New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-07-03
THE COURTS.
~ pIvrRsIDE PARK ASsESSMENT.

|
mssioners of Estimate and Assessment IN inc matter
of the Riverside Park Ibeforo Judge barnard In
the Supreme Court Chambers. on Saturday Inc property
owners opposed TO the confirmation OF the aSSessnehI
were present large numbers and were repreSehed ny
| numerous counsel. The Commissioners who were ap-
nointed by Judge Barnard are Hugh Smith, James NJ.
Sweeney and william NJ Tweed, jr. They report that
the Improvement will cost s5sOOOO half to be assessed
on the city at largo and half against tho property
owners on the wcst-sIdc, between Fortysecond and
Observation-Disclosures thsts. Before the argument
hecon Ira shafer who appeared for people owning up
land lots and who had filed their application TO the Com
misonera OF the Sinking Fund for the water franchise
awarded to riparian owners BY the statute objected to
he had filed their applications In due FORM
| but the Commissioners OF the Sinking Fund had not
had been made his clients and II this report
confirmed, not dollar could be made notwithstanding
The franchise might be theirs tomorrow or next day.
therefore asked that the motion might stand over
A similar motion was made by Mr. Crosby on behalf Of
anime the report rs he understood It had been altered
but Judge Barnard said the motions must be Overued
| The argument the merits Of the motion then
opened by John f. DeYlin. In opposition 10 tho conrma-
ton Of the report and on behalf OF Andrew CaTrgan,
Deylin Mrs. john H. Deylln, Edward O. Donlelly Man
haitian Iron Works aud others Mr. Carrigans objection
lard lying along the Bloomingale Road for which they
sreet running from to One
his client had been aowded the
mere nominal consideration of 81. These streets had
never been opened nothing had been paid for them and
they were merely marked out on the map The Manhat
Park and Mrs Daniel Deyln owning $500 600 worth Of
real estate running up TO One-hundredand1fty hfth
St. did not care % cents II tho Park was never
been benefited by It. Edward c. Donnelly, another OF
his clients had recently written TO nm rom London that
nc would return Amer arguing that the feein the
reverted the adjoining after
they had be used highways, that compen-
saton had been allowed for them, and that the act Itself
unconstitutional and void Mr. Deyln said that these
parks must be- II constructed az all, and il within the
thOrity OF the Central Park Commissioners for public
use and convenience. Could u DC tolerated That
these Park Commissioners shall, without respOn-
bity through the city at will and take property
for such purposes whenever they chooset Certainly
not No mans land is safe. He may to bed at night,
aud arise IN the morning to find that not only his dwell
park The action OF all such bodies must be reasonable,
but il there whore their action most
unreasonable and most prepo,terous 1t was THIS case
Thc Legislature repealed the act making JOnesB Wood
park because 1t lay the river but here proposed
park not only lying on the rYcr bnt Wtnn pistol shot
OF Central Park They have extended their assessments
down low es FoTty-secOnd-st, whereas the en-
trance to Central Park commences at and
the entrance TO this at ScyenysccOnd-st. VIII any
suppose that citizens, from Fortyseeond TO Fftynint
in going out for pleasure, either on foot or TO drive will
pass by Central Park and 80 to this Clearly the prop
rGa1 t .G of hon"df The hp9edt must he sTb
santia one, and capable Of being realized within
reasonable tmc but this not only not "A substantial
benefit hut not capable of being realized within any
time, reasonable otherwise. The Commissioners were
They have also gone up to Observation-Disclosures
st., in their assessments, whereas II Is well known
that the people UP there more for this PARK than
II had been located at YonkeIs. The upper portion OF
the owners assessed chiefly small property holders
and these subjected 10 this heavy tax without any
corresponding benefit. 1t was obviously an crror too
TO unite two distinct parks i'm assessment THE Man
haitian being included in ths because impossible
determine the relative benefit If any, OF each park to
those assessed for It, For these various Mr.
Devlin conended the report should not be confirmed,
but should be sent back TO the same Commissioners or
others appointed in their stead, for revision:
EXJudge Porter, Charles II. hechel, Ii. II. Anderson
and Louis A. Dcahed also raised objections in behalf OF
their clients.
brought them up 10 $4,000, but the Commissioners had
only awarded them S2iCO0. He also took the objection
his clients being foreigners, that the act OF the Com
mssioners was in VIOLATION o. the Flia and Fourteenth
and he to test the point in the United states
Mr. Cowdry said behalf of his clients that the Com
mssioners had taken an old sone house, on which $1,000
Mr. Graft Nathan followed adopting the arguments of
those preceding him TO the uullWfuness OF the awards
made lots fronting unopened streets, the Commits
sioncrs increasing the award though IN their amended
reports extending the boundaries OF the lots to the center
Mr. Shaw, who appeared for the Hon WIN. r. Roberts,
claimed that for property for which Mr. Roberts had
been of red sl25OO The Commissioners had only awarded
Railroad Company, contended that the Commissioners
could not take that portion OF the property at all, the
Company holding u Dy paramount authority OF the Leg
stature lie SAID mat theGe would DC no necessity 10
remove IT, II would continue 10 run through the Park
and be somewhat OF AN ornament.
John W. Powers, who, with Mr. White had 20 lots
taken on the BOOningdao road and others on Twelfth
Ne
BoomnCdale road still existed in the Riverside Boule-
yarl, and he thought for what lac did not get there he
was compensated elsewhere.
This closed the arguments. Mr.. O'Gorman followed
briefly in favor Of confirming the report. The cXpedi
cncy Of this improvement be said, not the question
for the Court. That rested solely with the Commission
ers, who bad passed upon it, aud The Court could 9ny
interfere in OF gross and apparent fraud or
an I'm law rule Of valuation This Improvement
had been contemplated by former regime, ana was
adopted 10y the present Commissioners with view 10
utilize portion OF the City where would be impossible
20 grade carry through rectangular streets put
l
Ncssde AssOcia Ion, composed OF men or property and
influence, thsmni UYcmcu was insisted ON by the rCsJ
linton. lie had asked adjournment from time 20 time in
order TO afford expression OF public opinion on this
subject When first proposed petition was filed against
u Nv large number Of property owners, but this was
OverbOrne by petition from much larger number. Mr.
OGOrman then went to argue against the points OF
hi, opponents, cOnendng that the BiOomngdale road
sill existed highway that in reference to the lots
on that and the unOccuped streets referred 10 the Com
mssioners nrst proceeded on the theoiy at the I'M
opened street. because on the map had been ceded toto
public, and therefore assessed them front
| ing on open streets. Discovering their error,
| lots as fronting streets, they amended
their awards by extending the line to the center OF the
street. thus making the street In such part Of the
award As the water franchise, which some had In
tcpatiOn, IL was purely visionary right on which the
Commissioners could not be expected TO take action
til assuming some tangible form by purchase and Inn
purely within the discretion Of the Commissioners and
could be inerered with Out of 5000 lots taken he
glad 10 few objections arising out OF the COM
mon disposition of humanity 20 get much possible
when selling and pay little possible when buying,
and after careful examination, he felt convinced that
the Commissioners aad done their duty faithfully ana
Judge Barnard reserved his decision.
CRIMINAL COURTS.
| At the Essex Market Police Court John Mack and
John Wilson committed estay for bbng James Owens Of No.