That the owner of land continues to pay taxes thereon,52 or that he makes a conveyance of the land,53 may tend to rebut any inference that he has dedicated it to public use. That he has maintained a gate or bars across the land, thus interfering more or less with any public user thereof, is evidence in rebuttal of any rights in the public,54 though not conclusive in this regard.55

51. See Eldridge v. Collins, 75 Neb. 65, 105 N. W. 1085; Harris v. Commonwealth, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 833; Mckenzie v. Gilmore - (Cal.) -, 33 Pac. 262: State v. Birmingham, 74 Iowa, 411, 38 N. W. 121; Raymond v. Wichita, 70 Kan. 523, 79 Pac. 323; Rex v. Thomas, 7 El. & Bl. 399.

52. Mansur v. State, 60 Ind. 357; City of Topeka v. Cowee, 48 Kan. 345, 29 Pac. 560; Case v. Favier, 12 Minn. 89 (Gil. 48); Bauman v. Boeckeler, 119 Mo. 189, 24 S. W. 207; Eugene v. Lowell, 72 Ore. 237, 143 Pac. 903. But payment of taxes is but slight evidence against a dedication. See Rhodes v. Town of Brightwood, 145 Ind. 21, 43 N. E. 942; Getchell v. Benedict, 57 Iowa, 121, 10 N. W. 321; San Leandro v. Le Breton, 72 Cal. 170, 13 Pac. 405; City of Ottawa v. Gentzer, 160 I11. 509, 43 N. E. 601.

53. Hall v. City of Baltimore, 56 Md. 187; Case v. Favier, 12 Minn. 89 (Gil. 48).

54. Rugby Charity Trustees v. Merry weather, 11 East 375 note; Jones v. Phillips, 59 Ark. 35, 26 S. W. 386; Cook v. Sudden, 94 Cal. 443, 29 Pac. 949; Bidinger v. Bishop, 76 Ind. 244; Gray v. Haas, 98 Iowa, 502, 67 N. W. 394; State v. Adkins, 42 Kan, 203, 21 Pac. 1069; Cyr v. Madore, 73 Me. 53; Com. v. Newbury, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 51; Field v. Mark, 125 Mo. 502, 28 S. W. 1004; Carpenter v. Gwynn, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 395; Lewis v. Portland, 25 Ore. 133, 42 Am. St. Rep. 772, 22 L. R. A. 736, 35 Pac. 256; Wickre v. In dependence, 31 S. D. 623, Hi N. W. 973.

55. People v. Eel River etc. R. Co., 98 Cal. 665, 33 Pac. 728; Indianapolis v. Kingsbury, 101 Ind. 200, 5l Am. Rep. 749; Brad ford v. Fultz, 167 Iowa, 686, 149 N. W. 925; Eldridge v. Collins, 75 Neb. 65, 105 N. W. 1085. But that the maintenance of and bars, in four different places within a distance of half a mile

- Sales with reference to plat. As a general rule, if the owner of land lays it off into lots, with streets and alleys intersecting the same, and thereafter sells lots with reference to such streets and alleys, or with reference to a plat on which they appear, he is regarded as having dedicated to the public the land covered by such street and alleys,56 and a like result has been held to follow if he sells lots with reference to a plat made by another.57 But that the owner of conclusively excluded an inference of dedication, see Jones v. Davis, 35 Wis. 376.

56. Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. (U. S.) 10, 31, 13 L. R. A. 25; South & N. A. R. Co. v. Davis, 185 Ala. 193, 64 So. 606; Balmat v. Argenta, 123 Ark. 175, 184 S. W. 445; Porter v. Carpenter, 39 Fla. 14, 21 So. 788; Fossion v. Landry, 123 Ind. 136, 24 N. E. 96; Schick v. West Davenport Imp. Co., 167 Iowa, 294, 145 N. W. 689, 149 N. W. 451; Bartlett v. City of Bangor, 67 Me. 460; Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Frick, 82 Md. 77, 33 Atl. 435; Briel v. City of Natchez, 48 Miss. 423; Harrington v. Manchester, 76 N. H. 347, 82 Atl. 716; Ridgefield Park v. New York, S. & W. R. Co., 85 N. J. L. 278, 89 Atl. 773; In re Hunter, 163 N. Y. 542, 57 N. E. 735; Sexton v. Elizabeth City, 169 N. C. 385, 86 S. E. 344; Meier v. Portland Cable Ry. Co., 16 Ore. 500, 1 L. R. A. 856, 19 Pac. 610; Quicksall v. City of Philadelphia, 177 Pa. 301, 35 Atl. 609; Chambersburg Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Cumberland Valley R. Co., 240 Pa. 519, 87 Atl. 698; Brown v. Curran - (R. I.) - 83 Atl. 515; City of Elkins v. Dono-hoe, 74 W. Va. 335, 81 S. E. 1130.

Likewise a part or square shown on a plat with reference to which lots have been sold has been regarded as dedicated. Frauenthal v. Slaten, 91 Ark. 350, 121 S. W. 395; Davidow v. Gris-wold, 23 Cal. App. 188, 137 Pac. 619; East Atlanta Land Co. v. Mower, 138 Ga. 380, 75 S. E. 418; New Orleans v. Carrolton Land Co., 131 La. 1092, 60 So. 695; Northport Grove Camp meeting Ass'n v. Andrews, 104 Me. 342, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 976, 71 Atl. 1027; Cush-wa v. Williamsport, 117 Md. 306. 83 Atl. 389; Atty. Gen. v. Abbott. 154 Mass. 323, 13 L. R. A. 251, 2S N. E. 346; Pondler v. Minneapolis, 103 Minn. 479, 115 N. W. 274; Ramstad v. Carr, 31 N. D. 504, L. R. A. 1916B, 1160, 154 N. W. 195; Lueders v. Town of Tenino, 49 Wash. 521, 95 Pac. 1089; as has a wharf, under like circumstances. City of Pittsburg v. Epping - Carpenter Co., 194 Pa. 318, 45 Atl. 129. But see Palen v. Ocean City, 64 N. J. L. 669, 46 Atl. 774.

57. Hall'v. Breyfogle, 162 Ind. 494, 70 N. E. 883; Thomas v. Metz, 236 111. 86, 86 N. E. 184; Longworth v. Sedevic, 165 Mo. 221, 65 S. W. 260; Clark v. Elizaland makes a plat thereof, without making- any sales in accordance therewith, has been usually regarded as not involving a dedication,58 in the absence of a statutory provision for dedication by the filing of a plat.59 That a dedication may result from sales with reference to a plat it is unnecessary, it has been decided, that the spaces asserted to be dedicated be marked on the plat as streets alleys or squares, it appearing from a consideration of the plat as a whole, with reference to the surrounding circumstances, that the spaces were intended to be devoted to a public use.59a

In a considerable number of the cases in which this doctrine of dedication by sales with reference to a plat has been asserted, the rights of individual purchasers of lots only were in question, but their rights, as against their vendor, to have the streets and other public places kept open, in accordance with the plat on the strength of which they made their purchases, is to beth, 40 N. J. L. 172; Wyman v. Mayor of New York, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 486; Oregon City v. Oregon & C. R. Co., 44 Ore. 165, 74 Pac. 924; City of Pittsburg v. Epping Carpenter Co., 194 Pa. 318, 45 Atl. 129; Deadwood v. Whittaker, 12 S. Dak. 515, 81 N. W. 908; Corsi-cana v. Zorn, 97 Tex. 317, 78 S. W. 924.