Case Name: Commonwealth versus The Inhabitants of Newbury
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1823-10
Citations: 2 Pick. 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth versus The Inhabitants of Newbury.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 55–68

Head Matter:
Commonwealth versus The Inhabitants of Newbury.
In an indictment for not repairing a highway it is not necessary to set out the termini.
A user of a way for 27 years by the inhabitants of the town where it lies, and of the adjacent towns, was held not sufficient to establish it as a town way on the presumption of an ancient laying out or grant.
Where the user is by the inhabitants of other towns, as well as of the one where the way lies, the way should be described as a public way, and not as a private town way. d
Whether a town way, as such, can be established, except in the mode prescribed by the statutes, quaere.
The principle of dedication seems to be inapplicable to such a way.
This was an indictment for a nuisance, in which it was alleged, that there was a certain private way for the use of the town of Newhury, leading from Low street, near Tappan’s lane, through the Fourth General pasture in Newbury, to Turkey hill in Newbury, and that this way was in want of repairs and encumbered with a gate and fence at each end of it, so that the inhabitants of the town with their horses, cans and carriages could not pass &c. without great danger &c.
The cause was tried upon the general issue, before Putnam J., at the sittings after October term, 1822.
On the part of the commonwealth, Enoch Tappan testified that he remembered the way for fifty years ; that it was called “ The town way in the Fourth General pasture ” ; that it had been repaired by the town 45 years ago, and since, until 1821 ; that it was fenced on the south side the whole distance, nearly on the line, but in one place the fence was a little off from the line ; and that at the westerly part the way wanted repairing. On cross examination, he said that 27 years ago the entrance from Low street was altered from its former place ; that it passed over his land and he stopped it up, supposing he had a right to do so ; that the overseers of the common pasture put up the gate at the entrance where it now is; that the gate used to be kept up about four months in the year; that 23 years ago the way was altered by the proprietors of the pasture, so as to run straight; that it was fenced on the south side 27 years ago; that both sides are fenced out at the westerly end, and that it leads to Turkey hill lane; that there had been a great deal of travelling on this way by the inhabitants of Newbury and Newburyport, especially with carts ; that there had been a gate at the west end as long as he could remember ; that the travelled path on the easterly part of the way had been for 23 years according to certain straight lines on a plan which was produced ; that there was, and is, a drift way to the pasture, 1o the eastward of this way, and that there are several other drift ways leading into this common pasture.
Nathan Rogers testified that he was 74 years old ; that he had An own this way as long as he could remember; that ha had worked on it himself under a surveyor, and had heard his father say that he had worked on it also ; that he used this way to go to market, from the time that he was 21 until he was 40 years of age ; that in summer he used to shut the gates when they were up, and follow the path, and in winter he went where the snow would permit.
Stephen Tappan testified that he had known this way for 60 years, and that his father used to say the town owned it ; that he worked on it under a surveyor 50 years ago ; and that there are a number of bridges on it.
Jacob Merrill testified that his father was a surveyor in 1760 and worked on this way; and that it had been used 27 years according to the straight lines, as far as the upper bridge.
The records of the “ Proprietors of the Common Pasture ” allotting lands to individuals and bounding the lots by this way, were produced. Under the date of 1725 one lot was described as bounded northerly by “ a four rod highway,” and another lot as bounded southerly by ££ a highway.”
On the part of the defendants, Josiah Little testified that the gate on this way to Turkey hill had been there more than 40 years ; that there were various other paths across the pasture ; that the proprietors never made any objection against people’s traveling where they pleased in the pasture ; that he was a surveyor of highways in 1770, and had been a surveyor for 10 or 15 years, and did not remember having any direction to work on this way, and he never did any work upon it; that t was called, as were the other ways, ££ a way through the pasture ” ; and that it was of use to a few individuals, and not of general use to the town.
Joshua Little testified that he had been a surveyor for 15 years from 1773 ; that he was never directed to work on this way; that the common talk was, that it was a drift way ; that he always passed from Turkey hill to Newburyport over this way and through gates.
The jury xvere directed to find a verdict for the commonwealth, which xvas to be subject to the opinion of the Court.
Gerrish, for the defendants.
A town way can be laid out only in the mode prescribed by St. 1786, c. 67, and can be proveo by record only, and not by usage. The town cannot take notice of a way xvhich is not recorded. They cannot discontinue it, if they should think it ought to be discontinued. If this way had been open 60 years, it might have been a highxvay, but not a town way. But this is not even a highway. The public, to acquire a right by prescription, should show an adverse uninterrupted usage for a length of time, certainly not less than 40 years ; for an individual is not allowed to claim against the public by reason of a.usage for a shorter period. But here the proprietors of the pasture have kept up gates in summer from the earliest times. They had no objection to people’s going over the pasture in winter. A dedication cannot be presumed, for the gates have been notice to the public, that between April and October the public should not pass over the land. Rugby Charity v. Merryweather, 11 East, 376, note ; Woodyer v. Hadden, 5 Taunt. 126 ; Roberts v. Karr, 1 Campb. 262, note b; Lethbridge v. Winter, ibid. Whenever the proprietors have thought proper, they have changed the place of the gates. The way is not set forth in the indictment with sufficient certainty. A surveyor would not be able by the description to find the road intended. The drift way, which we suppose is the way intended, is called a drift way in the old records of the proprietors, and it was a way for the use of tne proprietors.
Pickering and Mosely for the commonwealth.
The statute provides, that when a town shall lay out a town way, they shall do it in a particular manner, whereby it will become a matter of record, but the statute does not prohibit them from acquiring a right of way in any other manner ; and this way existed too before the passage of the statute. A town may acquire a way by a grant, as well as an individual, and if they can take by a grant, they may by a user, from which a grant may be presumed. It was said that the town cannot discontinue this way, because it is not recorded. That must depend on the question, whether it is a town way or not. The distinction made between a highway and a town way is rather a distinction in words than in reality, for in either case the town would be bound to keep the way in repair. It is said that an uninterrupted adverse possession for a certain period ought to be shown ; but the question here is not between the owner of land and the grantee of a way, but be tween the commonwealth and the town. This is an answer to most of the cases cited. The parol evidence however shows that this way has been used as a town way for 60 years, and the same way is referred to in the records of the proprietors nearly a century ago. It is said 'however that 27 years ago one of the termini was changed. But the town, by using the way and by sending their surveyors to repair it since that time, have adopted the alteration. We suppose it to be sufficient for the government, to show that the way, in its present direction, has been used by the town of New-bury and the adjacent towns for 20 years. Rugby Charity v. Merryweather, 11 East, 375, note ; Rex v. Lloyd, 1 Campb. 260 ; Rex v. Barr, 4 Campb. 16 ; Lade v. Shepherd, 2 Str. 1004. Here there has been a user for 27 years. If this is insufficient, then the non-user of the ancient part for that time is insufficient to release the town from their obligation to repair the way in its ancient course ; they are therefore in a dilemma. It is not necessary in an indictment to set out the termini of a public way. Rouse v. Bardin, 1 H. Bl. 351. This way is described with sufficient certainty to enable a jury or a surveyor to find it. The circumstance of there being gates at each end of the way is no ground of presumption against the right of the town, for by St. 1786, c. 81, § 5, gates may be allowed.
Cummins, in reply. It is said on behalf of the government, that it is immaterial what may be the rights of the proprietors of the land, because here the question is between the commonwealth and the town. But it is very material ; for if the town have not a right, as against the proprietors, a surveyor may be liable as a trespasser for repairing the way. A town cannot take a private way by grant, so as that the corporation can bind all its members to contribute to keep the way in repair. But if it could, there is no evidence of a grant in this case. The town have done nothing adverse to the proprietors. Any repairs made by the town were beneficial to the proprietors. And if any user could make this a town way, it should have been by the innabitants of Newbury exclusively.
At the following term in April, Putnam J. read the opinjQn a major;ty 0f tf,e Court (in which he did not concur) as drawn up by
Rex v. Edmonton 2 Moody & Malk. 24.
But there were previous statutes containing similar provisions ; if, however, the parol evidence, taken in connexion with the proprietors’ records, showed a town way existing for a century, as was contended on the part oí the commonwealth, then this argument would apply, for the statute (1 Geo. 2, c. 2) which first required town ways laid out by the selectmen to be recorded was passed in 1727. Reporter.
See Winkoop v. Burger, 12 Johns. R. 222.

Opinion:
Parker C. J.
It seems not to be necessary, in an indictment for not repairing a highway, to set out the termini a quo and ad quern of the way, though it is certainly better to be thus particular, and is more consistent with the general course of criminal proceedings, which require certainty whenever it is attainable ; that it is not necessary, however, is laid down in 3 Chitty's Cr. L. 570 ; Rouse v. Bardin, 1 H. Bl. 351. [See also Alban v. Brounsall, Yelv. (Metcalf's ed.) note 1.] There is therefore no sufficient objection to the indictment.
But we think it has not been proved by the government, that there is such a way in legal existence, as is described in the indictment, viz. leading from Low street, near Tap-pan's lane, to Turkey hill. It is described as a private way . for the use of the inhabitants of the town of Newbury. If there is any way at all there, it is rather a public than a private way, and should have been described as such. But no way is proved by record, nor is there any proof that the way has existed, or been used, as it now is, for any term of time which will establish it on the presumption of an ancient laying out or grant by the proprietors of the land. Paths across the pasture have undoubtedly been used for fifty or sixty years, probably much longer, but no fixed and determinate way is proved ; the witnesses on the part of the government testifying that, less than thirty years ago, the entrance from Low street has been changed by the proprietors of the land adjoining. There is nothing in the case from which it can be inferred that a town way was ever established here, except that it was sometimes called the town way in ancient times ; but by the records referred to it is called a highway, which, in common language, as well as in statutes, means a public way leading' from town to town or place to place, in contradistinction to private ways for the use of the inhabitants of a particular town. Nor does the fact that it has been from time to time put under the care of the surveyors of Newbury and repaired at the expense of the town, prove it to be such a way as is described, for the same duty would have fallen upon the town had it been a public highway. Neither has the use of this way been limited to the inhabitants of Newbury, for the inhabitants of other towns used it as they had r-' ed ; so that all inference from the actual use of it will toid to the establishment of it as a public, rather than as a private way. Indeed it is difficult to conceive how a town way, merely as such, can be established in any other manner than by laying out for that particular use by the selectmen of the town, by virtue of the statute respecting highways, (1786, c. 67,) unless it should appear that some particular way had been immemorially used by the inhabitants of the town exclusively ; a circumstance which can rarely occur. It seems to be intended by the legislature, that no such ways shall acquire the character of private town ways, except in the form therein provided, and especially by the express allowance of the inhabitants in regular meeting assembled. And we do not see how the principle of dedication to the public can be applied to a private way ; for the very evidence which would tend to show a dedication, would disprove it as a private way. Besides, in this case a dedication is negatived by the fact, that gates were established and kept up by the proprietors of the land ; which is a sufficient indication, that although they were willing people should pass over their pasture, they did not mean to give the land over which the way passed, or surrender their right of discontinuing the use. The English doctrine of dedication is very well settled- There must be a manifest intention to accommodate the public through a man's land, before he shall be held by implication to have given it; so that even when at the first opening of such way a post only had been put up, which had been soon knocked down and remained down twelve years, and the passage had been uninterrupted all that time, it was determined that the owner might maintain trespass against those who used it as a way, and for that purpose pulled down a gate recently erected. 1 Campb. 262, note.
We are satisfied that there is no such way as is described in the indictment, and therefore that the defendants must be discharged. If the passage is wanted for the public, or by the inhabitants of Newbury as a private way, the respective authorities who have charge of the subject of ways will doubtless do what duty requires of them in this regard.
Rex v. Weonards, 6 Car. & Payne, 582. But if the termini are stated they must be proved, ibid.
Commonwealth v. Low. 3 Pick. 408. See also Todd v. Rome, 2 Greenl. 55, Estes v. Troy, 5 Greenl. 368; Rowell v. Montville, 4 Greenl. 470; Commonwealth v. Charlestown, 1 Pick. 188; Ward v. Folly, 2 Southard, 482; Galatian v. Gardner, 7 Johns. R. 106.
Commonwealth v. Lote, 3 Pick. 408.
See Wood v. Veal, 5 Barn. & Ald. 454; Jarvis v. Dean, 3 Bingh. 447