PARK AND CEMETERY. 
109 
Open discussion after the reading of 
papers. 
An automobile ride will be given through 
the cemeteries and parks, including the fa- 
mous Mill Creek Park, which is one of the 
prettiest and most picturesque parks in the 
state, after which there will be luncheon at 
the Youngstown Country Club and a visit 
to the vast estate (aliout LOGO acres) and 
beautiful home of the late H. K. Wick, 
SOME PROBE 
Control Over Lot Improvements. 
Editor P.\RK .\xu Ce.metery : I have a 
lot in our cemetery enclosed with curb- 
stones and an iron fence. The fence was 
in a shaky and neglected condition for 
years. I notified the party of its condition, 
but never received a reply. Later, a fall- 
ing limb of a tree broke one of the sec- 
tions and the whole thing was an eyesore 
to the well-kept adjoining lots. I moved 
the fence and curbing from the lot and put 
it in nice condition. Xow the lot owner is 
angry and wants me to replace the curbing 
and fence and threatens to sue me. I have 
taken up over 700 feet of curbing and 
cleared away all wooden and iron fences. 
The people generally have been only too 
glad that this work was done without ex- 
pense to them. In those early years the 
lots were sold in fee simple under a cer- 
tificate of purchase for burial only. Xo 
one had charge, and so it came that curb- 
ings. fences and all such things were built. 
— S. C., Kan. 
On the facts stated, I am clearly of the 
opinion that you are not liable to the lot 
owner in any way. In fact, your action 
was commendable both so far as concerns 
the keeping of the cemetery in sightly con- 
dition and so far as concerns improvement 
of the lot which the owner had neglected. 
Furthermore, I believe your association 
could recover from the lot owner the cost 
of removing the unsightly objects. But 
even if you have technically invaded the 
lot owner's right on a theory that he had 
the same right to let the lot improvements 
go into ruin, he would have a ‘‘sweet time" 
trying to convince a court or jury that he 
has sustained any substantial damage. 
Rut I do not mean that the authorities of 
a cemetery have unrestrained control over 
lot improvements. Whatever is done by 
such authorities in the way of interfering 
with lot owners' rights in such matters 
mu't be clearly reasonal»le. tested by the 
interests of the lot owners at large. 
Below I refer to some court decisions 
which will serve to outline the policy of 
the law. 
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 
Court aptly showed that the law respects 
what should be deemed as common sense 
in the matter of the rights of living per- 
sons concerning graves when Mr. Justice 
Hoar, of that court, said of cemeteries: 
which he leaves to the city for a public 
park and art gallery. 
Special entertainment will be provided 
for the ladies, with luncheon probably at 
one of the other country clubs, together 
with a theatre party. 
A trip has also been planned to inspect 
one of the large steel plants, showing the 
process of the manufacture of steel, which 
no doubt will be most interesting to every- 
EMS OF GEM 
"They are places devoted not only to 
the undisturbed repose of the dead, but to 
the sentiments, affections and tender mem- 
ories of the living. When the public au- 
thorities, entrusted by law with their care 
and preservation, take charge of them, the 
right of private persons must thenceforth 
be limited to acts of preservation and em- 
bellishment : and even these must in some 
degree be restricted by the opinion of those 
who represent the general taste and feel- 
ing of the community.” (Commonwealth 
vs. Viall, 2 Allen Reports, 515.) 
Applying this principle to the case pre- 
sented by our Kansas friend, it must fol- 
low that the lot owner has an interest in 
the appearance of his lot which must be 
respected. He may preserve and embellish 
it, if he pays proper respect to "the' gen- 
eral taste and feeling of the community.” 
But this does not mean that he may ob- 
stinately or negligently permit his lot to 
become an eyesore and then complain of 
removal of improvements which have so 
far fallen into a state of disrepair as to 
mar the general appearance of the ceme- 
tery or adjacent lots. Certainly, no “senti- 
ments, affections and tender memories of 
the living” are violated by the removal of 
unsightly ruins of fences, etc. 
The right of lot owners to have pre- 
served trees growing on their plots has 
been considered in two interesting cases, 
one of the cases being that last cited. Mas- 
sachusetts, like most other states, has a 
law making it an offense to desecrate a 
burial ground by destroying or injuring a 
monument, fence, railing, tree, etc., and de- 
fendant was prosecuted for cutting trees 
in a cemetery in violation of the law. In 
upholding a conviction, the court said ; 
“The growth of these trees may have 
been watched with affectionate interest by 
friends and relatives of the departed, whose 
last resting place has been made more 
pleasant to the imagination of the survivors 
by the thought that it might become a re- 
sort of birds and a place for wild flowers 
to grow; that waving boughs would shel 
ter it from the summer heat and protect it 
from the bleak w intis of the t)cean. The 
fallen leaf aiul withererl branch are em- 
blems of nuirtality, and in the o|)inion of 
man, a tree is a mf)re natural and fitting 
fleeoration of a cemetery than a costly 
monument." 
one. Youngstown is second only to Pitts- 
burgh in the production of steel and iron. 
I'he Ohio Hotel is exceptional in its ap- 
pointments, at the same time accommoda- 
tions will be reasonable. Rooms can be 
had from $1.50 up. with club breakfast and 
luncheons from 35c up. 
John C. Dix, Riverside Cemetery, Cleve- 
land, is president of the association, and E. 
A. Sloan, of iMarion, secretary-treasurer. 
ETERY LAW 
In the case of Hollman vs. City of 
Platteville, 101 A'isconsin Reports, 94, the 
Wisconsin Supreme Court sustained an 
award of damages against cemetery au- 
thorities for removing evergreens from a 
lot, although it is intimated that if proper 
notice had been given there would have 
been no liability. The court approved the 
following rule as stated by the Alabama 
Supreme Court : 
“Where one is permitted to bury his 
dead in a public cemetery, by the express 
or implied consent of those in proper con- 
trol of it, he acquires such a possession of 
the spot of ground in which the bodies are 
buried as will entitle him to action against 
those who, without his consent, negligently 
or w'antonly disturb it.” 
In answer to a claim that the Wisconsin 
statutes gave the cemetery trustees discre- 
tionary power to control lot improvements, 
the court said : 
“A perfect answer to this contention is 
found in section 1453, wdiich grants the 
power to require any ‘lot owner or occu- 
pant to remove, rearrange, rebuild or re- 
pair any such trees or shrubs planted, 
fences, structures, headstones or monu- 
ments. so as to comply with such regula- 
tions as they shall prescril)e. by giving rea- 
sonable personal notice in writing so to 
do’; and, if they fail to do so, they may 
cause it to be done, and recover the ex- 
pense thereof from the person liable to 
such duty. This presupposes the adoption 
of proper regulations for the management 
and control of the cemetery, which seems 
not to have been done in this case. Neither 
was there any pretense that an\’ notice was 
given plaintiff to rearrange or remove the 
trees in c|uestion. The acts of the city 
were wholly without the lines of the stat- 
ute, and without legal justification.'' 
One of the leading court decisions on the 
subject of the i)ower of cemetcr\- authori- 
ties to control lot improvements was hand- 
ed down by the Illinois .Su|)reme Court iti 
the case of Ilopkinson vs. Rosehill Ceme- 
tery Company, 114 Illinois Reports, 2(Y\ re 
lating to the right of such authorities to 
prevetit a lot owtier from cotistructing a 
vault. The’ court s.aid : 
“There is uo doubt but the numagers ‘of 
the incorporation ma\- make reasonable and 
sahitar\ rules for the management of the 
cemetery, atid for the government of all 
