Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-03-06

New ORLEANS Feb. 1.-The BATTURE of
the fanxbourg 81. Marie has been fruitful
subject OF litigation, controversy aud discus.
sion tor the last ten years The ablest jursts
OF the United States, have, in one Way or
other been engaged in the subject.
MIR. Livingston has been iated to experience
a reply, more stern, and more operative, than
amy that even the Sage of Monticello could
have made for whatever may be the deXte.
rity OF the combatants who engage i'm judicial
poicmics there is something in tile conclusion
of a Judicial tribunal, which 10 ingenuity can
parry, nor any science conntervai Such a
conclusion has just taken place i'm The Supreme
Court of this State and we are enabled IN Law
before our readers basty. aud perhaps not
very accurate statement of il. On "A future
o casion we shall supply what NAV now
be omitted, and correct what may be CHROME.
Gus.
Mr.. Livingston was put in possession of the
batture, under decree of the Federal Court
IN the year 1914. Some time after two suits
we've Instituted against him in relation 10 that
property one on the part of certain proprie.
tors OF lots fronting on his possession claiming
a right in the soil between their lots and the
river; and second on the part of certain of
the heirs OF the common. ancestor, under one
of whom MI Livingston held. These cases
have excited great interest as well from their
subject matter, and the amount of pro-
perry III dispute, an the variety and diff
Guilty OF Tie questions which they involved
After many long aud able discussions at tile
bar, and after great deliberations of the Judges
oi the Supreme Court, they delivered yesttr-
day. hHai DEGREES in both these cases. First
as 10 the claim OF the heirs Of Bertrand Grarier
under one of whom M. LiyiHgS ton hslds an
adverse possession.-it was decided, that thew
were entitled to three fourths of the property
in the batture. bnt bound TO reimburse Mir. L.
pr0portiOnateiy for the labor aud expense lie
had incurred in reclaImiNg and improving il.
Secondly, as to the front p,oprietors Sit was
decided that they were entitled 10 the batfurc
or aliuvion fronting their lots.
The principle of this last decision extends
IN lis operation, as we understand, bu. 10 a
very small portion of the batture. few of
the front proprietors, among whom were the
plaintiffs IN this action, hold under sales made
from the Gravier plantation, at a period long
antecedent to its being erected inio Faux
bourg. The other front propriefors. we are
informed, purchased after its erection, by
prescribed limits under designated plan of
the proposed city, and hold their property by
tenure materially different from that which
has been decided upon
How far the decisions of which We have
spoken go 10 qniet the long agitated subject
10 winch they relate, we are at loss to OIL.
lecture. Some still speak of The rights of the
4 ~, and others say that those OF the United
States have not yet been agltaied. For our.
selves, we have been disposed to look with a
favorable eye upon The rights Of MIR. Living.
sion, and should regret to any such dis
position made OF the property as would leave
HIM unrequItcd, for the great labor, large
expenditure and extraordinary talents, which
lie has brought III support OF his title.
lrbronirJe