Opinion
May, 1931.
Present — Sears, P.J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ. [ 139 Misc. 368.]
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the burden of establishing a violation of the ordinance in cutting a shade tree was upon the plaintiff and whether or not the tree in question was a shade tree within the meaning of the ordinance was a question of fact and we cannot say that the decision of the trial justice in favor of the defendant was contrary to the evidence. All concur.
See Ord. No. 41, effective Feb. 25, 1925. — [REP.