The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-07-27

the public; his second addition extended
west to what would be the east line Of
Wichita street extended south, namely
| lot Il, on Douglas avenue, in Greiffen
| STEMS second addition TO Wichita, both
Waterman's addition and Greiffensteins
second addition were taken into the city,
| leaving all that part of Greinensteins
land south Of the X section line and west
of the cast lire OF Wichita street extends
| ir Wichita township. Some of the land
south of what is now Douglas avenue,
was afterwards at various times taken
! into the city, but portion Of the land
| belonging 10 Mr.. Greiffenstein south and
| adjoining Douglas avenue, together with
all Of what is now called Douglas ave
nue. west OF the east line Of Wichita
street remained in Wichita township until
lsSS, when by ordinance the cigy formally
took that piece Of land and territory in
10 the city. That was II years ago. Prior
te this time. the public used a highway
across the Arkansas river and Travelled
over the west end of Douglas avenue to
get to this bridge. This territory being
and lying without the city limits and be-
ing in wichita township. Whatever road
there was, was selling it exclusively TO
the township officers Of Wichita town
ship and the board Of county commits
sioners. The county purchased the bridge
and occupied the south half Of Douglas
avenue from about 1874 TO 1884, when upon
a petition Of the citizens. that is in 1884.
the board of county commissioners laid
off and adopted a road 4Sl feet IN length
q nd 81 Vt In -fS -
OF Douglas avenue. This strip of land
begins at the east side of a line of Wich-
tia street extended south and running
west to where the east end Of the iron
bridge was at that time. being sixty feet
wide and leaves on the north of it strip
Of land 81 feet wide the same distance.
Now there is no dispute as to the fact
that the legal title to this strip. "a feet
wide and 431 feet long is in Mrs Ray
mond the daughter of William Greiffen-
stein, the contentious as we understand
il upon the part of the city is that the
city has acquired by prescription, that is
that the public has used this for more
than fifteen years as n public highway
and therefore that the right has thus
been established in the public.
Our contention is that first. this strip
Of land was not taken into the city until
Nay, 1888, and hence the city has not had
any control over nor could have had any,
until after May, 1858. You see that has
been only Il years. This part of the
defense cannot stand.
Our further contention is that the board
Of county commissioners in establishing
the county road in 1884 width of 50 feet
shows conciusively no width of the offic
ial road and the city cannot obtain
more from the county that the county
claimed.
Again under the statutes then used. now
in force, a county road cannot exceed
80 feet in width and unless the width is
prescribed it cannot exceed 20 feet by the
decisions of the supreme court
If they rely upon the width established
by the board of county commissioners,
they only have 60 feet off the west side
OF Douglas avenue. If on the other hand
no width was ever declared it could only
be 20 feet, so our contention is that if
they claim by prescription to the public
while the property was subject to the
jurisdiction of the board of county COM
missioners, they can only hold 40 feet off
the west end of Douglas avenue.
1t makes no difference If people daily
and hourly used it as a public road for
one hundred years, the constituted auth
critics must take some steps to take pos
session of it by acts Of such authorities
and then they could only claim 40 feet
by prescription, nor could they In any
manner acquire a road over so feet wide.
And since the territory has been in the
city only fourteen years there can be no
possible prescrIptive rights by the city TO
more than the county had obtained while
the territory was outside the limits of
the city. These are the views Of the
attorneys of Mrs. Raymond and we think
Z icN. q 70 sound