144 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
PARK NOTES- CONTINUED. 
The work of restoring the southern end of Jackson Park, 
Chicago, which has been unimproved since the World’s Fair 
occupied that site, is being rapidly pushed. Sixty thousand 
cubic yards of sand and clay excavated from the city's in- 
tercepting sewer which is being constructed along the border 
of the park has been used in grading 40 acres of the tract. 
Many new walks and roads have been constructed through 
the park, trees and shrubbery have been planted and new 
buildings have been erected. The roads and drives have foun- 
dations made from the brick and stone of the old World's 
Fair buildings, and are said to be among the best in the coun- 
try. — 
NEW RULES FOR PARKS. 
The Park Commissioners of Lowell, Mass., recently passed 
the following rules for the government of the city parks and 
commons : 
1. It is forbidden to cut, break, injure, deface, defile or 
ill-use any building, fence or other construction, or any tree, 
bush, plant or turf, or any other property of said city which 
may be in the care of the board, or to have possession of any 
freshly plucked tree, bush or plant, or any part thereof. 
2. It is forbidden to disturb or injure any bird, bird’s nest, 
or bird's eggs, or any squirrel or other animal, within any of 
said parks or commons. 
3. It is forbidden to throw stones, balls or other missiles ; 
to discharge or carry firearms, firecrackers, torpedoes or fire- 
works ; to make fires ; to have any intoxicating beverages ; 
to sell, offer or expose for sale any goods or wares ; to post 
or display signs, placards, Hags or advertising devices; to 
solicit subscriptions or contributions; to play games of 
chance, or to have possession of instruments of gambling; 
to utter profane, threatening, abusive or indecent language, 
or to commit any obscene or indecent act ; to solicit the ac- 
quaintance of, to follow, or in any way annoy visitors to said 
parks or commons. 
4. It is forbidden to play ball or any other game in any 
public park or common, except in such portions thereof as 
may be set apart for that purpose. 
5. It is forbidden to drive any carriage, automobile, bicy- 
cle, cart, wheelbarrow, hand-cart or horse in any park or 
common, except upon the regular carriage roads. No heavy 
teaming whatever will be allowed within said parks or com- 
mons. 
6. Visitors to said parks or commons must comply with 
the orders or requests of any member of the Board of Park 
Commissioners, or of the park police or other agents of the 
board, and assist them when required so to do. 
Any person convicted of committing any of the acts above 
forbidden shall be punished by a fine not exceeding twenty 
dollars. 
Compliance with the foregoing rules and regulations is a 
condition of the use of these premises. 
CEMETERY LEGAL DECISIONS. 
Cemetery Stock Granted. 
After two months of deliberation Judge Tuthill of Chicago 
has granted a decision in the Rose Hill Cemetery case, which 
has been in the courts of that city since 1881. The suit was 
brought by David S. Dempster of Gloversville, N. Y., against 
Killian V. R. Lansingh, to secure a receiver for 2,245 shares 
of stock in the cemetery association, which were in Lansingh’s 
possession. An injunction was granted and a receiver ap- 
pointed when the suit was started. By Judge Tuthill’s deci- 
sion these are removed and the stock may be disposed of as 
Lansingh sees fit. The $325,000 worth of stock, it is stated, 
was secured by Lansingh in return for putting the affairs of 
the association on a sound financial basis. Dempster contested 
the right to this property, contending that the unanimous con- 
sent of all the stockholders was necessary to such a grant. 
Unconstitutional Law for Taking Land . 
1 he Ohio act entitled “An act to enable cemetery associa- 
tions to secure land for entrance to their grounds, or, for the 
improvement of entrances already made,” passed April 6, 
1893, the supreme court of Ohio holds (King vs. Greenwood 
Cemetery Association, 65 Northeastern Reporter, 882), is 
incompatible with section 19 of article 1 of the constitution 
of Ohio, and therefore void, for the reason that by the pro- 
visions of said act private property may be taken from the 
owner at a value placed thereon by three freeholders ap- 
pointed by the commissioners of the county, without providing 
therein for the right and means of an appeal by the land- 
owner to some competent tribunal, where he can have his 
compensation assessed by a jury. 
Valid Ordinance and Contract With City. 
In the case of the city of Austin vs. the Austin City Ceme- 
tery Association, the supreme court of Texas holds (73 South- 
western Reporter, 525) that an ordinance of the city council 
for the city of Austin which prohibited the interment of dead 
bodies within certain limits in the said city being reasonable 
and valid, the cemetery association had no right to use its 
property for that purpose, except by the consent of the city, 
which might be given upon terms which would secure a 
proper regulation of the use of the property and “for the 
promotion of health and the suppression of disease.” The 
permission granted to the association to use the property for 
burial purposes, and the supervision and protection afforded 
to it by the terms of the contract, constituted sufficient con- 
sideration to support the agreement made by the association 
to sell its lots at prices not exceeding a sum named in the 
ordinance. It was within the power of the city and the as- 
sociation to make that contract, and it is valid and binding. 
Disinterment From Lot for 9^ e-interment . 
Chapter 543 of the Laws of New York of 1898, which 
amends chapter 727' of the Laws 1869, provides, among other 
things, that lots in cemeteries shall be held indivisible, and 
upon the decease of the proprietor of a lot the title thereto 
shall descend to his heirs at law or devisees, though the 
widow shall have the right of interment for her own body 
in such lot or in a tomb in such lot and a right to have her 
body remain permanently interred or intombed therein, ex- 
cept that her body may be removed therefrom to some other 
family lot or tomb with the consent of her heirs. Of this 
provision the second appellate division of the supreme court 
says (In re Cohen, 78 New York Supplement, 417) that its 
operation appears to be restricted to lots in cemeteries which 
have been set apart to particular families and individuals, 
and it does not seem to relate to single interments in undi- 
vided portions of the cemetery provided for the occupation 
of individual graves. If the supreme court possesses author- 
ity upon petition and motion to order a cemetery corporation 
to permit the disinterment of a body buried within its 
grounds, such authority must be found in some statutory 
enactment. Wherefore, this provision is no authority for 
an order to permit disinterment in the case of an individual 
interment of the body of the widow in a general part of the 
cemetery. In thus deciding, however, it is stated that no 
opinion is expressed upon the question whether, under the 
general law of the state as to the right to control the dis- 
position of dead bodies, relief might not be had by the heirs 
in an equitable action instituted for that purpose. 
