SHADE TREES. 259 



moving were several shade trees which would have to be destroyed in 

 order to move the building. The court maintained that "there can be 

 no question of the right of plaintiff to the protection of the court to save 

 these valuable trees from mutilation and possible destruction. The fact 

 that these trees are in the street and not within the boundary line of 

 plaintiff's premises does not alter in the least his right to have them pro- 

 tected, as they are his property. In the absence of proof to the contrary 

 he is the owner of the land in front of his premises to the center of the 

 street, subject only to an easement in the public to use it for the purposes 

 of travel and the usual and ordinary incidents thereof. His rights of 

 ownership yield only to the public welfare and convenience, and to the 

 power of the municipal authorities to appropriately adapt the street and 

 maintain it to meet the necessities of the travelling public." 



From various court decisions it would appear that the value assigned 

 to trees has sometimes been too high and often too low, and in the main, 

 the extent of the damages resulting from the destruction of trees is based 

 upon the deterioration occurring to the adjacent property. In general, 

 it may be stated that a tree 18 or 20 inches in diameter, in good condition 

 and in a desirable location, is worth SI 50, and a smaller one is of corre- 

 sponding value. In private settlements, which are often made, for trees 

 injured by public-service corporations, amounts ranging from $15 to $150 

 have been paid for trees of the above size, but in many cases from $40 

 to SI 00 is considered sufficient compensation for trees ranging from 10 

 to 18 inches in diameter, depending entirely, of course, upon the many 

 factors that influence the value of a tree. 



Several typical cases of court decisions concerning damages to trees 

 follow : 



The jury of a circuit court in Missouri once awarded $200 against a 

 telephone company for cutting out the top of a shade tree without con- 

 sulting the owner. The tree in question was a 6-inch poplar which inter- 

 fered with the telephone wires, and the workmen, without consulting the 

 abutter, chopped out the top and center of the tree. The abutter sued 

 for $300 and received $200. 



A similar instance occurred in North Carolina, when an electric lighting 

 company was sued for damages for cutting a tree on the edge of a side- 

 walk, even after being provided with the permission of the superintendent 

 of streets, approved by the board of aldermen. The jury awarded the 

 plaintiff a verdict of 499. Of course the case was appealed, but the 

 judgment of the State Supreme Court was that while the city had the 

 power under its charter to control streets and sidewalks and to remove 

 obstructions when necessary, it did not, when it condemned land for 

 highway purposes, acquire a title to it but merely a right of way over it, 

 so that the plaintiff was still the owner of the tree. 



In another case a resident of Xew York, owning residential property 

 abutting on the city street, brought suit against a gas company for the de- 

 struction of trees by gas. The case involved the destruction of some 



