The weekly soliphone., 1915-08-13
HOT CONTROVERSY
over BLIND ALLEY
Sam McHaney Instigates Criminal
Prosecution Against Clyde Mack
Over Fence Posts.

when is a street not a street."
land "if not, does a quit claim deed
vest title in the holder of the deed?"
Also and more to the point, 'does
the burning of six mulberry posts
of doubtful age and uncertain value
constitute the offense of malicious
mischief"
These and other matters of SINH
lar grave import were involved in
a criminal prosecution in the court
of Esq A. B. Hays yesterday, with
Sam McHaney as the prosecuting
witness and Clyde Mack as the
criminal"
The controversy between McHa-
ney and Mack that eliminated in
the prosecution began last fall when
McHaney fenced up the blind alley
in the rear of his home place, the
alley being a sort of extension of
West Emerson street. At that time
the paving contractors had made
deep excavations in front of Clyde
Macks residence on West Main
street, making it impossible for
him to use the driveway from the
front, and in consequence his only
means of ingress and egress to his
premises was through the alley in
the rear. Mack says McHaney
fenced up the alley, put in a gate
and secured it with chain and
lock, and that he did this without
consulting Mack or giving him any
notice of his determination to close
the alley. Mack broke the lock and
threw it away. McHaney complain
ed to Mack and notified him not
to break another lock. Mack de-
clared McHaney had no right to
obstruct the alley, while the latter
claimed it was his property, that
he had a deed to it and had been
paying taxes on it. Mack made an
investigation and found the proper
ty in question belonged to the
Pruett heirs, that it had never
been decided to the city as a pub
lie alley. He opened negotiations
with the Pruett heirs and bought
; the strip of land, paying $40 for it.
Thereupon he notified McHaney to
remove the fence and all other
) property he had on the lot Nc
Haney then made an investigation
of his claims to ownership and
found he was mistaken, that the
lot did not belong to him. He re-
moved the fence, but left some
mulberry posts piled on the south
side of the lot Immediately behind
gate used by Mack to enter his
premises from the rear.
Recently Mack decided 20 clean
up the lot or alley, grade and ditch
it and put crushed concrete on it
in order to use it as driveway.
He notified McHaney to move his
> fence posts. McHaney declined by
telling Mack if he wanted the posts
out of the way to move them him
self Three days later Mack en-
ployed a man to clean up the lot
and instructed him to burn all the
trash and rubbish, including the
posts. The workman burned six of
the posts when McHaney came out
and witnessed the conflagration.
Nine other posts remained in the
pile unburned.
McHaney filed information with
the prosecuting attorney charging
Mack with malicious mischief in
having the posts burned and at the
trial yesterday the testimony given
by McHaney and Mack brought out
: all the details of the controversy
over the ownership of the strip of
: ground.
McHaney claims he was acting
in good faith when he fenced up
the alley, thinking it belonged to
him. He denied he knew the street
was cut down in front of Mack's
, house and the alley was his only
! inlet and outlet. lie 1urther clam
> ed that since he has investigated
the matter he is convinced the lot
I is public property because it has
, been used as an alley for twenty
or more years. Mack contends it
/ has never been dedicated to the
city, has never been used by the
. public but was left open only for
t the convenience of those whose
t property ADULTS it. He insists the
- title remained in the Pruett heirs
e until recently when he bought it
= from them.
The jury returned a verdict for
S Mack and acquitted him of the
Y charge of malicious mischief.
e To the Public.