New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-07-01
THE C0CRTS.
sIrpREME CoURT-GExERAL TERN.


Tn re. oet;fion Of the Ne,C- York and Harlem
Railroad Coin this which is an appeal from the
city from the report OF the on
10 build the depot for the New-fork ana Harlem
Railroad Company, opinion delivered yesterday
10y Mr. Justice Barnard, Justice Card0zO concurrng,
denying the motion 20 dismiss the appeal which motion
was made the ground that the city by receiving the
S95 O0 asseuted TO and cOncued in the sale. Judge
IngTaham 10y reason OF confirming the report OF inc
Commissioners, precuded from hearing the appeal
AS " the merits OF the appeal Judge Barnard says The
Commissioners awarded Othe city $4,000 for It's interest
abSofeIv Lv individuals all eOneede would be of the
value hundreds Of thousands of dollars The petition
20 uses consistent with their charter as Railroad Cor
poraton They take the Zee, and IN my Jadiginent,
TO question Of its present use for streets and avenues
ANY other 11ethe u WVuI ol ,;t,n ny opeston g.
not what the land is WORTH subject 10 the assessment,
SU bat Is is fair market vane II this is not the
rect rule the compensation 10 he awarded 70 the city
dnDce nncnntradcted estahiished that the property
taken theefor is worth $4,000 and am at loss TO UNI
derstand how this valuable property can De taken ny the
petitioners upon paying the sum Of $4,000 the report
order of the Special Term reversed, and this matter
sent back TO James II. Coleman, Gratz Nathan, and
George L. IngTaham, new Commission, to take proof
over AZ 10 the value of the land to be taken.
Policemen RemSeH and HGHHCg0n 10 go 10 State Prison.
In Of Remsen and Hannegan, policemen con
victed the Court OF General Sessions of having picked
the pocket of Kentucky gentleman the judgement Oh
that Court affirmed The principal point taken on
the appeal that the amount OF money taken was not
specified IN the Indictment and also that the notes were
not proved to be genuine Judge CardOzo who deliN-
cred the opinion OF the Court holds that the TACT that
those points non proven does not affect the ALSO
lutte proof Of the crime OF which Remsen aud Hannegan
found guilty. Justices lngTahaIn and Barnard con
In re- Application Of John 4. Duff, Receiver Of the
Olympic Theaer FOR authority 10 Release he Same.In
1861 Mr.. John A. Duff bought, supposed he bought,
the lease OF the Olympic Theater OF Mr. John NJ Irinbe
The creditors OF MB Trmbe got Bodies appointed
receiver OF his estate, and then brought suit 10 set
aside the convey Of the lease under which the thea
ter was built 10 Duff, On the ground that though the
conveyance absolute on It's lace, IT was really only
mortgage OF the lease II was so declared ~ Judge rot
ment that he left him In possession Of the property, al
lowing him s. 900 year. reference ordered 20
take and state Mr.. Duff account and Mr. BOlles subse
queny moved for receiver OF the property, on the
gruund that Dufs accounts falsihed If true
showed reimbursement Mr. Dun was appointed re-
sewer 10y the Court and after lis appointment, moved
tS teIinsslOn 10 lease the property TO hb sohlh-
law Mr. Hayes. for three year,, AT $1,000 per annum
The Proposition opposed by Mr.. Bodies, who pro
1ueea evidence showing that the property was worth
1Oie, al the Time presenting two offers, by
Id! Williams 10 pay slSOOo year Tor the property
h OF 700 late and directed Mr. Dun TO lease the prop
S ~ Mr. Hayes but on Oh appeal from this order 70
the hthsal Term, Justices Clerke and Sutherland held
tha thOse Offers should have been taken into account,
anu therefore vacated Judge Barnards order. Mr.. Duff
appealed IRON the decision Of the General Term 10 the
ouIt VI Alpeas but that Court decided that the order
being ehtted IN action necessarily interocutory
anu sono Do. be reviewed by them except final judg
On the latter ground Mr. Dun appealed 20 the last Gen
sra Term 80 as 70 raise the question whether Judge
bai hafu oiuei was OF was not dis retOnary
The opinion Of the majority Of The Conrt ws Yesterday
delivered by Judge CaTdOLO holds that there was no
Vrce "a sne inoton on the part OF the plain
n 10 dsss the appeal and II therefore denied.
Tue amendment Of section 2s Of the code lnade In l7
allowing motion for new trial made at General
Ifu where the decision Of the Special Term does not
direct final Judgment, but orders further prsceednos
BEFORE referee, or otherwise Ia 10 the pre-
sent ease, because the decision was made before the
adoption OF the amendment II perfectly settled mot
only that such legislation apply " when
sNs asAnHenI aa"utedbut also that is tuonal