come
within the Jurisdiction of the Superior
Court OF New Castle county, in order
that service may be made upon him in
suit for S10,0 damages which they
propose TO press against him. The
reason OF the aforesaid eagerness by
the gentlemen named grows out of the
erection Of sign on the property Of
Edgar Honnsield, trustee, on Della
ware avenue between Madison and
Adams streets. This sign bears the
following portentious words
A portion of the premises adjoining
on the, east have been enclosed with
this property for more than 20 years,
and proceedings will be taken to re-
cover its possession.
/, Edgar Hounsfeld Trustee
The property adjoining on the east is
Mr.. Medholdt's and it is on account Of
the effect of that sign that Mr., Med
holdt wants damages.
Briefly stated, Hounstield claims
that the fence erected by Medholdt as
the dividing line between the Med
holdt and Hounsield properties ac-
tnally takes in about three feet of
the Hounsfield property. He bases his
claim to that three feet upon con-
tinued possession for at least 30 years
and not upon any fee simple deed to
the property in dispute.
Mr.. Hounsfield is represented by
James w. Ponder, who made rough
sketch to show the writer how his
client came TO claim the three feet. At
the corner of Adams street is Trinity
Church and adjoining that is the
property occupied by Henry G. Morse,
and on which the new High School is
to be built; adjoining that is the
Hounsheld property and next the Med
holdt property. Now, according to Mr..
Ponder, when the fences were erected
on the properties, the fence separating
the Morse and Houns6eld lots was set
three feet east Of the correct line, and
when Hounsheld laid out his lot he
counted from the fence which had
been erected, with. the rosilt that his
eastern line was three feet east OF what
his deed calls for. A row of trees grew
along the fence. Mr.. Ponder states
that the fence between the Medholdt
and Honnsfield lot, on the line three
feet east Of the true line has been
there for 40 years, and that the three
feet in question, therefore, become
Hounsfeld's property, by right of adj
verse possession. The cement walk ad-
joining the Medholdt house is claimed
to be on Hounsfield's property, and
the edge of the wall is about on the
line claimed by Hounsfield.
Mr.. Ponder says that the fact that
the Medholdt property encroached was
not discovered until the fence was
erected by Medholdt. Mr.. Hounsfield
is in Kentucky.
When reporter asked Mr.. Hilles as
to Mr.. Medholdt's position in the dis
pute, the attorney at once set forth his
siCe of it, The property was formerly
in the Gilpin estate. SO many feet Of
it, with o frontage of 100 feet on Della
ware avenue, was sold to Edgar Houns-
field, trustee. One Of the properties
was sold to Mr.. Medholdt in partition
proceedings, and he got his line from
the city surveyor and also from Mr..
Hatton, and there is no conflict be-
tween the deeds of Hounsfield and of
Medholot, simply the fence had been
changed from where it ought to have
been to an improper place, feet, or
4 inches at the front, and scarcely any
thing at the back. eYE -
sMedholdt's title to the property Is
all right" said Mr.. .Hilles, a"and
Hounsfield has no possible claim to it
of any kind. The only purpose of put
ting up sign would be to injure the
sale of the property by Mr.. Medholdt,
and Mr., Medholdt has brought suit
against Mr.. Hounsfeld, which suit he
proposes to push to conclusion, and
Just the moment Mr.. Hounsfield will
come near this jurisdiction, he will be
served with the process. The whole
purpose OF the advertisement is to force
Mr.. Medholdt to pay Mr.. Hounsfeld
for land which Hounsfield doesn't own
and to which he has absolutely no
title.''
When ASKED as to the effect of the
claim that the old fence had been there
more than 20 years, Mr.. Hilles said that
such claim might hold If possession
was continued, but Mr. Medholdt is in
actual possession, and the attorney
spoke as IL anyone else would have an
interesting time in taking it from him.
The sign was put up on Saturday
and removed that night. 1t has been
put up again, and Mr.. Ponder proposes
to keep it there. --