The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1902-08-05
The CITY ENJOINED
IMPROVEMENT OF EMMETT PARk
STOPPED BY COURT MANDATE.
THE LOT OWNERS PROTEST.
CLAIM ABSOLUTE TITLE TO PART
OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE.

=
OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE.
Owners of Wharf Lots Between Lin
coin and Price Streets File Petit
ton Against the City and Councils
Special COmmittee-Right of In
gress to and Exress From Their
Holdings Necessary TO Their En-
joyment and CIty's Proposed Ac-
ton Amounts to COnfiscatiOn.
Hearing viii Be Had Before Judge
Barrow TO-day-Park and Tree
Commission Addresses Council.
At 5 O'Clock this afternoon Judge
Barrow will begin to hear evidence and
arguments upon the application made
by property owners along Factors
Walk to restrain such manner of i'm
provement of Emmett Park by the city
as will interfere with their rights of
ingress to and egress from their
property A temporary restraining
order, prohibiting the execution of
Councils announced purpose, was
granted by Judge Barrow yesterday
morning.
The restraining order was granted
upon the application of William M.
Lowe Columbia H. Daffin, John Kean,
George A. Mercer, Mary H. Walker
and Robert L. Mercer. The first three
are owners of wharf lots Nos. 1, 2 and
8, and the last three of wharf lot No.
5. and the western one-half of wharf
lot No. 6. All of this property begins
at the Savannah river and extends
according to the contention of the pc
titioners. to Bay street. 1t it situated
beween Lincoln and Price streets.
The petition sets forth that the
property is located on the banks of
the river, at a point where the city's
level is forty feet or more above the
water. For this reason, the property
owners urge it is necessary for them
to have egress from and ingress to their
holdings from the level of the city and
at considerable expense, otherwise al
together Improbable, the improve
ments they have made rise above the
level of the city.
Claim title 40 strand.
In this connection the first avowed
claim to the absolute ownership of the
property which the city proposes to
designate Emmett Park is made by the
wharf lot owners. They claim that
their lots extend from the river to
Bay street and that in attempting to
exercise any act of ownership over that
portion of Emmett Park which fronts
their river holdings the city is an
4
pie.
This property. the petitioners aver.
has been used by them and their pre-
decessors in the titles they hold from
time immemorial. 1t has been used by
themselves their tenants and, with
their consent the public at large for
the passage of vehicles, the drying
and cleaning of cotton and for
other purposes, and such use
has been quiet, peaceable and
uninterrupted, until recently, by any
claim Of adverse right or title, since
the memory of man runneth not to the
contrary. Such rights, the petitioners
claim, have been freely enjoyed by
other owners of property along the
llVer front occupying positions anala-
gous to their own.
The petition recites the introduction
In council, in March of the present
year. of an ordinance dedieating the
property hepHeen FaotoFst Walk and
Bay street and Lincoln and East
Broad streets as public park, provid-
ing for its improvement and prohibit
ing its use by vehicles 1t is recalled
that on March 20, this ordinance was
read the second lime in Council, but
on the protest of the property owners
most vitality affected and at the adj
wee OF the city attorney 1t was voted
down.
Commission Recognizes Right
In June the Park and Tree Commits
sion adopted a plan for the improve
rHent and Identification of the park
a plan, the petition says, that recoe-
nized the rights of the property own
ers along the strand. 1t provided for
roadway running around three sides
or the park, which would have afford
ed the property owners a means of free
ingress to and egress from the build
lngs. This plan the commission sub
United to Council for it's approval and
request for a sufficient appropriatior
TO carry it into effect.
On July IS Council threw this nlan
TO the winds and adopted in lieu
thereof one prepared by the city en-
glneer, which if carried out will effect
ually prevent the owners If property
from reaching their buildings with
vehicles of any sort. An appropriati)n
OF $1,000 was made for this improve
ment and special committee consist
ing of Aldermen Dixon, Horrigan and
Jones, was appointed to expend the
fund.
The petitioners claim that the city
mas recognized their right at least to
an easement in the use for vehicles of
The property in dispute by making
provision for such use in laying the
curb around the park-so called, say
the petitioners for it has never been
dedicated to any such purpose
ADoubIe -BarreIed Claim.
It is charged that Council has no
right to appropriate the peoples
money for the Improvement of any
place until it is declared to be a pub
lie park, and in the second place. that
the right to expend such an appropria-
ton cannot be conferred by Council
upon committee, this power being ex-
pressly and in terms granted to the
Park and Tree Commission by an act
of the General Assembly of the state
The appropriation of $4,000 that has
been made, the petitioners declare, it
is proposed to expend illegally, and as