New-York tribune., 1874-06-15
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
ruF RRnAnWAY WIDENING.


THE BROADWAY WIDENING.
IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE FRExDMAS-rhh
ASSESSMENT ON TuE PROPERTY OF JOHN 'Aoo'
AsroR sKr ASIDE on THE GROUND OF Efo"
MALITY.
Jud0e Freedman of the Superior Oour' n"'
rendered an important decision aneo''"H ~ 80
ests of q large number OF Perso"s ~ -
or,v .,o,s the line of the broadway "iuenius
v ..,or brought action against
= ,,aernan ana commcnaltv OF TINS city, anu
Ana,nw n Green Controller. to have certain 'ssess-
,ont. levted on number or lots along tue I'M Il ING
broadway widening account Oh sucn IMPROVEMENT
set aside on the ground Of informally The rehei oe
uanded by the complaint that the record OF the
assessments the Office OF the Controller SO Tar as IL
affected the lots Of plaintiff should be Cancelled ana
apnued that the entries made in the record SO iar as
they affected lots of the plaintiff should De expuDsea
and removed. q cloud upon the title or the pialn'n
and that the assessments made upon piaintin loV
should be ndged 70 be void and be set aside and tna
the defendants their officers. agents, and servants
should be perpetuay restrained from collecting suoh
and from taking any proceedings therefor
by sale or and that the piantn should nave
such further other relief both in the premises as 10
might meet with the costs or the acton
The case was q difficult and complicated one. and In
voVed large public and private interests Some OF the
questions involved novel. and of the highest i'm
pOrance the city and to all who real property
the corporate limits Judge Freedman has therefore
given TO the careful consideration. The
salient points Of the decision here given:
On MAY It, 1869 act under which the widening OF
Broadway took place, provided that after the fling OF
the and certificates, tine counsel TO the corpora
tion should institute proceedings 70 acquire for public
use and ia behalf the corporation title to the
lancs required for the purposes OF the ana
the purpose should application to the
supreme Conrt any Special Term IN the First District
appointment Of three Commissioners OF Estimate
and Assessment
The missioners constituting the Commission held
various meetings and in the of time reported the
result OF their a1or 10 the Supreme Court In the shape
of reports One of those signed by majority,
Messrs Jones and Wood. and the other was made by
Mr.. Hennessey. Tue Supreme Court referred
majority report back Commissioners who had
made II, with instructions 10 correct the same
IN several particulars. These made in
the shape of two amended, or supplemental reports.
port As corrected The order OF confirmation was. on
appeal affirmed by the General Term. further
dismissed by that Court for tue reason that under
the provision of Act of ls13 the report
upon the Mayor, Aldermen and COmmonalty,
we'd a. upon The parties Interested. and that conse
Term was not apPealabe Tue plaintir has now tiled
hs oiii IN equity ior the removal OF the assess
rlous reasons why his prayer for relief should be
che assessments laid required by law
laid because the appointment OF William Wood was
made without notice. and therefore nuilty which
fact renders the report made by jointly Jones
wholly nuii and VOID ana because notice. by pnb
csOn or Otherwise OF the presentation OF either OF the
smendrd OF supplemental reports given required
by statute.
The Judge then considers these objections without
reference, however 10 lie constitutional question. He
staes that IN conformity acts providing for tine
appointment of Commissioner the place OF Mr..
Stewart, notice OF at IA days should have been
gwen by publication in newspapers. Tie omission
OF the Commissioners TO furnish notice of pres
cnatOn OF the amended repOrt for twenty days
10 constitute another rregularitY. The Judge insists
that every requisite OF the statute having the semblance
of benefit 10 the owner must be strictly complied with.
The Judge holds. also, that the report of the
Commissioners and It's confirmation by the su-
preme Court are in violation OF the Constitution
OF 1876, which provides when private property
snail be taken for pubc the compensation 20 be
made therefor when such cOmpensaOu Is not made by
State small by jury, by not less
than three commissioners appointed by court OF
record. shall be prescribed by law The Judge holds
tAat II the nave been laid simply
IN the OF the power OF taxation, the complaint
of the plaintiff would not be well founded. But Re
holds that the widening and Strengthening Ot broadway
the taking Land winch could only De
taken under the power of eminent domain
Judge Freedman concludes as follows; In conclusion,
well 70 point tnat cnaper 3g OF the Laws
provides that the supreme Court OF the First ju
dciaI District the Court ot Common Pleas, and the
Superior Court OF the City Of NewYork. shall have
exclusive jurisdiction OF all actions or special pro-
ceedInes wherein the Mayor. Aldermen. and Com
moualty OF the City OF NewYOrk are made party
defendant aud that. although Oy Cndper $50 Vi the Hs
of 1867 such Jurisdiction confined 10 tue Supreme
Court recOnierred upon the superior court anu
the Court Common Pleas Dy the reenact ten pursuant
20 section OF Chapter 553 Of the Laws OF 1885, OF All
the provisIons OF Chapter 379 of the Laws OF looO
aud continued IN force by the sixth article OF the
Constitution Having I1us considered the case as made
by plaintiff all It's bearings, aud having Oeen unaoie
Ia In the objections raised the defen lapt
any tangible reason fOr declining 10 Interfere my nnal
rnanded in complaint andJudsment must DC entered
acoOruiugly,