The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-08

and the rest in the state or Maine. According 70 the
allegations Of plaintlf1s l. Is claimed that nal
was LEFT an amount In every way suitable to her
ton, but that she subsequently, under an OF the
the testatOr Instituted inthe State OF Maine, where
she then claimed TO reside. proceedings In probate
court, in which she renonnced the provision made
Tor her by her husband, claiming that she was
allowed instead sum OF money in gross to be paid
10 her In absolute ownership. BY virtue OF the
orders and Judgments IN said proceedings, the
widow, II Is claimed, has proceeded to collect and
hold moneys collected In behalf OF the estate,
sine has been Sp aa' TO ne &c en
OF the personal estate OF ner husband, In addition to
her dover OF onethird OF his real estate. situated In
the State OF Name the allowance out OF the personal
estate was increased from $40 900 to $4,000, any
part OF which she might select from the personal
estate on appraisement except articles specifically
Dequeathed The paintiffs claim as devisees OF the
estate, that the testator having been resident Of
New YORK up to the time OF his decease, and the
larger portion OF his property being situated IN
the same place. tue proceedings on the
and not IN Name, which latter are void
and not binding or operative 10 the State OF
by COLLISION between the executors OF the estate ana
the widow. which operated TO the prejudice OF plain
THIS and reduced their proportions Of the estate
respectively below the terms contained IN the VIII.
TneY also alege that neither OF the plaintilis was
made party to the proceedings In Name and that,
therefore, this Ii further reason why the decisions
OF the Maine courts are not binding on them; also
that the Probate Court OF Name being without uris-
ooa mn 81 i y was sSI ea1 any S a
to The Surrogate OF New York. Case stil on.
The New Harlem Railroad Dep0t-Interesting
Question Of Law Between the State Legisla-
ture and the New York City ALPHABETICALLY
Which Do tho Streets Of the City Belongs
Before Judge IDgraham.
IN the Matter or the Application 10 confirm the
Report Of the Commissioners or appraisal or the
Lanas Taken or The Neto asseager Depot OF The Ne,c
York ana Harlem Railroad Con,panv.--This appi-
cation involves new and interesting question as TO
the power OF the Legislature to grant the public
streets OF this city to railroad company for It's
elusive use. At the last session OF the Legislature an
act was passed authorizing the New York and Harlem
Railroad Company to take that part Of Fourth ave-
nue. lying between the westerly side OF the avenue
and line drawn parallel thereto, TO u distance Of
hlty feet westerly from the easterly side Of the
Fourth avenue and extending from the nOrtherly
SIDE OF Fortysecond street to the southerly side or
Forty-llfth street; anu also part OF FOrythrd and
F0ry-fourth Streets for the purpose OF constructing
passenger DEPOT ana providing that compensa-
ton should be made to the Mayor, Aldermen and
Ccmmonalty OF the city and to each corporation
and person who might be entitled thereto, for the
property 80 taken. Ihe Board Of Commissioners
met and assessed the damages OF the city $4,000
and the case now comes up on u motion to confirm
that report.
Mr.. O'Gorman opposed on behalf OF the city, and
raised the following points:--Tnat the city owned
the streets in fee, subject only the condition nat
there should be an easement Tor persons, and that
the original owners Of the property in these streets
released 70 the city That property for street and for
no other purpose Whatever: tnat If II Is taken Tor
any other purpose the property returns to org-
mai owner; that the Legislature. in other words.
have no power 70 lake tine streets Of New YorS and
appropriate them to any other purpose except that
Of streets, without the consent OF the Cor
poraton; that the use for which the
Legislature had given these streets was
not public use; that the erection II a DEPOT "a
private matter AND Got work d prime necessity to
the public; that TIE award was insufficient, the
property being worth half million of dollars and
upwards, and that the city had only been awarded
$4,000.
Judge Ingraham overruled Mr.. 0'Gorman In all
his points except the last, holding that the Legisia-
ture might take the strees OF New York and appro-
pirate them to any public use they saw lit. lie said
he would, however, entertain the question as to
compensation. Decision reserved.