New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-04-07
TIE LAW OF BURIAL.

case argued day or two since before Judge
Davies and now under adyisement, relative to the
widening of Beekman street, involves some points
in relation to the burial Of the dead and the legal
rights growing out of it, as well of curiosity as OF
ubc interest and importance. 1t seems that among
other lard taken to widen Beekman street was
strip fifteen feet in depth along the southwest side
of the lot belonging to the Brick Presbyterian
Church, and forming part of the churchyard or
cemetery by which that church was surrounded.
TIE Commissioners for widening the street, look
ipp at the piece of land thus taken merely in it's
commercial aspect assessed its entire value at
$2s, CCC-that being the price for which it might
be sold by person able to give an absolute and
complete title in fee At the same time the Bcick
Church was assessed Sl5,S75 for benefit accruing
10 tie remainder of their lot BY reason Of the
widening of Beekman street.
Nobody, so far as appears, stepped forward to
dispute with the church the liability to the pay
ment of this $4,000 or upward, or to be allowed
the privilege of paying share oft; but as to the
So, coo to be received, they were not quite so
fortunate. From a very able report of Mr.. Samuel
B. Ruegles, who was appointed by the Court t.
report the facts and the rights of the parties claim
ant, it appears that the city set up claim to this
S2e, eco on the ground that the land in question
had been originally given to the Brick Church to
be used for a churchyard and cemetery only, and
that by its appropriation to its present new as
street all the inter est OF the Church was ex-
trguished in IT, that interest reyerting to the city.
1t appeared, however, upon examination of the
original title deed OF the Church, that the right of
re-eniry reserved TO the city was only in the
property should be at any time applied or con-
verted to pirate secular uses; and as this sppro
prston TO be used "a street was not private,
but public use the referee held that no right of
reentfy bad accrued.
According to this view of the rights of the church,
should they choose TO sci their LOT TO the United
States for a Post.O Office buildings thitg which
has been talked of-or 10 either the United States
or tie State for any other public building,
they might lawfully do so without the necessity of
obtaining the concurrence Ofthe city in the convey.
ance. The claim of the city, except small allow
snce made for e1tinguishment Of quit.rcnt, being
thus disposed Of the referee had next TO deal with
the claims of certain vault-hoders, twelve in num-
Der, by whom the greater part of the land taken
had been occupied for purposes Of burial. Each of
these vault lots had an area Of about one hundred
and sixty feet, and the rate of Sl2 So per square
foot allowed for the land taken would give for each
vault-if the holders of the vaults wsre 10 be con-
sidered the owners Of the lsnd-the sum of
$2,C52 90.
Deeds of Only two of these vaults were pro-
ductd, but in the other cases possession of sixty
years was shown ard similar title was claimed.
In ore Of these deeds the property conveyed was
described as a "small parcel of ground under the
" earth'-a right of way to i; and of opening the
ground for the purpose of making interments being
nlto granted, ard liberty TO cover the passage to
the vault with stone or stones "eyen with the
"suIfsce of the ground" The other deed de-
scribed the convey as made for the purpose of
constructing vault for the intermen. of the dead,
with an express proviso thst it should never be