PARK AND CEMETERY. 
369 
ed a way of accomplishing the purpose to 
enlarge its grounds, and apparently pro- 
vided future benefits without present ex- 
penditures. yet the entire transaction was 
contrary to the plain provisions of the 
statute. In whatever light this contract 
may be viewed, it provided profit for a 
member of the association. By its terms 
a 12.9-acre tract of land, costing $200 an 
acre, was immediately platted into 1,060 
lots, to be sold not 'below an average price 
of $20 per lot for all lots platted,’ and one- 
half of the proceeds thereof paid to the 
president of the corporation and his asso- 
ciates ; thus at the time clearly contem- 
plating an ultimate profit to them of at 
least $8,CC0. Suffice it is to say, without fur- 
ther comment, that this court will not lend 
its aid to the enforcement of any contract 
violative of a statute or the established 
public policy of the state.” 
Apart from the point above discussed, 
the Oklahoma court adhered to the well- 
settled rule that as against a corporation 
and its stockholders a director is not en- 
titled to make secret profits by indirect pri- 
vate dealings between himself and the cor- 
poration, as by selling land in which he is 
interested to the corporation, through a 
third party. The court adopts this rule : 
“Courts hold the directors of a corpora- 
tion to the strictest accountability. Con- 
duct inconsistent with any duty is con- 
demned. The fiduciary relation is so vital 
that directors are not only prohibited from 
making profit out of corporate contract, 
and from dealing with the corporation ex- 
cept upon the most open and on the fairest 
terms, but the rule of accountability is so 
strict that they are not permitted to antici- 
pate the corporation in the acquisition of 
property reasonably necessary for carrying 
out the corporate purposes or conducting 
the corporate business.” 
Liability for Theft of Body from Lot. 
The unusual claim was made in a case 
recently passed upon by the Appellate Di- 
vision of the New York Supreme Court 
that the proprietors of a cemetery are liable 
for theft of a body by a third person, in 
the absence of employment of a watchman 
to prevent such thefts. (Coleman vs. St. 
Michaels’ Protestant Episcopal Church, 155 
New York Supplement, 1036.) But it will 
not be surprising to hear that the court de- 
cided that in the absence of a statute or 
contract requiring a watchman to be main- 
tained there is no such liability. 
Plaintiff claimed that his brother was in- 
terred in defendant’s cemetery and that the 
body was stolen by unknown persons. In 
answer to further claim that it was the 
duty of the defendant to guard the grave 
from theft, the court said : 
“The complaint does not allege any con- 
tract by the defendant corporation to guard 
and protect the graves in its cemetery ; the 
statute under which the defendant is in- 
corporated and permitted to hold such 
lands and sell lots therefrom imposes no 
such duty ; and the plaintiff’s cause of ac- 
tion, if any, must rest upon some implied 
duty of any corporation selling lots for 
burial purposes to protect from theft the 
graves placed therein. The theft of a dead 
body is an unusual occurrence. Such a 
duty would involve a large expenditure of 
money in order to secure the graves from 
molestation by outsiders. Without contract 
obligation to protect these graves, and 
without statutory duty so to do, it is diffi- 
cult to conceive any reasonable grounds 
from which such a duty can be implied. 
We are referred to no authority, and are 
able to find none, in which such duty has 
been declared to exist, and in our opinion 
so to hold would cast an unreasonable bur- 
den upon such corporation, entirely out of 
proportion to any compensation that they 
would be able to charge for the sale of 
burial lots.” 
THE TREATMENT OF INJ 
URED TREES 
In order to ascertain how injured trees 
should be treated, we must first study the 
causes of the injury. These can be divided 
into two general classes, namely : 
Injuries caused by nature and her agen- 
cies, and injuries caused by man. 
Let us first consider some of nature’s 
ways of injuring trees. 
Climatic conditions, such as windstorms, 
cyclones and heavy snow or sleet, may 
cause a break, leaving the injured limb 
hanging or broken off in a ragged way. 
This, if not properly attended to, may 
cause permanent injury. 
Injuries done by fungus may also come 
under this heading, but does not enter into 
consideration until some other transgres- 
sion of nature has taken place. Many 
times fungus is blamed for destructive 
work, whereas in truth fungus carries on 
the breaking up of the already dead parts. 
I am convinced that if the tree is healthy 
it will throw off all attacks of fungus. 
Insects cause considerable damage to 
tree growth and especially to fruit trees. 
The worst of these are the round and flat- 
headed apple-tree borers. 
Smoke, soot and gases are also natural 
causes for tree degeneration. 
The second cause of injuries to trees is 
one to be considered by the city man more 
than all agencies combined : 
By Henry C. Muskopf, Landscape 
Architect, Saint Louis, Missouri. 
Tree butchers, amateurs, vandals, and 
carelessness. 
The tree butcher heads the list, for most 
damage is done by him. The method gen- 
erally used is for some man without 
knowledge of tree pruning to climb to a 
convenient height and 'begin promiscuous 
cutting, so as to give a round or umbrella 
shaped appearance, without thought as to 
the future. This kind of tree topping, 
however, is usually ordered by the owner, 
who also is lacking in the knowledge of 
tree pruning, and it is at times recommend- 
ed by the thoughtless amateur. 
The amateur prunes or heads in so as to 
get a dense growth. He has not studied 
and does not watch the results, and the 
disastrous results are often discernible 
years later. 
The owner, happening to possess both 
knife and time, attacks a tree and slashes 
to his heart’s content. Not so long ago I 
had occasion to plant and rearrange a 
large tract of ground for a wealthy manu- 
facturer. I came upon him industriously 
slashing away with his knife. Now, this 
man, well versed generally, was ignorant 
on the question of pruning. I asked per- 
mission to give him a few simple rules 
about pruning. Tie questioned me and 
listened to what I. had to say very atten- 
tively. During the two succeeding years I 
never saw him use a knife again. How- 
ever, some time after the incident quoted, 
I put a man to work on his orchard, which 
the previous owner had left in a neglected 
condition. I happened to be on another 
part of the grounds, where he found me 
and requested that I go to the orchard and 
see whether the man I put to work under- 
stood pruning. I then found that my lit- 
tle lecture started that man to properly 
study the question, and he was then well 
versed in it and recognized correct prun- 
ing when it was done. 
I don’t want to discourage home prun- 
ing, but wish to illustrate that even the 
educated may be, and usually are, ignorant 
of tree pruning, when a little thought and 
study so readily overcome this defect. 
Vandalism: Many young boys use their 
pocketknife on the trees thoughtlessly and 
some purposely ripping off a long strip of 
bark. George Washington so effectively 
used his little hatchet. 
Animals: People carelessly tying their 
horses to trees, or rabbits gnawing the bark 
off of young fruit trees. Both can be 
remedied with little forethought. 
Burning: In order to save the cutting 
of high grass or weeds, people burn the 
lawn during the dry season and with it 
burn the bark of the trees, which on large 
