The New York herald., 1851-10-20
Supreme COurt-Speelal Tern.
Before Chief Justice Edmonds.


0crosss ls-rhs Corporation Counsel Mr. Davies, con
tnusd bis argument In this matter Upon the Question
be coocuded by nssDg that cot ~ pased was its
own witness and could only be- tried BY itself and
spscon In .nswer to the position taken by the counsel
had not authorized this application appontment
Of comm ssioners he insisted that could question
the authority Of the corporation council that derived
bis appointment from the people; and further, that
the Comnon Council had directed proceedings long
pa&sd resolution deciding that necessary
Tor public park but they had no right to do 1t then
act CT the Common Council necessary; they have
merely into court under this law and ask for the
any body dedicated this land to public use and the
AFFIDAVIT of Mr.. Hitsn was read to show that
the e Of a nss never been e.
Corporation 10 take lands under this Law Q public
purpose aud Insisted that upon applications Of this kind
the question a. TO the constitutioDay Of the law
be rsifed
Court-Thst is undoubtedly so, in cases where the
right OF sovel eignity has been exercised.
Mr.. Davies could not how the right can be ex-
ercised in any other way than it has in this case
ton of June Sd Besides fact of this
for the appointment Of on these
b 70 pay the money swsrdsd for the
reignty The resolution shows that We have concluded
to take The lands and the acts of the Corporation Coun
sci In this matter bind the Cooperation the same as the
acts OF the street Commissioner and Comptroller their
several departments
CourtBu there must be an exercise Of the riaht Of
can be made.
Mr.. Dsvits-The Corporation could not have such
power deegssedo them that's for the sovereign power
alone,
Mr. Jones lex. Chief Justice THE corporation had
to take these lands under the
I7s and that sectien also authorizes this application
MT Daves-on this application it sufficient to show
that parties do proceeding under the General Rail Road
law Of 1850 AS to the question, that this law sppro
being previously shade there no force in
the objection case in IL Pickering was cited to show
Chssceor rays Property may .aken before compsn-
sation is ascer aimed made 20 johnson 1885, where
bfor Ths csse os Raossoos y Mohsu
r. cited to the point and the decision Of
sufficiently certain If the faith Of the city pledged for
payment.
with the reilr osd law referred 10 in that case ?
Mr. Dsvies-I read the opinion argume Mt, and not
authority. Counsel th asked the court whether it
not sufficient that the faith Of this city with
fifty millions Of property pledged TO pay the damages
M Bronson Tex Chisf Justee)-where does it appear
that they have Il at shount of property,
Mr. Daves-I will assume It. Counsel then said the
counsel fsr had displayed earning and wit
to show that these lands II taken under this law could
only be used the keeping OF wild and had cited
Lord Coke and other ancient authorities But rather
than cite Lord Coke be had better look out Of the win
dow to what park Writ many .her
beautifu. parks which the lungs Of city pic
here drawn by counsel showing the benefit the
million would derive from the establishment Of parks
like this the upper ten" don't need them but the
teeming million require them after the iabors and
attgues the Counsel then said that IL
always the matter whether street TO
be opened the city adorned the corporation
cused Of feSrs the property, and proceeded at some
Court-TO what section Of this law is this branch of
the arg ument pointed?
The Corporation Coun sci then concluded.
TX. Judge Jones then proceeded the side and
aid that this was Of ordinary occurrence
y the appropriation Of lands in this city public
for the Of our citizens and the
of the rubiie at large That New York the London
of the New world, and in such city public squares
and IL mus nj nd
feeling the law was pc. sed. To the first ques
ton-Is this square necessary for the public use
ansxeted. that the Common Council In June last
took that matter into consideration; they appointed
committee for that purpose and that committee to
the conclusion that it necessary lie admitted that
the corporation had 70 take the lands then but
they had power 10 consider the necessity The
lsl3 section rs sushorzed the corporation to lay out
theee lands and the application for that purpose
not made to the Legislature bat merely TO authorize the
taking Of the lands Madison square opened the
vsJ. The corporation determined to lay the
lands ana then applied TO tha Legislature for power
take tnsm. That the Legislature had in this
cised the whole the power eminent domain in drst
declaring that this Land be- taken and second de-
csrine that II shall be public park That all
the streets running through these lands have been
abolished by this Jaw because you can't have these lands
buildings upon them As to the authority make this
Application. told that the corporation have vsc
lsted upon this point But 1t Is enough that they have
directed their counsel to proceed II IL also said that
this Law passed, the ground Ia taken that
public las printed published and promulgated such,
ore; and this is the hrst attempt In this country
establish such principle Look st the affidavit pro-
in requiring the hand OF this its perpe
trsonf IL that, after the bill had passed the
Senate sent 20 the House, and there referred 10
committee, and by them reported With an amendment
requiring two weeks notice of tn. application 10 be given
that the commissioners should bs appointed
the nomination Of the and three tn. nounA-
tion Of the Common Council The House subsequently
reoonmited the bill with nstru>tions TO strike
this snebdment which the committee refused 70
bai was required to b. reported, when the same
was read ana passed with tse amendment. Now,
IL 10 ofr,d 10 te shovn that this smendmest v1
stricken out by tks presiding officer of the House after
the passage Of the bill and for the purpose evidently of
conforming to the sctisn Of the House teif Counsel
then insisted that If the amendment such a a
should not have been in the bin the striking
effect the matter. He then passed 70 the question
whether the Court could inquire into the existence Of
record Itself -sBd argued that if the rule is once
Established II will be master rule. and override all
o:herr and will ee rsorted TO By all peron' in every
Law Reference msds TO the Of the Yazoo
Grant. in g. Cranehs Reports where the offer 70
prove that the passage q the act Obtained through
The eoIruption Of the Legislature and Chief Justice
Marshall there decided that it eompet@nt for
party n sue cA TO show the fact Of fraud by parole
evidence Purdy vs. People Hill 5si referred to,
and insisted that the Court did not In that
20 behind the awthsy merely went 20 the original act
vhther tbe rule established BY the Legislature
had been compiled With.
The Court adjourned the further argument Of this
motion TO neat saturday
the part Of the public and particularly the bar not
only account of the Arguments Of the counsel en-
oS ga "a "a ne yr ss'ssn, snws,s
kst the people vii not have the plesre Of u,ng these
lsnds for para very soon-st least not until the
owners have thoroughly tested the righ. of the Cor
porsiion 70 take their property
The Forrest Divorce Case.
Al PERIoR COURT IN CHAMBERS.
Ha~or. fr.a-