The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-07-11
THE WASHINGTON MARKET CONTROVERSY.
triumph Of ahs City Over the State and {
Lsssees.


SUPREME COURr--SrECfAL TERM.
Before Hon Judge Roosevelt.
July 9.-Jares r. Taylor, de-, The City IF Ne,0
York. dcRcosevel.. Jrbe Corporation OF the city, it
appears having filed In the plot OF about four hundred
and sixty feet squsre, ocne ntrg the water front Of the
old Washington Market and constructed bulk bead and
piers in connection with it, gave permits from time 10
time To various persons (more than hundred and
eighty In numbe 70 erect upon temporary sheds for
the sale Of meats and vegetables, the respective
pants" paying, the complaint AYERS, a"wsekly"
r. mt ''fOr the ire thereof"
On The 24b Of April, 1888, while the city thus 10
possession Of the premises claiming the ownershp and
receiving from them revenue, the aggregate exceed
ing $50 eco per arnum the Commissioners Of the Land
Office, in The Of the People Of the STATE for
70. very satisfactorily explained in the papers before the
Court and seemingly without notice to the c:s sutnof
es executed to James 8. Tag or and Owen W. Brennsu
two Of the psiDrs lease OF the whole plot at a
for ore year Of So Geo. and with covenant, if valid
binding ,he State to maintain them Che two essees)
pesoesbe ard quiet possess'0o.
Immediately upon the execution Of this lease Taylor
anu BTenLap. IN their panes alone, Instituted
81 c'GeGt quasi eecmept agsos the city and its
hundred and eighty tenants to Indemnify themselves
the IS OO pay able by them into the tate treasury by
with trawipg times that amount an from the
treasury Of tne cya not uninportaat portion OF the
State.
rheconpant in it's original shape being found be
effective, amended ere Cd, making the people Of
the State plaintiffs and praying among Other thDgs, 10
ADDITION 70 "tbe rendering pOsa ssOn to the plaintiffs
Chat IL the people end Tay Tor Brenoan) 70 such Of
them ss ths be declared entitled thereto tea, the de-
feboaps may be adjuosed ''tO pay them Jointly
rally The Of hundred thousand collars damages
for be reDtr tissues and profits whilst the Same have been
lnlaHtuly Withheld from the plaintiffs"
Ibis complaint is verified by James Taylor; but, in
stead OF beng subscribed usual by one name or firm
as attorneys for the plaintiffs, it parpofs to be signed
BIZ the Attorney General tor the people, and by other
terDeys TOR ray Tor ard Brennan.
On the 18th Of February, about nine months after is
commencement, with sbe coosebt OF TIE attorney for the
City, and motion Of the sy;orDey for Tsy aud Ben
man, nothing being said in the order TO motion
the part o, the people, the other plaintiffs the
suit as against the city, 'costs having been pal
far al least as sucn an order could have
that effect
Having thus disposed Of the city the only real party to
the controversy. and having made some arrangement,
msy be inferred with one or more Of the other defendants
the precse nature of VIII ch does appear the plxcs
The l3tr Of May 1859, brought the a
nal ;a their aoversaries as the order It, shaw
ing BY failure to appear waived trial by jurJ and the
Judge "theTeupon found and directed Judgment 10 be
tered as iollows" in substance hst that &c, Of plain
ts TO w.t. the people, recover possession of the land
second that the other set, 70 wit, Taylor and Brennan
having been previously entitled 70 possession Of pre-
nMes for The year just EXPIRED sson Of she
rents for that period adjusted at the sum OF Scales 49,
be paid by "the oeftndsnts not proper ateiy an
respectively, but IN go lido Chat being the legal eec. of
the terms as damages for ,hs withholding Of the posses
sion Of the premises from the Ola n:,s Taylor and
BgeDnsp) from Isl Of May, 1858, 70 Path Of April 1869
vii thus be eeen, without reference another fea-
ture 10 toe TRANSACTION 70 which sba presently advert,
that lay Tor and Brennan In year, in
numbers $40 GOO outlay OF S. c arc that the city
al the same time ospOsseesed Of the Of
sDc Of the fee OF 4 property which by the plain.
tis showing woh than million, WITHOUT trial,
and alter he plaintiffs them east 70 uu
ary discontinued the u az against the city admitted
to be ubfouDoen by "pag the COSTA OF the defence
Nor 10 this all the tenants called the temporary
occupants yespectively OF distinct and separate move
able sboD,ies. made liable each for bis
pancy bot eecb for the whole plot seemingly enor
parte Of $70000 apd toat too after
they hsd already BY 40 nserIocutory pro5eediog, viii
presently be shown been drected teetr respe tive
rents for The identical period, appointed
by the order of the Court made al the Instance
plaintiffs themselves
Tbe staute, too provides e r s. BOY "tnat when an
acton is against several defendants, II appear on ire
risl ss must necessarily have done in this easel ha:
sny Of them occupy distinct parcels in seversy JOINT
y, and that other defendants p0ssess Other parcels
sevsraty or jointly (tnat is sOgy IN grouss), the
planuf shall elect q. the trial, eganst which he will
proceed which elect shalt be msde before the testi
mony the cause shall be deemed Closed, verde,
thsi theieupon las sort Of penalty be rendered FOR
the oeiendsDts proceeded against" 10 other words
plaintiff as in this Instance, shall bring eectmeot
sgsintt multitude Of pefsops 10, holding ia cauuoo
but in distinct and separate par GELS instead OF
recovering against ALL pay the costs Of All exc. pt one
The vel kro IN existence q. the tme of such Grovi
eion OF law together with other crcu instances already
part alluded 10, demonstrates ;hat toe judgment CON
pained OF must have been toe Feeuit OF COT
iuson, accioept, mistake or fraud. A teuant,
whether by bis direct act BIZ ceius judgment
has no right or power TO surrender the possession
landlord to stranger against his landlords consent;
$, IA fraudulent attainment is the lees saudu
lent ard none the less voo by being invested T,tn
habinents Of q cham judgment, which itself, in such
case, Ia of the strongest inca OF cousion s ~
be observed that this judgneDt obtained
stahope that the defendants only few DAYS before had
able ana faithful counsel, and obtained bs default
aud 10 ITO present extraordinary and Illegal form,
standing that those counsel the plaintiffs themselves
SHOW, then were paid nine hundred dollars watch
NE interests Of their clients And further obsery
ta'ny most Irregular form Of the judgment Of the
very defendants saDst whom the record il
found making affidavit 10 The motion 70 vacae
the entry and to let the parties In TO defend their rights
Bot he case does not stop here On the vey day Of
fling the first complaint and before the Of the peo
pie inserted IN the proceedings, the plaintiffs on
TUNED from Of Judges az order usually very much
matter of course, requiring the defendants chow
cause, not before him before Of the judges
who might be present at Chambers but before
ana particular judge By name why injdnc-
,on ehoud not be issued and receiver ap
The rents Although this notice Of motion
(sn order TO show is In substance nothing moro,
vas re,urnabIe on the nth OF May 1862 three days after
s cate, yet for some reason unexplained, hearing
d;clsior till The ID Of Augus,-cIearIy showing
that the necessity for private receiver against tn
ample guarantee Of the CITY Treasury and that, too 10 an
elec'ment suit. was no, very pressing, # right
bad been rndispued as certainly was not, AID the
drnssons on the present argument show II could ne
receiver 10 eec,men. cut is corfessdy any cage
tovety in case wbsre there 10 nothing be ii
jured and Ube city OF New York not beng quite We. to
sovenD nothing to be iost s, conceive without, pre-
cedoDt-!or even the made by soeca term order
~ RE presept instance oserTu informed a,
the general term, although the decision N il
sad OF the supposed scontnuaacc aboye referred TO-
was never formally propnuDceo
On the 20 OF August, nevertheess-erroGeousy a. the
written opinion Of the general show
eda receiver orr Cyrus Curtss) appootet during
me pendency OF the action and until the further order
OF the Court first giving the SUN So 0g0
ano win directions 70 pay all moneys into United
a"s trust Con parry, 20 be drawn only Judges
nat, ts ihe Court Should from, time to tine direct.
Before, however, sny action h.d this appoint
meIt the CITY authortes conceving the order IN Do
oneons, appealed from 70 the General Term and on
ne 4'h OF August peuding the appeal applied to another
JuaRe az the practice pars aud obtained stay OF pro-
oeedlngs without security sill occasion on the appeal
coud be had On the 18Th Of the same month another
Drner notifyrg The previous Obtained at0 wing
be receiver to collect the ren,s" but without prejudice
70 any motion 70 be- Afterwards made, &c Mr. Curtiss,
accordingly, with limited powers, entered partially upon
the Duties Of the once Of receiver. Be ~as o. liberty
ms The order declareo " collect the rents" cnt the do
son OF the General Term. unless this Gallo
shoud previously to the hearing be "vscaed" by "aay
1T the justices Of THIS court" Judge Clerxe, is Oh
,iops Lat pest bestston In modifying bis ebsoate stay
- proceedings TO mo above extent, finally
reversing the order Of toe "a Of August tor
,njuEcton and recover altogether Much of .he pre-