The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-08-05

all OI Ine CeTIdlll anu ull- disputed evidence or information available to me, was what I was able to obtain from the land records of Bridgeport and Stratford.
 I find that d tract of land. in which is included the strip in ques- tiOn. was at one time owned by AlOnZo J. Beardsley and George B. BeardSley. They had a map of the land made and caused the same to be placed upon the land records of the Town of Bridgeport The map was made in September. 1891, and was filed September T., 1895. Up- on this map there was laid out, as an extension of Seaview avenue, strip of forty feet wide, running in straight line southerl--. to the water, from the end of that avenue reg ularly laid out to the borough of West Stratford- Lots bordering upon this strip were afterwards deeded and they were described as being bounded on Seaview avenue and in said deeds reference was also made to said map. I thinks that there was plainly a ded- ication of this land. 50 feet in width for highway purposes.
 But the mere dedication Of land by its owner is not sufficient to consti- tute the same a public highway There must be ar acceptance by the public. West Stratford had been ad- ded to Bridgeport prior to said ded- ication. The charter of our city prescribes certain duties on the part of
 
 out the same as a public highway and also certain proceedings by the com mon council relative to such layout. No action was taken by our common acceptance of the strip of land or eX- tension of Seaview avenue, which is now in controversy. I find no vote or formal action by the Town of Strat- ford or the Borough of Stratford prior to the incorporation of the 1Y.r1 nf o-I trr Bridgeport, relative to said land. The borough records of West Stratford show that in 1888 Seaview avenue was laid out, fifty feet wide. from Newfield avenue to William Lewis residence 'Cnow Otto Lehmannt's.)
 In the absence of any formal ac- tion on the part of Stratford, West Stratford or Bridgeport relative to the layout of the land in question, the only other way that it could be ac- cepted by the public would be by user That is to say, no action look ing toward it's acceptance having been taken by the organized public, namely one of said municipal bodies, therefore. ill order to constitute it a public high way, it must have been so used by the unorganized public, the people in gen. eral who might have occasion or de- sire to use it, as to show an inten- tion on their part to accept it as a highway. Whether it has been so a question of fact to be determined by the testimony of those who are fa- miliar with it's history.
 The question of the acceptance of of fact, the law merely contributing its definition of the term. Hall vs. Merritt, Meriden 4s Conn. 42s; Seeley vs. Bridgeport, 5 Conn. 1; Hartford vs. N Y. & N. E Co.,. 59 Conn. 254 i; Makepeace vs. Waterbury. A Conn. 260. PhillinS 4OS- Other questions will proba bly, enter into a determination of the mat ter. Buildings have been allowed to stand for years upon portion of the strip in question and whether there was a revocation of the gift or dedi- cation, as to part of the whole, before any acceptance, will probably have to be considered. On the other hand 1t is asserted, that the public have for a very long period of years been ac- customed to pass and repass over said land. It may possibly be con tended that there was an earlier ded- ication than the one above referred to and an earlier acceptance by the public.
 In order to pass upon the disputed questions of fact. I would have to at tempt to constitute myself a court for the purpose. The impossibility of this IS. of course, apparent. All that can do is to lay before you a sum- mary of what is disclosed by said land and municipal records and ad- wise you that there was plainly a ded- ication of the strip in question for highway purpose.
 tion on the part of any of the said municipalities, whether the history of said land would show that it has been so used by the public as to constitute it public highway must be left to the determination of the courts.
 Respectfully submitted.
 THOMAS M. PULLMAN,
 City Attorney.
 Upon motion the foregoing report was referred to the Committee on Streets and Sidewalks, with instruc- tionS to report at this meeting.
 Upon motion the committee was also instructed to report upon the petition of the Conn. Go. presented at this meeting.
 Upon motion a recess of ten min- utes was taken to allow the commit tee an opportunity to report.
 Upon reconvening. the Committee on Streets and Sidewalks reported upon the petition of the Miamogue Yacht club ct al. for the extension of Seaview avenue scutherly and recom- mended for adoption the following resolution:
 Resolved. That the petitioners be given leave to withdraw.
 Adopted.
 
 upon the petitions of the N Y N H. & H. R. R. Go. for permission to re- locate it's tracks on sundry streets and to construct new special work and reconstruct special work at sundry curves in accordance with maps and plans presented and recommended for adoption the following resolution:
 Resolved, That the Clerk be and he hereby is directed to notify the persons in interest to appear before this Common Council at the council room, City Hall. on the 9th day of August, 1909, at 500 in the evening and be heard in relation to the following petitions of the N. Y, N. H. & H. R R. Co.,:
 To relocate it's tracks in Main street from Atlantic street to Seaside park 10 foot centers;
 To relocate its single track near Seaside park substantially in center of South Main street;
 To relocate it's tracks in Fairfield avenue from Main street to Water street on 10 foot centers;
 To relocate it's tracks on 10 foot cen ters in Main street, from northely line on East Washington avenue to a point about 100 feet south of the southerly line of Gilbert street and in State