The New York herald., 1867-06-11
assessed si2 eco according 70 the corrected

been assessed at according 70 the corrected e
Mr.. Bonpey next referred TO the property Of Mrs
loyd whose interests he represented, and stated tna
her building adjoining that OF Mr. Fellows on Cortlandt
street. and which was of the class, was also IN
Guided in the line Of the proposed Improvement and tne
commissioners have awarded her SOL 000 In reply 70
question by the Corporation Counsel, Judge Bonney
stated that his client claimed the house and lot TO oe
Mr.. o'Gosman then stated that it assessed at
$s5,25O Another piece OF Mrs Floyd's property,
was not 20 valuable M aso Sal he
clients objections
Nr Bonney then stated that it was his good
fortune 70 own house in Fourteenth street. and that
he had found that he had been assessed in the
sum OF $7S for benefit TO which he objected and cer
taniy thought the benefit that would 10 that
property or It's owner by the opening OF Church street,
situated as II was nearly Two miles from the proposed
improvement, was rather prospective He bad friends
living on the other side OF the street who were not as
sessed In any sum whatever The area Of assessment
extended Tor TWO miles, going to the river on each side
OF the city AS far north Canal street. and twelve thou
sand persons and thousand lots assessed
M bonney then proceeded TO read letter from the
Comptroller which he stated would give views of
that ofical on the subject when Mr. OGorman objected
70 the reading OF any documents from public officials OF
the municipal government as no person had any right
TO appear on behalf OF the city authorities any OFF,
ca unless he had taken the proper legal course which
required such Official to make declaration that the
Corporation Counsel otherwise engaged that the
interests Of the city required the employment Of other
counsel
After some little discussion this point Mr. Donney
cited the laws OF 1862 which authorize the Comptroller
to employ counsel IN certain cases relating TO the open
ng alteration of Streets and proceeded TO read the
appears to him that tie interests Of tbe city required
that the proposed improvements should not be
mated and asking MI Bonney, on behalf Of the Masor
Aldermen and Commonalty TO oppose the motion. Mr..
Bonney then proceeded to read list Of assessments in
the city, which follows Washington Market,
900; Fulton Market, $50 000 City Hall Park, Sl40,
0oo Centre Market, sl2 ooo Jefferson Market, $1,000
Warrington square, 500 OO0 and jackson sauare
property, which were assessed IN smaller amounts The
property designated as Jackson square, counsel remark
ed was situated on Greenwich avenue between Twelfth
aud Thirteenth Streets aud was very small parcel OF
land and he believed the figures given were clerical
error as it could not possibly be assessed in large
sum. Presumng II therefore 10 be error
the total assessment the city property $427 600
amounted to s5s7Oo0 He, therefore, in pursuance OF
the request from the Comptroller objected behalf OF
the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty TO the coniirma-
tou Of the report OF the Commissioners majority in
of persons who assessed for The contem-
plated improvement had not presented any objection,
bat those who had objected represented assessments
amounting 81 $50 96l This amount was represented
by the Objections OF IL 900 persons who had been
sessed
the persons who had been represented by Judge Bonney
he proposed to refer heourt to several other objections
on behalf Of other properly holders. He objected
behalf Of the heirs OF Valentine Mott and the estate of
Richard r. Norris the ground that sufficient
notice has been gwen them that their property has been
assessed rne only notice given Of the of
mcnt was this, and he would call the attention or
the Court to IT, although il might be technical, the
notice is that the limits embraced by the assessment
iolows:-Al those lots, pieces and parcels OF land
situated in The said city, situated bounded and
tanned as folows-On the west by the eastcry side of
West street, from the Battery TO Canal street, the
easery side OF Hudson street. from Canal to Fourteenth
street. &C. and asked Court observe that the
only described that notice are the lots fronting
upon West street, on Fourteenth street, and such other
streets as are mentioned There is nothing in that
notice that appises resident OF Park place Washing
ton square that his property Is assessed Mr. Anderson
then stated that he relied upon the other points taken
l.T TnIxva fha ~ l,r1. thnt
the assessment and report not made by the three
commissioners requ red by law The report signed
by but two OF them. In order TO render report
valid when signed only by two, three Of the commits.
soners must meet Investigate and confer That refers
10 both assessments and awards and IL is shown
cusively this BY the affidavit OF Mr. Haskn that
such course has not been followed. Mr. Anderson
cited several authorities in support OF this point, and
then proceeded 10 say that he objected further that the
assessment made and submitted in the report
For the extension of Church street below Fu
Morris street property owned in Lafayette square
by Mr. Astor had been assessed, although it was FAR
remote from the vicinity OF the projected opening How
also Eighth avenue and West street could be benefited
by the opening of Church street would be difficult
define and 10 maintain II would be TO MAINTAIN an
absurdty or TO that public parks can be benefited
when they the pery Of the city and are not trans
fcrablc, Is equally absurd.
Mr. Anderson then enumerated the following items
forming part Of the bill OF costs, which include the
comm ssoners' fees at 81 per sitting amounting to
about $1,000 each charge for drafting the report,
counsel fees charge Of 900 and upwards for copy OF
the report and similar charge for an additional copy
Mr. Bonney then stated that he was in error with
regard to the assessment OF Jackson square, and had
book II was the Battery that was assessed In the
OF 100000.
Counsel then and stated that he appeared on
behas OF United States District Attorney Courtney, TO
in,erpose objections on the part of the United States
government, who, he said were the lessccs of the
premises Nos 20, %, "a and 26 Trinity place. He
would object first on tho groupd that damage
or estimation OF any kind had been awarded
TO general government secondly that the damages
nj
Church street would amount to s240000; thirdly that
the action OF the commissioners illegal, unconsilu-
tonal and void, for the feason that property Of the
United states cannot be taken for municipal purpose
whatever without the consent Of the federal govern
menL
Dir Porter said he objected behalf of the Nc Jer-
sey Central Railroad company who were awarded 500
dent Of he corporation showed ha. the company had
lensed the premises No l03 Liberty street from May,
1866, 10 May, 1869, At an annual rental OF S33 BY
the extension bnilding would be entirely destroyed,
and the company had expended $4,000 in improvements
on the premises The president and directors had APP
peared before the commissioner aud given proof that
they had made this expenditure but notice aiicn-
tion had been given to 1t by the commissioners.
A large number Of gentlemen appearing as counsel
for other parties interested made objections, relying
mainly upon the grounds taken Dy previous counsel
Among them was an objection on The part of the pro-
prie,ors of the premises Nos 81 Broadway and 81
Greenwich street. wno arc assessed for benefit So 400
on each piece Of properly. These buildings are con-
o. open ground between the bu dings ali OF which
wilt DO taken by the extension: but tho Comm ssion
crS have assessed them DEMENT, Ihe fncnlx Bank,
IN Wall street, has also been assessed Sl7s for benefit
and object
Judges Bonncy and Hilton and II. II. Anderson then
submitted the objections OF their clients which were
contained in three large bound volumes besides num-
Der In loose manuscript sd the other counsel In oppo
sition also submitted their papers when the further
hearing was adjourned until Friday next, when the
Counsel for the corporation Will reply.
Important Opinion Regarding the Dmtics Of
He'll Gate md River Pilots.
The People %. Henry Sperry.-The following opinion
has just been rendered by the Supreme Court of Queens
county In this case and is Of importance to pilots gen.
eraly:-
BY the Cour.-GnBERr, J.-The defendant was con-
viced In the Of Sessions Of Queens county OF
m,sdemeanor in towing vessel in violation OF section
OF chapter us OF the laws Of 1885, This statute pro-
vides that af any person other than branch He'll Gate
pilot shall pilot tow for any person any vessel Of
any description, or board such vessel for that
n minor ca@l he. &c without the