The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-18
PRIVATE PIERS, SLIPS AND BuLKHEhDS
Running Muck Of Private Property Owners
and What the Latter Are Going to DO About
It-Appeal 10 the Supreme Court to
Have the Matter Set Right-Prc-
ceedings Before Judge Barrett.

When the Dock Commission was created there was
general expectation that something would be
speedily done towards tearing down our present Old,
tumbllng, rckety and dangerous piers ana bulk
heads, and erecting In their stead Others Of better
material, OF less unsigh,liness, ana possessing
greater POWERS of endurance anu certainly OF safety
Some such latent intentions may exist IN the minds
OF the Commissioners, although thus far they have
only given feeble manifestation thereof. They have
done one thing certain when shows that they are
not altogether deficient IN energy, and that ~, get
ting into the Couris-a doubtful proceeding at the
best This was some time ago, and the facts were
fully published In these columns at the time. 1t came
about, as Will be remembered, IN 'hls way:-In their
circuit OF preliminary investigation they found Ccr
tain piers and bukheads, the property Of private
owners, covered with sheds and the like. Believing
themselves fully empowered TO do so, they ordered
the removal Of these pier eXcrescences The owners
thought they had some rights IN the premises. They
demonstrated against the action OF the Commission
ers. ana the latter insisted IN prosecuting their
work OF demolltion and removal, swapping dedantly
their fingers IN the faces OF the pier owners ana
paradlng as their badge OF authority the act OF the
Legislature under which they were appointed. Only
one course remained for the property owners to
pursue-an appeal to the Courts. Application was
accordingly inadc TO the Supreme Court for tcm-
pOrafy
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DOCK COMMIss TONER'S.
This application was granted, anu yesterday Was
set down Tor nearing tie argument 10 whether
the same shOu Il be made permanent or otherwise.
The case came up before Judge Barrett sitting IN
supreme Court Chambers, and II patience IN u
Judge IL commendable under any circumstances.
he certainly deserves great credit Tor The patience
he showed in listening to the tedlCusly prolonged
aildavlts and their sdrpusage OF verbiagc; rcacE-
ing III this case the EXTREMIST limit o. legal mgc-
nuity. In tins case there are five complllnants.
though these are SAID 10 be but the beginning OF the
beginning OF those whose nights, it - claimed,
involved IN the issue OF the present litigation. A
pher Fine appearing Tor TWO Of the com
plalnaanns; Mes, Messrs Mann AND ana Parsons for
Opposed TO these and cOntestlng the rights Of The
Dock Commissioners were Mr.. Richard O'Gorman,
Counsel to the Corporation; Mr.. leury n. Anderson
and Nh. GAVIN. Also present and evidently taking
u deep interest in the proceedings were Messrs. G..
Agnew. wilson &. Hult and }. Granville Kane, OF
the DOCK tommIssiOn Mcssrs. Cohen anu StacOm,
alleged owners OF buildings on The bnkhead adJoin-
ing the llopoken ferry, and air. Coffee owning
sentng these parties, recited The chapter which
creates the Department OF Docks, and especially
the clauses limiting tnelr powers as 10 vested rgnls
to such interference as must be required Tor secur-
ing the stability ana cOndlllon OF the PIERS Inc
Eoard passed q resolution erecting. with some
ccptions, the removal OF
pUILDINGs ON BULKHEADs AND PIERS
below Chambers street. The FIRST named plaintiffs
owned buildings erected on the bulKbead adjoining
the Hoboken ferry, which they had leased from Mr..
Stevens. The exception alluded to includes, among
other things, the property west oi Washington Mar
kcr. The plaintiffs claim that Though NOT directly
west, they are Included within the rcc0a nZed limits
of west Washington Market their buildings being
used for market purposes mat the purpose OF the
Dock Commission was TO create a new system Of
docks and that for ms purpose 1t must be some
years before they have any occasion. according TO
their own plans, to interfere with Their OCcu-
patlon. Tncy also claim mat under the resolution Of
the Common Council OF 1855 they are expressly
authorized TO keen these buildings on he bulkheed,
thar resolution beng passed Oh account Of Inc
essness 10y reason OF inc adjoining Jerry slip OF this
hukhead Tor ORD nary mercantile purposes. AS 10
Cohee he had barges at the bulkhead w permission
OF the captain OF the PORT, an authority paramount,
except where the preservation an STABILITY OF the
piers themselves was concerned.
| Mr.. GAVIN, for tie Dock commissioners, pre-
sented tue laws dedicatns tue piers and bllAneads
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES,
| and forbiddng any obstruction 10 those purposes
| ana presented aidaviis showing mat the buildings
| were such distractions: ana as TO Conee's case,
| that his barge was used not Tor commercial pur-
poses, put US an oyster saoon while the slip could
te used 10y and Is needed Tor the accommodation or
canal boats.
| MIR. ABRAHAM II. LAWRENCE Jr., presented the
| papers IN the case Of Pcch Wandcl, dealers IN
! building materials, occupying the bul&head at tho
| foot OF spring street Tor their business, under q
| lease from tue CITY and assignments of leases OF
| neighborng bulkleads. lie claimed mat they Old.
tanned from the superintendent OF Buildings, under
approval or the supreme Court, permission 10 erect
building on the bulkhead, ana that lnat building
was aud Is necessary 10 their business, and mat
| removal would cause them irrcparaGe injir, AMI
| into before they were notified to remove 1t.
| Mr.. CALylS urged that no one had tho right or
| leasing the Wharyes, except to receive wharhge
ald receive anu remove goouS, ana mat tie bui Il.
ing l. an obstruction 10 commerce ana Il nuisance.
| The lease was lease to establish ierry ana his
| was all the rower the Comptroller Couli grant by
| law, ana that the bul'dng and building materials
cncumj er West street tscli, leaving one point
| only fourteen feet lctween the railroad aud tae
| buildings, and ho westerly sidewalk.
Next II order was taken NJ the case OF Messr,.
| Williams Morrison. fof whom sir. Fine appeared.
| Jnesc parties occupy the SIPS ana DuNnead he
! tween PIERS 4 and North River. ar. Fine hogan
WIN reading their adavIts, gong back Ia thclr re-
| clta To
| TINE rpNNaA,rrn~a
| or certain memorable Character. lhey claim 10
\ own Ibis property.
THE PROPERTY,
II Is claimed, originally belonged 10 the Dutch West
| India Company anl remained III their possession
| until the province OF New York became dominion
| OF tho Crown OF England on the 18TH OF August,
| 1857, the then Governor, Earl Clarendon dcnsed
the said farm to TRINITY church for period OF seven
years. On the 9Th OF May 1902, The said demise was
continued aud on the 70 II OF November 1905, the said
! farm was granted IA fec by queen Anne TO itiniiy
| church, tic corporate title Of the church then
! being "rhc Proctor aud Inhabitants OF the city OF
! New York IN communion OF the Churcl OF England
| as by law establ she'd " was at tins tims that
| the name Queens Farm was given TO The property.
| The farm was bounded on th) east partly by Broad
| way, partly 81 the common AMI partly by the
swamp, ana Oh the ives by hudson River. In II %
the southern ooun larry Of The larm was established