The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-10-02

wards ample Justice could be done tho parties who might
saer The Judge then proceeded charge ssvoraby on
Eyarta, coansc for the paintHs:-
J. That the Of dreat Britain, and their SUCCESSORS
IN sovereignty now the people Of the State Of New York.
have been and the Of all land under navgabe
waters whether below low water mark, between high
and Tow water mark, and thas the jury believe tina.
premises question ithtn forty years before the com
nencement Of this suit have been covered by the ebb
fcw Of the tide OF the Hudson river, the plaintiffs
titled TO verdict the question Of title unless the de-
PENDANTS show affrmailveiy grant from the crowa OF
England or the people OF the State covering the premises
70 question and that the burden On the defendants to
show such grants.
2. That the grant to the Corporation Of the city Of New
York by the Montgomery charter conveys right 0f pro-
perty IN the Soil extending into the North river the dis
OF 400 feet beyond the tine Of low water mark as
existed the Of ha, charter and that Ia order 10
maintain title In the defendants any part Of the
premises In question: the jury be satisfied that they
fail within the distance OF 400 feet beyond said line OF aw
water mark.
g. That determining the location OF the exterior line
Of the citys grant By the Montgomery charter the jury
to consider the ancient maps and grants which have
been given III evidence, the practical conduct OF the city
in laying out The exterior street
The Hudson river, called West street. and the public action
OF the city la recognition OF the title OF the State
THERE'S evidence IN the Gaze u show that the de-
endans ava acquired title 10 the promises or 70 any
part the same BY accrction from the inasynuch
appears from the defendants evidence tnat such
tons were never developed so as 10 form Land above high
water.
g. If the jury nnd that the premises or any part there
Of embraced within the aforesaid grant OF fonr
hundred feet the city has acquired no title thereto or right
to POSSESS use the by Of having Oiled In
premises not included, for the purpose OF affordmg
deeper water along the line of 5ukhaaas piers 10 be
constructed thereupon than 10 be found alongside the
bn!kbead forming the exterior westerly line OF West
street
The Judge took up the following points submitted
by the Corporation Counsel which he charged desg
mated after the varions propositions
That the jury ind that the present bnlkhead Of tho
premises question is within four hundred feet beyond
low water mark as now Is, then the title 10 the lands
is in the city.
50 charged defendants assuming the water mark Of
1870 and the present day ta be identical
That the city, under It's ancient charters owning four
hundred feet Of the soil beyond low mark bad
right TO build the that extent, and erect
bnkhcads such extension line, that such bulk
heads in respect Of accreton occupy the relation to
such grants and 70 the sovereign power II they formed
natural shore.
So charged branch Of proposition and
10 the second charged the law heretofore set forth
in the proposition of the plaintiffs
g. That matter Of law the Corporation entitled.
riparian 10 all the land gained from the river by
gradual accretop and that the jury believe tha, tho bot
foundation OF the land which has been filled
gained by such accreon the title 70 them in their present
form is IN the city.
Charged true regarded all lands 400 feet from low
water mark
A. That the jury believe that he laad was gained by
nsensbe accreion, caused by the building Of piers into
the river it s still within the law applicable TO accreton
and riparian owners if the building of piers was law
ful and authorized act.
Declined to charge the whole proposition.
s. That such building was both lawful and authorized
whether the piers extended westerly Of the 400 feet OF
soil beyond low mark granted by the Montgomery
charter, or whether they are within such 400 feet.
g. That the defendants having righ. by law to build
piers and bridges freu the main land at their dis,
creon outside the 400 Se the jury believe ha. before
ihefllng in complained Of by the plaintiffs piers and
bridges had been erected extending from the main land
out into the river IN front Of Wesi street. between Dcy
Vesey, and had never been destroyed the plaintiffs
IN event entitled to such property such
piers and bridges covered
Declined to charge.
4 That as matter of law Il WAS the intention Of the
royal grants make the city of New York riparian owners
Of all the lands around the Island OF Manhattan embraced
within the limits Of the grant
Declined 10 charge.
s. Tha, as matter of law the four hundred feet beyond
subsequent legislative epactments city Of New
York the right all the SOIL feet, within
limits OF space tour hundred ieef beyond low waie'
mark, wherever in all time low water mark might be
tablished.
Declined to charge
o. Even if the title to the land is in the State bo.t
classes Of plaintiffs Taylor and Brennan
entitled 10 the possession. the people OF the Stat
could at the time be entitled to the possession
the premises and in any event the defendants
/ entitled to verdict as against the State.
So charged
ter of law that the State fee Of all lands
under tide water not granted away 10 other parties The
leading question Of fact to determine he said was the
merry charter The next question Of fact whether the
premises question extended further than hun
dred feet from that low water mark II the SIDE
West street considered by the jury the extreme
of the four hundred feet then the property beyond
mark belonged to the State Both the people of the State
and Brennan and Taylor could not recover because
action for eectment possessory action Either
the other should be entitled TO recover aud not both
But Brennan and Tay Tor had valid lease and if the pee
pie had, at the time the lease executed right title
to the auds then Brennan and Taylor entitled
to possession, for their lease had expired but
to the rents and profits OF the year for which
they had lease. The following questions OF fact
for the jury TO find out fs the line Of low
mark at the time Of the Montgomery charter ia 1870,
second, whether the premises in question outside
the line Of 400 feet beyond that low water mark and
third it the premises, any portion Of the same,
west Of the line Of 400 feet beyond the low mark Of
the period referred how much the value OF the pre-
misses for the year included between April, 1865, and
April, 1859.
After argument between the counsel the jury re-
tired quarter TO three O'Clock to deliberate on YER
dict About an hour thereafter they returned and Mr..
Barnum the foreman, handed in the verdict which
adverse To the citys claim The jury found that low
water mark in 1870 As feet west of the westerly
side a. West street; that all the premises beyond y
feet west Of the westerly side Of West
side that low water mark, and that the value OF the
premises for the year beginning April 1885, and ending
April, 1859, was SAT $50.
understood that appeal from this decision will
be made by the defendants counsel.
m upnfu