Norwich bulletin., 1920-12-07
DECISION ON LEpyARp
 RIGHT OF WAY CASE


 Judge George F. Hinman. before whom ls case of Martha R. Wilcox. trustee, lyainst Henry F. Karoli. of Ledyard was .-ied. handed down his decision Monday. -ivirg the plaintiff SIPS damages and he defondandt S25 damages under his ,ounter claim. The sum awarded the 'laintin Is for damages to grates and oars lawfully erected by her but des- royed by the defendant. Judgment is .o be entered that the plaintiff S100 ana 1cr costs.
 Mrs. Wilcox also asked for an injunc- lon when the suit was entered but lac decision says that "the second claim Ter reiisf was lot pursued on the trial md the iniulctiOve relief therein prayed ,or was not claimed in argument.
 The suit was brought over @ right of gay across the land of the plaintiff snd Sc.0oo damages were asked.
 The memorandum of decision by Judge iinuan says;
 The defendant and his sisters, are lis present joint owners of the land de- icrisee in the deeds in evidence have D r'rht Of way scross the. land cs talA '.aiutit- dcscrihed i1 her conlpiaint. which easement was acquired hy tifeir ,rs5ccssso-s in ti;le by prescription, be- iore piaintif purchased the said land. Sothias is found 10 have occvrred be- wen the. plaintiff or her agent .anq philp karoii. father and predecessor in he tile of tho defendant, to terminate, ruit or modify said right. and even z the reference to said easement in the iced from H.tchin. ct aL to plaintiff be -erardcd, instead of an ordinary and 'stural exception by graators of a right f way recognized b. them as existing, is having been, as c.ain1ef by the plaia- an. Inserted st her instance in sn d. en1pt 10 limit said easement to the life- -rse of Philip Earoli, such sttempt was ueff>cri-e as to essd Pat1ip' Ks-oli, he soi asing party thereto, or to his sue saEsors in title.
 There .s no question as to the ioca- ion of said wax nor as to the purpose 'or which the same has been used-to rit Tor the dfiviuz of cattle and travel. ns b. team and ol foot betyeen the iig6w3y ard said lard noE of defend lat and his sisters. -pituste west of i!aintiifs land. incident and anpropriatd O ;he occupaocy and use of said lSarol and. ea
 The nature of the esseineat gained and tote the particular manner of use Yhicl -Teat.6 tho right should control, 50 thai rven #, during part or all cs saa pc. iod of acguiTement by presentation. tilt say was uaobseructed by gates or bafz rsctsd oa the land now owned By the ,ieint!n. yet the owner of the serviehi istate-the plaintiff here-lnay cree. ;ate5 or bars aesoss said way. p-ovid- a that they are so located and con. tructe6 as not to- interfere with tho sasonebls enjoyment Of the rights e, iasSage and provided also, that theS aEe necessary for the preservation ant ircper and efficient use of the land, onEtitudng the servient estate, On tn, '-hcr hanl an obstruction erected with ut reasonable justification or purpos' Ir Of such nature as 10 interfere Eith reasonable enjoymen. of the ease uent is 8 nUisance ab;Table by the own E Of The dominant estate.
 Some of the gates and bars erecte, Iy tho HlaintifT across the way in ques ion were permissible under the abov uls and were unlavfully destroyed b, no defendant Other obstruction l-scted by the p,ainiin tere go erecte 4 stch times and under sucb circunl tsnces as 10 have been without reason bls iustifesaon or purpose or were O
 nature unreasonably interfering wit he use of the way and the defendan ras justified in removing them.
 Hull & Hull were counsel for tn bia.ntin. Brovn and James for the dc endant