The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1914-01-21
TOWN AND COUNTY
AT WAR OVER REALTY
Manchester Claims Equity in Bennington
County Courthouse Property in
Manchester.

Armstrong, administrator of the estate
lof Reuben A. Cove and Ellen Cove, a
motion for an appeal and for resub.
mission of the matter to special mas
ter in chancery. Arguments We're also
begun in the Chittenden county case OF
state VS.. Louis Alpert, for receiving
stolen goods.
The most important case before the
court yesterday was that of the county
of Bennington VS.. the town of Man
leicester and village of Manchester. The
icounty claims to own the land on which
the courthouse stands in Manchester,
declaring that it came into possession
of the same in 1887 and that no papers
have ever been made out transferring
the ownership of the same to the town
Iof Manchester: That courthouse was
later erected on the land, and that In
1908 the town of Manchester moved its
town clerks Office into a room in said
courthouse and refused to give up pos
session.
The defendant town of Manchester de-
nies that the county owns the land and
building, that it has any title to it and
alleges that some part of the building
has always been used by the town for
meetings, etc. The town also AYERS that
it has right to use the building for
town purposes and adds that the court
house was built from funds raised by
private contributions of the people of
Manchester, with the understanding
that they were to have the use OF 1T
for town purposes. The village of Man
chester requested to enter as a party de-
fendant and was permitted to do 80.
The orator submits:
/ The case finds facts that necessarily
imply that there must have been ded-
ication of the land on which the build
ings stood to the purposes of county
buildings and county courthouse, when
the building was originally located there.
Lands may be dedicated to any quasi
public use without deed, and such dedi-
cation is effective and cannot be revoked,
| regardless of the length Of time that
premises may have been used.
The orator respectfully submits that
an examination of this case shows a
recognition by the law making power OF
the ownership of the county, but even II
this be not so held, the town of Man
chester must necessarily have known
that the orator was spending its money,
levied by public taxation in erecting and
maintaining county buildings, and i'm
proving and enlarging the same, and
have aequiesced in such course for
nearly 100 years, no court can now per-
NIT the town to assert an adverse right
to the property.
The defendant submits that the decree
is not warranted by the facts, that it
has in effect taken the title OF the town
and transferred it to the county and
that the town cannot be deprived of its
title save by some legally sufficient
transfer.
The only ways this could happen are
by prescriptive right, presumption of a
grant, or dedication. Upon the facts no
prescriptive right can be claimed against
the town because during all the years
the county has occupied the building for
court purposes, the town has occupied it
for town purposes. The evidence is
against the presumption of a grant be-
cause the town has continued to use it |
for town meetings since lS42 and did
in 1886 The use made of the court
building has always been public use
generally, so if dedication had been
found, it would have been dedication
to the public generally, that is joint !
use by the county, town, village and
public.
Public Service Commission Case.
The Rutland county case of the Colo |
NAL Power & Light company VS.. George |
p Creaser, administrator and others, is |
an appeal from the report and award of |
the public service commission dated at |
Brattleboro, Aug. Z. The petitioner |
prayed for an order that it be given the
right to cross certain lands Of the petit
tionees and for an order of notice for |
hearing, and for judgment, and for all |
necessary orders requisite and proper in
the premises.
The petionees claim the report and /
award are invalid because the. determi-
ma ation is made by different persons
from those who heard the case, that the
petitioner is not corporation entitled |
to the operation of the statute in its be-
half, that the provisions of section l3 of
No. lI6 of the acts of 1908 do not legal
ly authorize the public service commits
sion to the lands for the benefit of pub
lie service corporations and that the
public service commission having juris-
diction over public service corporations
to the extent provided by statute, is not
body competent to pass upon the ques
ton of necessity and damages in taking
land for public service corporations.
The petitioner contends that no ques
tion of law is raised by the record of this
case; that if any such question is argued
or attempted to be argued in this court, 4
it will be question not raised below,
and not in any manner tried below. As
a matter of fact, no contention whatever
was made by any of the appellants in
the hearing before the public service
as to any matter of dam
ages, and the amount of damages.
The jurisdiction of the commission
was not challenged, the propriety and
legality of the proceeding was not
brought into question, and each of the
appellants was perfectly content to al
low the petitioner to extend its line
across his land, providing he should re-
,eive a sufficient award for damages.