Connecticut western news., 1886-11-24
Two Sides.

tVO lAuSU COI1lCSS VO OlS6Sp- pointment at the result of the vote of the county representatives on the building of the new courthouse. The attack made by Senator Staub on the county title to the courthouse prop erty was simply pettifogging for postponement, as one familiar with all the papers could not but sec. In 1795 the town voted money for the proposed courthouse on considera- tion that they were to have certain rights in the courthouse when built. Those rights were conceded by the ed action in 1818 It would be absurd familiar with the facts, would exc supposed void from the very begin tion of the town room of the old court-house-continuous for 80 years since the deed of 18O3-worked for feiture, the grantors and their heirs have slept on their right of entry during that whole time, and are clear iy barred. We feel very certain that Staub relied could never have been I1louO 6SC4u1l11VCN W1Uu oll O'bC t6bCOS OA the case. But the whole opposition was simply sectional, with a view to houses, double jails, on the county. We had supposed, chat Winsted was not ready to enter into any such scheme. Through the persistent nag ging of New Milford, however, they ho of 1oct 0nv,f mt f0s O 0rro f0 the project, but we hope they will then carefully estimate it's valne, be- fore they get in deeper. -Litchf field Enqui,er.
 The editor of the Enquirer has talk en a long leap since he wrote in his issue of July 1, that "a jail and criminal court are no very desirable acquisitions for town" The article above would imply that Litchfield has an hereditary claim on the court house, and when it is found that other towns in tho county are not willing to concede this, Brother Hickox con- fesses to great disappointment" It is we'll known that the removal of county seat can only be made in the legislature, so that any offers by New Milford or Winsted at the county meeting Tuesday would not have been given any attention. The ques tion pure and simple was whether the county should go into a partner ship with Litchfield or not, and. if a partnership, what would the effect of it be. The lease of 1903 clearly pro vides that if the courthouse or any part of it be used for any other pur- pose than holding courts, then the ground reverts to the lessors, and their heirs. Brother Hickox claims that the holding of it by Litchfield for 80 years has worked forfeiture, and that the heirs have slept on their rights to enter. AS to the soundness of the theory advanced we personally cannot say. We are not a lawyer as Brother Hickox is, but certainly as able, learned lawyers as the editor of the Enquirer is, have assured us that according to the conditions of the lease the heirs can enter at any time when the conditions are broken, and that any occupation by the town of Litchfield, whether by permission or not, does not gain for the town any right by possession adversary. This question the lawyers must settle There is doubt, every one admits, as to the title of the land. If the vote had been in favor of Litchfield, the constituents of the representatives would have blamed them for their complete stupidity in voting to build on site where the title was not clear, and taxpayers may we'll commend their representatives for going slow in the matter, and ascertaining be- yond any doubt or cavil whether the county does or does not forfeit it's right to the site by taking in Litch- field as a partner. When this has been ascertained, then the county rep resentatives can act with intelligence in the matter, and vote as will con-