Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1840-01-05
Gonrt Of Com sai or pleas.
Before judge Ingliss, December 81.

before Judge lhgisS, December 81.
Hans U. Dressier Us. James Gemmel.-Mr J. r
Brady stated the on the part of the plaintiff
1t was an action to recover compensation for inju
ries sustained and losses incurred in quence
the negligence Of the defendants agents in dggin:
the foundation of a new building at the corner o
Reade street and Broadway, whereby the adj Minis
house had been injured, the plaintiffs store and blu
| sness disturbed and he compelled to remove to an
other situation. 1t appeared that in the month o.
April, fire occurred on some premises owned b,
the defendant, at the corner Of keade street, anc
that in the following month he determined e
pull the house down, and erect new five story
building The house adjoining to the defendant 5
was In the occupation OF German furreT, nam e q
Frauzke, of whom the plaintiff rented the cellar,
which he used shoe makers shop and for the
| residence of himself and family. When the ope "a
tions of digging the foundation for Gemmefs house
commenced, Fraut2kes house sunk, the walls crack,
ed and the whole building app AIRED rickcty and
dangerous that the public authorities were applied
to. FrautZke refused To do any thing to his build
ing. aud notwithstanding It's tottering appearance
both his and Dresser family staid there, and the
latter resolutely persisted in refusing pas sage
through their premises to any Of the workmen en-
poyed in constructing the foundation of the new
house, or to permit their own to be propt up. At
length Dr.ssler found that his trade all leaving
him, and he removed to Pearl street and brought
this action
On the part OF the defendant Mr.. O'Connor appear.
ed, and in his open ng speech he contended that any
man who Is an owner of the soil has the fee simple
az high up az the heavens and down Ia the centre
Of the earth, although the learned gent eman adj
United that IN exercising this right care must be
taken not 10 infringe others property, and
that in particular al old foundation must tie re
speeted, at all hszarSs. He also stated that the
plaintif was one of those men, who, having found
his neighbor's OK IN ditch, wished to turn the
accident 10 his profit. Hence his refusal TO
pc rmit the operations Of the workmen, to leave
the cellar unless 500 paid 10 him.
The learned gentleman called number OF builders
no had been engaged on the work, and the house
mover, who had been employed to shore up
Frauikze's house. This witness swore that he ex-
planned t. the plaintiff in what vay he could do
the work without inconveniencing him for mors
than two or three days; for this inconvenience
the defendant was willing to have paid the plaintiff
compensation of 500. After his, "the needles
were run through the plaintiffs cellar without hi.
PERM sion and the work not completed whe n
he removed his business.
The court charged the jury to consider whethe
sed permis ion 10 pass through his premises. IL SO
they mus consider how far he had been a loser b,
the 70 ced removal, and apporton the damages ae
cordngly. IL hao been laid down by a very high
legal auth ,riy that no man could disturb his neigh
boris foundation without making him compense
and the jury must say from the evidence, whether
sufficient r. compense was .ilered.
The Jury after some consultation, found verdict
for the defendant.
Counsel for the plaintiff J. T. Brady, Esq; fol
defendant, Charles q Conner, Esq