The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1905-07-18
TUESDAY, JULY IS, 1905
Court.

land in front OF the pennsylvania hail
road station, at Riverside, will be acquir
ed by that township.
When the Camden and Trenton Rail
way Company ran its tracks through
Riverside, In 1894, the Pennsylvania Rail
road Company erected fence around it
property, as called for in deed executed
in 1888, and thus closed a road which hat
been used as pubhc road for over fifty
years.
In its defence the railroad COMPANY
denied any intention to dedicate the lanC
in dispute to the public use, and present
ed testimony to establish ownership, con
tract and care of the land 1t was con
tended that when franchise was granted
the trolley people, the township gav'
away nearly all of the road it owned a
that point.
After the suit had been tried for two
days at previous session of the court
before Judge Endicott. it was resumed
again on Tuesday. the morning session
being occupied by the taking of more
testimony.
The work of summing up began in the
afternoon, and because of the heat, coun-
sci on both sides had but very little to say.
The case was argued for the de-
PENDANTS by T. Logan Gaskill. He refer
red to the meek. narrow point of land
in dispute, saying there were IL feet
available and three feet more, starting
from the row of trees, making 20 feet in
ALL It was only at the widest part of the
road that the township had made any i'm
provements. He also stated that the
houses are not on the line as shown on the
Bechtold map, but that they have en-
croached upon the thoroughfare. There
was no testimony to contradict that con-
tention, and he thought it was the duty of
the township committee to see to that
matter now,
Clarence t. Atkinson, for the complain
ant. said there are necessities in all parts
of the state for public highways. He
conceded that the railroad company had a
sacred title to the land in question, but
said that from 1858 they permitted 1t to be
used as public highway, and never ques-
toned the right until 1894 when the troll
ley road wanted to go through Riverside.
He contended that the right of the public
to use the same was irrevocable, because
Of its many years of use without objec-
ton. The company would not dare to
shut off public road, but when the troll
ley came they put up fence and left just
enough room for wagon to go through,
creating a dangerous situation. This is
the river road from Burlington to Cam
den, and at the point in dispute all
needed repairs have been made by the
township. The road was used by the
public before the station or platform was
placed there. Being used for over twenty
years is evidence that it was dedicated to
the public as highway. eve have shown
that public highway exists on that piece
of ground and the people are entitled to
every inch of it. 1t is portion OF the
earth which they haveno right to fence in,
and we want full possession of it. If you
believe that these aged witnesses have
told the truth, then it is proven to be a
public highway, and the township is en-
titled to have it opened as SUCH 1t is a
positive advantage to the railroad COM
pany to have this road opened. The troll
ley is there and it will stay there. We
are not taking their land, stealing or get
ting 1t for nothing, but we want you to
put it back as it was used for fifty years
a public highway"
Judge Endicott. in charging the jury,
said there was public highway between
the railroad track and curb line. The
trolley is on the public road The ques-
ton to be decided is, has the property
fenced off been dedicated to public uses
There are three ways to determine this:
first, by the surveyors; second, by ded
ication; third, highway may be estab-
lished by long public usage, not less than
twenty years, by acquiescence of owners.
The law will presume that the owner has
dedicated because used so long without
objection.
1T is undisputed In this case that the
defendant was the owner, by deed, which
has been put in evidence. 1t is question
whether their deed has been destroyed by
long usage of the public, but, under GER
tain conditions, this use may be revoked at
any time. AS to whether this road has
been dedicated to public use you must
consider their intention. Was 1t their
intention to so dedicate it when it was
first used by the public? The plaintiff
says this was their intention by the very
use of it; by the overseer scraping and
fixing it at public expense, which is
evidence of dedication. In deciding these
matters as sufficient for dedication, you
must ascertain whether or not the owners
knew of these facts. If they did. it would
be justification of dedication. The
Pennsy lvania Railroad Company says it
was not their intention to dedicate it.
Their employees went there and pulled out
weeds and otherwise cleared the place,
showing their private ownership, which
was inconsistent TO public dedication; that
they prohibited other people from using
it as public highway until they signed
thus recognizing the company's ownership
If you come to the conclusion that the
land was dedicated. you must decide what
portion, ii any. was so dedicated. If you
find that the land was dedicated as a high
way. you must bring in verdict of guilty.
which win be in favor of the plaintiff,
your verdict must be no cause
of action.
The charge to the jury included about
a dozen special requests from counsel,
only few of which were refused. To the
charge of Judge Endicott a number of ex-
ceptions were taken on both sides
The legatees under the will of Mark
Jenness, deceased, appeared in the Or
phans' court, ON Saturday, and through
their counsel, Samuel W. Shinn, denied
ever having signed any releases. They
disputed the signatures to the releases al
ready submitted in the case, and also the
amount of the consideration stated
There seems to evidence of fraud, and
that matter will come up for hearing on
August 5. until which time there will be
40 more Saturday sessions of court, unless
an emergency arises.
Catharine Stahl. of Burlington, who was
taken from the Burlington County Hospi-
tal, was formally committed to the asylum