The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-20
SUPREME c UHT-CHAMDERs.

argument oil MS legal opponent, ana then both
hurried up their papers to the Court which re-
served It's decision.
SUPREME C,UHT-CHAaDEas
The Injunction Asaiast the Dock Commits.
si0ncrs.
Before Judge Barrett
The argument OF this case again occupied the at
tention OF the Court all day yesterday.
MIR. Abraham r. Lawrence Jr appearinr for
Peck Wandel one of the complanants in the
case, resumed his argument from the day previous.
Though MS case differed in some OF its features from
those represented by Mr. Fine and Mr.. Parsons, and
argued oy these gentlemen on the previous day,
ne followed manly their line OF argument
Mr.. CALVIN, on behalf OF the Dock Commission
ers, opened the opposing argument. While they
cannot believe that there are any serious difficulties
growing out OF the legal questions involved In these
actions or entertain any real doubt as to the au-
thority OF the department of D0cks' to take the
proceedings sought to be enlOined in these actions
yet when they contemplated the magnitude OF the
interests involved and committed TO the trust or
that Department. ana the commercial disaster
which would result from an adverse adudica ton,
the cases assumed very grave importance, and they
felt warranted In presenting iull argument, ana in
asking very paileat hearing and dlgent con-
sideration OF the cases. But he could not he said,
enter upon the argument without first expressing
MS especial gratication, ny the fact that the COM
mercia interests OF thls great city entrusted to
men who, In the midst OF almost universal 1mputa-
fsnaro OF oilcial corruption or lncapacty
tire confidence OF the public, and whose
prudence zeal and good faith have not been I'M
pu2ned even In the excitement OF the present i'm
portant discussion. Alter this preface he entered
upon his argument the lealng points OF which
were That tue statute conferred upon the Department
OF Docks the present government ana regulation OF
all the docks, NC. not owned by the corporation.
and tnat the Limitation OF the third section to
Enlistment OF general plan OF water 'front.' and was
confined 10 such or should be hereafter conslructed
that the regulation contemplated by the act con-
ierred upon them the authority to cause lhe re-
mova OF all distractions TO their general use 10y the
public for commercial purposes; that a lease of a
public wharf by the city gave no exclusive use 10
the lessee; but the pubic were entitled to use It,
subject to The paymenl OF wharfage, &c, ana that
wharfage meant only the fee prescribed for It's USE
which the lessee was entitled to collect under his
authorize the OBSTRUCTION OF ~" Wharf, pg"et na a
the free and unrestricted use thereof for The
purpose OF trade and commerce Is matter OF
either of the HarDor Masters or Commissioner OF
Public Works TO Obstruct such wharves would be
have under their several cOnveyances is The right
to wharfage, &C.. and the pubic use for CONNER
complained OIL are not pniy instructions to COM
merce, but distractions to " est street. and while
the jurisdiction OF the Dock Department Is confined
TO the docks, NC, aud toa regulation OF their use
In the interest OF commerce, yet If these opstruc-
tons cucumber the street and are a nuisance, for
that reason The plaintiffs cannot invoke the order
OF the Court TO cnjoin the removal OF q nuisance;
that the corporation, under It's charters, owns the
lands under water Tor 400 feet below low water
mark; If not owned by the city then 1t Is by the
state, for the rights of riparian owners on navga-
BILE streams are bounded by high water mark ana
that the Instructions In question were erected III
violation OF section 227 OF the Laws OF 1913, Whicn
provides That no building OF any description other
than piers or bridges shall at any time thereafter be
erected upon West street or between itand the rlyer
MIR. HENRY II. ANDERSON, also appearing for the
DOCK Commissioners, followed. His main points
were, first that the various buildings barges and
distractions, as maintained by the plaintiffs, are
pubic nuisances, and that an Injunction could not
ne granted TO MAINTAIN them; second, that, as pub.
tic nusances, they may be abated by any one ag.
as public ocers charged WITH 1fne e
regulation Of wharves piers and buknea0s to cause
their removal, and that this right OF abatement Is
not affected by statute, penalties or remedies, but
that they are cumulative; third that express au.
thoriy is given TO remove these distractions by the
acts referring to the same, which were cited at
leagth, and that It Is tmmaeral whether this au-
thorily Is exercised by the Corporation, Commas
slOners OF highways, or by the Common Council or
Department Of Docks under ordinances passed
by them respectively, or as executed actually by
granted, as the injunction Is sought against ali OF
them; fourth, that the plainuns have no rights
ing Its western boundary nor in the piers or sips
outside OF West street. except under the acts OF
1884, 1901 and 1875 mat the plaintiffs all claim under
water grants IRON the city OF New York and The
rights gwen TO them as such grantees, according
to the acts cited, ana the only rights given under
and piers to be constructed. ana all such piers and
bnlKheads are public piers and bulkheads Fifth
That as to the structures called barges but In reality
floating storenouses, barns or stores, obstructing
Slips ana access to the Dulkheads, The same rules
siandn@ IN Conrf and the efeants on@ noib, mo
but what tney are authorized by the Legislature 70
40, no case is made Tor an injunctlon and the mo-
ton, therefore, III each case should be Denied with
costs.
THIS closed the argument yesterday. TN Monday
MI. OGorman will make the closing argument for
the Dock Commission, and then Will be followed by
MI FISK ana MI. Lawrence, winch will close 1t up.
Records Of Convictions Must BE Filed.
In re Rachel Findlay. In this case, which Mr..
Abe II. Hummel presented with such cogent force
to the Court, as heretofore reported In the HERALD
the Court yesterday ordered the discharge OF the
relator from the House OF Refuge. lie gave this
discharge for the reason Mr.. Humme urged he
should-because The conviction before the commit
ting magistrate was not led with the Court OF The
General Sessions. The case should teach lesson
TO police Justices clerks.
TORY vs.. Stevens.-Extra allowance OF five per
cent granted.
In The matter OF the application of the congrega.
ton oil Anshi Chesed Tor leave to SELL &c. REFER
ence ordered 10 take proof and report with an
OPINION
In the matter OF the petition OF David II. Burke
Report confirmed and order granted.
cromwell VS.. Fruistis.-Motol to vacate attach
ment granted, with $40 costs. see opinion.
Felter vs.. Dggs ct al.-Moton denied. See
opinion.
Broom vs. Winter. Motion denied without costs
Levy VS.. Strauss.-Referred BACK to referc, &C.
BY Judge CaroZO
Kels0 ct al VS.. Long. -0rder settled.
- Marshall VS.. Burchili.-Motion denied, without
costs.
SUPERIOR ColIHT-TRIAL TesM.-?AaT 2.