New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-25

Offered 10 ,sy noting. he s.i:ey vers not In an.
ees him. on tke c1nrry, they elssraed IN suoordna-
tor 10 The BohDs broke title But EIis, "hs.asr ne
claimed 20 haye he Bohngbroke titis or wos'ever
was bis claim. succeeded TO eonsi iersbe eh,
tent in disturbing the settlers sid cosrclns
item 10 taks conuscts fro hin or turDlp z uem oh
The lsnds the las, beng centrally the resu' stsf
The settlers Rad taken coutrscts OF At leas IN many
rsuces. !, is untrue tnat the improvements on tns
lands sde by Eik, or by persons who ca NJ 70
under him On the coatrsry, they were msde by the
s-tlefs who -ele there be ore be cla'msd, and whs
were Wilt 10 tike their chance OF beng deaf is,,y
with By TIE proptasors of the ands but Tho hsd the
YisiorIune q ial ITO q hapds OF a VINO had no
ts, ard vto dealt with them 10 manner the very
osposie Of what night have ben expected fro the
cirlurRtr and gtpproti otiae BalHgb'oke iSmiy'
In sc-, whatever 81 injustice may result 10 the oi
ins occupants to the resly neritoiious rariNs .ho
have the inprcvems will b. The effect of Mr.
Elss il vention. II he bss any Il le, ne viii have
legal Qualifications if he hos NOT he <i have 'aors to
sts~es Tor Than attempt 10 deiraud the II .hng-
broses. The higa ion commenced within g 10 years
ARR this aim yes Ie up by Nc L lis and tee defense
20 'H az 4 has yet been t+stet, is uoier tie Ellis
elau OF title, such as re ha e now explained il.
a seiks 81 sins ulsr essus ties hiss protrsctsd the
litigation an inoio ina,o length OF Tine but the contest
has been notorious, aud 10 one siuce the iine that
Mr. lie first ven;u. ed 20 ayov openly claim hostile
TO the Boiling broke title, hss any excuse for be lug IN.
'olu ed OF tie merits OF The general question. Tha,
question Is whe her the tile is in the Boliagbroke
IL VI
me how il is 10 be detrimental TO the puJc or to any
honest pri ale iLdivi luas If the title should be deter
mined to be in the S. JohIs, wao PAD full price FOR
the laI ts msny yea ago, or Why Is particularly 10
be des cd that NJ Els shoad succeed in his specu-
tion of get III is rsc Ct land which, in the article
cue ed from The Rochester Union, is said to contain
q some Of tie best farms in Western Ne~-lork,
without his having paid ons dollar consideration Tor
tie ssme!
thus far bsve dealt with the real ,n6ect MISTER of
this controversy. There are other questions not ill.,
vol SiDe the intrinsic merits, among Nhch is the ques-
ton Of d scent Of the It'll. upon the death OF William
J-nts y. John 10 the article referred to, su undue
parade is made OF this question, as If II was OF ANY
Consequence to the public or ID any Of the parties
eotd in the defense, upon which niemhA OF lie
family the descent Is cat.
To the bar the zion OF our reIuedisl statutes
in regsIc 10 6esc NJ, where aienase Intervene OF
comst matter of IN eie5t, but no one viii BE- Ia doubt
thet the geLesloey otthe family has been brought be.
fore the public wllh less reference 70 sny dica Legal
quts hsn FOR the sIis or or purebt exposure OF
the dom stic afsiTs of British peer lHegilmacy 1t
ia true by force If Lai mai mora sense, slug
ma, but our laws have sbated something from their
enc ent Tgor.
F,rdir. nd St. John, the plaintiff In the recently
hesrd s Roche ser WAS, az sny rae the i'sus
OF Lord BoiiI gbroke.
He is entitled as il is claimed In hi behalf 10 inherit
the estate OF his deceased brother, william james 5.
John. II is mistake, However, that ne also IN
hsrited the British peersge. THIS WAS not proved IN
the cese and the fact Is thai IL passed 10 an elder
brother who was never in this country.
a claim by foreign proprietor would be naturally
the of locsl pejuoce which might have is 10
hueDCe it'll jury ii u.s. therefore, duty OF all night
minded men, ard especially OF our judges 10 resist any
populsr fee ling of this kird II has been hitherto the
highest honor OF our country that tue administration
of justice in courts has been s-rniy upright. IN
swayed by mefeelsry motives o. popular impulse
Such, we shond hope, will still be the character OF the
bench, even une er Osr elec''e system.
This case wss argued before Justices johnson, Vel
lee ard Strong, by L. q. LapLam aad ID. +. Coooer
for defense, and A. II. Dana and IL K. Seten tor
plaintiff. An d.