Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-05-06

did cut ana clip the said trees and did
remove tho tops thereof, by means
whereof tho said maple trees were
marred. injured and damaged and rem
dcred almost useless for shading md
ornamental purposes, and the plain
tin was deprived OF great gain and
profit by reason Of the injury and
damage to the pear trec. and that the
lands and promises OF the plaintifr
were and are greatly depreciated and
reduced in value.
"The plaintiff claims also that the
cutting OF said trees was done wilfully
and with gross negligence and that
she fs, therefore. entitled to recover
what are known as exemplary.
vindictive or punitive damages.
THE defendant company denies that
the cutting OF the plaintiffs trees was
done unlawfully or without necessity
and contends that 1t was done with
proper care and with the acquiescencc
of the plaintiff, and that the trees
were not injured In any why by the
acts OF the defendant and that the
lands and promises OF tho plaintifr
were not thereby deprecated In value
THE defendant claims that the
trimming or cutting it did to the
trees WAS necessary for the proper
use and operation OF its wires and
telephone system along the highway.
that no more cutting was done than
was necessary for that purpose and
that the cutting or trimming was per-
mitted In consideration OF the com
pany's putting telephone in the
house OF the plaintiff.
1T is not denied by tho company
that the plaintiff. being owner OF the
fee, had right to the trees growing
on the land upon her side OF the road
or highway for all purposes not in
compatible with the proper and law
full use of the highway.
but il the owner OF such fec by
an agreement made or a-sen,ed to by
such ownerfl on made by some one
else acting under the authority of
such owner. gives telephone COM
pany the right TO construct a tele-
phone line upon or across his lands
such company has the right TO cut or
trim trees standing upon the land
over which the right Of way is given
so far and TO such extent as may be
reasonably necessary for the proper
construction and operation of such
line.
we may say TO you that the trim
ming or cutting OF shade trees along
the public highways without the
knowledge or consent OF the nbutting
owner of the fee in such highway. or
without having obtained right of
, way from such nbutting owner, con-
, stitutes an unlawful act for which
damages may be allowed the party
aggrieved.
, "A telephone company may acquire
, the right TO trim trees OF individuals
, by agreement entered into with the
T owner OF the land or one who has the
. right to manage and control It TO that
extent. And a wife may adopt or
. ratify acts done or contracts made by
her husband In respect To her ,epa -
, rate estate without authority. and in
{ case OF such ratifica ton she is as
| fully bound as II her husband had
been her duly authorized agent in
the first instance; and such ratif,ca
ton may be shown or effected by
acquiescence on tho part OF the wife.
, The jury are the exclusive Judges
, OF the evidence and should carefully
/ consider all the facts and circum-
stances surrounding the case as shown
by the testimony.
II after such careful consideration
or the evidence, you are satisfied by
the weight OF the testimony that
l the plaintiff did not ratify or
; acquiesce in any agreement made
5 by her husband or any one else
I granting 10 the defendant a right of
. way over her lands for the construc-
, ZION and operation of a telephone line.
= or that the trees might be cut, Your
s verdict should be in favor OF the n1a;p
r I'M provided you think she sustained
some injury or damage on account of
, the cutting Of the trees. IL the trees
were not in any wise injured or the
, lands of the plaintin at all deprecated
= in value by reason of the acts of the
defendant in the cutting or trim
5 ming OF the trees, you could not. of
r course return verdict for the
r pialntif, because she must show that
2 she has sustained some damage be-
4 The plaintiff in this case claims
r i'ot only compensatory damages, but
r also exemplary or punitive damages
5 1t is the law that in actions of this
e character the jury may, if they are
= satisfied from the testimony thev
= should do so, award what are known
r in the law as exemplary or punitive
r damages. But it is for the jury in
= every case TO determine from tbo
= testimony, first, whether they shall
s award TO the plaintiff compenss tory
= damages; and, second, whether i'm adj
; dition TO such damages, II given. thew
;, should award also exemplary on
J, puhitiVe damages. To justify you in
$ giving exemplary or punitive damages
{ you must be satisfied from the testi-
8 mony that the injury complained OF
e was not only committed by the de
S fendant and was wrongful and nm
4 lawful, but that it was also malicious
= or wilful and wanton in its character
D IF you should find for the plaintift
. and for compensatory damages ONLY
the measure of such damages would
= be the difference between the yalue
= of the land before and after the cut.
0 ting Of the trees as shown bv 4be
e testimony"
= The plaintiff was given a verdict
for $3.50.
= Contending that Mr.. Little still
e owns the land between the roadbed
c Of the Lincoln Highway and the
a fences OF his farm, lawyers quote in
e support OF their contention Chief
e Justice Pennewiil's charge TO the tur,
$ IN the case cited