New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-06-05

ss~s. .~s rse,cs, ,ss,esasss., eat ,ss's '"aA'"
wese.vv r's s. .ss 10. ''sss 90,
s ss; a. ; - . .sr' IS: .
se,e 80, - 'e 20 ~ ,ss Nc
~, =. he S ss.s he ss, ne Sse,o'
TN' Ne. w.. En- se s ~ q ,Ss es y In ,sra Fsyis
~ ss.s a.: ~ :s .s ssS an hand
sS b., s.' X. rsiora ssSOC, recover
yss r., ss s:'s' S.. 'S'ssa.s and he
Ssss ,rs.s.. ,ss,sG he'd been ssS ia any .Hnsr
ssssnv ~ ss rr.snpeg' demand re'as" o. police 70
Asr,s, .rSs,s sss bound " p Sc' Sossi by .p
abe .srsy who s~ by The Justice UNDERWOOD 20 sp
,s.s. -. .sss sN .sS ia isdss,s,, q i%s.
W notle' ast rswnet =, -, ~.
,,.sN ,r rses ~ A complaint, rrcCecds upon one
as sSs h, ycy,se wAsh he shipped had terminated b.
Ne s.sr ef the vessel DISCARDED him at Savannah
thew IAsi ssei whrp savannah unscawofihy and
~ therefore net bound 80 return in her TO Se"
Testimony dee. W, ,sAsi, sna, contradiction upon
ssSi - ~ srcn hes. questions and eoaeus in dsProy
ssSsS w. so he rsr' Cor which Che .hp wh h6
~ Ss -, =, .S, S%1 the "f rsn 9d. .s s
u sis MP thrOpsh put into Savannah for repairs
ses,s mr. ws sSy deviation alleged sOund for claiming
We rrccf piv. and rpsonirsdced cha, III; captain
"a ne, hr the hu d all that he could 70 induce him
4, xesstrr N he performance 81 his duty.
sea The rrsi equal. clear hsi ,he shin was 'esso5hy sna
va. ,,6ss ths, ard suitable condition continue
tssvsss, .sietysnd Of this there contradiction
sn ~ tho cour Selowupoa Of fsot
sss Of 6, S sy ,. sS ss 81 Sfs SSs upon
se ase,itr,d by Che three ACTING - quasi jfa
S.s " lab. the Ssenus member acted with tho aa9I
ss,ssn Il rsS, to tic sSrSasion to which thev
arc objected that the judgment bad because Ie cost yero
,.s he Of The Govt A.. nav % 1ssmept nece.a
MY costs are gpope nS sSS s@s BE- GOOD md
s reh, Of Ii, party would for caxai.n which
ss be s5,S % S s. ct As the S P BE judgment
sens arose papers bsud be presented on a
a ,s Should BE- presoied fully
60 q, ss Sss as ts sur and that jurisdiction obtained
give es Mt !! bot pe5es;a 70 10 s par par
s light he appellants case II Is sufficient to
'; IT, 'i pS IL should % Be- rm'd ' With costa
CrknkE he liza Of J.oasy 1879 adsm .s
lot Of land on he nc re-
NET ty svo addps in explanation of the term
that a01S DC sAS q Inc o ws,R % Se dcd
conveyed esyGd Clarke an assignee Of the ppan IN 9s
Ssd by jrdsent executed by MeGon TO Clarke con
rs w. & Sr hs ns streets aud
and fO~rs the de.epon il Pie sh9usn s9i
hssSS .i % dead dr Se I"s snd one Of its Te
qusmsns showing hat there was aoae con
h ss,d or oherwe that it was their Intention vary the
dim nsioR description Of the premises or IN the
Ssa Thee nOSns imply intention y iae
exc ihe OMISSION the explanatory words which
have quoted nom the JUDGMENT 1t seidiilea IN ns cas-
the hat examining the dimensions OF the
ss s Il s Of pe Soad twenty @ dph
1tt guest. to be dsisaned r. %nei' Sse S on
.oed he land cuaed Of twenty feet on ITS wet9 a me
sv Ien .. he width Of hundred feet orsinally lad
srv owner DID, What the evidence
t,uus 70 Ielnquh 50 la proportion Of ns na o' 'n
sc indicating any such L ne Su I eeS o
70 me heSps two to show eoasructSe
dsdesien confess anything in the ProSeedas Of
eh,r OF the parties what pressed or omitted the eonysy
sne 10 wssut any such S
BY tI.ei Tor understand the Judgment correctly MS0owa %as
2le buudred feet originally sd ont" These w9,d to De sge
each relating separate portion Of land aud d.
ee'ips whom to be conveyed the esh'h eso 70
tenth section beng the last the explanatory words relating to the
lilac, after that section TO the necessity Of repeating then
nm the Circumstance tSi these words applicable
tthe tenth than other section the dg nnt B1 me sx
tio"S avenue as herein used should taken &C. herein
is iSt e1ss Vas S avoid sacosy
es !" hs srspor BY the repeat Clarke
{. the 90 feet 1t meters not what MeG9wn intended waoa
the blocks those dimensions IN de- ph what Teon e
dine along The Of this land in the alb
he least title proof adequate rao or OF any IN
duemtnt ena ion unsswc are 10 essan n aesee
civic worth sad public that S Dc Pode1 1 S
iosuIpos that be esuIsy gave up TINS aIEe strip OF n
than authorized At all events from the ccun-
s.s Me- S tho %95 s depth the
blocks does such supposiion especially whea We
tina, in ,eht months after the execution aud delivery
this deed he expressly shows that he contemses no such thing
the sconve of Clarke Sluyer. In October 1852 tne
block is conveyed Of 800 feet in depth and of course to The
o,isina line Of the Fourth av" the hundred feet vide
Fourth which most people knew TO be the Only fourlaV
How then be inferred that when he received the convey
from McGown he renquhed his right 10 what the judgment
Of his right, in opposition
to qgyoeei omission Of words which were merely
wofd MGown's deed capable of inter
probation the o'her Clarke knew presume he had dedicated
IN. public accept the block from
directed 10 be wdehd by the act of 1857 its depth from the ln TO
s Fourth would be only so feet The hat
the that there seemed be deviation from
IN other respects very insufficient for concluding that
ess.rsy 10 abandon, without apparent consideration
eonps nssiion adequate motive, considerable pro
only safe rule only by right
properly be preserved to reject all doubtful claims u
81, mo s, ehS III than b il we are not willing forget where
Mhsi living under political regimen which regards
living the meridian of ST. Petersburg or OF Srand tao-e
shoud in all insist this Court at General Term IN tins DIS
tc has before insisted that constructive ded.ion can ohy ~
steeiec by clear sneqniyoee and decisive acts oil he oh
ing To the explicit manifestation of his will 20 make permanent
abandonment thing dedraied For these reasons the e
concur with brethren the other questions presented IN this
CIRCUIT C0URT-Besore Judges BETS and NeEKsoLl
Spooner ssL John NJ Daniel.
The defendant was editor Of Richmond paper but s
engaged as diplomatic agent abroad Plaintiff sded IN this
In of 1oba