New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-16
The Land TriaI 10 Ulster Co.

uHm1
In the Argus Of yesterday, an article was o'P''u
from, the Mr. YORK Herald and another IN lna' u
,tis ,oo,r;,, from the Commercial Adre'tt5er oo'h
o,-;don,,,, rroceeding from the plaintiffs or their
,ha case of Croghan and others against
Bersou and others, IN those arlcies oahcu ""t-
- r,,,n lcan any body imagine whyD which
Glands for trial in the Ulster County circuit and
which articles were maniiestly designed to pro-
duce an influence upon public sentiment favorable
10 the plaintiffs and prejudicial to my clients, the
defendants The former OF them reached Kings
ton, in the Herald, about the time the cause was
expected TO come on for trial there, and was sui
ered on the part of the defendants to pass without
pubct notice, as the latter would have been also,
had it been confined merely to an attempt to fore
sta the public favor for one OF the parties to aJuy
trial. I have not the time, nor do deem 1t in
good taste to argue causes in advance in the news.
napers; and should not trouble you with this CON-.
muncaiion but for the allubion made In the article
from the Commercial AdCertser, to his honor Judge
willard fitted, though not intended TO wound his
feelings if not to disparage his judicial reputation
The object OF the writer of that article evidently
was to invoke public prejudice against the deien-
dants To effect this object the name Of Judge
Willard is paraded in manner which cannot fail
10 be painful, if not injurious. to hun.
1t is due to that learned and excellent Judge to
say, that not word was uttered by any one, on
the part Of the defendants, at the Ulster circuit
to lis prejudice; not sentiment OF dlstrnst OF bis
judicial capacity or impartiality in any manner
Expressed Some complaint certainly was made
of The course pursued by one Of the plaintiffs, and
the public remarks made by one Of his witnesses,
as calculated 10 impair the public confidence 10
the result OF the trial, and to render 1t improper
for Judge Willard, as matter o, delcacy, to try
the cause.
this cause shall be submitted to the public before
it is tried before jury Of Ulster county, it may
be well that the grand inquest Of the country
should be possessed of ut least the leading facts of
the case.
In 1903, patent was granted by Queen Ann, to
the inhabitants of the town Of Rochester, OF all the
lands Of that town, extending between the Sha.
waDeunk range of mountains In Ulster county and
the parallel range of the Caskill, the patent de-
signaling the lands granted by known or visible
boundaries. Five years ait5rward, l7Os, patent
was granted to the seven original patentecs Of the
HardelbOrgh patent, bounded at the northwest Of
the town Of Rochester by the boundary Of that
town and not otherwise. From / 03 TO the period
of the American Revelation, the trustees OF RDch
ester made from time TO time grants of lands at
intervals through nearly the whole extent Of their
patent, to persons whose heirs or assigns hold the
lands 10 this day, under the Rochester grants. In
151s, the darkest peri OF the Revolution, shortly
after the burning Of Kingston, three OF the Har
deEburgh pstentees, two Of the three trustees OF
the town of Rochester, and three persons descrlb.
iIg themselves as assistant trustees bat who, the
town records show, were not the persons elected
by the people as assistants entered INTO what Is
called a settlement deed Oithe boundaries between
the two patents, by which portion OF the town
of Rochester six or seven miles on an average IN
width, was cut Off from the Northwest cad OF tle
town aud added to the Hardenburgh patent; thus
diminishing the area OF the town, and oil course
increasing the Hardenburgh patent about 100
square miles. That this is toe truth OF the case,
whatever NAV be the legal effect Of what is called
the settlement deed, was udically established at
least thirty years since, in the cause OF Jackson
eden. Hunter and vile Is. Bruyn. Ihlt was
an action of ciectment brought by the plaintiffs,
ono of tie prOpretors Of the HardenburGh patent
against the defendant, who held title under
Rochester grant made prior TO the date oil the al
lodged settlement deed; and Of course presented
the naked question Of the true boundary between
the patents. The cause tried in ls2), before
Judge Piatt and a struck Jury, six of whom had
u hat is called a view The verdict was against
the Hardenblrgh claim and in favor OF the dolcnd-
ant and although the plaintiff was entitled by law
10 two trials, it was and ever since has been,
scquiesced in ly the Hardenburgh patentees.
The present suit is action of tcespass, brought
by two of the Hardenburgh propretJrs against
grantee OF the trustees Of Rochester tor cutting
wood and peelng bark on land purchased by him OF
the trustees which is Wild land and has never be-
fore been occupied. The latter grant is recent,
snd OF course subsequent 10 the settlement deed
The sole question in this cause would seem % be,
whether that deed is valid in law, so as to stop
the defendant from setting up the true boundaries
Of the Rochester pateLt. Its validity is for many
reasons, denied on the part Of defendant. Ii not,
those boundaries have been settled in the former
suit, and doubtless can be again by like evidence.
II the deed is conclusive in law, then it mast be
conceded in view of the former verdict, that the
Hardenburgh patcntees have deprived the town Of
Rochester OF about l0J 600 acres of land without
consideration by gross fraud or a gross mistake.
In either view it seems not 10 be a case in which
the plaintiffs can expect much benefit from an ap-
peal to the moral sense OF the community. Tue
cry Of antrenters," 50 industriousy kept up in
certain newspapers, is simply absurd The cause
has no more to 90 with anti rent, than with the
Wilmot proviso or the admission of California
Nor is the fact OF which the public are 50 abun-
dainty advertised, that the plaintiffs are sonsin-
law OF Commodore Rideey, good reason why
they should possess themselves Of other peoples
land, for which they, or those under whom they
claim, have never paid the owners a shilling. TIE
assertion that the Hardenburgh patentees have
been i'll possession OF the land In question ia this
suit 40 years or any time whatever, is a sim
PIE misstatemCnt Of fact. AzOR TAGgg.
My :, 1850.