Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-05-08
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
CAULFIELD'S AVENUE.

An Important Question as to Boundary
Lines.
Charles Phygler Frank Michel and Jas.
Young were tried before Judge Buckley in
the Police Court yesterday morning on a
charge of misdemeanor, in having built a
fence along what they claim as the north
line of lots one, two three and four in the
block between R and S, Sixth and Seventh
streets. The complaining witness was
Henry A. Garfield, who owns the block
living west of the one above mentioned.
So far as the criminal charge is concerned
the evidence did not show any intent to
commit q crime, but some very nice ques-
tons of law were raised which the Court
concluded to consider farther before rem
dering his decision. The case was there
fore continued until tomorrow morning.
Mr.. Caulfield testified that he was now
living in a house at the corner of U and
Sixth streets, but that he had lived upon
what has been known as Caulfield's ranch,
which included the property in question,
for the past thirty-five years. He had
owned the blocks between r and streets,
from Fourth to Seventh streets, and when
the R-street levee was built there was not
enough room left on the south side of r
street for teams to pass. People living on
that side could not cross the levee, and had
to go up to Seventh street or down to
Fourth. His neighbors came to him and
asked him if he would not give enough
land to make an avenue along the south
side of the R-street levee That would be
convenient for travel. He told them that he
would and they agreed to help buildtheroad,
which they did. The avenue was built
from Fourth to Seventh street, the neigh
bors assisting in the work and the city fur
nlshing the chain-gang to work on it.
Josiah Johnson was then Trustee. When
the avenue was built witness put fence
along it, which had remained there ever
since, except that at times it had been
washed away by floods and had to be re-
built. This was thirty years ago, and this
fence had always been maintained and the
avenue kept open to public use during all
those years, until few days ago the de-
PENDANTS moved the fence and set it close
up to the levee, thus closing the avenue.
The fence was rebuilt the last time Just
after the flood of 1878. The witness
claimed that the avenue had been dedi-
Gated to public use for thirty years, though
he admitted that subsequently, in trans
ferring the property, nothing was set forth
in the deeds reserving any number of feet
off the north side of the lots. He had
given quit-claim deed to the lots, but did
not sell the roadway, as he did not own it,
having already given it to the public many
years before.
The testimony of the three defendants
was that they had purchased the lots from
B. R. Croker, who had his title from John
Beck. Mr.. Beck had purchased them from
Philip Herzog, who acquired title through
judgment in the Superior Court Their
deeds called for lots $50 feet deep and they
had measured through from S street and
found that their line would come up to the
levee, therefore they had moved the fence
out to what they considered was the true
line. They knew nothing about the dedi-
cation of a strip off the north end of the
lots to the public use, and no such reserva-
zion was made in their deeds. They had
been told bv Mr. Crocker and Mr.. Beck
that they were entitled to the full lots.
They said that they did not want any more
than what was right, but they had
bought lots 100 feet deep, and the only
way they could get that number of feet
was to run up to the levee, as the levee
was built along the south side of r street.
They were engaged in improving the
block, and intended to leave an alley
through the center of the block, conform
ing to the other alleys running east and
west, and Mr.. Caulfield would have an out
let through the alley.
Mr.. Garfield claimed. in reply to this,
that the alley and S street were both under
water, and there was no outlet on high
ground except along the R-street levee
until as far south as Y street.
City Surveyor Bassett was put upon the
stand and testified that the R-street levee
was built south of the center of R street
He did not think there was room enough
for road between the south edge of the
levee and the south line of r street. The
road referred to by Caulfeld as an avenue
was not laid down on the city map.
The case involves the very nice question
as to whether Mr. Caulfeld made lega
dedication of the land to a public use, and
whether the property has been so used by
the public as to create prescriptive right