New-York tribune., 1867-06-10

seem fhat enough cannot be- realized from che assets 70
pay any considerable portion of the indebtedness bus
That, should there bc any surplus the same VIII Dc i'Sh
.hlr under this act
lie saws ny he has no other property Of any kind. or
From ne long - his debt. select the following
interesting items IS 20 toJamcsW Eiwcl brooklyn
loans by hclm To- g. Duncan 4 Coz Dec i,Gj ana Feb,
1850 & slI57 ST. 20 Marine National Bank Of New YORK
{ Duncan a co. 1t said bank juno 90. 1900 -. ts1 10
Robert Murray. lr, oi Brooklyn. Nms wa. borrower
money borrowed june 90 1900 3" $50 1otO Adj krppci
man OF New York tthis "a, borrowed money june l''
Aswe have stated hcrctoforc. nothing further can he
done at present boy those wishing io receive tAc benefits
OF the new bankrupt Law further ih" ming ihr hil9i
papers owing the uonrcrcpuon of thr rules sos until
these arrive very few wishing Go 'ai themselves 10 thr
law Will commence proceedings
SUPREME CotRr-G Gr>rr,r Tr.u-Jr>r BEFORE
Justices IEONAgp. INCHAHAN and j. q. SMITH.
THE BROOkLIN WIlAI,NiS - Hpt NbtHit> oi lHE
COUNTY OF SIW-Nuiik.
Mr. Murray appealed from judgment obtained
against Linn by MI KELSEY for ti Tor whAragc- o pro
States, The Judgment rendered ggan, thr Marshal
by Mayor Hoffman, acting 80 referee appointed bJ ihc
The appeal was fully arruc' before tlc General Term
by United State, District Attorney Tracy ou hchii OF The
tin Mr.. kelsey. Two important questions were ra.s.d
the argument Firstly. as 10 te LIABILITY Of tAr M't
AND g6 ,gcre tenant. u Keicy"t brr alleged
that the city Court had Ho iuts ton. hrcAuD thu thr
premises In controversy were below low mara
LIoSanp. THE defendant admitting uiai ho b.,
used the wharf dock mentioned n The complaint fo
the purpose of moOrng certain vessels 300 h, custody
Marshal and that the money due Tor wharfage dp
age h IN his bands. sets up lease " hc said whW
dock from the plaintiff to Ward. Cove aud Morris duriu-
tho time while the said wharfage accrued aud that the
said firm have given him notice thHi they claim the
wharfage question. For the purpose of hprrng such
claim the planth gave evidence a. the trial that the
said lessccs had been dpo-sc''rd OF me premise under
summary proceedings Instituted hy the pianun before
the city Judge OF Brooklyn. Or Tie non pay ment o Irhi
sud that the Judgment d-rosscssng ,nd lcs,ec' mad
been affirmed 10y ilc 6cneth Term ~ ihe supreme Court
in the second Di-tct ceriorni The defendant in-
si-t, that the city Judge bad no jurisdiction
lin by the plaintiff because as nc alleges.
the Comfy ~ New OH 1hr local character oi me
Jurisdiction of the city judge j. not disputed. bui the
geographical situation OH tns "hai ' "l Z. .e., Ihetc
no direct testimony ai th' lfi ana no id,t has he'l
found hy the Referee ln respect io N AH the proceed
ing. and evidence before e ty Judle were returned To
objected tine jurisdiction 90 the judge on the ground
County Of kng-. or within tl. line of low water mark
Comfy Of Nev-York pfercntialy. from ccrioin
statutes ana .u""H '"1l', - I"'nH+' W." ~, ,,n
Comfy Of Nrw-York. The county Of NeV-York
Tong island shore The pier satth, loot Of sedgwck
st iu the city u Brooklyn. CHAP. 49, Laws Of ls.c
ihc city Brooilyu and prohibits he extension ~ any
the Legislature established bulhead line. line ~
solid fng and prohibited the Ming in with solid mate
thereby established. The evidence show, how
ever where IT. the line Of lOWNHer mark, the bulk
head line established 10y law There Is bukhedd at the
foot OF sedgws ST. aud This wharf pier extends $50
feet into the water beyond hut IL has not been shown
law II cannot Dee assumed that .ho law prohibiting
the erection Of o wharf or pier of solid material h
been violated There s no necessary sequence nom the
statutes referred 10, on iu the evidence IN the case mat
Wit IA lf UI
also that adtts pu n ~ the eNeces 10 iht pro
onrd therein tried. raised question respecting the
ocaon m o' ,, 1'1 i There q nn rrfernce 70 the sub
iccts in the opinion Of the supreme Court upon the de
eison of the celoraL reIoried ~ - ADD =, X. y,z,
been properly raised IL would lave called Tor discussion
The decision Of the city Judge was affirmed. aud II does
its correctness any further II necessary that the
icssccs should rise the question OF jurisdiction by
clear and distinct evidence swell a. by affidavit upon
which the issues the summary proceedings wac tried
marx or outside the line Of bulihcad established by law
otherwise the question is waived, for the presump
ton Of law y not against tle LOCATION OF tue wharf
suggested by the points Of counsel In the
summary proceedings does not raise the gues
tion OF jurisdiction. There s nothing far rs can
perceive to prevent the judgment In tho summary
ccedings and the airmance t4reof upon ceiiorar be-
ing held "a conclusive bar 20 ay claim OF wharfage by
the lessees OF the planh Tbepaintif in The quiet
and undisputed possession Of he wharf or pier al the
time the wharfage in question accrued and u does not
appear that the essces have brought any action against
the Marshal, made any claim except 10y general mo-
tice although considerable tune elapsed before the trial
and also before the acton brought Tie defendant
entirely fails to show that the In his hands ~ due
30 any person than the pntir that the csstes
have any valid claim TO It, tlink the judgment shonld
be affirmed with costs
Benedict Tracy ~ Benedict ~ the United states Mar
shall ID. ~ T. Mcmahon, for plalItin.
DECTSIOIS.
Before Justices BARNARD, CIERKf. aud INGEAIiAM.
John r. Hoffman and Others al Jackson :. schultz and
others-Order appealed from affirmed with $40 costs
Before Justices LEONARD. CIiiKE, aud INGHAiAM.
In The Russell File COnpaiy.-Order appealed from
affirmed with SO costs.
Samuel Homes agt Sarah G. dark Motion for reaTgu
Inent denied with SO costs.
Before Justices LEONARD. BmNARD. and CLERKE.
George Kretz agt i. A. HirseI Order reversed with
and the motion 60 he lcard At Special Term on
the merits, and placed the nJtion calendar 40 Cham
DcTs.
Before Justices LEONARD, INCA 1AM aud j. e. SMITH
Charles Kelsey agt Robert Mirray.-Judgment ar
nrmcd with costs Opinion by lOnard y. j.
Nathaniel l.. Mc(ready and oers agt Brewster Wood
huh and Others.-Judgment reversed and trial or
dcrcd To abide the event opinion by Leonard i j.
Peter G. Anthony agt Joluffl0ton sears--Iudgnrnt
directing the recouycyanco OF "A property by the defend