The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1875-12-09
Ghe 99ailg Argns,
Continued from second mage !


DIE that he may have considered that tha
temporary occupation OF parts OF this block
Tor church or scho0i purposes was not in
consistent with the general right of the
public TO use the property as a public
square. He may have thought, for til.
time being, the best use to be made of .
pubic square was to put public buildings
like churches and school houses upon it
with the right, however, of the public al
large, whenever they saw fit to act, through
the city authorities, to remove those
structures thereirom and occupy the
square for other purposes This may have
been the view with which MIR. Case made
the deed to these Churches and these
School Trustees, with the idea that, in 50
doing, he was not interfering with the
general right Of the public to use this
square. but only cOusenting to this use for
the time being.
1t is for You, however, with the light the
evidence furnishes you in this case to say
what effect is to be given to these deeds.
There are also certain expressions in the
deeds made by Case and Spencer to Nc
Kay, in regard to this block, which YOU
should consider as bearing upon the ques-
ton at issue, and as to the use to which
this block was intended to be applied.
There is 40 proof in the case tending to
show what Spencer and Case meant and
Intended IN their conveyance to Mckay, BIZ
| Il words which they used in reference to
tt Is public square; calling ii IA public
uare. Buj, as have already cxpIain-
"a 10 you. there still remained in Spencer
and Case reverSlonary right, both - the
eVoe III front OF tEi+ town aud to the pub
lie square III case 1t should, in some failure
day, cease 10 be used fer public purposes
- my KIND. la that event it would be-
c'l'e the property of the original owner,
and they may have intended simply to
possess Mckay with the rever.ipnary
night IN one fourth 81! F,as they themselves
had in one half of it.
/ VIII here say that while Case and
Spencer were acting together in the sale
aud management of this prnperty-I mea:i
10 the management of the addition, of the
property connected with this addition-I
think what both SAID in regard to the uses
10 which this square was to be applied are
admissible In evidence; but after they
cease to act together the acts or sayings f
Spencer are not admissible against tn.
Plaintiff lii this case, or against Case or his
II.
what they both said and did at the time 81
the auction, back in the days of 1886 r.
1887, is admissible. because they were
thea acting together as INT owners; In,
What MIR Spencer Saii and did 10 1855. Il
Z time tn" eed was no &c by the Me,hc-
dist church 0 the city, is not admissible
against Case, bee iuse ther seems to have
been no unity OF action between them at
that time.
The fact that this square was not, from
the time this plat was made, assessed for
taxes, is circumstance tending IL show
that it was accepted by the public as a
public square. # there was no general
understanding that this Iuare was intend
ed for the public It lay .,oi be asked:
" by did it remain 80 many years without
taxation, even before i WAS occupied tnt
school and church purpose? In case Nc
Kay and Spencer considered it their pr-
vate property, why did they not return or
list 1t tnr taxation among their other pri-
vaie property?
The public authorizes were Mt a0mna',
led 10 enter at once upon the Possession Of
the property and Commerce improvements
thereon IN order to avail themselves f
he dedication if ther did other acts. such
rs emitting to tag, which Shove that thu,
dedication was acguiesced IN AMI accri.ted
ny the public authorities. They coul,i, tx
exelupting the land !rnm taxation. az auy
other act which showed that they consider
e.! this Il public square, have accented the
dedication and taken their :,Wn time to take
actual manual possession and make improve
ncntS. That depended entirely upon the
dap sition, means and tas Of the PARTY
to whom The dedication was made.
The req! question is; Does the proof in
this case satisfy YOU that the owners Of
this square, N 1888, expressed and gave
cut, ty their talk aud actions. their iutcn-
ton to dedicate this square to the public;
aud continued to act in harmony with such
expressions for snch time az to give the
public fully to understand that this Was a
public square?
Attention has been called by counsel to
the consideration in the deed from the
heirs OF Case to the PlaiHtiff in this suit
1t Is almost unnecessary, it seems 10 ne,
Tor the court to say to you that the amount
OF consideration expressed in that deed has
10 bearing IN this case, upon the legal in
terest. Ii tie heirs owned a three cighths
interest IN tits property. they had right to
convey it to 4 c Plaintiff in t. : suit for
one dollar or o. thousand dolla,5, as they
saw TT.
will then say, ia conclusion, gentle
men, that unless general dedication to
the public use is made out by the proof in
this case, then the Plaintiff is entitled to
recover.
you are satisfied, from the proof in
this case, that Jonah H. Case did manifest
a public intention, in 1886. to dedicate thus
property to tie public and acted in con
Formity Herewith, and if the public ac-
cepted such dedication,and from that time
forward have treated this as public
square, then you would be justified in find
ing that the dedication was complete.
If you find that there has been 20 dedi-
cation, the form of your verdict will be:
'We,the jury, find the Defendant guilty,aDd
end the Plaintiff seized in fee of three
eighths Of the square In controversy"
And if, on the contrary. you find that
the dedication is made out By the proof, the
form Of yourverdict will be: we the jury,
find the Defendant not guilty
The jury found the Defendant Not
Guilty in other words, that the square
was dedicated for public purpose and
must remain public and for the use of the
nublic