New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-01-13

COURT CALENDAR'-Ihls Day.-C0NH o.
Common Pleas.-Part Nos. SO, 43, 90, II, 10,
n, 70, 81 49, IS, 81, 49, 81, SO. Part NOS 49,
1856 1885, l4e 142, l44, TAG, l4S, $50, l52 l36 1875
Srpe,ior Court.-Published on Saturday.
Circuit Cou1t-Nos. 1873, 90, AZ, A, u, &c. 49,
80. sek, 90, 81, 90, 90, ga, 80.
u. s. District Court-Nos. 10, II, lS' ~, 2O'2l'
90, 90, %, 20.
SUPREME CoURT-Special Term-B etore Judge
EdmOnds.-ln the matter OF Injunction restrain rain
ing the Corporation of the City OF New ork from
executing lease of the Fulton, South and Attain
tic.st. Ferry to Messrs. Pierpont and Others as
per recent ordinance, Judge Barculo made an or
der few days since, requiring that the motion
TO dissolve the injunction be heard al tougnkeep-
sic which is part of the second Judicial District,
which District embraces all Long Island and both
sides of the Hudson, including Duchess Go. on
one side and Orange on the other. Motion was
made that this Court grant an order, agreeaoy to
a former order made by 1t, requiring the case 20
be argued in this County. The Court held that
Judge B. had right to order the argument IN any
portion of the Second District he pleased, and de
MED the motion.
GENERAL Term Poughkeepsie- Cobb
va Tine Cifv Of Ne1c. rk-PlaintiH being about
to build on land owned by him in Westchester
Co., Immediately beside the land owned by the
CITY for the Croton Aqueduct, loeing width OF
66 feet throughout the whole line, OF Az miles,
which gives about IL feet each side OF the aque-
duct,) placed earth on the grounds OF the aque-
duct and the Croton AquedUct Commissioner, IN
consequence, ordered fence TO be erected at the
point. Mr. c. caused the fence to be KNOCKED
away. contending that the City had no right TO
Mace il there and an action for trespass was
bronebt AGAINST him. On that trial the Judge
cbarSed that the owner of the adjoining land has
an unrestricted right Of way, which Justified the
course of Mr. C. and verdict was rendered IN his
favor. =, Tn D...;o..
The case was appealed by MIR. Henry T. Dawes
CORPORATION Counsel, to the supreme Oourt MI
D. contendiDg that the Corporation OF New-iork
are seized in fee simple of the lands IN question:
and are clothed with all the rights which any per
son can possess in respect to his individual estate,
can erect fences and Enclosures and maintain
trespass for an entry upon them without Incense
and that it especially can do so on the point OF
land in question, as the sale oil sSld land 70 'Is
CORPORATION was a voluntary deed OF Thomas l:
BoYce. from whom the Corporation bought IT, and
that they possessed all the rights which Mr.. Boyce
did Bnt that even if the land at that point had
been taken by appraisal, under the avs OF 1904
and 1886 the Corporation rad SIN arlghs 70 ereCe
the fence as the Sd section OF the act oil 1882 p
700 directs the Corporation to erect fences wher
ever tbev are REQUIRED for the protection OF the
work. q sutabe.right OF way being given TO own
ers of adjoining lands requiring it; sad that such
right had been given to Mr.. I. over another Por
ton of the aqueduct land, but OF when ne dd noS
avail himself Mr. d. also commended that M y;
destroying the fence was trespass Tor when ne
is liable
The Supreme Court, in its decision, yesterday
took the view as contended for by the Counsel Tor
Civ holding that the City has right to fence the
whole line OF the aqueduct ahordlng over IT,
suitable right of way. erdict set aside and ne"
trial ordered.
CfRcUlr CoURT-Before Judge Mitchell.-yeTe
,afah I}ro1ra and Waiter Byetcsfer VS. ID. H. j,
John ~ griffin and Richard SedrS.-lt IS alleged
that Messrs q. x were, in May ls47 proPrie-
tors Of a Transportation Line called d" Griihtn
Western Line" and that they, by X. u. Stmson
& Co. Of Detroit their agents. agreed to snip ior
them at Detroit, for New York, POI bbls hour al
81 25 per Dbl freight, and 1874 bbls were deliver
ed TO them for that purpose IN good order, put II
. was delivered in New York in July, lo4I, IN 50
damaged a state that it had TO be sold at S!o2 ~
less than il could have been sold for II deh'eieo
in as good order as received by them-also thar
there was unnecessary delay IN bringing II, anu
that -four fell so that the delay caused iurlnet
depreciation of 5000 so. They therefore, through
Messrs j. Edgar and w. G. Noyes, their counsel
claim TO recover 1923 damages
The suit is defended by Messrs. an oantVoS. -
and c. T. Cromwell. Messrs. q. and 5. deny tnaI
they were common carriers on that route ana AsO
DENY that b. g. S. & Co. agreed to ship ior p,AI1
tiff such -four at any price, and also deny tnae D.
l ~ & Co. were their agents so a. 70 receive