90 
PARK AND CEMKTRRY 
Laurel Hill Cemetery, one of the oldest, most historic and 
beautiful of all of them, shared the common fate. Many of 
the large monuments were damaged, while smaller ones were 
prostrated. The larger and costly new mausoleum of Charles 
D. Fair, (one of the famous “Bonanza Kings), made of 
Italian marble, fortunately escaped with only the loss of a 
small Gothic spire on one of its four corners. Not a seam 
was visible. 
The total damages to all these cemeteries will aggre- 
gate — probably $400,000. It seems incredible that all this 
havoc could have ben wrought by a shock lasting only 47 
seconds. Occident. 
AN INTERESTING CEMETERY DAMAGE CASE 
In an appeal from the decision of the Superior Court 
granting damages of $1,500 against the Mount Greenwood 
Cemetery Association of Chicago to Mrs. Tillie Hildebrand, 
the judgment has been reversed in an interesting decision 
from which we quote as follows : 
“The plaintiff entered the cemetery about two o'clock in the 
afternoon of July 12, igoi, accompanied by her two sisters 
and her two children. Her purpose in going to the cemetery 
was to decorate graves in her fathers’ lot, by her father's 
direction. After this decoration had been attended to, she and 
her companions went through the cemetery to visit the graves 
of some deceased friends, which done, they started back to the 
lot of plaintiff's father through the grounds, to get another 
path and make a short cut to her father’s lot. The plaintiff, 
while walking south on the cemetery ground parallel with a 
smooth, macadamized walk eighteen feet wide, and about three 
feet from the walk, stepped into an uncovered pipe six inches 
in diameter. The upper end of the pipe was about even with 
the surface of the ground, and gave access to a running trap, 
for the purpose of cleaning out any slush which might ac- 
cumulate in the trap. The grass was high and prevented the 
plaintiff from seeing the pipe. There was a safe and con- 
venient walk by which plaintiff could have reached her fath- 
er’s lot, to which she was returning, but she chose to make 
a short cut to the lot across the grounds. Prior to July 12, 
1901, when the accident occurred, the pipe was covered by a 
circular cover of pine wood more than an inch in thickness, 
which was fitted “snugly'' to the pipe. The evidence is that 
this cover was placed in the pipe about three years before 
the accident. There is no evidence as to when, before the 
accident, or by whom it was removed. 
When plaintiff’s father purchased his lot he thereby ac- 
quired the right of way to the lot, and. if there was a 
constructed walk or avenue leading to his lot from the gate 
of the cemetery, such way was a servitude in favor of the lot. 
Burke v. Wall, 29 La. Ann. 39. But if there was such pre- 
pared way, he did not acquire, by the purchase of the lot, 
any right of way to the lot over the grounds of the cemetery 
used or intended for burial purposes. Manifestly, the plain- 
tiff who, as she testified, visited the cemetery by direction of 
her father, for the purpose of decorating her sister’s grave in 
his lot, had no greater right than her father. In returning 
from the grave of her deceased friend to her father’s lot she 
might have done so by a safe and convenient walk, without 
encroaching on any part of the cemetery ground intended for 
burials, but she chose, solely for her own convenience, to cross 
the grounds thus, as she says, making a short cut to her 
father’s lot. It is for the convenience of the owners of lots in 
a cemetery and to their interest, that the proprietors of the 
cemetery shall construct safe and convenient avenues and 
ways for access to the burial lots, and when this is done every 
lot owner has an implied license to use such means of access, 
but has no license to roam over the grounds for his own 
pleasure or convenience, and if one so does it is at his own 
risk, and if he suffers injury in so doing, the proprietors of 
the cemetery are not liable. The grounds of the cemetery, 
outside of the avenue or ways provided for access to lots, 
are not intended for walking in, but solely for burial pur- 
poses. Suppose that plaintiff, in walking in the grounds 
through the high grass, had struck her foot against a high 
stone and been thrown down and injured, there being a safe 
way which she might have taken ; would the defendant be 
liable? Clearly not, as we think. Yet in principle there would 
be no difference between injury by reason of the stone and 
injury by reason of the uncovered pipe. 
Plaintiff’s case rests on the proposition that there was an 
implied license to lot owners to roam at will all over the 
cemetery grounds, and, therefore, the defendant’s duty was 
to maintain all the grounds in a reasonably safe condition 
for persons thus roaming over them. We cannot accede to 
this view. Barry v. Cemetery Association, 106 Mo. App., 358, 
is directly in point. In that case a lot owner left the trav- 
eled way, which the .Association had provided for access to 
lots, and in going across the grounds stepped into a hole and 
was injured. 'I'he court held there could be no recovery, and 
reversed the judgment recovered by the plaintiff in the trial 
court. As previously stated, it was proved and not contradict- 
ed that the pipe was covered prior to July 12, igoi, and there 
is no evidence as to when or by whom the cover was re- 
moved. It might have been, for aught the evidence shows, on 
the morning of July 12, igoi, or so short a time prior to the' 
accident that the defendant, in the exercise of ordinary dili- 
gence could not have discovered it. In the case of a munici- 
pality which has supervision and control of the streets within 
its limits, and is bound to maintain them in a reasonably safe 
condition, it is incumbent on a plaintiff, suing the municipality 
for injuries alleged to have been cau.«ed by a defect in the 
street, to prove either that the municipality knew of the de- 
fect, or that the defect had existed for such a length of time 
that, in the exercise of ordinary care, it should have known 
of it. 
Being of opinion that there can be no recovery on the 
facts, the judgment is reversed. 
Annual 7’epoJ'ts 07‘ extracts from them^ historical sketches^ 
I descriptive circulars^ photographs of improvements or dis- 
tinctive features are requested for use in this department. 
I 
The trustees of Woodlawn Cemetery, Toledo, O., recently 
voted to abolish Sunday funerals except in cases of emer- 
gency. The new rule takes effect August r. 
* * * * 
The city of Auburn, Me., has appointed a committee to 
confer with the officers of the six cemeteries in that city, 
looking toward a merger of all the grounds under the man- 
agement of the city. 
^ * 
The senate committee on public lands has recommended to 
congress the passage of a bill authorizing the Secretary of 
the Interior to sell parcels of land, not exceeding forty acres, 
for cemetery purposes. Under the present law it is neces- 
sary to pass a separate bill for every cemetery so authorized. 
