
    *Town of Lebanon v. The Commissioners of Warren County.
    An act of dedication, by the record of a town plat, of lots as “public ground” ' is presumed, in the absence of ^explanatory evidence, to be for a public square for the use of the town.
    Ueither a subsequent deed by the proprietors, nor their posterior declarations can affect the right.
    The mere erection of a court house on a public square, and its occupation as ■ such, is consistent with the use of the town; and when such buildings are • abandoned, the town may reclaim its rights.
    Bill in Chancery. From Warren. Lebanon was laid out and a plat surveyed in September, 1802, the site then being in Hamilton county. The plat was acknowledged and recorded in October, 1803, after the county of Warren was created, including the town. Four lots (those now in controversy) were designated on the plat, “public ■ ground,” and as such are claimed to have vested in the county for the use of the town. In 1805, Lebanon was established the seat of justice of Warren county. In 1806, the commissioners of Warren county with consent of the town, erected a court house on one of the said lots, and afterwards a jail on another, which from thence were used by the county, and by the people of the town in public meetings, until 1834, when a new court house and jail having been erected in another - part of the town, the courts, etc., were removed there. About this time, the county commissioners proposed to lease the site of the old «court house for twenty years, to the highest bidder. The town claiming the exclusive use, bid in and took a lease, reserving the right to litigate the title of the county to “ the public ground.” The commis-' sioners again proposing to let other parts of said ground on long lease, this suit is brought to restrain their proceeding, to secure the town in the free use of the ground, and to quiet their right as against the ■claims of the donors. The proprietors executed deeds to the commissioners in 1809. The facts are not controverted.
    A. H. Dunlevt and T. Corwin, for plaintiff,
    cited 7 Ohio, 217; 6 Ohio. 304.
    G. J. Smith and-J. Probasco, for defendants,
    cited 1 Ch. St. 291, 353; 3 Ch. St. 2099, 2232; 3 O. L. 255 ; 5 Ohio, 204 : 7 Ohio, 88 ; 6 Pet. 507 ; 8 Ohio, 298, and relied upon the occupancy, and the deed to the county.
   By the Court,

Lane, O. J.

The object of the bill is to prevent the ■commissioners of the county from selling or leasing certain lots in ^Lebanon, claimed to have been dedicated to the town, by its original proprietors, as a public square, and to secure them to their public use.

The town" of Lebanon was laid out by Corwin, Hathaway, and Hurin, in 1802, but the record of the plat was not made until 1803. •On the plat the lots in question are designated as “ public ground.” The registration of the plat, by the operation of the statute of 1800, 2 Ch. St. 291, vests the fee of the land set apart for public uses in the ■ county, to hold upon the uses intended by the donor.

The commissioners claim to hold the lots free from the trust as the property of the county, because they were conveyed to them by a deed of the proprietors in 1809, and because they have been occupied by the county ever since, in the erection and use of a court house and jail, and because, as they say, the lots were originally designed for this purpose.

The dedicating act in- this ease, was the registry of the town plat in 1803. The use was limited and took effect then ; and a subsequent conveyance of the donors affects neither the trust nor the title. The words expressed in the act of dedication were “public ground;.” a phrase which, in reference to a lot in a town, of shape, dimensions, ,and position suitable for this purpose, naturally, though not neces■sarily, means a public square. 6 Ohio, 298; 7 Ohio, 221. Where the words of dedication are ambiguous, the cotemporaneous acts and declarations of the donors, and usage, may be adverted to, to explain them. 6 Ohio, 298; 7 Ohio, 88, 221. The testimony taken in this case, does not show with any certainty, that these words ought to bear a different interpretation. The subscriptions for the erection of a court house, made in 1805, but not paid until 1809, and the erection •of the court house in that year, are probably too long after the grant to be employed to explain its meaning. The actual occupation of the •lots by a court house and jail, is not inconsistent with the use of the property in the town; for the location of a court house and jail on a public square, transfers no property, but is an easement only, and the town may reclaim its rights, when the county occupation shall cease.

Remanded to the county for final decree, with leave to either party "to take further proof.  