The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1904-01-28
UP NEXT WEDNESDAY
Decision Of Judge SanbOrn in
the Original Park Case
is Largely Basis of
Application.

The waterworks station location
matter went into court this morning,
on an application for an Injunction
against the use of North Park for that
purpose. The application is brought
in the name or on behalf Of Oliver
Bagby, w. Il. Halsell, Louis Bagby,
Frank Burckhalter, Mary J.iBrowning
and T. A. Chandler, for themselves
and for and in behalf Of other citizens,
taxpayers and residents Of the city Of
Ninita
1t is directed against Allan Black
Co., contractors; T. J. Spriggs, secre-
tary Of the company, and the city Of
Vinita.
Messrs. Konegay, Parker and Davis
represent the petitioners.
The notice Of intention to ask for an
injunction included, also, South Park,
but the formal application did not
mention that, doubtless for the reason
that there would be no cause for at
tempting to utilize that location if
the courts decision was adverse as to
the other
Briefly, the contention Of the petit
tioners is that a waterworks plant is
not desirable neighbor IN the resi-
denee section Of the city, and is not
one calculated TO enhance the value Of
residence property Further. their at
torneys insist that such a use OF the
parks Is not within the intent Of the
law.
Ia reply 70 the suggestion that the
purpose in waiting until this time,
when active operations were to begin.
was 10 retard the work, the petition
ers stated that they had not, until
this week. had definite information of
the intended use Of the PARK for the
purposes named; that no ordinance or
other act Of the council disclosed this
purpose, and that the information
was only just secured, and Sthat from
the contractor.
4 meeting Of the city council was
held last night to consider the sub
ject, and il is reported that a decision
was reached to ask OF the city attor-
ney, and Of Edgar Smith, Of counsel in
thisca an opinion ofthe city's rights
in the matter. and to be largely guild
ed thereby IN their further actions in
the premises.
Both sides appear sincere IN dec I
laration IN favor Of prompt action
that there is no wish TO delay the work. /
Upon presentation Of the application (
this morning Judge cir set next /
Wednesday for hearing arguments on I
the same, which is as early Us should \
be expected.
The petitioners base their hope OF /
Justification Of the position taken very /
largely upon the Vinita park case
known in the books as Davenport vs..
Burlington, with which our citizens
are more or less familiar
I'm that famous park case, Of some 4
years since, Judge Sanborn, in an
opinion delivered at ST. Paul, October
l6, 1899, says, as summed up in the /
syllabus;
/. A resident and q taxpayer Of a
city or town may maintain a suit in
equity to prevent the diversion to pri-
sate use by the original proprietor Of |
the town site of lard which, when the /
town was laid oU5 and plated, was
dedicated as a lpublic park, and has
Since been maintained as such.
,. a nation, state or municipality,
which dedlcateS land within a town
Bite. Of which il is owner, to public
use for park purposes, is as exclusively
estopped as a private proprietor from
revoking such dedication from selling
The park, and from appropriating the
land which it occupies TO other pur-
poses, after lots have been sold, the
town settled, and after the park has
been improved with money raised by
taxation of its residents and taxpayers
I'D reliance upon the grant and coven-
ant which the dedication evidences.