The weekly Iberian. (New Iberia, La.) 1894-1946, 1910-08-13

" oopo"S JuDu VII I'll
9 North, and that there has been n
4 transfer Of any right of way G
q street by him to the city along til
4 northern line of his property 0
4 the East side Of upper Main st.
4 running East towards Bayo
4 Teche, either by sale, donation o
4 dedication, or otherwise.
. Your mayor has requested me t.
j explain to you the reasons upol
Z which | have based my opinion
2 and | will now briefly state then
4 az follows:
q Mrs. Hauser acquired the prop
erty bounded by Darby Oh thu
North. She has made no sale OI
any property bounded by the st
4 called North Street except tn /,
strip GG feet wide, which she sold
to the city to effect \ continuation
Of Main Street.
The act of sale explains its oh
Ject and the intent Of the parties
as being to continue Main Stree.
up t" that point. No mention is
made Of North Street except in
the recital of the boundaries, IT
being stated that the strip convey.
ed TO the city was bounded North
by North Street.
This does not prove an intention
on the part of Mrs. lIauser to dedi
cate this strip of land, claimed on
North Street, TO public use. Dedi
cation to public use need not be
by formal act, 1t may be done in
any manner, but, in order to show
dedication by the owner of his
property to public use, the proof
must be made Of two essential
facts; one is the fact that the own.
er intended to dedicate the prop.
erty to public use, the other IS the
fact that the city accepted the
dedication. The intention of the
owner to dedicate his land can
not he presumed; it must be prov
ed ny evidence of words, acts and
deeds, which so clearly indicate
the intention Of the owner to dedi-
cate as to admit of no other rea-
sonable hypothesis. Any lawyer
Will tell You that it is a general
proposition of law that when the
owner sells lots bounded by \
street that this is an evidence of
an intent to dedicate to public use
that space upon which the lot sold
a5uts; bnt any well Informed law
Yer will also tell you that the
mere reference to a street as ono
OF the boundaries for the purpose
Of showing location Is no proof az
an intention on the part OF the
owner TO dedicate his property to
public use. 1t can at most be
taken as q very weak and rebutta-
Die presumption of fact; of no
weight Of value IN itself unless
coupled with other and more sig.
niicant facts show wing an intention
% dedicate the properly to public
Use.
In this matter the reference to
North Street a. a boundary line OF
he strip sold to the city does not
ven amount TO a presumtion of
n intent on the part of the owner
Q dedicate land to the city for
'orth Street, but coupled with
he absence of any other lndica
ion Of such intent. and, on the
with evidence of an ex
'tence Of contrary intent the re.
ltal OF the act is not only of no
alue as evidence, but opens the
Dor to proof which would mega.
We the idea of an intent on the
art OF the owner to dedicate the
nd to public use. :
Now. If you see fit to ignore the
Union of the city attorney that
your affair, and, if litigation re.
Its, | am ready to represent the
fy and will prosecute any suit
at you see fit to institute, or de
nd any that may be brought
ainst the city, and will do the
st | can to guard the c,ty's legal
hts. | will act alone in the
utter or in accord with any other
torney whose services you may -
gage to assist me therein. II