The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-05-14
ParkiMg Meters VS. AbMtterS Supreme Court Decision of 1885 Indicates New Devices Would Require Consent of Property
 Owners to Their Installation
 Along Sidewalks.
Along Sidewalks.
HARTFORD COURANT

connection with any hotel, with the approval of the owner or lessee and to limit the use of such stand to the cabs of Q company desig- mated by him. A case brought tc the City Court of New Haven ques- toned the constitutionality of this act and the court sustained the demurrer of the defendant, one Muolo, who, with the approval of the Hotel Taft, occupied Q tax stand the use of which had been limited by by the police commissioners to two cab coinpanied that had been desig- mated by the owner of the hotel.
 This decision was appealed, and the Supreme Court of Errors found that the police commissioners were acting within their proper jurisdic- ton in restricting the use of the stand to the two companies which had been named by the hotel own CT to receive the privilege, notwith- standing tho fact that Muolo had subsequently, received Q similar per- mission from the hotel owner. The court took the view that because of the large number of persons who patronize hotels and because of the continual succession of vehicles com ing to and going from them, 1t was in the public interest to limit and control vehicles standing in front of Q hotel. Tn other words, tho police commissioners had simply exercised their ordinary police power. The lower court had apparently assumed that since the hotel owner had been willing to let Muolo also use the stand, Muolo could not be de- prived of the privilege by the com- missioners.
 In It's possible relation to the parking meter question this opinion of the Supreme Court of Errors seems to have aT1 important bear. ing. Under the law the court said that the owner of land abutting upon Q Highway is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary to own the fl,e Gf the land to tho center of the highway. The highway being but an easement for public travel, the abutter retains all rights in the land not incompatible witt such easement. Any person making a use of 1t beyond the scope of that easement commits Q wrong against the owner of the fec, unless he act under legislative authority either ir the furtherancc of Q public use ol under Q proper exercise by the statt of it's police power.
 Under this decision an abuttel could seemingly prevent long-con' tinued parking of any vehicle fl front of his premises, since it woult constitute the use of land he owned in fee to the center of the highway If he could do that, could not hi objection similarly prevent the in stallation of parking meters, even i the city should assume to grant th' privilege?
 The act of the Legislature relat ing to taxi stands recognized thu common law right of the abutter t control the use of land in front o his property and his right to proven it's use, except in the exercise o the public easement, by anyone els unless with his permission. Woult the court construe the installation of a parking meter as @ proper ex ercise of the public easement? Il the absence of an act of the Legis lature giving the city police powe in the matter it would seem that ii every case the parking meter com pany would first have to obtain tn consent of the abutter before mak ing the installation. It is con ceivable that many abutters woul' withhold their consent, regarding the parking meter as an infringe ment upon their rights.