New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-06-08

M .f,er reciting the royal approval declared
in the order Of the preceding month o. the ass OF io'
this act several large tracts OF land as by tho said oct
will more fully appear ressmed 1y VS., ana are III
our disposal to regrant as VIC shall see OCCASION.
Even needing them ia concession which Tor sewers
reasons ought no, to be made that the Chorch became
invested with an nchoaie title to the hIng arm IN VIZ
never was confirmed but three years afterwau wnoy
annulled Gb iHtso.
That such mus, have been the apprehension Of eli
parties not only at the time but for many years aserw
eynced by several public relative to the property
in question and especially by the express asserafion OF
The hnS Farm WIN c ;ne sTamPs next 70 the sane ~
ernor Montgomery in the year 1890.
The legal title 10 this property then viii be seen.
remained in the Crown OF England until the treaty Of
peace when it devolved upon the people State.
and il still may be enforced unless the Church hn in the
mean time acquired title by possession.
H. 1t is necessary 10 inquire therefore in the second
place whether the possession OF the Chuth has been Of
such character as 10 confer ndefensble title against
the State.
This possession had It's origin in the lease OF August To-
1857. executed BY Governor Fletcher for seven years
But bv the Colonial Act of May 1922 this lease
nuled. II would not have expired by ns terms until
August 10 1904 but having cen annullcd. and the prom
sc having thus become again subject to the present dspo
s,ion OF the Crown Lord COrnbury the successor OF Coy
Fletcher the 9th Of May 702 granted TO me Churcn
another lease in conformity with the terms OF the ACT OF
1899 e. during the term OF his office In virtue OF inc
rights derived from this lease that the Church as
sumed execute the lease of 1904 already mentioned 10
George Ryers for 1--WE years. The letters patent no" 50
strenuous relied by the Church bear date as already
stated, the year With what truth propriety them
be assorted that the Church entered under 'hs last
mentioned grant
1t already in possession by its tenant in virtue Of
valid lease from Governor Conbury for the term Of his
Office and whatever inohoae right il might have derived
from the letters patent these rights were to all iniens and
purposes anued in i70s year before the expiration
~ The ,ern of its lease to Rycs II is idle therefore, to
pretend that the Church was er ~ possession Hnder ne
er0nt If 1905.
the Church from the date Of this grant to the year 1884, are
few in number and perfectly reconcabie with the suppo
siiion of overlooking by suicrance IT, as seems
probable the design had been formed to obtain by lapse
If time and nacton the part ut the Crown, an appar
claim to the property, in which the Crown might o.
length be disposed acquiesce this abstinence on the
part of the Church wise bu, in the year 1880 seems
10 have been deemed unnecessary longer adhere TO
this policy and holder line Of tactics was adopted In
that the Church forward and paid the qutrents
reserved bv the grant 1905 and during the year
executed large number of leases for portions OF the land
The of the lands in question: having been com.
menced under lease for term Of years and continued
without any other warrant have shown, il follows,
that in suit the State for the recovery OF the property
the Church. relying il must do exclusively on its ad
verse possession would have encounter the stubborn
principle founded alike in justice and sound policy thas
lessee can be permitted to question the title OF ms
landlord and Also that other ancient principle WHICH, 90
far as am informed remain still unshaken that to render
possession adAerse must be shown to have been hos-
tile to the true owner IN rs INCEPTION
Whether after all the alleged acts OF aclu,escence and
recognition the part of the State OF or o.
the Crown England the people stand in an attitude to-
principles is complex question Of law and fact upon tho
examination of which do not understand TO be expected
of me to decide (Signed - -
Albany, Mach g. ie5t ALFRED 0oNhL'N"
SUPERIOR COURT-Baiore Judge BoswossH
William Hogan George Law aud others
Against the Eighth-av. Railroad Company - recover
personal plaintiff amount laid at rian
standing his when said horse and cart were
belonging the Company In eonse
with
his head and body very much bruised and nud that he was con
viewed aud remained sick there time he
from diligence the part OF the
driver OF In defense the latter denied and said that
the collision fault of plaintiff himself In attempting 70
the track. Sealed verdict
Before Judge SLossoS.
lame. Plunket aat Tie Manhattan Gas Company.
To recover damages for perso injury to plaintiff who
root pn Of - Companys houses fs-s
orton of 1t ON panby which he much bruised aud Injured
and long He that the said injury w@
ca.ed peons the employment OF tho Com
rany The latter Is denied The case Il on
Rohr sgt. Stewart
To recover amount alleged TO have been overpaid on
already The Jury rendered special verdict
amount subject TO adjustment by a referee
IT, s. DISTRICT COURT-Befors Jadss ISeERsoLL.
May Jane Jones The Owners of ship Jane d. Cooper
Ibean says she hired as stewaIdess OF the ship
on Liverpool and back $40 monththst balance
TO her aud she brings aeoN for the amount La dsass
II laid she did not fully perform her duties that tho amount fairly
due aud that this suit shoad have boon browsht
ia the Court instead Of this Court Decision reserved