The New York herald., 1850-04-27
The Manorial Title Trial.-The Decision Of
the Court.
BY hoRsE's MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.

BY NoRsE's MAGNETIC TELEoRAPu.
Hrpsos, April 26-P. NJ
| The court opened al o'clock this morning The
Judge then proceeded to state his opinion nonsut
The Court said that 1t question for him de-
eide whether the patents Of 1856 and 1l5 void
| not or whether either void not. 1t had
been contended that they were void, because issued
without legal authority. This is Of the grounds
In regard to that the Court thought that it
presumed that the oc issuing said patents did his
duty, and that this presumption not to be over
thrown by testimony other than Affirmative, whereas
all the proof that point Is negative In regard
to the objection to their regularity the Court said that
1t is to be presumed that all preliminary forms
complied with and that they regular, and that
the testimony in this did not overthrow that pre-
SUMPTION and he also thought that the acts Of the
onia Legislature in 1901, would such defects II
there any
The Court thought that the most difficult point in
this was whether the said patents were void on
the ground that the government was deceived; and
said that the patents must be sustained The patent
of 1715 not necessarily void for those very reasons
They independent grants, and the Of l715 IL
not mere confirmation Of the Of 1886; and the
defendant may make title under either OF these pa
tentsso that, II the patent Of 1856 is void the de-
fendant may resort to the of 17l5 Suppose from
the representation Of Robert Livingston 10 Governor
Donegban, in his application for manor lordship
in 1888 that the two tracts grantedone In 1854 and
the other in lGs5-were together and not separate;
that the patent of 1856 was void Il would not affect
any that after The patent Of 17l5 is valid and
good the King could not, from the evidence, have
been deceived, as there good and well-known
monuments and all the limits and boundaries were
easily calculated and known 4 think the patent OF
l7l5 good and valid and the defence is good under IT,
The Court referred to many other patents In this
case, expressing the opinion and decision Of the Court
but which being spoken rapidly could not be taken
down very correctly. The Court suggested however,
that before granting a nonsuit, the counsel should
agree upon some mode OF disposing Of this case.
The defence desired to have the nonsuit granted,
and permit the prosecution to have stay Of proceed
inss and appeal the case.
The pros,c uton, the other hand, contsnded that
the question was Of fact and should be submitted to
the jury and then the be disposed of or that
the Court should direct the jury to fnd special
dict in regard to point OF possession
The counsel both sides have argued at some
length ip regard TO the mode Of dspong OF this case
and there seems to b. much difference Of opinion In
reference to the manner in which legal disposition
can be made ofthe case.
The counsel have had .qusbble section OF
the code, having reference 10 tn, case in question
Mr. Van Burcn thinks that the ,fcncc have no rirh,
10 call the Court for nOnsnit, which they had
fused to ask for when the prosecution closed their
aud the Court asked defence m they wished to ask TOR
one lie coptcnded that defence had waived Ia right
by allowing the time g. pass In which they might
moved hence tho Court could grant ponsuit. hut
permit the issues Of fact ia this go to jury
lie desired this to be disposed Of In such
manner that necessity Of trial should be avoided
The defence again suggested very briefly that there
T. question Of fac, for the jury that point Of
no. -esFiar hch prosecution claimed should 20 40 the