The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-01-22

state thst the in our nay take
Is there .ns !.
cate or bind LIE Roy and Pisrpoint' Certainly mot
shoald now feel nyss perfectly sss IN stopping here
quired sssnst Msssrs LIE Roy and Pisrpoint. II the
Common Council OF New York have NO power to grant
point would be nugatory and void To test this point
let me ask your honor what kind of bill could they
name against those gentlemen TO obtain spsch. per-
Torrance OF some cot their part, In . bill or
complaint founded equitable principles to compel
. party to psrierm any sat- the party complaining
rights himself entitle him TO the relief which he
seeks; and upon the state OF fasts here shown ask
what bill could be drawn and placed on the nles Of
this court TO compel these gentlemen to do refrain
from doing, any thing in those articles and propo
tions or to compel them to 20 into this and
Mr Cutting followed on the same sids-He said that
In regard to the matter before the court
spsots the rights Of the Defendants LIE Roy and Pier
point, his views had been so fully set forth BY bis
associate that very little was lett for hin to
say on the subject. I will, therefore. say
little repetition possible trusting however that
your honor will give US opportunity Of criticisins
ti.nsn on the sther side Now, on the case that sp
pears the Of the complaint against LIE Roy and
Perpoint, he plaintiffs say they have right to the
relief asked for to part Of it, but for my own
part Notwithstanding that the master hands OF the
two senior counsel appear in every lHe OF IT, and al
though they have their rights with the great
est advantage yet still cannot help thinking that
from it's remarkable opacity, there must be some aim
oaesd IL them s clients before the court The
which opponents have here presented SO lar as
copjectu among ourselves, appears to be TINS
1t appears three OF the plaintiffs members of the
Union Ferry Company and they are named in the
Board OF Managers, ind are stockholders of the COM
pany. In the year lSs8 those three of Il members
ask share of the ferries already established to-
gether with q one which was to be established,
and which thought to be necessary for the oc
convenience. They suggested proposition that a
license to the Commissioners, under the act of 1915
should be applied for and that partnership should be
rtf rplA ttnhf hn
Unien Ferry Company were based, and that they con
sented to the proposal that they obtained license
and expended q thousand dollars in obtaining it,
and they then sllege that the de.endant, Leroy aud
Perpont declined to lend their assistance to carry
out the projects and they then go on to state thai
defendants have applied to the Mayor and Common
Council for lease OF the ferries, and that they
apprehensve it would be granted and then tn ask
that the May and Common Council may be eDjoined
from granting and that the defs ndsuts LIE Roy aud
Pierpoint may be enjoined from accepting 1t There
is no complaint to Montague street terry they
may and run that they please but they do not
say whether they will or not Nov If the court peases
lar regards lie Roy and Pierpoint what equity
have they shown the face of this complaint against
them Have they made any contract WHAT have
they done What have they agreed to do Docs the
complaint state that they made any agreement No .
But they hint q. something about right of the de-
fendants and that they applied to the for
lease Now, would ask again, what have they done,
so Tar as appears the face Of this complaint to
estop themselves from so doing But, supposiny
there had been q contract executed between them
where was the power OF the twenty-one managers TO
enter into any contract after 1851 They knew this
therefore there fraud deception put upon
them. This want of authority, or power wa. well
known to them; what, then, have they TO complain
Of y l ask, which one Of the stockholders could
be sued upon that contract, Not one and 1t
that any thing has been done to obtain the Of
the ckholdre is 1t pretended that Leroy and
any authority to enter into a partnership with
them for tho ferries in 1851 does il set forth
thing that BE- enforced which would compel them
to carry .ueh partnership out No relief can be had
under this plant. II Is not filed behalf OF
ths selves and other parties; they made par
ties In representative character is there any
sverment against them but the averment Is that the
plaintiffs themselves ere entitled to ferries AMI the
tolls rents and profits Of these ferries In tact, the
bill is filed b. half of themselves and not behalf
Of any other party claiming under this preten ied
agreement, to which Lekoy and Pierpolnt par.
lies and which they have entirely from the
beginning ! am at g loss therefore, 10 know upon
what this bill is grounded. Now TO the three Ter
rie, upon what ground 60 they stand We hsvsshown
that one OF those PLAINTIFF was a competitor tor the
lease and offered $50 eco Tor grant OF IT, but IL
refused. Now II II VAS granted. what would become
Of the agreement alleged TO be entered into in 1873
why the very fact OF his having made the applies-
ton, repels the idea Of this alleged agreement. II
they have u license have no doubt they have, let
them run their ferrie. We 90 not want 10 prevent
them but no, they come here TO ask for ipjune
tion TO oust US from our possession which Is an an
cient and 70 give II to them who have title
cept license under what alsge to be an
unconstitutional act; and moreover, they ser
an application before TO a Court Of equity on
90 bald pretsxtj but | presume the Court will
II t0tfTtHrN.
hmm. with the rights Of the DEFENDANTS.
Mr. Davies the part Of the corporation OF the city
OF New York. followed hr Cutting lie commenced by
ssyng he would submit few observations in regard 70
the title 81 his clients the corporation Of the city Of
New orb to the ferry which :. known the old terry
lie said he had the rst DAY the b. nor OF laying beOr.
the court the several charters and other intument
which gave the Mayor and corporation title 10 this
and all other ferries which they might at any time
establish. Those evidences grants from the
crown Of Great Britain, which we're afterwards con
armed By the legislature q th, state, and By the
people Of this state in their sovereign capacity a. the
time OF framing the three constitutions Of hi, State
desire TO call the attention Of the court to the
comuentsr.. Of the late Chancellor Kent the father
Of American law because the corporation In reference
TO their property stand before this court private
individual The learned counsel then read the various
clause. OF the charters With the notes Of the late
Chancellor thereon He referred in particular to the
charter granted IN he reign Of Queen Anne, which
confirmed the grant OF the Old ferry which was In ex
tsnee and ussd tor ATTY yeIs before that charter was
granted and begged 20 impress on the mind OF the
court that ms early as 1881 the Colonial Legislature
common council Of this city 10 establish ferfie.
and that charter bss been fully confirmed by all the
Avs passed iince by cur oHn Legislatures and ~ the
three constitutions Now We suppose II was with
ference 70 h. grant that the clause In the act OF 1916
declares THAT Il should sot apply 20 ferries the
poraiion have established nor 70 any which they
might after arss establish aud not sithstandipg this
clause your Honor s asked &c interfere with those
ferries one q which a. have before stated, was
tabishsd atty years beerr the commencement Of the
Ass century You are asked 20 interfere with their
rights and psrquises AMI TO take them out OF their
bar q and place the in the hands Of the Baintf, al
though their Is Ellsgaticn IN their complaint that
TIE corr GRAFTON baye abutsd their powers 10 Il pro.
per here, 20 state that che Of the planifs Mr. Bars
tow made application very lately to the corporation
for lease II those erre. and offered N $4,000 Tor
H. but They be eorporation thought poper 70 refuse
him. aud to give preference r. the Defendants lie
roy aud Pisrpoi1t who already IN possession
ap1 bad managed them 70 the satisfaction 81 the cor
poratiOp and the public The Learned counsel who
opened the case on the part q The plaintiff supposes
that those charters contain grants ~ property Of
which they be Invested b. the Legislature. at
their will and pisasura and he also supposed
that thsse charters Aot being directly granted BY
The soysfeigbs, that they not bin1lng aud
valid grants tpt Jour Honor viii hBd MN look
iDg over The case ~ the charter at Dartmouth
College-vbiCb was shown never 20 have been ap.
proved o. BY the sovereign and aron which believe
this case pill turn - hat TIE court held II 20 be
valid grant without am eOBfm stion ~ The sovereign
o. By the state The rrpesnE act a iss which IL
sid rspssl all tbe colonial acts Rnd also the OF
lo1 and be referred & section tour q that act the
repeating clause but II the gentleman had read sec
ton I've be would Sc thst th' s't stion repes tn