The New York herald., 1851-08-01
Supreme COurt.-In Chambers
Before iior.. sudge King

THE STATEN ISLAND FERRY CONTROVERSY
APPLICATION FOR ATTACHMENT, FOR VIOLATION
OF AN INJUNCTION.
JULy 3l-C@6elius Tand1JM q. Geo. Lar, U1. y.
Tornsend John Bwgha, and Daniel Hazkol-An
order made in this by bis Honor Judge King,
the th July requiring the defendants to show
why an injunction should not issue, to restrain them
from erecting pier or dock certain premises,
Owned by the plaintiff and situate on the eastern shore
of Staten Island These premises consist of strip Of
land, between high and low water mark The upland
and The land under water, below low water mark ada
&C to the plaintiffs preInises claim ed by Mr.
M Western, by whose alleged pt rmssion the def ianx
have commenced the erection Of the dock in question
me Pintn objects to this deck passing over his pre-
miscs, which lie between the water right and upland
claimed by Mr.. Western.
BY the order above mentioned. the defendants we're
restrained until should be shown against uakng
the injunction absolute from proceeding with the
tion of the dock
Mr. II. + Clark. with whom was associated Mr. Thorn
and Mr.. Rspeo. behalf Of the plaintiff presented
aidsvits 10 the Court this day. setting forth that the
above orcer had been duly served the defendants
Townsend and Burgher aud that after the service OF
such ofder they had In violation thereof permitted the
woIkmen in their employ to proceed with the erection
Plaintiff premises; and that the wormen, acting under
the directions Of the def ndans had driven number OF
piles In the plaintiffs land That portion OF the fia-
v's which retired to the defendant Burgher set forth
particularly. that he had been the doct Civ.
ing directions to the worsWeo and exercising control
over the work On these afdayts Mr. Clark moved for
an atschmen ut against Townsend and Burgher for con-
tempt
Mr. Emerson on behalf OF the defendants read a,
affidavit Of Mr. Townsend discaimng any esponsbility
or the acts of the wormen. and stating that they were
not In his employ and that he had no control ever them
Mr Emerson also read affidavit Of the defendant
Burgher. TO the same general purport.
Mr CLARK contep ded that inasmuch as the defendants
Townfcnd and Burgher did deny the allegation in the
PLAINTIFFS complaint that the constructs Of the dock
had been commenced by their authority. and did not
show ly whom the erection had been continued or state
fcts clearly showing that they had particpaton i
the continuance Of the erection contrary TO the order
OF The Court the attachment ought issue and they
sheud be interrogated oath 20 the facts lie fur
ther eontended ss TO the dtoadiut Burger that his
denial OF the alleged coptemp aid prevail against
The positive and specific aegaioas contained in the
tmdayiss on the part Of the plaintiff Mr. Clark insisted
that the denial evLsye, and mere subtcrfuge TO
avoid responsibility and that tie Court owed Il 10 its
own dignity TO protect ts jurisdiction 10y the ISSUING o.
an attachment against Burgher In any event
Messrs Emsrson and Western insisted that Mr. Town
send had fully denied in his affidavit any psrtieiestion
whatever In the acts compained of and that Mr.
Burgh sfidavit should also be- deemed Satisfactory
exc Slpatiop.
Afer The matter had been ued at some length by
counsel -
The Court decided that. inasnuch as Mr. Townsend
rad dtnied on oath any connection with the rorstruc-
tion Of the rer and there positive evidence on
the tart o the plaintiff duplicating him. attaehu, mt
should issue against him; but that as personal as of
Mr Bntgher had been proved by the plaintiff aud his
denial was lot at factory to the Court attachuat
should issuo against him. reuTnablc on the ninth of
August nox for the alleged contempt His Honor aid
that 80 long as he presided In that he wouY not
hesitate 10 AXE ~ nil the powers the law had eoa-
feired upon him TO enforce obedience TO its orders
Mr. Clark then applied that the sfidavit Of Nr Tswn-
tend denying his participation in ths construeicu Of
the dock. be- MED forthwith
III, Court directed that he affidavit Le fled and That
The further hearing II the matter be laid over