PARK 
AND 
CEMETERY 
294 
persons frequenting such walks and 
pleasure grounds.” In reaching this 
conclusion opinions were expressed 
by the justices of the court, Janies, 
L. J., after agreeing with the , vice 
chancellor that the corporation had no 
authoritjf to use any land of the park 
as the site of a town hall, saying with 
reference to the erection of the other 
buildings involved: “The original 
park was appropriated as ‘a place of 
recreation,’ and, according to the act 
under which the land now in question 
was acquired, it must be used ‘as pub- 
lic walks or pleasure grounds.’ These 
words are not to be construed too 
narrowly. It is admitted by the in- 
formation that some buildings are al- 
lowable, and the prayer is, as it seems 
to me, quite correct. The corpora- 
tion is in the position of a trustee, and 
the ciuestion is whether in building a 
museum and library, it is improperly 
executing a trust. The primary ob- 
ject of the trust is to provide a place 
of enjoyment and recreation. Noth- 
ing is improper which conduces to 
that object, and we ought not to quar- 
rel with anything which the corpora- 
tion, in a reasonable exercise of their 
discretion, consider conducive to it. 
It is admitted that the erection of a 
conservatory is allowable, and it is an 
erection which you would expect, as 
a matter of course, to find in first- 
rate pleasure grounds. The erection 
of a free museum containing botanical 
.specimens and other curiosities ap- 
pears also to be unobjectionable. A 
library into which people may turn if 
the weather becomes unfavorable also 
seems allowable if bona fide intended 
for the use of persons frequenting the 
grounds, as it will tend to promote the 
convenient use of the grounds. I 
think, therefore, that the e.xception in 
the order ought to be extended, so 
that the erection of a free library may 
not be prohibited.” Justice Mellish, 
concurring, said: “I am of opinion, 
therefore, that no part of it can be 
used as the site of a town hall and of- 
fices. Can, then, any part of it be 
ai^plied.as a site for a museum, li- 
brary, and conservatory? If the cor- 
porations were to acquire land for 
those purposes only, I think that such 
a purchase would not be within the 
act; but public walks and pleasure 
grounds having been laid out on a 
piece of land containing 2o acres, it is 
proposed to apply a quarter of an 
acre for the erection of those build- 
ings. The question then arises 
^^^hether this application of a small 
portion o.f the ground is not reason- 
ably incidental to the main object, and 
whether it will not improve the 
grounds in their character of public 
walks and pleasure grounds. I am of 
opinion that it will, for it will increase 
the enjoyment of persons who go to 
walk there, and may induce more per- 
sons to frequent the grounds. 1 think 
that we ought not to put a narrow 
and strict construction upon the 
words, but that we ought to see 
whether the trustees, in what they are 
proposing to do, are bona fide carry- 
ing out the' ol^Ject of the trust.” And 
Justice Baggallay expressed himself 
to the same effect: .“The purposes 
of the section are that the land should 
be used for public walks and pleasure 
grounds, and I should much regret to 
be obliged to hold that applying a 
small portion of it for a museum, li- 
brary, and conservatory, was incon- 
sistent with this purpose. I cannot 
conceive anything more likelj" to con- 
duce to the enjoyment of the walks 
and pleasure grounds than the hav- 
ing these erections attached to them, 
and I agree with the Lord Justices 
that the order should be varied to the 
extent mentioned.” 
It is insistetl, however, by respond- 
ent that if this rule, supported by uni- 
versal custom, and announced in the 
case just cited, obtains, it can only ap- 
ply when but a small portion of a 
public park is taken, and not when 
the site to be used is so large as to 
result "practically in th'e’^de'struction of 
the park as a pleasure ground for the 
recreation and enjoyment of the pub- 
lic. This argument concedes the gen- 
eral right of the municipality to take 
a part of the park for buildings 
erected in aid of the enjoyment of the 
park by the public, and only insists 
that it has its limitations. But con- 
ceding the limitation, w'e have noth- 
ing to do with its application here. It 
IS not apparent that the erection of 
this library will tend to the destruc- 
tion of the park at all. The site for a 
library is relatively but a small por- 
tion of it, and, as we have seen, the 
erection of such a building therein is 
in aid of the pujilic enjoyment of the 
entire park. .Aside from this, how- 
ever, no issue on this pojnt was made 
in the court below, the contention of 
plaintiff' there being that, as the park 
in question, was dedicated to the use 
of the public as a pleasure ground, 
the city had no authority whatever to 
devote a portion, of it, large or small, 
to a public library. No point was 
made as to any limitatiop on the right 
of a city by reason of the size of a 
site proposed to be taken in a public 
park for a library, but the right to do 
sb was denied under any circum- 
stances. 
There is nothing further to be saidi^ 
in this matter. Under the view we' 
entertain on the subject, the city of 
Los Angeles has a right, notwith- 
standing it be conceded that Central 
Park was dedicated for the benefit 
and enjoyment of the public, to build- 
a public library on it, and the court 
was in error in granting a decree to 
plaintiff enjoining it, and its officers- 
from doing so. This view, of course, 
necessitates a reversal of the judg- 
ment. While the municipality has- 
thc right to establish upon the public 
park a public librarj' it cannot devote 
any of the rooms therein to admin- 
istration purposes-. It appears from 
the evidence set forth in the bill of ex- 
ceptions accompanying this appeal 
that It is the purpose of the city to 
provide rooms therein as a meeting, 
place for the board of library directors 
of such city, and that application has 
been made to such board of directors 
to provide rooms therein for the 
l)oard of education. As far as the 
board of directors is concerned, this 
would seem permissible on account of 
their control of the library. But as 
to the board of education this cannot 
be done. The library building can be 
uscd far strictly library purposes 
only, 'and cannot be devoted to the 
establishment of municipal offices- 
therein or used for municipal admin- 
istration purposes other than as in- 
dicated relative to the board of li- 
brary directors. If any part of such 
building could be used for one admin- 
istration purpose, it might gradually 
he devoted to another. If one mu- 
nicipal board or municipal officer of 
the cit}" having no direct relation to 
the librai'}' can be located therein, so 
may another, and so the building 
which the city has a right to erect as 
a library building solely in aid of the 
public enjoyment of the park may be 
gradually invaded for administration 
purposes and ultimately devoted to 
.those purposes. Upon a new trial it 
shall be the duty of the trial court 
under the views we have suggested 
to ascertain whether the city of Los 
.Angeles proposes to use the library 
to be erected for any municipal pur- 
pose at all, except as to a meeting 
room for said board of library direc- 
tors, and. if so, to enjoin such use: the 
right of the city to erect the proposed 
library on the public park to be lim- 
ited to its use solely for public library 
purposes. The judgment was there- 
fore reversed and the cause remanded 
for a new trial. 
