For those who have been following the SC case of timber trespass, you may be interested to know the case went before a jury last week, only to be recessed for a month. Before the recess, the defendant's did not deny that trees were cut - rather they now say it was done by their contractor (friend of the family who was not licensed to conduct business). They're defense is that they only received X # of $'s for the pulpwood and we are overstating the value. (we calculated the replacement costs only for the trees whose stumps remained; there were many others that had been removed in violation of the court order which compromised our ability to make our case. The trees were part of our landscape and under a forestry stewardship/conservation plan)
This matter came after defense counsel failed in their motion to amend their pleadings to claim our property under adverse possession!
Apparently not only the trees are at risk in this case - they want the property too!

Reply to post by Jan, on April 27, 2000 at 15:31:39:

Since I did not know the meaning I did a search it. Fo0r tothers unfamilier eith the term here it is.