The herald., 1898-02-24

childish pranks and merriment grated on
the nerves of Mrs. Wannop's mother to
such an extent as to compel her to move to
another neighborhood; and thereby hangs
a tale which will probaly terminate in the
courts.
day Of Washington's birth, dawned bright
and clear, day usually given over to cele-
bration and merry making; not so with
Mrs. Wannop. Early in the forenoon she
made her appearance, driving an express
wagon, and accompanied by colored lieu
tenant and several working men. Through
the united efforts of all, before evening
there arose fence built of corrugated
iron about twenty feet high, extending
from the sidewalk to the rear of the lot,
concealing the entire north end of Mr..
Cohn's two-story residence, and so close
as to prevent the passage of light and air.
The work completed, Mrs Wannop sud-
denly recalled the character of the day,
and brought forth an American flag and
ordered it raised. The proud banner yet
f1aunts its graceful folds over the ram
parts of Fort Wannop.'
The stories as to what caused the erec-
ton of the iron wall around the lot do not
agree by any means, and are as interesting
as they are conflicting.
Mrs. Wannop claims that their peace of
mind was disturbed by the children of Mr..
Cohn in their plays and the impudence of
his hired girl. She further AYERS that Mr..
Cohn built his house too close to their line,
thereby interfering with the sunlight and
air. In order to be remote from these al
legged disagreeable(O surrounding Mr..
Wannop removed his house to lot which
he purchased at the corner of Washington
and Flower streets. The neighbors seems
to side with the Cohn family in the con-
troversy.
Mr OI6chancep vvho lives at 1117 E1Oyver
street, which adjoins Wannop's property
on the north, guardedly stated that the
Wannops have not always conducted
themselves as agreeable neighbors. He
cited an instance Of their lack of proper
neighborly feeling by telling Of their hav-
ing burned trash near his fence at times
when the smoke and fumes would blow di-
rectly in his house. AS counter irritant
he has had to burn sulphur in large guam
titles. He also states that they were con-
tinually complaining to the police of the
children who sometimes passed their
house on the sidewalk. The neighbors on
all sides Of Mr.. Cohn state that his little
girls are exceptionally well behaved.
Mrs. Wannop stated that 1t was their in
tention to construct a large shed, to be
built flush with the sidewalk, in which
they intended storing coal and hay; that
the front would be used for the purpose of
bill posting and that the corrugated iron
fence in case of fire would serve as pro-
lection to Mr.. Cohn's property. Mr.. Wan
mop states that he already has procured
a building permit, and, further, that he
has consulted the best legal opinion in
reference to the stand he has taken. 1t is
probable that the Intervention Of the courts
may be asked, though with what result ii
would be difficult to foresee.
The case is In many ways similar to that
of Yung VS.. Crocker, which was before
the San Francisco courts some time ago,
and which attracted almost national atten-
tion. Mrs. Rosina Yungs residence was
on small lot, surrounded on three sides
by the Crocker estate, and the late Charles
Crocker attempted to purchase it. The
owner refused to sell at Crocker's figure so
the latter built fence twenty feet high,
enclosing the premises on three sides and
almost hiding it from view. This caused
a long contest in the courts with the re-
suit that Crocker had to pay many times
the value of the property before he secured
a title to it.
Attorney Creswell, in rendering the
opinion in this matter, cited the case OF
Western & Co. vs. Knickerbocker, passed |
upon by the supreme court Q03 Cal. page |
l1D. the decision being as follows
1.-THE doctrine that proprietor may by |
user acquire an easement over adjoining |
land for the passage of light and air, does |
merely owning the adjoining lot does not |
give the proprietor an easement of the |
of another for the passage of |
light and air.
Nor is 1t competent for the legislature
% vest in such proprietor the power to
prevent his neighbor from building such a
structure as he pleases, provided 1t is not
a nuisance, and 1t is not such merely be- |
cause it obstructs the passage of light
md air.
The legislature cannot thus create an
easement in favor of certain proprietors
,ver the lands of another, nor declare the
Usual ordinary use of property nuisance
When such infringes upon the legal rights
# no one
The decision clearly recognizes the legal
light of property owner to build wholly
IN his own ground a solid wall, even though
t should be SO close to the house of an al
dining property owner and of such height
Is to destroy his enjoyment of light and
iir.