Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1913-09-26

power and duty tests with the NUM-
cipal authorities to keep the street
in a proper condition for travel. If
the trees amount to obstruction in
street the munil iptlity may require
that they be removed. Trees in the
street that are distractions amount
% d legal nuisal &c and may be re-
move ed as such. But shade tres S are
generally regarded With favor by the
,W and they do not amount to nul-
anca where they do not actually
jbstruCt travel along the street or
hi ghWay. Not few cases have
ruled that municipal authorities can
not declare trees in the street to be
a nuisance unless they actually do
obstruct travel. Such rulings have
been made in such states as Georgia,
Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, New Jer
sey, New York and Ohio. In other
states, as California, Illinois, North
Carolina and Wisconsin, it has been
held that the decision CT the munich
pal authorities in the matter is final.
They are in control Of the streets
and if they rule that a tree is an
obstruction their decision is final and
the courts of law will not consider
the question.
In any state a wide control over
OH hv tho ina lit ~ ct
be recognized If the public authori-
ties rule that & tree is an obstruc-
ton to the street the property owner
had best bow to their decision rather
than enter upon involved and eXpen-
sive litigation, unless the action of
the authorities is clearly unfair and
the tree in question is clearly not in
any way an obstruction to the street.
Perhaps the principal advantage
of the position of the landowner who
has title to the center Of the street
is that as he owns the tree he has
direct property rights in it. If such
is the case the authorities must first
notify the owner to remove his tree
from the public way. A reasonable
length of time must be allowed him
to either transplant the tree or cut it
down and utilize the timber for his
own purpose. If he does not do this
the authorities may then remove the
obstructing tree and charge the eX-
pense against the owner
A tree which in any way obstructs
q sidewalk is as truly an obstruction
to the street as though it blocked
the wagon way and may be treated
in the same manner. If overhanging
limbs amount to an obstruction the
tree may be trimmed up, or if nee
essary, removed entirely
If the municipal authorities remove
shade trees belonging to a property
owner for legal reason the property
has, in law, suffered no wrong. But
if the municipality removes trees
without legal basis the property
CIV lIcl IIdy IGCON CT udHloStS lOI Tie
loss and injury to his property. If
any other parties iniure the trees
without justification the owner may
recover damages in a suit at law.
Even though the city hold title to
the streets and so to the trees in
the street. the owner of property
fronting on the streets still has some
rights in the trees. In one case he
was allowed to recover from a gas
which had negligently al
lowed gas to escape from it's mains
and kill shade trees located in front
of the property but within the street
which was owned by the city.
Generally the telephone and tele-
graph companies may be given au
thority to string their wires along
public highways, though the courts