Authority to Close Up Public Highway.—The authority to close up and alter public highways outside of municipalities is conferred upon the board of supervisors of the several counties of the state, and can only be exercised through the instrumentalities and in the mode prescribed by law.

Id.—Power of Board of Prison Directors—Escape of Prisoners— Ownership by State.—No power is given either by our constitution or laws to the board of prison directors to abolish public highways, and they cannot interdict public travel thereon, or interfere therewith by gates and obstructions, upon the ground that the highway may afford opportunities to facilitate the escape of prisoners; and the fact that the state owns the piece of land over which the public highway extends does not authorize it to divest the easement of the public.

Id.—Dedication of Highway—Acceptance by Public.—Where the owner of land has dedicated a road as a public highway, and the dedication has been accepted by the public or constituted authorities of the county, the dedication is complete.

Id.—Intent to Dedicate—Implication Prom Acts.—The question of intent to make a common-law dedication of land for a public highway is paramount, but the dedication may be express or implied, and if the donor’s acts are such as indicate an intention to appropriate the land to the public use, upon acceptance by the public the dedication becomes complete.

Id.—Evidence of Intent and Acceptance—Petition of Owner for Highway—Insufficient Statutory Proceeding—Public Uses.—A petition by the owner of land to the board of supervisors to declare a road over his land a highway, is evidence of an intent on his part to dedicate it to the public use; and when the board of supervisors did so declare it, although the proceeding was not accompanied by all the forms required by the statute to constitute it a highway, in a statutory sense, its action is evidence of an acceptance by the board for the public use as such highway; which evidence, coupled with its use for a highway, and its improvement as such by public authority, is ample to support such an acceptance.

Id.—Width of Highway, When Immaterial.—In case of encroachment upon a highway, where the simple question is whether it is in fact a highway, no question is involved as to its width, and an objection that it is not shown to have a specified width is without force.

Id.—Boundaries of Road—User—Presumption—Discretion of Officers.—Where the right of the public is acquired by user the boundaries of the road are generally ascertained by user; but where there is a statute fixing the width of all highways a dedication will be presumed to be of the width fixed by the statute, and where a discretion is given to officers to determine the width of a highway such discretion will not be interfered with, except in cases of fraud or oppression.

Id.—Acquisition of Land by State—Easement of Highway—Merger. Upon acquisition of land by the state over which a highway has been located the easement of the highway is not merged in the estate which the state has acquired to the land.

Id.—Easement Held in Trust.—The easement which may be held by the state in any highway is held as the representative of the people, and in trust, to enable the people to pass and; repass at will, and is not held in the same right as the title of the state to lands which it has purchased.

Ip.—Title of State to Highways—Legislative Control—Vacation of Highway.—In strictness all public highways belong to the state, which holds them for public use subject to legislative control, and the statute which provides that a road shall not be vacated or cease to be a highway until so ordered by the board of supervisors is binding upon the state as well as upon individuals.

Costs—Review Upon Appeal.—The question of costs cannot be considered upon appeal where the record fails to show any objection to costs, and there is no bill of exceptions showing any ruling upon the question; nor where the judgment does not include costs, although the court below found, as a conclusion of law, that the defendants were entitled to it.