The New York herald., 1866-04-12
JUDGMENTS IN RIOT CASES.
Important Motion by Corporation Coun
sci O'Gorman-Thc Value or . Life Es-
tate and an Estate I'm Fec.
SUPERIOR COURT-sPECIAL TERM.


sci O'Gorman-The Value or q Life Es-
tate and an Estate I'm Fec.
SUPERIOR COURT-sPECrAL TERM.
Before Judge Monell
George Greer The Mayor al; Anne Greer ps. Idem
ct dI-These two actions founded on injuries
to the property OF the respective plaintiffs husband and
wife, by the rioters during the famous conscrip-
tion disturbances The property situated
at the corner Of Broadway and Twenty
ninth street, and burned down by the
rioters The parties injured brought actions in the
Superior Court against the city, and recovered two
vordcts for $50 500 and the other for $2 074 49,
The wife sued the in fee, and the husband
tenant by courtesy the latter strange to say getting the
larger amount for damages.
Mr.. Richard O'Goman. Corporation Counsel, and Mr..
VIM. G. Trall his assistant, yesterday applied to Judge
Mcneil, at ecial Term OF the Superior Court. and
moved for trial for leave to open the judg-
ments with view OF investigating the matter. The
motion was opposed warmly by ex-Judge Woodruff and
Mr. Sanford.
Mr. O'Gorman said that he made the motion for the
purpose of protecting the interests Of the city IL ap
peared from the papers in the casewhich tried be-
fore his accession to ofcehat tho entire value Of the
property injured only thirty. thousand dol
lars, and yet the juries before whom the
matter was considered had given verdcts
for some ten thousand moro than the admitted
value. How could that have occurredp Clearly there
was something wrong; something difficult TO under
stand in that fact Some inadverence must have been
surrounded with great legal difficulties, but he (Mr
OGornan) would appeal to the court, which he
called the child Of the city, to grant somc relief
whereby tho city might be saved from paying out
money not Justly due He (Mr. O'Gorman) did not como
into for the purpose of striving TO do wrong to
to bear heavily upon persons He des red
TO the city pay what owed but he did not want to
1t compelled to give less than strictly and
justly entitled to give. He believed that
the interest Of the husband In the estate had been
wrongly computed In estimating the value OF the hus-
bands life estate tho rental for year $4,000, had
been taken and multiplied by the number Of years che
interest last without deducting taxes, ground
rent land other amounts usually deducted in
such cases. The singular spectacle thus pre-
sented Of the holder only OF life estate having
valuable interest than the owner in fee OF the
property for the larger verdict had been awarded the
husband This palpabe error or mistake. The
interest OF the life estate should have been computed by
the Northampton tables and not in the way 1t had BEEN
Mr.. SandfOrd answered at considerable length, and
laid stress chiefly the fact that the had been
settled in the complained Of with the consent Of
Mr. OGormans predecessor Corporation Counsel and
therefore that the city had waived any rights 1t might
have possessed But Mr. Sandford contend.
cd that tho interests had been properly esti.
mated, argued strenuousy that there
precedent for the motion OF the learned
Corporation Counsel II the Judge should decide to
open the judgments in the sought grant
new trial. 1t would be simply REVIEWING matter adjudi-
Gated before hnaliy by competent tribunals.
The Court took the papers and reserved It's decision