The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-09-13
SUPREME COURT: CHAMBERS.

Leasing Piers OF New York-The Powers
OF the Dock Commissioners-Crusa
Against q Steamship Company.
Before Judge Fancher.
Most OF the time Of this Court was occupied
yesterday in arguing motion in suit brought in
the name OF the Attorney General VS.. Charles
Mallory Co., the owners of the Galveston line OF
steamers, to restrain them from erecting any build
ing on pier 2s East River, under the license they
have obtained from the Dock Commissioners Of this
city. 1t Is claimed that such building would pre-
vent the general use Of the pier and conne its use
practically TO the ships OF the defendants while its
superior depth of water requires its dedication to
the largest class Of ships, and it had been used
The attendants in answer say that this proceed.
Ing Is really that OF Grinnell, MIN turn Co., though
owning mainly sailing vessels, whose arrivals and
departures are irregular, has avoided the expense
Of leasing any wharf, merely paying wharfage for
the other hand, the defendants have q regular line
of steamers arriving and leaving once and at some
while they admit that this gives them no exclusive
right, they thus obtain sort of pre-emptive or
ns Of It. That
thus frequent, and to which freight is sent
In anticipation of the trip, cargo must be
that under the duties imposed upon carriers, some
further protection than an open pier is needed;
that this necessity has been recognized, most OF
that piers 10 and Is are so occupied besides many
on the North River; that they applied for a per-
init to the Dock Commissioners who heard the
matter at great length, Grinnel Mlnturn & Co.
appearing there and making special opposition,
and that the Dock Commissioners finally granted
their request; that that pier is not by any means
the only one suitable for large vessels and that the
erection Of this shed will not exclude other
vessels The main question argued was whether
the Dock Commissioners had the right to grant
any use OF q pier which at all excluded It's gen.
eral public use. 1t was claimed for the plaintiffs
tnat the Dock commissioners had solely the gen.
eral powers OF the Corporation of the city, which,
1t was we'll settled, could not authorize any per-
menent obstruction to q public street or wharf,
all the other sheds, except one--which, it as
serted was equally illegal with this-were author
lied BY special acts or law.
For the defendants 1t was urged that under the
power In the matter to the Dock Commissioners,
and that, in the absence OF special injury, their
action could not be questioned
After listening to the argument Judge 1ngraham
took the papers, reservng his decision.
The Comptroller and the Court House
Cleaner.
In pursuance of the mandamus Of Mr.. Justice
Fancher In the matter Of Ellen Hanley, whose
claim Judge Fancher held to be legal and just, Mr..
Earle the County Auditor, returned yesterday that
he had obeyed 1t by the following certidcate:-
FINANCE DEPARTMENT AUDITING BUREAU,
certify the Comptroller this account Of Ellen Han
ley for 1854 g. which have carefully and diligently
lent claim which have refused and would continue to
T. audit and ALLOW Ss mat 5y VIZ Ta Of
to audit therefore do 10 audit it, and allow
this claim in obedience thereto. ABM L. EARLE
1t Is stated that Mr. Earle feels specially that
particularly that his check was returned by Mr..
Lawrence to be made out IN favor Of Mrs. Haney.