The New York herald., 1850-04-26
The Aanorial Title Case.
BY hoRsE's MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.
HupsoN April Is, 1850

respect They had to the rights Of colonial
government, and we're bound by its action. They
were bound by acqucscence Of 1J0 years-by the
receipt of quit rents, and by acts recting and reco
nsing the manors. He claimed that the Legislature
were bound by their various acts in the manner
as n grantor in deed and ut the present time the
prosecution had no right to say that the names Of
places mentioned in the patent were not the same as
now and thereby attempt show that more land was
claimed by defe ndant than is included in the patent
that names had changed and that names once appli-
cable to large tracts, must now be confined to small
places. That in the lifetime of Robert Livington,
the manor was all lot that part of it was occu-
pied by him, and that part Of it was woodland That
after his decease the manor was divided into four
great lots. He sontended that each OF these great
lots though sub-dvided into farms, was actually oc-
cupied by the devisees under the will, and
tenants holding under them in the manor, as
constitute adverse possession for the State that
the people of this State had succeeded to all the
rights of the crown, except to lands granted to
Others or lost by adverse posssson that grant
ing the title to be bad and that it procured by
fraud in tho first instance 1t had been held by the
devsees under the defendants will, who stood in the
light Of purchasers for more than forty years. That
granting the qso amino with which the land was
taken and kept possession Of ruled in constituting ad
verse there be doubt in this but
that defendant had taken possession Of the
lands, with intent to claim and keep the same He
cited from Cowan's reports, where person de-
rived title from person deriving the same from the
French government which title bad and had taken
possession under said title, without knowing that the
title bad and held possession under the same for
twent y-four years. The dicm Of the Court in this
case, was, that had he held forty years, the State
would have been barred. He also cited a case in
Johnsons reports showing what acts constituted pos
session Of large tracts Of land He insisted that the
question of possession clear, that there
necessity at ALL of even introducing patents, as the
State was barred by possession alone He said that
strong point in favor Of the title Of Robert Livingston
was the fact that he prosecuted by the Leas-
Ter faction through whose fundamentally his estates
were confcated and that If the bounds in his patent
we're wrong and his patent void they would have used
their exerions have them vacated that they have
not done So and that the estates concatd by act of
Parliament were again restored to him with all
their rights and privileges that the colonial assembly
had seen these patents grantedhad seen the bounds
ries determined-had seen him improve the lands;
and if the patents are void then was the time to
yacate them, when all the facts were known
and not now-as we likely, if not more
So 10 do wrong than right He cited many autho-
rites to prove the positions assumed by him, and
in closing his able argument Of which this is but an
mpecfcct sketch said that If there any question
Of fact to go to the jury 1t simply to whether
wood had been cut not upon the disputed premises
But this was point immateral to the case, possess
sion had been fully enough proved without it. lie
prayed the court for a nonsuit. He spoke six and
quarter hours and closed at IL o'clock, NJ
Mr. Van Buren, arose and said that the gentleman
who had just sat down opened for nonsut-that
the gentleman had consumed six hours in replying to
the arguments Of his associate counsel and that he did
not know that the defence would be satisfied with the
time already consumed by them, but would also want
to reply to him. lie said that the defence
had said when the case was opened TO the jury,
that they would not for nonsuit because they
thought 1t good time to show title; that they had
attempted to show title by introducing two patents Of
confirmation with original grants; that possession
was TO all appearances their main reliance and when
the prosecution attacked their title, they hoped
up and moved for a nonsuit; that the de-
fence aid not propose to submit the issues
to the court AS questions of law, and be bound
by its decision. but claimed the right TO go to
the jury in the decision was against them.
They had come into court he said, with great deal
of boddess and said that all that necessary for
them TO do was to introduce their patents Now, when
we attack the patent, they claim that II comes in
ooatcraliy and that they taken by surprise They
did not set 1t in their pleadings for might have
plead fraud 70 ii. and saved this objection, but
We now claim and say that whenever a patent
is introduced, you have the fight to attack II
for want Of authority in the person granting
defect Of form, or anything else. They claim
to derive their title from the people and the people
are bringing suit and they deny this title.
Mr.. southerland replied, stalking his reputation
that it would ultimately be decided that the State
had no right to bring cias repeal patents Is
sued by the crown prior to l575, and cited au-
thoritics In support then argued at length
against the positions Of Mr. Van Buren, finishing with
a defamation about keeping up popular excitement
Mr. Van Buren replied to bis main point. The
question Of fraud l. not collateral but direct the de-
fence have not cited any showing that the pa
tents cannot he attacked The eases introduced for
the purpose are not analogous Mr.. Van Barren then
cited several cases, to prove the positions as
.umed by him lie cited Howard United
states Reports The king had given lease
to n person, and afterwards granted patent
without recital. TO another, Of the same premises.
The patent was void. because the king had been de-
ccivcd lie also cited the Leggett case, to show that
the grantee is supposed 70 make the statements
in the patent and that the statements being false the
patent is void lie also quoted O. Y. rroeman's reports
MIR Van Burcn then went on. in able manner. to
show that there was fraud the part of Robert LII
yingstou In obtaining his patents The sum and sub
stance Of his arguments that part cf the case
that there had been patents of land to r. Living
s,on one in CSs aud In 1885 The Of iCsi Civ
ing about 800 along the river With some Woodland
the one Of 1855 giving about 300 acres back.
known a. Taghkanic that these tracts we're about
Is miles epHrt aud that Robert Livingston In his sp
plcation 10 Governor Donegan IN lose. for ms-
nor or lordhp. frauducntiy concealed the fact that
they did not join on each other, and that they
were Is miles apart lie said the testimony
showed this TO he the lie also cont-ndcd that
this will showed that there had been fraud In this
patent n described in his will he devised certain
lands described as In the patent Of loss Here he
made a nice argument and in reference TO the fact
a urged by the defence that the patent Of lose had
been confirmed. he said that ~ was q well settled
fact q Law that confirmation does not make good
void patent In support of this. he cited numerou.
ease. where this Law laid down lie said the pur
chase back of the land by the government amounted
to nothing. hut done by the colonial Governor,