New-York tribune., 1867-05-18

tphvua has been so far refused by the defendant and
now after the Law Department OF this City has consented
TO 40 long an arInsce. am rather aVerse TO gentle
men keeping thus continually away, ana attach
ing and at the same Ine I pgESng ~ iU[ aps in mi
case and how We stand. step is taken by learned
Judge of this which practically cOmpels the nan-
cja officer of the City far in determining the ques
tion That done without notice OF any kind was Is
sned nercmpt0v without giving the person directed TO
obey an opportunity deny the facts alleged and
issued as aYcTred upon decision OF the i,suers ia the
case issued as stated, upon conviction OF the Court
thot tbe facts alleged in the complaint were untrue.
Whereas the facts only be tried by deliberate eXan-
natlon of The and then by jury in the Court That
NOT hayin been done with, great respect TO the Judge
who issued the mandanus' submit tlat u was piVNi
IDENTITY issued Therefore havea right to ask that that
mandaInus should aside. One OF the objections to
the mandamus that it was issued without notice IL
mort this the affidavit OF Mr Wood read that IL
procured the suggestion aud the request OF the Con-
Mr. o'Gorman then read an affidavit of Mr. Connolly,
a' Sat- Of SccYort city County Of Nec.YorE Richard
Connolly ad city, beng daily wou doth dePSse s1d y that be
Wood day upon which the .rde granted By Justice Barnard re-
moving the INJUNCTION restraining se o"ner Ta S ni s @ no m NON NON
saust r e Of che Law department q tR cry th he nop m rot
perempoy msniama 10 that eject ~e serve urea % % VEL & s
supreme Court. RICHARD b CoSNoLLr, Controller
Mr. O,Gorman then said that he thought the affidavit
of Mr. Wood. which used on the other side dd not
tend to clear up the difficulties OF the case N 10 the ae
or state the facts correctly before the Court Counsel
read from Revised Statutes on the subject OF man
damus showing that wiits required to be issued
and argued that the act contemplated that before man
is compelled 20 do thing required by manddInus' wnch
must always be doubtful he should have an opportunity
to lay before the Court his reasons for not DONG H.
Mr. Williams followed reading from Lord Chief Justice
Mansfield Justices story aud Marshall to show that the
issuing OF peremptory writ in TINS manner "aS III Id I
teeth 0f the statutory provisions the subject ana sd
they could consent that the proceeding should nave
Judge Allen claimed that the courtesy should be
extended to one SIDE as the MI s6ea ' W Who was
present at the interview between wood ana tonnol!'
ought to have the chance TO put IN an aldaVit
Judge Sutherland-Eyen IL Mr.. Connolly had gwen
written consent, what difference would II m.h9l BL'
Connolly is not the Corporation Dut an OuSel " t to &
poraiiOn. lie cannot consent away lo ISi.9 va M
poratiOn; officer can do that contest IN anua.l'S
as To whether Mr.. Connolly did or did not consent
think would be wrong. thought the oUJcTt =, IN
ing out of courtesy 10 Nj Connolly II postp9ne
this case II VIII be virtually admitting that the question
whether 1ir Connolly did or ala not consent Is m
cannot DO that II IL immatel1a thihk ~ Woun pt
iudccOrOus for the Court 90 adjourn over Tor that hht
consider important Is. whether tue peifmrio.y l,an
damus issued regularly; whether proper holce Was
Fad no power to give that consent and therefore no
tice given: Hence the mandans must Oe set aSlue
In this case Mr. Williams applied fOr stay OF proceed
ings pending the appeal from Judge Barnard oruer va
cusson with Mr.. Williams granted 1t, Judge Allen re-
fusing to appear IN the matter judge barhaId % nsS a.
already granted temporary injunction, Wlth an oinor 70
show cause the Pullman that these cases are
resolved TO nearly the same position '"ey wore III t"o
,,1r rrFRIScs 8a,S T. G!o!, lgr gs1. sglTsa S!1ss
This was an action for "A libel published in The
NeW York Herdh, contained IN letter from tne "iIGW I
0f Col Kmball. which was published ~ that paper. ih'
letter charged thar the defendant had under MS prOtec
ton prostitute But the complaint dd not cont am any
allegation nuendO that this protection was ot an IN
proper character The Court below on demurrer, held
the complaint sufficient. but the General Term mas ~
Vcrscd that decision holding that the words being sls
cepthle OF an honest Interpretation the complaint snoud
have sby inuendO CONOquiun shown thc hDelouS pu
kcGOACHNlyTs,1x TaE MAGgoE;-,THY q, RIGnTS OF NSw'
The People Size State Oi SrRor fst hr Central roa1 Co
The mutual claims oi Ncw-lOrk aud Ncw-Jcrsey
TO the waters OF the Hudson and Ne"lotb Lay nave
IN sJ3 treaty entered into between Them OF pce
liar character with regard 10 the river below suy ici
Duyyil Creek II the fee OF the lands under wafer
The middle line tO the adjacent state, but gave cNcu
siyc jurisdiction Of the rNcr ana bay 10 New-l Oik'
leaving however, right 20 the "har'ss ana AZ
tachInents 10 the Jersey shore To bewJeraey.
since then various encruachinents 20 The rycr
and bay have been made under authOily
Of Ncw-Jcrsey. The NewJerscS Central RAILROAD has
lnenccd filling up 900 Of what was formerly
the bay. ot 1t being quite deep water, The state
Of New-YOrk. through is AtiOueyGcuerhl' has com.
ncuced an action 10 stop thCr fuTthr lTnetdugs anu
compel them t0 remove what they have already bnit'
resting II Ou the ground that IT = an lmpcdmtni 10 hc
navigation of these and therefore nuisance.
Tie case involves immense interest as great part Ot
the present NcwerSey shore j. land ulcd IN below low
water mark and the pcr. of Al least three other railroad
The defendants n this dlmuIrCd to the complaint
aycrrng substantially that the matter was beyond the
jurisdiction OF NcWlOrk, being contract between tWo
states, sOyeregns respect To each other and the sub
jcct being Of the riparian rights reserved by
the treaty 10 NcW-Jcrscy. .
appeal has reversed that deciSUn not however de-
Gliding the most important question they hod tiat the
courts of this state have urlsdicon under he case as
stated complaint but refuse 10 enter upon the
question the relative rights OF the two states until
II is properly raised by an aNcincut IN the dcIrhdns
answer. that they acting under the authority OF tie
State Of NeW-Jersc!.
-
= =B