Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1870-04-08
Ws. n. Phillips sworn. He is chair.
man Of town board Of Mineral Point, that
thu hoard ohAected To this action

| Matthew GOFdSWOrtHy sworn. IeStlheC
(showins the jury a plat of the Ian
through which the road had been made,
that he owned the land some years ago
there were two bridges, one in the cente
of the 40 which was abandoned in 1856
because Ire fenced it up; the public trav
eled on both sides of the fence, there wa
no regular track in lS49 where the tract
is now contended for. The road arount
the field is good road and about as neal
as the other.
Cross examined. In 1860, road ran al
over the 40, especially when the roads
were bad.
Martin O'Dowd sworn. He built one o
the bridges in 1868 by order Of road mas
ter; the new road Is d good one, and no
much further than The old one. The pub
lie had not Kept the same track, but hat
gone all over the 40 for TIE past II years.
John o. Dowd sworn. He broke up the
land, and as he fenced and plowed up the
land SO often the road changed. The road
had not been travelled in the same track
| for 10 years at any one time. The new
road could with; very little expense be
made better than the old one.
| Charles Thomas sworn. He built the
| fence across the road !; was not ordered to
do so by any ole; did II to protect his own
property. The new road is ali ON defend
ants land, is a very good road.
Cross examined He lives with defend.
| ant, is his step-son; d.d not Know that the
fence was purposcly made to fence up the
road with. He had a one fourth share of
the crop Mr.. Phillips was hos.
Tbc testimony being all in the court adj
Ejourneds until n o'clock.
The pleadings. on the case were opened
! by Mr.. SpenseIy. He had prepared a
map of the hand the road ran through,
showing the jury where the road entered
upon and where it went off this particular
piece of land, and showing the obstruction
| to have been put on part of the highway,
where the sasne hard been travelled. over l5
years. :,
lie vas followed by Mr.. Wilson who
stated that the fact that the road having been
moved from place to place by reason Of
fencing and breaking up the land =; and
that during the time the road had been
used, one Of the bridges had been abandon
ed altogether, proved beyond a doubt that
they had not used that same road all the
time fer ten years together therefor e
they had failed to prove the existence OF
| the road.
The court then adjourned until Friday
lnofiiing OF 9 o'clock.
FRIDAY MORNING.
Mr.. Weber's address to the jury consist.
cd of general stunning up of the evil
| dence in relation to the road and fencing
up the same. I'm the first place the jury
must find proof Of a road existing there
[ in tile next place that the road ifany, had
| been fenced up, and that the defendant
himself had done The act, The whole evi.
dence had been all the way through
| contrary to dedication of the land De-
cause thu public had accommodated them
selves to the repeated improvements,
! and as plowing and ncing were done. so
| the road was moved from lime to time
| He thought it strange that because a man
| had prairie land not in use for few years,
the public could appropriate the tract 10y
going over the SAME few. times.
Mr.. Cothren stated, the whole question
was, whether the defendant did or did not
stop up the highway !; not whether the de-
ftndant was a cnlpril. they did not wish
to ininre the reputation of the man at all,
but it was an undisputed fact that the
! party honght the land suffice. to the road
| there was 4 road when the property was
bought, and had heeti good road ever
| since the wear 1895. IL was not the poo
pie around Mineral Point who wanted the
road, they ought not to have anything to
| say about it; it was the farmers beyond
the place Of obstruction, and it was their
regular road to market. All the witnesses
| had proved the road to have been used
over ten years, and the law expressly
states that a road in use that length of
time cannot be stopped. The, fact of the
defendant leaving 20 rods Of land for a
road aronna .his field does not constitute a
| highway. 1t was nft properly laid out
for 'road; the public had no right to &C
/ cept of the 20 rods even they were
disposed to.
The jury after receiving the following
| charge from the court, retired for deliber.
alton.
| This is An action to a penalty authorized
by chap 49, l0l OF revised statutes to he recov-
cred OF any person who shall wiiliully obstruct
highway The penalty to he recovered Will not ex.
| coed the sun, of SIS And it must farther appear
| that the obstruction wiiffnl, that is, not
| merely n ciental. If n wagon Should break down
in highway, it might obstlict it, but the ohstruc'
| tion would not be wllful. But II . person build a
| fence across a highway, it win hot be defence in
such Nm. action as the present, to show that the
deiendant did not believe thare Was in fact high
way where he built his fence. 1T is claimed by tho
EStte tiJa at the TIME IF the commencement of this
actob There was hjg hway passing over the SEA
the SW section % town s. range !, east; ttat the
Defendant aout the 2g'h Of June. 1869, built
febce across the highway, ear the northeast CORN"
/ of the SElI Of. he SMN aforesaid. Whether the
Obstruction, If any here was, was near the north
I east Corner mentioned in The complaint you will de
tertnifle the evidence aud in respect to the
istance of the obstruction, the evidence steorres
pond With the complaint The State must first satisfy
you If the existence Of the highway where the d.
PENDANT built his fence THERE'S evidence to show
this read WAS Laid ont by the supervisors OF the town
! However, il il be shown that the track over Which
| the fence erected had been used by the publ
ten years or more as hishway before thcicommence
meni Of action, you will regard sch user as snt
ficieh 10 establish Highway but such user on thu
part of the public must be oper and notorious, nd
verse, ami under claim Of right by the public to us
the track tracks The defendant land, as Ugh
way used for the ordinary purpose Of travel In tn
ABSENCE Of proof to tecontrary it viii be. presume
to have existed undsr the claim Of right by the put
&c. 49,.
| 1t appears from the evidence, that the bed Of tn
highway, If snch there over the defendants LAND
shifted from one line to another, and THAT tker
several tracks over some portions of the defend
| ants premises. ,.r.ss. NJ %
been manifestly formed by the .trayeling public il
choosing thebest ground to reach the same destina
tion and when the several tracks come together an
unite at short Intervals each track being used by In
travelling public in going to and from the sam
place or places and no her different places, tn
several tracks may be regarded as constituting on
and the same highway; bnt the owner of the Ian