New-York daily tribune., 1866-01-06

Kan rer which the plaintiff or his grantors might hsve o
fore possessed in that portion ns.pt. o. ns the right Of wharf
S 10 the land conveyed along tns luz
and probably s.o along the ne Bat The risnt
wharfage &c., which accompanied ms sisn, and ave
directly h front and Sd,Wi W inc 70 hs ina wSasse &C., Of
noa formed by the intersection the north y hatsysr
with the e1t.T9I 5h Lire q snd water rights
.sebed to the land owned by him south Of that ne' BIN
NAMED and unaffected BY that grant S.voua the que
,;n which arises the right Of the plantih as nT b
paan To%Ph1, , sfd and 10 so the
10 TO- hsween the sea.wall and Tompkins-st IL noe
not sps,,, ,ee IN a Ds are 10 built on lines prescribed By the
Mbor oners or by the Common Council II ons
atbOr Cos%eHeI. one naS ,I DO not see how sny
oud ssiuly resist the execution oil thsi'
t co,on Council 10 provide for their erection Ia the
absence OF any proof the contrary we must eo"e'o ~
they laid out in WHINE %h aee to ompkn have
10 he land under east OF that street nor Is their
right whase affected By s odS sei9" 10 ,hs c b"ksesd Th.
h proyded for by the opening to be made IN ne sea,
when erected ,d,J IT. tie S,en %,s Ss N ba8s a
power TO direct piers be sunk in front Of the streets IN such
they in their drston .hqalt 'hS psopsT 70 and nd
used as and 70 be ened to the wharfage
thereon would not hect, tequre gh to construct pss
ownership Of lot but mere easement u injured by the
erection Of other piers they nigh; be entitled to d1msse
ery and which do not IN fact prevent the collection Of
" wharfage upon their portion OF the bukhead
II me however that th appeal must be disposed
Of on other grounds When the plant has rgbt 10 the
a under which Is proposedto TO build this pier
lie ought not by Injunction to prevent the erection o wha
has been decided y public authority to be necessary and
per the public His property IL not invaded lie
las nothing but hch may be Affected and
appear that that will be nterered with by
this pier lie show undouDied right TO what ne
claims before he ash Court Of Equity to aid him In nam
tanins IT, -
There is also another why public improvement
should BE- stayed by injunction In the present case !,
j. that the plaintiff has ample remedy by acon III ne ~
injured by the erection Of this pier he recover conen
ston damages therefor and be make ou. any title
the land which any part of the pier bni he can IN
ike manner recover tie by eectmeu The erection oi
pier this space and different plan has been adopted
by the Common Council Il Is probable that such plan
would be changed permit erection Of pier on
line parallel with sIyvcsl s more especially as that street
has been discontinued snl closed.
There nothing IN the between the owners OF the
upland in the complaint which can be considered
any adjudication upon the questions before discussed
Those lated the rights OF the parties In the lands be-
tween Toptnss and Tie shore The decisions there made
canuo. BE- made applicable 20 this in which neither the
plaintiff the city have any title to the fee and wh.re the
action brought merely TO protect right TO wharfage and NOT
any title 20 the land iisclf
My sion k that the plaintiff is not entitled TO an IN
junction urayed FOX bit thu lie must be c 20 ms remedy
II e damaged hy the erection Of this pier eer oy an ac
ton for damages by eecinent OF such cthef inode a.
may he advised. 49, 81, am,