The New York Herald Newspaper, October 28, 1851, Page 6

AFFAIRS OF THE CITY AMD ITS VIGINITY City Politics. ‘The politicians are moving rapidly in cash ward, drumming up their forces and buckling on their armor for the coming contest in November. The various squads of political operatives are to be seen every morning in the rearef the City Hall, with heads huddled together, concocting and planning how to lay out t e money collected for electioneer- ing purposes to the best advantage. A little in the rear of these moneyed individuals, are seen certain eager looking geniuses, waiting to receive the “staff,” for which they are requested to do the bid- ding of the party for whom their services are se- eured, either to knock down and drag out, or to dreg out and knock down, it matters naught to them ; they are ex struggle is anticipa'ed between the whigs and de- moorats for the ascendancy in the city government. ‘The whigs have held the reins of power for the last which time the democrats have iting their fingers fora dip into Police Intelligence. DOINGS BEVORE JUSTICE MOUNTFORT. ‘The Police Courts of our city are considered, by cer- tain classes of society, as the only place to seek redress, however frivolous or simple the ease may be. till each party, believing themselves wronged, hurries to the Police Court to lodge their complaint, sapposing that a police Judge can issue forth his edict, and restrain the tongue of a scolding je has de- of quelling. It is almost a and scandalous . Such cases, however, clared himself incapable occurrence before the Court, that the at cA wends her before For face, asking magistrate back her“ karacter,” which she had lost by the seduc- tive arts of Tim O’Brien, or some such pe! the wan of making ber his lawful wi cases, unhappy young woman, after telling the magis- trate all the circumstances in the affair, closes by saying, that she does not wish the injure her faitbless lover, but to make her, so that she can become an honet the magistrate disposes of one case, in woman, quite out of breath, caused by the court and while the little breath remai: that she wants justice, and justice she have, for Mrs McManus has just down and tumbied ali the shirts in the yard, and wants a warrant for her, that she may be bound over to the has this woman stated her case, before Brien, almost exhausted by in one band @ bunch of hair, which magi xclaiming, Look here, judge! look here, judge! exhibiting the hair and the woman cemplaining, do you see this! this! Iam kilt, see what ‘Wagistrate (an adjudicate, or be heard, come in eonflict with each other and at it they go, tooth and nail, the cfficers imterfere, and the that both are conveyed away to jrison, and there re main until better able to oomtrol their tempers. No disposed of, than in comes a ion, speaking all kinds of hard cted to do somethin; understood that a four years, durin; the oity coffers The whigs, however, have much the advantage in the start, being already in power, and having to expend than their opponents, thereby enabling them to carry out the working machinery of the party politic with a much greater The democrats may success if they put before the people for office men who can be creditably elected. Heretofore the people have been saddled itn nominations that would disgrace any party, and therefore the voters, to show their disapprobation, selected the opposite candidates To either party this rule Trickery and corru mn become visible in setting before ¢! men unfitted for office, only because, b; interests, a nomination was @ ey 8 of the people were opened o1 The Voters of this city are not as they Were ten or fifteen years ago. sidered almost a crime to vote, except for the The people, however, of become more enlightened, and therefore more independent, and will vote now ; and the best man, we sin- will ssacd the best chance for election, ether be represents whig or democrat. cut her clothes line nye mag ‘she’s done to me; and before the the two women will justly apply oftei sooner are there parties servant girl, in s great passi ainst her last mistress, who, she declares, ro- ages, and wants the magistrate aud also wants satisfaction for her ber mistress having insinuated that the boarders’ rooms at an un- seasonable hour On being tcld by the magistrate that his powers did not extend to such cases, and that the complainant must seek redress before a civil justice, alow grumbling is audible, and the girl walks out of the court room, exclaiming to herself, that no justice can be had in this country by @ poor girl The next customer before the bar of justice proves a woman, with a terrible look ing bruised iace, inflicted b; drunken tailor on the “strike,” who. not chastise the “ boss,” goes home and and turns ber out of the house. case, & warrant is issued to arrest the husband. Again you see, on the other hand. almost immediately after, a man exhibiting himself with a scratched face and torn shirt, done by his wife, against whom he prays a war- ted, and his pugnacious spouse arrested as the law directs. diversified by the policemen bringing in a thief or two, and a few rowdies, fcr assaulting persons in the street, who are summonly dispatched to prison, to answer at the Court mn Saturday a young looking man, a German by birth, walked bi ag 1; was then con- | fuses to b to-collect the same, regular nomination ” injured reputati the present day have more as they pleai Demiit Dispensary. AID TO THE POOK OF THE CITY. The managers of this institution respectfully but urgently solicit attention to the indigent sick in part of this city, and the necessity for and furnishing medicines and medical and surgical aid to such of them as may be in need thereof, but, by reason of poveity, unableto pro- cure the same. In 1790, when the city contained less than one- fifteenth part of its present population, the New Dispensary was instituted; and in 1828 the Northern Dispensary was inco These two, though efficiently managed, were found inadequate to the necessities of a population (according to the census of 153) of less than 202,- 000; and in 1832 the Eastern Dispensary was in- her husband, who is some wife, This being a legitimate lly into the eourt room, his | was much scratched and his general appearance seemed as if he bad met with bard times The magistrate noticing his excited situation, called him up, and asked him what complaint he wished tomake. The German, who was do- ly dressed, commenced to explain the diffloulty he labored under in broken English. German.—Me vant one varrant for mine vife, mine vife abuses me too great deal; look Judge at mine vace, she vill take mine life, amd I vant a varrant. How. and in what manner, does she treat ‘are your fears bared upon’ German —Vell, Judge, I vill tell you. Yesterday morn- | ing the vanted me to go in de vood house and 1 says 10, cause I vas dressed cleat joing out, and I vent out widout getting de coal for her. ven [ comed home to mine dinner, no dinner vas cooked for me, and mine vife ray to me, Yes, you go out vidout fetching me de coal. I no get you any dinner. Vell, says, Vell, me go out again; and ven I come hot night no supper for me. for Ino get my meals? take up # knife, and when me jay inde bed, lock de door, dem she biow out de light, aod s1 ump on me in de bed, a1 eee bere mine face how much she scratohhim. She says she vill kill me wid poiron, or stab me wid a knife. Magistrate smiling--Oh' I don’t imagine your wife can want to take the life of so good looking a young man. vice: go home and kiss your in fhe coal,and be three have done all in their mm them, and have extended the territo- rial area of their services quite as far as practica- et none of the eastern side of the city, above mth street, bus ever been provided for. pulation of more than one t. from 1882 to 1851, there ower to meet With an increare ot hundred and fifty per was no increase of Lspensaries ‘The consequence has beena vast ameunt of euf- fering and premature death, and peculiar expo- sure of the city to the spread of contagious diseases. years past, this state of things so he attention of individuals con- association for Improving tho | that the latter were con- strained to provide temporarily for the most help- but as the care and medication of ut the scope of their designs—and which could legitimately be ap- | pject—such aid was necessarily dis- | Veil, [ says to mine ¥ Den she get in a paaai her. Last night e jump out ob de | Condition of the Poor,’ less and needy ; the sick fell with: having no fur plied to that ob give me h—li. and sl For the year ending in 1850, the three dispensa- ries attended upon, provided for, and furnished me- dicines to more than cigaty live thousand persons. Yet the ratio of mortality ia this, oae of the healthiest cities of the Union, is far greater than in other, owing to the numerous poor, and the lack of proper gratuitous medical provision for You bad better take my wife. and be obliging to her bring kind, and, I have no dcubt, she will love ysu better than Have you any children? German—\er, Judge, me bave one child; have bin married over @ year think youcan remain safe; your wie Neither the city authorities nor the Alms House | 2"t want to kill the father of her child—you may rest ent can estab! ‘The German here shook his head as much as to say, “ bis life's in danger Mogistrate— If she continues to beat yow in bed, don't sleep with her for @ week; try that. (lsughter,) and, no _ doubt, before the week is uj duty, as weilas picasar and sustaining such ins action of the bene low of the foregoing facts, and of the divine announcement that * Ye have the poor with you and whensoever ye will ye may do them the Demilt Dispensary has been incorporated ‘ganized. Before entering fully and efficiently upon their | anagers are under the ne je building, properly fit of founding, managiag, tions, is left to the vo- she will want to make up That's the best advice I can give \d obliging to your wife, and I ‘RO cause to comp! u at present; be kind ve no doubt you will struck with the justice of the Magistrate's remarks. left pe vor ay ag vapors 4 with - idea. that the fault might pose on his part, inste charitable labors, the hi m ” ’ cossity of securing a sui They have purchased the requisite ground, on the Dorthwesterly corner of Twenty-third street and avenue, and procured plans, specifications, | building, and for means to erect aud furnish it, they now, on behalf of the suf- sick poor, appeal to these whom Providesce essed with both means and liberality, to con- tribute accordingly Phe managers cannot, in justice tothe institution | or themselves, proceed faster or further than the subscriptions shall warrant, because, first, they the dispensary burdet od, by he terms of their charter, reonally liable for its debts. testowing freely of their own means and time, the promotion of this charity, they trust few, if to whom this is addressed, will pass by on the Justice to Policemen —Some days ago, the Policemen held a public meeting, for the purpose of petitioning the Common Couneil to authorize the Mayor, in cases of sickness, or injury to their person, while in the dis. charge of their duty, to allow them pay. The petition was referred to the Committee om Finance and a report wee made in favor thereof, and a resolution was accord- bo ranting the prayer of the We were much pleased to witness the unan- imous opinion exhibited by the Common Council im this As the ordinance stood before, it was certainly To be sure, the salary of Policemen had been increased from five to six Lundred dollars per annum; but in sc deing. they had cut off all pay for time lost by sickness, or injury, and only allowed six hundred dollars a year, for every Nothing was allowed in time of sickness, when, im fact, funds would be movt needed. ‘The ordinance, as it previously stood, evident! dered most materially to affect the efficiency of partment; for instance, in cases of rowdyism, ri fighting, in the street, or the arrest of desp and rogues of all descriptions, tl be expected to rush into @ melée, m confitet with des and proposals for suc y, at the rate of y's actual duty. o New Yorx, October, 1861 Peter Cooper, William Gale, John Campbell, Henry H_ Elliott, John H run the risk of » thereby jeopard- ise life and limb, with a knowledge that, if injured, their daily pay would stop, and that not only weuld they suf. but the means of subsistence be taken from them. thereby adding additional distress to their It is creditable to the Com promptly allowing the required relief, tiorably greatly increase the vigilance of the Policem im the discharge of their duty Crcrge of Stealeng Clothing —Three men, named Wm nd John Ryall, were arrested on Sa- Earle, Joseph F. J . Brown, F. E. Benedict, Oliver De F William Walker, Hienry M. Alexander, Nathaniel R enry A. Hurlbut, Samuel L. Mitehill, tokes, Walter Mead, | By Hoibrook, avid Hosdley, Robert Kelly be ren: to Wm. Walker, Trea- all street, or to either of the ma- Mather, Jease W helps, Jr, James surer, No. & Dowd, Henry 8eo turday night, on harge of stealing » quanti ing, valued at nearly $100. Officer Kealin. of the Sixth ‘ward police, arrested the aecused parties, and the magis- trate, Justice Osberne, committed them to prison to await e further hearing Charge of steating Money and Clothing —Officer Anderson arrested 7 calling themselves Michael Creighton and eof stealing $49 in valued at $2), the ding at No. 75 Wi ome hundred cata, for the C: Oregon markets ‘This wili not be ecpsider+ very singtlar, when it is that in Oregon— where horses and mice are plen- and cate scarce—it is not uscommon to exchange At this rate, it would mot be surpri- sing to ree the quotations for cats regularly published in the prices current. Deatn sy Daowme —On Sunday Geer beid an inquest at Pier 2 East river, ont) Andrew Brown, aged 36 years, born in Ireland, w! body was discovered floating in the river, foot of said , &tsiz o'clock on fanday morning. on Saturday night, » week ago, at the house of George Brown. No 9 Moore :treet and after remaining theres time left, and went towards Broed street, since t been seen, until the body was + Verdiet—Death by drowning. old coin. and three costs ‘atrick McLaughlin, resi- The complainant and parties, it seems, cocu) the same room ‘during the absence of Mo , the accused parties stole left the premises. Subsequently however, they were both taken into custody, and conveyed before Justice Osborn, who committed them to prison for trial he body of had found floating in the Accipests —Richard ¥. Pursey, a grocer, residing 266 Third avenue. accompanied by his family, were driv- ‘aif past 10 o'clock on Bai ear the corner of Brondwas horse ran against « pile thrown out of his wagon, He was at onoe com pisiptiff a revere blow on the head, which caused a com ——. to and Ba gore ge 7 an action for assault tery ; male n- nocked the plaintiff down. and the femaie scratched tusion, Verdict for ashlee Cody 00. tered into on or about A claimed is $226, with interest from the let = Cage Ta nm additions building, #4 expeditiously aa precti- cable. The defence is that there repai: protracted unreasonable period and that the defendant was subjected 4 te serious injury to his business. Ver- 77. Before Hen Judge Duet. With ads. Smith Coddington and bi nin this case, which Police Sergeant On bere his wounds were yi " iH y of the fireworks at Castle Garden, = rpect: ar where the fireworks knee and leg severely burnt b; plorion of arocket, He was the Uity Heepital ownen — Aten early honr yesterday morning. 0 well drested man, ahoat Ser wee . i i ! HF &. iy a? HT ? 5 : ony Present—Chief Justice ford. =Dreimonn — Ji P. Peck and others ) With $10 cesta to abide evens of emit. supreme: Term. fore Chief Bdmonds. THE NEW PARK. oe + ae apy Justice) contin ed. He referred Purdy vs. 100 insisted. that the d ple, 4 Hill, and lecision there was:—If the Officers of the two houses certified to the of an act, that was eonolu- sive, but that might go bebind the mere certificate of the Secret ‘of State, which by stat- ute was intended to be conclusive upon major ity bills. at in all cases of doubt, reference may be had to the printed statute, but no case is to be found authorizing the court to go beyond it: The owners here say ‘hat they only want to go one step further than the case of P against the People, where the court went behind to see whether the bill had received the requisite majority. But this a ious one:—They desire to prove testimony that there is no such law:—Has to this? times subject to inquiry o: |.—Cor oug! rather Pye = ase maxim :—* This being a sub- | version of the eld and well established rule, we will | not go further than the court has gone in Purdy vs. the People.” He then the next ebjection: That tl Common Council under this law, and their appli- cation to the court under it, are all irregular, and imperfect in form. Now, the Common Counoil are the Legislature of our city, under powers granted by Governor Dongan, in 1786, and under their Ererier their powers to open and regulate streots have been exereised ever since. The first charter provided that no one but the Common Council could open streets without consent of tho owners. This was not repeated in tha Montgomery charter, aad the want of power, to compel an obstinate party, madeit necessary to apply to the Legislature to en- able them te carry out principles necessary for the government of a well regulated city. Some acts were passed giving them this power, prior to the geveral law; but, finally, the general act was passed, appointing commissioners to lay out streets and giving the co oe pa power toopenthem But, in order to obtain these lands, it became necessary to apply to the Legislature for two pi ses. First, te alter the map of the city. Second, for the exer- ciee of the right of eminent domain. The resolu- tion of June 3 was the foundation of this procedure. ‘The Common Council then decided that these lands were necessary, and made application tothe ite application is made, and the proceedings are con- ducted in the same way that other squares have been opened. No other expression or delegation of power is required. The Legislature determined | eminent domain, and all the Corporation has done is to carry out the act. The act is denounced as un- just, essive, and unconstitutional, and the first specific objection is,that the lands are not taken fora | public use; but it is not denied that private property may be taken for public use. What becomes public use Was once an ae secetions but itis now settled that any purpose in which the public is interested isa public use. It must rest with the Legislature to determine—Is the public sufficiently interested for them to exercise the right of eminent do: The Reonpls established, is, that public use is any | establishment or wears in which the public | is interested, and of that the Legislature is the tole judge—their determination is conclusive. It is said this land is taken for a public park, and refer- ence is made to Lord Coke to show that a park is a large enclosure to keep wild beasts and all the | beasts of the forest, and that it cannot be a park | unless wild beasts are kept there. This common | law definition has not been imported into this country, and the word park has here acquired a different meaning. We don’t find the word in any of our law books; but on reference to the Corpo- | ration Manual, we found the word park, and that | there was a park in this city bounded by Eroadway, | Chambers, and Chatham streets—and, come to | look, here we now stand in the middle of one. | On another page we found that there are parks all | over the city. But we can’t believe the counsel | was serious in this matter, as the Legislature has | passed a law calling this a public park; and it | could never have been intended, though any other ame were used, that the lands were taken pe any | other than public use. The next point is, that the | power to take must be exercised by the Legisla- ture, and not delegated to an inetrested party ; that this law delegates the power to the Corporation. | We ark how can the Legislature delegate this pow- | er, and how can the Corporation be calledinterested parties? The Legislature, 2 the act au- | thorizing the grounds to be taken, and the Corpora- | tion taking means to appropriate them, shows that the lands are necessary. Next, it is said that lands cannot be taken without compensation first made, and actually paid to the owner; and on this princi- | ple we go with them to the full extent the eternal | principles of justice demand, and that no man’s | property eball be taken without full compensation. | Now this act does provide compensation, and like- wise it is in conformity with all previous acts | whereby lands have been taken public use. But | they say that the title here v before compen- | sation isto be made. Well, under our present laws ber | in opening streets, the title vests on confirming the | commissioners’ repert, and infour months after, the | mopeys are to be paid, just as in this case; and in | sll the rage and excitement in setting aside these street proceedings, it has never been whispered | that was an objection. It is said no provision on this this we existed in the constitution ante- | rior to 1821. But though it did not exist in the | col op, it did exist in fact, and was a moral | obligation, always respected. If any effort was | made to teke property without paying for it, the | courts interfered; andin the case of Gardner vs. Vil- | lage of Newburgh, the Chancellor interfered, and ro- | strained the proceedings until compensation was made; and in Matter of Furman street, 17 Wen., the court recognized this moral obligation. Cases were here citedto show that it was not necessary that compensation be made beforehand, and that it issuf- ficient i rovided for, and be just. In 20 Jobneon, 725, Chansellor beld it sufficient if com- pensation provided for be adequate and certain, and not necessary that it precede the taking of lands. But ‘tis said this case is not authority for that ee. Then, in 18 Wendell, 9, th @ question arose, and it is objected that this ca: notin point. Here the Court of Errors reversed | the judgment, on the ground that the entry was not | provided for or justified by the act, as the act pro- | vided that betore the title vested the money must | be Vy: and because the owner was not provided | wit ma, ‘and out of which he might be paid his da- But it is said that this authority is not , because the point was not necessary, to | have been decided. Now, the point in that case | was, that the owner could not compel the railroad company to make com 2 or provide a fund for it, and therefore question was ne to be decided, and the Court intended to depide the | question. Chancellor Keat so understood this case—2 | Kent’sCom., 340. This question has since been | passed upon by the present Court of Appeals. It is suggested that here is not adequate compensation made. it is sufficient in cases of this Kina that solvency of the town is pledged. The Sag tion of the Corporatien to pay is ample, be- cause if they do not pay, the owners may su coulda jer, more certain and definite remedy be provided? The act is complained of as un, unequal, and oppressive; and unwise and impolitic a¢ a public measure in the location of a park. —As | to its being unwise, this court has nothing to do with—as to its being unjust and oppressive, the law evidently means that application under it shall be | made within a reasonable time, and the Corporation so understand it, as they make immediate appli- cation. But will the court ground their decision upon the probability that these lands may be kept eee pares mort It is also objected thatthe act is uneq J b oye to reject when wer is | ‘The court jided that the Corporation has power to d in all street cases. Lut to review: —The necessity of taking these lands was for the | Corporation to determine in the first instance, ani | the right of eminent domain was for the Legisia- | ture ey have decided, and it is not for this court to decide otherwise. How does this case stand on its just merits’ Common Council decide that a plo: of ground is necessary for a great public use, and it lands are necessary, the owner should yield bis private interests for the general public weal. It is said the Jands are of value—if so, let full value be given. [ the feeling which prompts these gentlemen to retain the lands of ir fore- | fathers, and which they have held so long; and let | the commissioners award as full sum—and if | it, ie $2,000,000, let it bo paid; the city can afford it. One word as to their ability. The city is je & credit of four months; and that is insisted objection to this law-- principle which has been adhered to for a quarter of a century. Would not the Nee pg + be authorized to make their jarded an amount sufficient to remunerate for this four months credit? Though they aro entitled to sek for full compensation, they oan ask for no more. ‘The argument on the part of the Corporation was here concluded. ‘Mr. Bronson (ex-Chief Justice) replied on behalf of owners, erhorn, Jcnes, and others. He believed bis adversaries had aed as many days in this matter as he bad hours ¢ did not intend now to diseuse cases; but would discuss principles, ong and dicta which assert po upon whi court to be heard or not! His right to stand there was disputed, and he meant to vindicate hia clients’ rights. Opposing cownsel say it is held that the coat a canny bree the application for the appointment of commissioners. Ile denied that it was so. He | seid Shere was no ln; and offered to prove | itt and was anawered,— The only question for the | Court is on the fitness of the commissioners. | Next. Sappose the law did pass the Assembl, it Is unconstitutional and void; and coul honor appoint commissioners under no law! Lie discuss whethor have a law or not ; and, if the law is void, it It is preposterous to say that the court must not juestion id not take the responsibility of | doing so at special term. The Cor d it ; they brought it here bet ige, and we cannot appeal, and yet t! r honor should not pass on this law is void, they can apply to the Legislature , if they can again get a law ithout his clients seeing it, would have the grounds. now, his clients were without redress. Now about ecedent. They say the court shouid be cautious, ecause a law, with similar provisions to this, has He adwitted that the court should be cautious; but is this # question that should not now be decided upon principle? It is never too late to appeal to principle; and he bi was ever estopped from so doing by silent acquiescence. He kne was not afraid to meet a question, and to rinciple and law, regardless of cot ¢ recollected that his eretofore, in thecase of ‘ Doughty vs. Hope, where his decision overturned all the assess- theretofore made in this State; and be recollected that the Supreme Court upheld the decision, and the Oourt of Errors affirmed it, regardless of consequences. First, this blll never passed the Assem- He was almost out of patience at hearing that he was there to attach and overturn a law on an affidavit. He denied it. only showed prima facie, that this act never passed the-aseembly; and he was there askin, privilege of proving this, and of whether they had a law or not. this: The evidence in rupport of this law is pre- sumptive evidence. But it is not conclusive, and he | had a right to inquire into the facts and show that | no such law ever passed. |tissaid the clause left out | is unconstitutionnal, and therefore no matter. ccentended that it did matter; that even thon it | would be void, because who can determine that this | law ever would have passed without this clause? A freeman loves to make his own bargain, has his land taken, he likes to have some voice in | raise it, and it is evident | lature intended to It is said that this existed since 1813. ded to examine | proceedings of the | It was not 80. | tiff, Lynde, without direct should be applied, and taki hat he said was in this case that the Le; the owners this opportunity. a bold principle, and a new and novel one. hoped it would be decided upon principle, without | regard to its boldness or novelty. that the law did not pass the Assembly, and was it right to take these lands if it did not why couldn’t he try it? Why shouldn't he be What reason was there? ju can’t plead mul-tiel- ‘his is a private statute. is a oe place, but it is only lature, who passed this act, and under whichthis | | that it was a case for them to exercise the right of | allowed to try it? Why, in England we find record to a public statute. New-York Cit why you can’t so plead in England is be- the barons’ wars some of the ost, and injury might be done. principle of that and the same course of reasoning and thought carried him through this case. wand no record; in the other, record | In one case you will do injustice if you say norecord; in the other, you will do injus- He was not there with the mere eayings of sensible men—ho knew that sena- tors and judges has talked about this matter, and if this court intended to decide on mere dicta, he to say; but if it intended to decide le,he had something to 5: Ww! are these duta worth? Crude sayings are discussion and application to make them available ; and if he could not inquire uestion when two millions of pro) ‘e, you can not inquire when life or liber- | ty are involved—the man must hang beoause by | accident the law was signed. sition is monstrous. It is not half so monstrous as the taking of their property. Tho,case in Hobart’s ainst Arundel, cited by op- the nearest this case. 1 passed the Commons with a proviso, bi roviso was found, and the court was there asked to | infer that there was no law, without offering any | evidence, and the court refused. Agaia, it is said that a record cannot be impeached, and like Lord Coke here, it, they cite in oppo: | little corporation that you might show a record was void, and he asked, had they answered them? He insisted that no officer or body, however high, ceuld in this free goverament make a record, or do anything to bind another, without legal au- Then what authority had the speaker to certify to a false fact? Where was authority? If it had been a mere question of counting of names or votes, and he adjudicated upon it, But until the bill had passed, diction than when it was in the pocket of the man If you cannot attack the power of a court or of any tribunal, then we are in the midst He referred to the case of Purdy There the Court read the statute, which says the certificate is evidence ; they passed by it, went behind it, and said certificate was 80 asserted a principle. ecided. He said, sevond, that without authority. He showed Common Council had not directed this pro- They direoted their counsel to stop; and directed him to discoatinue, and cation. This vigilant publicoflicer | ran before he was sent. But many things seem to be | healed by this resolution of June last, whorein the | Corporation say these lands are requisite. Now, he bad their admission that the sovereign power can alone exercise the right of eminent domain n't | they refer this back to the Common Council? They did not say go on now, they should judge proper. le frequently say this is a good thing—pass reso- bout it and send bills to Albany; and yet, it passed through our House, as wi arties interested can see the law; | and afterwards the matter is entirely dro Now we can show this movement to be per! If a park is wanted in this city—an islan: ou are not a mile laced in the centro, tice if you say there is. inventions, requirin It is eaid this propo- Reports—the King aj counsel, seeme: they cite Lord Coke. but when be does not sition to him a He bad cited ca: thority or jurisdiction. his jurisdiction ? would be different. had no more juris- va. the People. false; and in doin, be made this appli ut go on whenever ‘e know that the peo- standing on any from the water—it should be and not on the side, on the East river, with an ocean 3,000 miles wide in front. this being an opening to ventilate the city, it would be an opening to ventilate the Atlantic was this matter Why, instead of ocean. But wh: pressed forward with this hot Because influences were brought to bear upon the Common Coun It was now or never. it the meaning of the word “park,” | cited Noah uarto dictionary—the last work of his hands—and to show that he died in the bolief that @ park was an enclosure for wild beasts. Since then, [have found, that in 1848, Mr. Goodrich has edited @ new edition, by leaving out all that Web- ther a strange way of editing a says, “a park isan enclosed place in cities, for recreation or amuse- k is named so, because, during the war the British had a park of artillery at the head of it along Chambers street. has probably been here, and seen our Park, and people moving about in it, obably making spee' lieving that the word “park” meant a place for Counsel then said, he ciple that the power to ly be exercised by the lor_vs. Porter. a public nature. book, to be sure. | drawn by Ste in it; and went take these lands could o1 sovereignty, and cited 4 The Legislature bas not so different from opening a street. they stood as arbitrators between individuals; i e lands for them: opposed, then, the taking of bis cli the appropriation of them, when decided that they were necessary. been made to his clients’ holding on to their an vestral lands, and in answer said, that the Jones fami!y bad occupied their portion of this pro- | perty for three quarters of a century; but they will | give way or necessi| | i lied hs to the part I In the one case | a <a 7 eS The Belmont farm, Mr. Schermerhorn over halt a century, and now when over seventy yoars is attempted to dri is natural that be should fight. it public necessity required it; where seid that public necessity he would here add, that men ought to be able to | feel more secure in their pi They will not toil for it, if it can be #0 easily | He then said, that compen- — But he admitted, dicta, the clause to this effect in | as been done away with. joodgood vs. Mohawk & H. RK. R ved reporter's head note, it was be taken before court did not thi though constitution He would only yield it had been no- require it; and rty than they now wr sation must first be mace. there decided a a com tion made. decide i a, Kentucky, all requires com pensati poodyny d deciding that you can take nds if it is only provided that the owner gets the . But such cases are not le claimed that he had | | shown this law to be #0 equivocal that money never But he waa told he could bond of the person taki worth talking about. could be raised under it. He asked was that enough? K had an action of tres orporation hadbundred« He didn’t know it ural distriets to know it, of millions of propert was too late from t | and sourt could not undertake to decide in this ma'- Corporation were able to dollars. He war told that the case of Smith vs. mor pat be - 7 a ape eens Age intly certain com) ¥l eens nee authorized Totake the land, ter that the ©: chenes fo bike them now, ond had no it Ge The learned counsel thee orgs that this law is months comminioners in inating their award, would allow » tl aw wo low for a credit sale, he poy what authority had they for doing s0? The law is, the Corporation may turn the owners out of doors and use t! fo Pe 'y four months without paying for it. He d that no pemens four months after sion could be called just compensation ; an reply to the argument this provision was le- ‘al because somebody had net raised the question efore, he answered that it must be a poor princi- ple that is sustained by such a reason. Tho arguments were here conoluded, and the judgment of the court reserved. Decision by Hon. Judge King. Oct, 25.—Jeremiah ‘0 Donneli and The Hollohan ads. ‘Gharion Ww. earl ee ot *8 ae Ie by the defendant at upon the payment 5 proseedings on an execution issued be stayed It appears from affids- vit that the plaintiff, Lynde, held two judgments; one in the above entitled action recovered in 1848 both defendants—the other recovered in June, 1849, against O'Donnell alone. The judgment in the above action wason a bond peyable in instalments. One of these in- stalments falling due in Angust, 1850, Holohan, who is alleged to be surety merely for O'Donnell, applied to him to know if he had paid the instalment. O'Donnell said he had not, alleging want cffunds, but that if Hollohan would fr bim note he would get it discounted. Holloban accordingly gave his note for something more than the amount due on the instalment, 0’ Donnel procured the money thereon, and paid $400 to the plain- ting to which judgmont it ing a receipt simply for the amount paid Lynde applied the amount so paid on the judgment recovered tt O'Donnell alone. In Febri ary, 1861, another instant falling dne on the joint judg- ment, O'Donnell paid the plaintiff another sum of $: which was applied on the joint judgment, and a receip taken indicating such its application. An execution now issues for the sum of $1,350, which, if the first $400 ought to be applied on the joint judgment, is by that sum excessive in amount. The note given by Hollahan as been renewed, and is still running. O'Donnell is in- solvent. Itappears that Hollahan was informed, shortly and if he | after the payment of the first $400, that it had not been appropriated to the joint judgment, It seems to me that Lynde, es between himseif and O'Donnell, had the legal right to apply, upon the separate judgment against the latter the payment, which was made with- out specific directions as to its appropriation; that had Hollaban actually advanced to O'Donnell the money with which to make the payment, be must abide the consequences of O'Donnell’s neglect to make Sepecific application thereof on the joint judgment; but that Holloban cannot be considered as having advanced the money to 0’ Donnell as he bas only incurred # liabili- ty ona note not yet paid, which he may not be called upon to meet and t which he may be seoured. That Hollokan’s equities as alleged surety of O’Donneli in the transaction upon which the joint judgment was obtained. cannet be considered upon this motion fo as to vary his liability as co-defendant in the judgment; if be has any equities against Lynde he must seek relief in a manner which eball bring all the circumstances of the case befcre the Court. The defendant's motion is denied with $10 costs to be levied on the execution here- in, and the stay of proceedings on said execution is va- cated. Decisions by Hon. Judge Mitchell. THE RIGHT OF FISHING ON STATEN ISLAND BEACH. Oct. 47.—Tyson vs. Norton.—This was a motion fur injunction to he continued to prevent defendant from erecting on the beach and between high and low water mark at Staten Island, a pier or bulkhead. It appears that the plaintiff conveyed to one Lord, in 1847, «farm of about 140 acres, and with a front of haif or three quar- ters of amile on New York bay, reserving to himself # fisbery and the beach for fishing’ purposes. The defen- dant acquired title under Lord to ten acres, having « front of about 275 feet, with # like reservation in favor of the plaintiff. ‘The plaintiff Joes not show any exclusive right of fishery nor the origin of his alleged title, except that he reserved such rights to himself, The defendant denies that the plaintiff has any right of fishery or any right tothe beach, He also denies that the erection will interfere with any fishing purposes, or that he has ever interfered with the plaintiff, and shows that the only erection commenced by him is a pier about ten feet wide, to extend from high to low water mark at right angles to the shore, and to be constructed ef timber and sunk with stones, Ho avers, and the nffidavits on his side sustain him, that this will not injure the fishing, and the plaintiff bas never attempted to fish on this part of the beach for three years. Generally the plain- tiff must establish bis title at law before he obtains an injunction, when he claims a title or right in real estate, which the defendant denies. ‘There is probably no good reascn why that rule should not apply here. The da- mage, if avy, to the plaintiff is such as can be compen- rated in money; it can be readily ascertained by a Jury, and if they should conclude that the pier is no injury; that it does not interfere with the fishery as formerly enjoyed, nor in any way injure the beach as s fishing | ground, the defendant ought not to beenjoined. The | evidence makes it probable that such would be the re- eult. If, on the er hand, the jury should find the damage a serious one, the Court could, if the plaintiff is entitled to it. cause sn abatement of the pier, end so fully restore the plaintiff to his rights, or cause him to be paid for the permanent injury occasioned by it. At this stage of the case it is not necessary to determine whether the plaintiff has a legal right to the fishery or not, or whether his right is exclusive or in common with all the citizens, and whe- ther such common right and the reservation entitle him toa civil action. The motion for an injunction is therefore denied and the temporary injunctien dis- solved, with $10 costs to the defendant. In the Matter of the Application of Nicholas Dean.—This ‘was an application to be diseharged from’truste, &c. The Judge made an order confirming the report of referee. Resignation ef Mr. Dean accepted, and Thomae M. Beare sppointed in bis place. crRcUIT. Before Hon Judge Edwards. Oct, 26.—Aetion for Slender—Stephen Weeks va. John M. Lowerre-—The parties in this cave had been formerly partners in business. The plaintiff is a member of the society of Friends, and it appears that litigation has been going on between him and the defer it for several hich ts for sian- di 4 rendered for the plaintifl, which was afterwards set asile by the Supreme Court. The cause of action arose out of the following cireumstence:—A check waa drawn and signed, it is alleced, by Mr. Weeks for $105, in favor of J. D. Wright, in the yeer 1840. On the instant he was called to attend a curtomer in his store, and he placed the check in his deck. On bis return from attending the customer the check was gone, though there was noone there at the time but the plaintiff and defendant. Mr. Weeks then went and stopped payment of the check, and drew an- otber for $100, whieh, with five dollars in cash, he handed to Mr. Wright—thus avoiding a confusion at the bank, which might bave occurred if he bad drawn another check for the seme amount as that which he had stopped. Br and defendant dis. had been ebarged to bis account, and that it was Weeks himself thet took it out of the deck Mr. Comrtock deposed that be had a conversation with Lowerre, after the dissolution, and that he said to wit- peex —" Judge of my astonishment, when I raw charged in my bank book to my account, that identical lost check; | Iwas charged with the amount, and the check was re- turned to me cancelled;”’ witness asked bim. did he mean to say that Stephen Weeks stole it; defendant shrugged hie shoulders and said, ‘ These are the facts, judge for yourself and form your own conelusions.”’ David A. Fowler deposed that he is in the Oouaty Clerk's office, and has charge of the papers which, in 1542, were in the late Court of Chancery; holds itions in his hands which were in the suit of Stephen Weeks against John M. Lowerre; among the exhibits there is a check Weeks le to J. D. Wright or bearer, dated fifth month, 1840, for $106. Mr. Gerraud, on bebalf of the defendant, objected going over the old chancery suits that existed between these gentlemen Mr. Ed Sandford, for the plaintiff, contended for the admissibility of the evidence; and the Judge ru'ed thas it was competent. The Judge charged that the prcof in the case substantially eustains the allegations im the complaint; ‘and the only question is, whether the taking of check would bea crime amounting toa felony. If jade, that would be ® felony. The case lay within « very small compass for the jury to decide. whether the charge made the defendaut against the plaintiff implies a felony, if they come to the conclusion that it did. then it as for them to whether the damages should be ex —— or not. jurors several hours im consultation, bi being able to agree, were diecharged at midnighi Octonsn 2m i st Ship Owners for Loss Life occasioned b tien at Sea.—Jane Bla admin: stratria is vrett—This is an setion brought by the widow end sdministratrix «f John W. Biauveit, sonnet the defend ae captain and proprietor of the Breehlyn, for the lees cuntained by her in the | of her bucbard, on bis pasange to San Framcisoo, ooca- sioned, it is alleged, by the want of fresh provisions and oper accommodation. The complaint states that on Enh Jonuary, 1849, John W. Biauvelt took passage in the ship Brooklyn, for the port cf San Francisco, for which | he paid the defendante the sum of $150; that they w dertock that the number of passengers im the said ship thould not exceed one bun¢red and fifty, and that the | ship should stop once or twice at some proper port—Rio | Janeiro and Valparaiso, in South America—to get in frech provisions and vegetables and water for the shi and passengers. The vessel left the port of New York | for Sen Francieco, om the 12th January, 1849, where she | of | arrived about tbe lath of August . Ib ia alleged that in violation of the agreement, the defendants trans ported in the ship o vere, and although frequently requested, refused to atop porte of Rio or Valparal or any other port | ccmplainant farther alleges, that by reason of these de- , and died on the 17th of A j and thet his widow and eight children have been de- prived of their ~ Ae of support. Damages are jnid at $20,000. The defendants contend that it was agreed that Blauvelt was to tnd himself and provide his own provisions and bedding, &e, do his own cocking; and that he negiected to do 0, aad ex- pored himself to sickmers; and alto that bis com Stitution was such before his embarkation that he was | over, th | hundred and reventy-one passen- | | k z and jackasses (laughter) ; there were no hd except wild radishes, which would make a jackass smart; I two ce bbeges on the island. and the inhabitants few days after we left Juan Fernandez, Blauvelt and my- self complained of pains Hew Kae aad yk ote broke out on us; we complained to the captain, said jt was only a touch of scurvy, and that he had had the came himself ; there were ten deaths before the 4th of July; cne was of scurvy; we had no fresh tprovisions after we started; I heard that twenty died; I was sick at the time; Mr. Blauvelt died in two days landing at Ban Francisce; I was near dying myself On cross-examination by Mr. Ogden Hoffman, the wit- nese suid he was born in Virginia, of French parents; I never saidthat I did not believe in a God; there was Bo divine service on board that I know of ; never sald to Mr Hallett that I did not believe in God; Blauvelt came down with me to the ship, and we saw the captain and the clerk; I told the clerk I wanted to get my passage with Hallett and Davis; he looked and found there two berths and I took one of them ; I paid my passage, and then asked the captain, and he told me that we were stop at these ts, and that he would put us through in five months; be said he would positively stop at Rie and Valparaiso, and perhaps at Juan Fernandez. Adjourned. U. 8. District Court. Oct 25.— Decision by Hon, Judge Judson—Joseph Walters vs. The Brig Radius —The two vessels in controversy are the sch-oner Splendid, eT Chevalier master, and the brig Radius, Solomon MoGraff, master. The da- mage, which is the subject matter of the libel, was the total loss of the schooner, on the 22d day of December, 1849, under the following circumstances :—Pier 39 Bast river, is 344 feet long; the short pier,on the south side, 192 feet long, and the breadth of the slip between them is 211 feet. On the morning of the 22d December, 1840, the brig Radius and two other vessels lay at the inner end of the slip,and the schooner Splendid in the same slip, within almost 60 feet of the foot of the pier. The sehconer measured 23 tons. and the brig 200 tons and over, The length of the schooner was 34 fect, and the length of the brig 125 feet, Both vessels were made fast to the apiles in the usual way; and at 9 o'clock in tho morning, the Radius let go her fastenings, and with a view of going out by the wid of a steam-tow, she biuled down the slip to the position of the schooner. and made fast directly outeide the schooner, covering the same be- tween herself und the pier, with the lines of the brig running to the spiles fore and aft the echooner, The master of the echooner then inquired how ig) the brig expected to lay in that position. when Capt, McGraff re- plied, “ but a short time only—waiting for a steamer to take him im tow.’’ Thus far all is right, and for that purpose the brig had a perfect right to place herself con- veniently for the approach of the steamer. Towards woon the steamer came, but the tide did not serve, and the weather began to be lowery: McGraff concluded not to leave the slip until Monday morning the 24th, end then he left the Radiusin the care of a thip keeper, and went, as he says, to com termand his order to the steamer until Mow leaving the Radius made fast, as at first, wi out giving the schooner ary notice that his position was to remain uochat until Mon- day. Here the cause assumes an important aspeot; and from this time the acts of the parties become decisive of the controversy. The master of the schooner being absent, the charge of her remained with his mate. In the afternoon of Saturday, while the storm was in- creasing, Captain McGraff returned to the vessel, when the mate of the schooner requested him to slack his bow line, and permit the schooner to pass out, This request is sworn to by the schoone:’s mate; and Captain Modraif alsoewears to the same fact, as an admission of itetruth, but he adds, that he could not let the schooner out with safety to the brig. The case may be narrowed down to this ‘single point; for. up to this period, no damage had ocour! to the echooner. We are now to inquire into the cause of the damage; where the blame is to rest, and how far the justification set up by the respondent cam avail bim for having destroyed the schooner. Nothing short of justification can enswer the issue. To use the im preesive language of one of the witnesses, the echooner was smashed bythe brig, and she went down. If the brig had not taken her new position—if she had occu- pied it only for a temporary purpose—if she had let the schooner Out as requested—then the loss would not have occurred. There is no ground or pretence that the schooner was in the wrong. or that she could escape from the fastenings fore and aft, placed there by the brig, without the consent of the schooner. The brig is the active instrument of the destruction of the sshooner, and it is not too much to say that the respondent must show a legal justification. The burden of proof now rests with the brig. Here ve have the justitication:—1. The re- spondent claims that the brig could not have been hauled out or in at all, because of the gale, The proof on this point entirely fails; and there is neither question nor doubt but what the brig might, with ratety to her- self, at all times between twelve and four o'clock, hare been moved from her new position, to as safe a position for beraelf,abead of the schooner. There was room enough in the slip; and as the storm and the danger ap- proached, the master was legally bound to do so, aod in the omission of that obvious duty, be wes guilty of gross negligence. 2. The mate in charge of the schooner, about 40 cleck made it that the Capt. of the brig would slack bis ber nd let the schooner out. Capt. MeGraff admits this request to have been made to him when be was on board the brig about 4 o'clock ; that he refused to do eo; and assigns as the cause of his refusal, that this matceuvre would endanger the brig. This act of the master of the brig places him in a still greater wrong. The brig had # «tern line made fast to the pier aft the schooner which held her, while her bow line was slack, but not enowgh so to lwt the schooner haul ahead. All that was required (o relieve and save the schooner was to give that line slack encugh to let the schooner pass over it, and then both lines of the brig might have been taut. and the brig would have been more safe than before, Isee neither excuse nor apology for this neglect of plain and positive duty But the reepondent claims this could not be done, for a special reason. To accom- poy that, he must have run « line from the bow of the acrces the slip to the opposite pier, and made fast there, which could not be done, for the additional reason, thata city ordinance prohibited such an act, under a penalty of ten dollars. Revised ordinances, page 343, Bee. 4. “ No person ‘ball place any cable, , chain or line acrose the entrance of any elip, under the penalty of ten dollars. It is urged here, is poritive in its character, that this ordinances id the master would | have subjected himself to the penalty, had this been dons, even to relieve and fave the schooner. This construction of the ordinance is too technical for the case in question. In construing all lawe, we are to consider the object, the mischief, and the remedy. This erdinance was designed to prevent obstra free pasrage of verrels into the slips. time, no approaching versel to bo obstruated; rchooner was in imminent danger of destruc tion’ and that imperious necessity would have b justified by the spirit of the ordinance. ‘The case by counsel goes not sustain the construction urged. 8. We have the respondent's own view of the case, im the defence assumed. It is simply this:—The master of the brig had « lawful right to leave bis original position im the slip,end make fast on the outside of emall schooner, as he did im this case; and posseasing that hit, and baving exercised it lawfully, the law justifies bis remaining there. under all circumstances; thas the maritime iaw will not oblige him to move his brig, at the expense of a single dollar, or even to the hasaard of that sum. To sustain this position, witnesses were called in to sbow that large vessels were frequently made fast outside of small craft, and that it was iawfal and customary to do so. Whatever moral duty and obliga- ticn might indicate, till there was no legal obligation which would ecmpel ita performance court hee deen called upon to apply these principles to this tnd sanction their application, by a decree against ti libel. The court is not aware of any euch ruling ie the admiralty practice The claim iy much too broad. Rather wou with it y rongfully beea destruction of the schooner Splendid, with- out fault of the other party. The deoree will be for the Uibellant, with reference to ascertain the Before How. Judge Judson. Ocr. 4.—Trve Bills —The grand jury came into court this morning, with true billie against ‘lea Johnson, Thomas Mensgan George Gisborne, and Jowph ay fon, for an vor to make a revolt on board the Liberty; also againat John Laward, for an assault wit A dang’rous weapon on John Greene, on board the brig r7 Pretences in En inst William Stuart, John Kelly, and Henry Red- wits, for falee pretences in obtaining sustenance and clothing from the United States seeoring they were twenty-one years of ago, were not found, the acoused Charges of Larceny —The bills of indictment against George Williams. for stealing a letter. and against Johm Jobneon, for larceny on the high reas, were dismissed. Marine Court. Before the Hon. Judge Lynch. Oct M.—Imprisoning Scamen in F Sails — Wiliam Paikner vs. Join Reed —In this case, the plaintiff, who war a seaman on board the Marian Gage, claims damages , who was master, for falre imprisonment im & foreign jail, in the port of Ponta Arenas, in Central America, subsequent imprisonment and = ping on . Court, in miei ita optnion morning. said —The practice of ispetoning seamen in foreign jails is of doubtful legality, and is to be justified only where the seaman has be crime, or it dangerous te the ship, or Other means of coercion should be first resorted to, This that the act of Congress of that changes the law. It does change the powers of coarune, Tt gives the | sul pewer to make use of the local Ls ag ports toenforce subordination. There is @ reason this. The Consul isa disinterested . Te can hear ther nothing very atrocious on the of Faikoor He did refuse to ork, But the captain had let himeett | down below the level of a shipmaster's y by being drunk on Bunday. when the altereation shen re- sulted im the imprisonment of Monday, whieh the captain was clearly in the wrong. and the pisintiff has a rial recover. It does not appear. however, that there woranything crucl in the mode or place of but rath er that it wee resorted to Lf & asserting by law. aright to j but it dose not seem to ba « case for Ly a Judgment Cor plaintif, $60 ant