The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-07-09
PAWTUCkET
CASE TO BE
TRIED AGAIN

The opinion OF the appellate court In
the trespass and ejectment case OF Ruth
Baxter ct al. VS.. Alfred B. Brown was
handed down today and the defendants
get a new trial. Judge Dubois, who heard
the case first, jury trial having been
waived decided that the plaintiffs were
entitled to possession.
This is one Of large number OF cases
involving the title to lots on the Plains
in the city OF Pawtucket. The first
deed introduced by the plaintiffs to prove
their title was a quit claim deed dated
Oct. 3. 1912. from Phanuel y. Bishop and
William b. Bishop to belinda Jacobs. their
sister. Of their interest in certain tracts
OF Land in Seekonk ''given 10 US by will
OF our honored father. Phanuel Bishop.
Esq. decd"
They also showed that by partition pro-
ceedings the great plain lot called the
''pine lot was set off TO their ancestor.
Ruth b. Bishop. and introduced testimony
to show that tho title Of Ruth r. Bishop
descended to and is held by the plaintiffs.
The appellate court finds that the plain
tffs have established a paper title going
back TO 1912, and that the defendant has
not sustained his plea Of adverse posses
sion. having shown only occasional en-
tries upon the land not amounting 10
custer OF the legal owner until less than
20 years from the beginning Of this suit,
and sets UP a paper title 10 the land be-
ginning in 1859. which Is pertinent TO show
that his present possession is under a
claim OF title.
Judge Douglas writes the opinion OF the
court, In which he says: THE plaintiff
argues that his legal title draws to IL the
possession. and no proof of actual occupa-
ton is required This is true OF a good
title TO waste or unoccupied lands. and II
has been held that trespass will lie
against a mere treepasser who does not
claim title, but in ejectment for land I'm
the actual possession OF one claiming title
to II by a series OF conveyances the plain
tiff must show good title for some un-
impeachable source in order to overcome
the presumption OF ownership which
arises from occupation"
"The deed which begins the plaintiffs
title In a qulbcaim only and the defend
ant has undivided possession under re-
corded deeds. II a plaintiff has a paper
title which the statute. as the Massachu-
setts court interprets II, makes prima
facie proof OF seizing but shows no ac-
tual occupation I'm himself or his ances-
tors and the tenant. being I'm actual pos
session. presents also a paper title, we
think the preference should be given tc
the latter.
THE law as held by this cort is tina,
occupation with bona fida claim OF title
cannot be disturbed except by a party
showing an unimpeac chable right. In the
case at bar, no doubt, as Is argued by
the plaintiffs the true owner Is entitled "a
the possession, but who is the true own
err IL the plaintiffs are prima facie the
true owners because they hold a deed
why is not~the defendant conclusively
the true owner since he also holds deed
and In addition occupies the land?
The difficulty which arises from the
comparison OF two titles. neither OF them
going back 20 Acknowledged owner. IL
insuperable."
Finally, the court thinks more evidence
may be obtainable to establish the rights
okthe parties and says that as the plain
ti1s have not shown that they or any
one through whom they claim have ever
bean IN possession OF the land IN question,
the decision IN their favor is erroneous.
on the land the title 20 which Is In
dispute are many houses, a church, depot
and other important structures. Natur-
ally the attempt made by the plaintiffs
10 secure possession after many years
holding by other parties has caused much
axcttarYaapt IN pa wrtuCket