Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1904-10-27
OCTOBER TERM
OF COUNTY COURT.
Session of Circuit Court.

opSStOA Vi ClTcutb OOuFt.
The Circuits Court convened Tues
day morning, Justice Endicott on the
bench.
Judge Endicott called the list of
causes, several OF which were ready
for trial
Anticipating the calling Of the cele-
brated "Terrapin case, - the court
room was crowded with witnesses and
spectators. The first case called was
that of John Asel against James d.
PasquaIe
The lawyers were Matthew Jefferson
for complainant and Henry S. Alvord
for the defendant. While jury was
being empaneled it developed that Mr..
Jefferson was not present, and Mr..
Alvord moved a..no1-suit. The motion
was not granted, but the case.of Jones
against Ottinger was moved, the
former case being put down to imme-
diately follow this. In this case, W.
Berault and L. Newcomb are the law
yers. The jury was empaneled.
This is case in which Lucy W.
Jones and Elias G. Jones sue William
Ottinger to recover for injury to a
hedge, left unattended on their farm
adjoining Ottinger's farm, which OF
finger, wanted to trim for them He
was given permission to do so, but in
stead of trimming it he chopped 1876
trees from the hedge ana shipped
them to New York, where he sold
them for Christmas trees. He left the
hedge in very mutilated condition.
He offered $2 to the party aggrieved
Such was the opening statement.
Harry Rice was called he said the
hedge was to be kept originally at 8
feet high, but few years ago-five or
six-it was left grow up to greater
height. 1t is not hedge now; it is a
row of Norway spruce trees, not
trimmed at all. 1t is now ruined
heage, and an injury too the farm.
Among the lawyers in Court is AS
sistant State Attorney General John
l.. Swayze, who has charge OF the de,
fense of the case of Carl w. Newcomb
against Game Warden Fred S. Con-
ner and Game Warden Phifer, and
EK-Sherif Hendee and Frank J. Lore.
The State Game Commission has
charge of the prosecution of this case,
which is expected to be moved at the
conclusion of the case now on trial.
Tuesday Afternoon.
The case Of Jones against Ottinger
was resumed. The PLAINTIFF showed
by several witnesses the condition OF
hedge after Ottinger had trimmed"
it. 1t was shown by Mr.. Jones tes-
timony that 395 trees, by actual count,
had been chopped out in the process of
trimming" the hedge.
The damage to Mr.. Jones' property
was given by some of the witnesses as
amounting to at least $500, by the de-
struction to his hedge.
Mrs. Lucy w. Jones, the plaintiff,
and owner of the farm, was put on the
stand; she said she owned the farm
and the hedge the hedge is ruined !;
1T is an eyesore.; asked as to the value
of the hedge to the farm, and the
damage sustained, the question was
objected to, and she was not allowed
to state. Her husband, while on the
stand in the morning, had given the
damage as $1,000.
With kMrs. Jones testimony the
plaintiff closed
The defense was that Ottinger and
his two sons in law had been given
free permission to cut down the hedge
and he was to have the trees, for cut
ting them down. Mr.. Newcomb, OF
fingers lawyer, in his opening for the
defence, told what he expected to
p ,.ysand then Mr.. Fry, land SUR
veyor, was called to the stand.
Mr.. Fry said he had lived in Vine
land 40 years; was well acquainted
with the lands of Vineland ; had sur
veyed the lands of the plaintiff and
defendant; their lands adjoined; had
surveyed Ottinger's land at his re-
quest; made a map from this survey !;
map produced in evidence; hedge
shown on the map; it is nine feet wide
and it would be an advantage to the
farm to have it removed; it was high
er than his head; the hedge trees cut
We're Norway spruce; they will not
grow up again; did not notice the
edges Of the hedge had been in any
wise trimmed; those photographs
shown by the plaintiff, he said, were