The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1914-01-24
MANCHESTER COURT HOUSE
Fight over Its Ownership is il
Supreme Court

Montpelier, Jan. 2l.-ln the Su
.preme court yesterday arguments
were heard in the Bennington coun
ty case of the County Of Bennington
VS. the Town of Manchester.
The case of the County of Bennins
ton VS. the Town of Manchester ant
the Village OF Manchester is an APP
peal from a decree of Chancellor FISH
made upon finding of fact upon ora
testimony heard by nim The defen
dants also take exception to some OF
the findings.
On May DIST, 1912, the County OF
| Bennington bought bill of com
plant against the Town OF Manches-
ter, alleging the county is the owner
of certain real estate in the Town OF
Manchester, having come into psses-
| sion in 1887; that thereafter a court
house was erected and the county
has been in continuous possession
| ever since; but no conveyance of the
premises was recorded nor any deed
OF the same to the orator ayerred
| that the lands were given to or pur-
chased by said town about the year
| 1887 and that il has ever since been
held and possessed by the county un-
de'.a claim of title; and that the
county had a prescriptive right and
NffIa IN cold land and
The county further AYERS that in
1908 the town of Manchester moved
its clerks Office into room in said
county courthouse, that the county
demanded possession of the room
and the town refused this, claiming
70 hold it by some right or title.
The defendant town of Manchester
fled its answer denying the county
possessed and owned said land and
buildings claims no courthouse or
jail was erected on said land until
about 1922; denies that the county
was to other expense than the volun-
tary subscription OF the towns com
posing It, denies that the orator ever
acquired any title to it or has been
in continuous possession and AYERS
that same has been used at some
time in each year since the erection
cf the court house by the town OF
Manchester for holding town meet
ings and other public meetings. etc
The defendant further admits that
it makes claim to the right to &C.
cupy the courthouse and the vari-
Gus rooms therein for town purpos
es. aud AYERS chat the courthouse
was raised by private contributions OF
the inhabitants of Manchester and
upon the express agreement and IN
Outstanding that the town should
have the right to occupy and use
the same for town purposes. etc. The
village OF Manchester requested to en-
ter rs a party defendant and was per
mitted to do so.
The attorneys who briefed the case
were T. w. Moloney and E. c. Ben
nett for the county and NJ G. Weber
for the defendants. T. w Moloney
appear tU III iiit 1puutN vi bEHiilikE-
ton. The orator submits:
The case finds facts that necessar-
lily imply that there must have been
a dedication of the land on which
the buildings stood to the purposes
CT county buildings and county court
house. when the building was origin
ally located there Lands may be de
diCated to any quasi public use with
out deed, and such dedication is ef-
iective and cannot be revoked. re-
ga-dless CT the Length of time that
promises may have been used.
The orator respectfully submits
that an examination of this case
shows recognition by the law-mak-
ing power of the ownership of the
county, but even If this be not so
held. the town of Manchester must
necessarily have known that the ora
tor was spending its money, levied |
by public taxation in erecting and |
county buildings. and |
improving and cnlarging the same,
and have acquiesced in such course |
fer nearly 100 years. no court can
now permit the town to asser, an ad. |
verse right TO the property.
The defendant submits that the de.
cree is not warranted by the facts.
the It has in effect taken the pro-
perry OF the town without due pro
cess of law; for 1t has taken the
title of the town and transferred it TO |
the county and that the town cannot
be deprived OF its title save by scme
legally sufficient transfer.
The only. ways this could happen
are by prescriptive right presump-
ion Of a grant. or dedication. Upon
he facts no prescriptice right can be
,laimed against The town because |
Turing all the years the county has
the building fer court pur-
,oses. the town has occupied il for
own purposes. The evidence is
sainst the presumption OF grant
because the town has continued to
lse IL for town meetings since 1912 |
md did in 1885. The use made OF the
curt building has always been a pub
ic use generally. so If a dedication
lad been found. il would have been
dedication TO the public generally. J