260 MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 170. 



maple trees thirty-five years old, all in a thriving condition and furnishing 

 good shade. Four of these trees were destroyed by the negligence of the 

 gas company in permitting gas to escape from its pipes into the soil about 

 the roots of the tree. Action was brought to recover the damages alleged 

 to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of these facts, and the 

 jury found a verdict in his favor for the sum of $150. Upon appeal to 

 the Appellate Division, the judgment entered ujjon the verdict was 

 unanimously confirmed. The court held, as a matter of law, that the 

 plaintiff had a property right in these trees, although they were not 

 planted upon lands to wliich he had a title. 



The question of negligence in the destruction of shade trees is an im- 

 portant one, and opinions seem to differ as to what constitutes negligence. 

 There are some cases in which negligence has not been established and 

 decisions were rendered in favor of the defendants, although it should be 

 pointed out that an appeal to the higher court often reversed such deci- 

 sions. The case of Robbins v. the Hartford Gas Company, pertaining to 

 the destruction by gas of shade trees located on the highway and on 

 private property, resulted in a decision for the defendant, but on appeal 

 to the higher courts the defendant made a satisfactory settlement with the 

 plaintiff. In the case of Rooney v, the Hyde Park Gas Company, which 

 involved a number of shade trees on the highway and on private property 

 which were supposed to have been injured bj'' gas, a decision was given in 

 favor of the defendant. The gas leak as admitted by defendant occurred 

 some distance away from the trees, and it was not established that they 

 had been injured by gas, neither could negligence be established. 



These cases concern action brought by property owners against public- 

 service corporations for the destruction of trees, but in accordance with 

 our Massachusetts statutes city foresters or tree wardens can bring 

 action for injury or destruction to shade trees located on the public high- 

 way. For instance, the city forester of Springfield brought suit against 

 the Springfield Gas Company for the destruction of sixty shade trees, 

 and the judge rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, since negligence 

 was not established. The gas company, however, made no attempt to 

 establish any case ; moreover, they had previously settled with the owners 

 of the adjacent property for many of the trees involved, therebj'' acknowl- 

 edging in such settlement that the trees had been killed by gas. 



In another case the town of Athol brought suit through the tree warden 

 against the Athol Gas Company for killing public shade trees by gas. 

 The decision given by the judge of the local court was in favor of the 

 plaintiff. The gas company appealed, but again lost its case before a 

 jury in the liigher court. In the case of the Superintendent of Parks, 

 Lowell, V. the Lowell Gas Company, in which some fifty trees were sup- 

 posedly killed by gas, a fine of $900 was imposed on the company in the 

 police court, the same being paid to the city treasurer. In addition to the 

 fine, the gas company settled with many of the abutters. 



A few years ago fifteen tupelo trees were cut on private land by an 



