The weekly herald. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 1906-19??, 1907-06-20

city Of Amarillo vs., II h. Sanborn
had been set for trial at the present
term Of court but II the demurrer
filed yesterday by the defendants Is
granted, the suit OF the city will have
to be dismissed In that case the
city will probably carry the suit TO
the higher courts, Even II the de-
murrer restraining the city from the
suit Is sustained In the higher courts,
there would stlll be room for ltiga-
ton by the filing Of suits against II,
B, Sanborn by property owners In
the original four additions 10 the
town Of Amarillo as intervenors,
c, y, Gustayus opencnd the case
yesterday by reading the lengthy
statement Of the defendants grounsd
In asking for a demurrer, In this he
reviewed the circumstance Of the
case defined the province OF the city
In such premises, and called the at
tentIor NJ the court to the fact that
the city II the property were given
into their hands, would be unable to
use the tract for any purpose what
ever save for a college and that fur
thcrmore the city would have no way
whatsoever of determining to what
kind Of a college the property should
be given, lie distinguished between
the rights Of the public as affected
by the dedication Of a public park
and the rights as affected by the
dedication for a private institution.
Following in the same vein, Thorn
as +. Turner and c, b. Reeder de-
Tended the suit for demurrer, c, b,
Reeder called the courts attention
to the fact that the only instance
which the city's attorneys could pro-
duce IN defense Of their suit was In
the case OF the city Of Corsicana VS..
Thorn but that the CorslCana case
had to do with the plated dedica-
ton Of a public street, a very diff
ferent thing from a college campus.
He maintained that the city in the
event the suit was granted, would
be unable to do anything further
than prevent the defendant, II. b.
Sanborn, from using the land in any
way save by putting a college on 1t.
The city could not force him to do
that, however, nor could 1t in any
way determine the character OF the
institution he might choose to put
on the tract.
In answer to the allegations Of the
Defendants attorneys City Attorney
Gee replied that the right of the city
to maintain the suit came from the
feet that the city was corporate rep
rcsentative OF all tho property own
ors within its borders, and that as
the property owners in the original
four additions to the town OF ANA
rlllo bought with reference to the
plat showing the college campus, ev-
cry such purchased had acquired a
part Of the right of the city to the
dedicated tract on such grounds
the city was justified in prosecuting
the suit TO retain the land for pub
/ lie purposes. The alternative which
the opposing attorneys had alleged
that the city would be unable to
exercise any further control over the
tract than to see that it was not used
for anything save college purposes,
he rejected in part and claimed a
general control over the property for
the city.
S. II. Madden, who closed for the
city, claimed less general control
over the property than his colleague.
He admitted that in his opinion the
ely could only direct the use of the
tract for college purposes and would
be unable to make use of the tract
for park or any other public pur-
pose. He rejected however, the claim
of the opposing attorneys that mas
much as the conditions which inspir-
ed the original dedication Of the land
to particular college were never
fulfilled that the land remained in
the possession Of II, B. Sanborn the
original owner,
The argument in the demurrer
motion took up the time Of the court
yesterday afternoon from 3 O'Clock
till I and was not then completed.
The motion will come up for further
argument before the court takes fl
nal action.