New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-18
SUPREME CoURT-srrcrAL TERN.

SUPREME COURT-SPECfAL TERM.
Before CdrdoSO, 1.-THE Church-St. Extension
Who Ocn the Demolished Bhtidings.-A. Gordon Ham
,aersey et a. agt The Mayor de-; Cadrine A. Shuehard
agt The Mayor, Gc W p Douglass agt The Mayor. &c;
Adrian Iseln agt. The Mayor, de.-These actions arc
identical in purpose and ont Of the proceedings for
the opening and extension Of Churchst The plaintiffs
IN each suit were owners buildings taken within the
line of the Improvement and tie Commissioners made
them awards under the statute for the premises TAKEN
report that ay building taken underth statute on said
niece or parcel Of lard would be required 10 DE removed
therefrOm." The plaintiffs N tins cOhplSbt cain mat
there was no allowance made to them for these buildings
and that under the provisions OF the report ey we
authorized to remove them About year alaei tnS
report was confirmed fe corporation authorizes SOFA
these buildings aud materials aud these actlos are no"
ionged TO recover the value of tho buildings. Inc
amount involved IN these and similar suits Is sever"
Tie Counsel for the Corporation demurrcd TO the COM
plants not containing facts to constitute sase o,
action and the suits up IN Court ON the argument
For fbe corSoraton it was argued that under the
visions OF the 7sth section the Of lsl3 under which
the opening was had, the report OF the Conmssiones
when made was final and conclusive upon an pa a
and that the confirmation OF the report the statute
declared that the Mayor. Aldermen, ana Conmonalv
should become and be seized OF all the SAID lands ene
mens Entertainments, and promises IN the sad report
mentioned :" that the Commissioners tie report Woud
hear tbe construction contended for had power or
authority TO insert in IL provision when would aoW
the owners Of the land to remove The buildings tiat
their movers were limited by the statate that sum
Gent allowance had been ms % the owners for the
lands and buildings the objection vuUd oly be made
the hearing for confirmation o. the report 81 tho
Commissioners and that having neglected 10 present.
the objections at that time, the valuation nAed
by the report became hnal ana conclusive.
For the plaintiffs argued that the land eonld only
he taken for the purpose Of the Improvement ana tnas
the report was therefore uuObec,onaDle IN allowing
compensation only for the land that IN Tact the uhlseI
sal practice down to the time when the central Fa h
been to permit buildings to be removed OF Their value
taken the aud 5 faS @ e eSs a o I rule E y
understood by the plaintiffs In these actions -.
Judge Card0zo held that the law was imperative mat
and the parties, being bound 10 know Tie law were
estopped by their not Directing TO the report from hese
Judgment for defendants James H. Hammersley for
plaintiffs: A. J. Vanderpoel for defendants.
re- Caroline G. AHeH-Ths Is the matter already noticed
having her declared lunatc, applied TO vaeate TINS
declaration. Testimony was taken before MI JARVIS IN
tie matter for OF the Court and the
brought up on TINS testimony before Aif justice
Cardozo for motion 10 P3nsn sne aOrneys on tbe
course OF proceedings before Judge CaIolO ny obtaining
STAYS OF proceedings from Judges Smith and White ana
FORA s1rDersSdeas 10 the Commission OF Lunacy. Mr..
Shea read Mr. Jarvis report, which shows that the az
torneys Tor the respondents after the opening Of the
reference and reports that Mrs Allen has been since
Nav last Of sound mind and that her committee be re-
f9aEan before Mr. Jarvis Was read Dr. Paine has
made specially of diseases OF the lnnd eshes 10 nav
ing her thrice day since March last ahd uisco'-
cred nothing to show diseased mind
DIT Haguey, who had given special attention 70 TINS
ali hours for the special purpose OF examining her men
tai condition. and found nothing indicating insanity;
this was since May last he had made special eHanlna
tion owing to his information that she laa been aeeareo
Mrs Admiral Farragut teshes to frequent interviews
with et she teshes to her intelligence and conference OF
conversation and pr0proy Of manner in May last she
was much excited in manner owing TO these chaIges
since then her manner is improved and there Is Nothing
peculiar in 1t Mrs Farragu thinks her more able "
Mrs Elyra Kane. member OF the Ladies Mission for
Visiting Public Institutions, had been Ia tie habit OF
visiting the insane in Blaekwehs Island ana Is some
thing OF judge Of insanity she testified that IA Aay
che was eaeted IN manuel Hs DI nS soo yS ueh
minister, and had heard from him no expression Of feel
ing for his rather OF hatred 70 her she
siders her unusually capable for woman Of managing
| her affairs. ~
ard the Attorney Of the Committee Van Houen 10 tho
that he had appealed from Judge CardozOs order
and served the attorney aud counselor Of Mrs Ven
and the referee stay Of proceeding granted b Jge
Dwight, and that after serving IT, suppons there would
be no proceeding and had therefore left the reference
That he had no notice OF Nacatius OF Judge D"ghrs
| order I'll some days later. 80
Mr.. shea called Mr.. stephens 10 TESTIFY thal ne uid
! Mr.. JusTce Cardozo said it made no difference it
| merely taking testimony pending motion FOR the IN
formation Of the Court; Mr. Puchard had rot chosen
| 10 attend after notice IL was his fault
Mr Strong proceeded 10 argue shat Mr ffltcLard was
not In contempt in applying for and obtaining from
| Judge Dwight stay OF proceedings. ,
tcnpt was AS simple as fhs-f any Attorney, while
motion Was being argued before him. should step into tho
hesitate TO lock hun up. Mr.. Ptchards act was OF tho
same character. While motion was IN hearing he dc,
string 10 have the aid Mr. Jaryls's opinion had asked
il merely to avoid taking the testimony IN open court
such a thing was u contempt he was not Inclined ~
| pass by ..,-- - ...,t-
Mr. Strong proceeded 10 argue that there was nothing
I'm the stay VI proceedings granted by Judge Dwight;
did not violate order Of Judge CardOLo The order
OF Judge Dwight 90 Mrs ALEU- 10 show cause at ROeh-
ester why al proceedings before the Referee should
not be stayed til the determination OF his appeal from
Mr. Justice CardOZOs order appointing MI JARVIS reeTeo
| and STAYING proceedings IN the mean time.
Judge Strong argued that the pnrPOrt OF Judge Car,
dozo order related 10 the person aud property or MIS-
Allen which not affected by Judge Dwlghts order
Mr. Justice CardOzo said the question was not OF Viola
ton of an order The Referee IN this case was merely the
ocum teuens the Court the service OF stay or pro-
ceedugs on him itself "a contempt. The case was
submtted 10 the Court the Court desired further In
formation aud employed another person 10 obtain IT, 10
| attempt 70 stay the Court was the contempt.
MIR Strong nded at some length that this was not
the same thing interruptnR the Court Itself with
stay: but II it were il the Judge who granted NOS
| the attorney who applied for the order
The case here postponed TO Tuesday next at p IN.
Mr. Shea and Mr.. stephen ID. stephens for moton Dit.
| Strong and Mr.. Pritchard opposed.
BEFORE Mr. Justice CdrdO-O.Ihe Nec York aud Harlem
Railroad agt. Thomas KeGeVThis was an action To re-
strain the defendant FROM throwing stone on the Harlem
Railroad track and for damages for doing The esti
mony closed but the summing up was adjourned for
the hearing of the Allen Mr.. L. Rapao for plain
| TN; MraAllen for defendants.
SUPREME COURT-CHAMBERs.