The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-31

callers for the loss Of the notes, and having paid
the value OF the notes in discourage OF snch
position as II there had been an assignment 70 the
company OF all the title OF the Daiers OF the notes
the arc
John E. Burrill Tor vermlye Il Co.. y. A. Seward
and T. ?: CHAPMAN for the company,
No. l5d Garrison vs.. The CITY OF New YORK
Error 10 the Circuit Court Tor the southern Dis
trict OF New York.-Garrison, citizen OF New
OF the city or New York for the amount OF an
award made TO him for lands required in widening
s onrs sna sss rns
under the special act OF 1869, providing Ior t1e
$4,000 for his damages, accustomed BY the WIDEN
ing OF broadway. BY the act OF 1871, In relation
40 sns % Sa n
take or oppression. should be sci aside on
ierred back Tor new assessment. Under
this act Garrison's award was set aside and this
Court below held the act OF 1871. under which the
award was set aside, to be bar TO the action and
error A here insists upon the same argument
offered below, That the act OF 1871 10 unconstitu-
Constitution OF the United states in that il inpars
the obligation OF the contract established by the
ans s OF SeW Yorr S 70
to divert vested rights contrary to law and with
out due process. George r. Curtis ano J. G. shaw
aneld Smith Tor city,
No. 160 The Narragansett Steamship Company
vs. Pouton, valpey ct al. and same vs.. Pouton,
Brett ct al.-Appeas from the Circuit Court for
the Southern District OF New York.-These we're
cross libels. The libel In the nrst case was hled
by Pouton, as owner Of the bark George Brown,
against the steamer Bristol, to recover damages
as Tor total loss, oct asioned oy collision with
the steamer on Long Island sound. June %, 1862
The master and crew OF the Dark setting forth that
they lost personal effects were made colioellants
with Pouton. The liDsl in the other case was IN
personGm nled by the Narragansett Company,
owners OF the steamer, against the persons sup.
posed TO be the owners OF the bark, to recover
damages sustained by the steamer IN the collision
charged the steamer with general IN.
skilllness and neglect, and among other
things, a nigh rate OF speed. The nbel OF the
steamer charged upon the bark neglect aud viola
ton OF the maritime rune, In shat, among other
things, she did not blow horn or IN some other
way give nouce OF her presence. The decree was
against the steamboat on the ground principally
that she was running at an excessive rate OF
speed. The bark was recovered and repaired and
was claimed by the appellants to be worth as
much as before the injury, ana upon tnlS proof
the claimants commended that the measure OF dam
ages was the cost OF recovering ana repairing.
The Commissioner finding that the recovering and
repairing the bark cost more than her value when
repaired decided that the lloellant was entitled 10
damages measured BY the iul value OF the
bark before the collision. The Commssl Toner
OF the bark before che collision and found its value
to be $2S,OOo. For this amount the award was
made and q further award iOr upward OF $780, 900
was made to the master and crew on account OF
the loss Of their personal effects. The District
Court entered q decree upon this award, and the
Circuit Court affirmed IL. From this Decree both
as to the responsibility for the collision ana the
measure OF damages appeal is taken, audit Is con-
tended that II 1t was not case wncn should have
been decided in favor OF the steamer, II was one
FOR division of the damages, on the ground
that the bark contributed to tue circumstances
which caused the collision, and that the rule
adopted Tor the measure OF damages was er
roneous. J. c. Carer for appellants; W. P.
Richardson and William Allen Butler for appellees.