The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-21
SUPREME COu3T-cgAnB;Rs.

Removing DISTINCTIONS from Piers and slips.
Before Judge Barrett.
John L. Williams, ct al vs. The Mayor, &C., and
the Department Of Docks OF the City OF New
York.-The history OF this case is well knowp hav-
Ing been fully published at the beginning OF the
suit In the discharge OF It's duties the Department.
OF DOCKS undertook the removal OF various encum-
brances OF some OF the North River piers and In
the adjacent docks An injunction was obtained
restraining the Dock Commissioners from their
removal. The matter came before the Court on
motion to show cause why the Injunction should
not be continued. Judge Barrett, before whom tue
dlssolvng the Injunction. His grounds are:-Firsr,
that the authority which the Legislature has con-
leges and wharf property Is limited to such use OF
the wharves, piers and slips as shall not interfere
81 rade anu second tHst inc
owners OF this water grant are entitled TO the fullest
protection In their exclusive right TO wharIages and
they cannot be deprived OF that right without due
o public or the owner OF a private wharf, has any
r sfss. Or war any Sen%eeS ns%
speclively. and the river upon which they shall
manently TO obstruct such street or wharf or such
intermediate space; fourth, that the barges, ONCE.
are In tie nature Of such permanent INSTRUCTIONS
and In legal sense are nuisances nth, that being
eon OF Of equity that the
ment Of Docks has the power to REQUIRE the
removal or these 0DSruCtlOn9 the dredging OF the
government and regulation;" that Tor such purpose
s nnS s c s treated ss as hsa
unlawful Instructions should be upheld 70
the same extent as police regulations with respect
to the streets OF the city; seventh, that neither the
order OF a harbor master, nor the permit OF the
Commissioner OF Public Parks, nor the certificate of
the superintendent Of Buildings. given under direo.
ton OF the Court, can avail any or THESE plaintiffs,
1t not being IN the power Of any official to egalze
nuisance; eighth that there need be no conflict Of
authority between the Department OF Docks and
Captain OF the Port ana the Harbor Master INC
to the adoption Of any general plan Of water trout
Is simply providing additional accommodation for
S ss0a' the ssa ne a us =
the commissioner Of Plots The power OF interior
ing with or removing vessels thus assigned to par
is conferred upon inc Department OF Docks only
when necessary for the convenient prosecution OF
ment Of DOCKS instead Of confictng with, really
promotes the functions OF the other officials by m
placed at the the disposal Of the Haroor sers Tor the
legitimate purposes OF commerce. The Injunction
In each case must be dissolved, with $40 costs.
Decisions.
Goodenough VS.. Spencer Motion to open default
granted. Terms to be settled on two days notice.
In the Matter of William Flllon VS.. Van Hoven-
Agate Va. Mendes.~Motion denied with $40 cost
and leave to review.
sneua Se allowed II eli costs ys
Clifford VS.. Washington Iron Works. Motion
granted.
In the Matter O! the Petition Of GILBERT F. Rudd
to vacate Assessment for Sewer, &c.-Order 10 take
proof granted.
Bolton ct al. vs. Harvey.-Allowance granted.
Van Name ct al VS.. keatng ct aL-Aolioh de-
nted without COSTS
Shepard ct al. VS.. benson. for short
calendar granted
Davis ct al vs.. Barker.-Motion denied, with
leave TO renew.
Keyser vs. Keyser-Report OF referee confirmed,
and Judgment or divorce granted.
Barnes vs.. Barnes.-Same.
Chapman Chapman.-Same and custody OF
children awarded to plaintiff
K0lb ct al. vs. JarosbOwski. Attachment issue
unless the defendant submits to examination, on
day to be specified In the order.
Eston ct al. VS.. ADMINISTRATION denied, costs
to abide event.