The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1875-12-28
THE StN AED THE TRIBtEE.
The suit in the Supreme Court The sun e.
covers it, Land from the Tribune.


The case of TnE StN Printing and Pub
lishing Association against the Tribune Asso-
citation was tried Yesterday in the Supreme
Court. at Circuit, before Mr.. Justice Lawrence
and jury. 1t was an action Of eiecrncnt
brought to recover possession Of "a small triangu-
lar piece Of land belonging to Titg SUN Associa-
ton and eucrocchcd upon by the new TtibuHc
building. The defence was that the oncrOach-
mcnt did not constitute possession, rs II was a
proper foundation for the adjoining Nall Of TBE
SrN building. which the ItUum, Association
VS. Obliged ~ support by virtue If chapter Of
the Laws Of lsj5 This statute requires persons
making excavations moro than ten feet bclo "
the curp to support adjoining walls below that
dClth.
11o plaintiff WIS represented hv Nr willard
Bartlttt. and the defendant 10y Mr. 4. A. kunklc.
he occupation Of the land IA suit hs the e 81
erlv wall oi the tribune nuilding W proyod by
Me- George W Smith and Mr.. Austin ID. Even,
city surveyor, both " wnom produced survey
OF the ireu 90 which were Put In evidence.
Mr. 1ru' ". Rollina. the bui'd"r emui'Scd hN
Thu SIS Aeso'at1u to Look aitortue fpuuda-
tuu4 of ING 80 building while "a" cNcivati Hns
were or. ding or thc FTthnt and. also t"sii-
NoU to thr rnrir .rhtNrnf. aud huWsd UuW "
had .ua"d the interior ~ tne wall IA tuo collar
Nr t-t' vs. Eu-l.ud. tnt ru'li-rcr 4 rur
STN. vHa % ~ Examined. lie les in'd 10 tie
Do ~ t.c euIuHntr rt 1873. and monii red ~ 90
M. O'i,r %, i.c builder, and Nr r. o.. ore ul
had O. -riufi tiln wuich showed that NE pro.
pO.ed lino - tucir " 10 would cu,tnNh on a
c,rl,r 6 IHt -lN's land.
Ac..ru.r,ui llti.~ IS uuilding wa- cut oil to
~ Vs." .Ii Co.,, the W III ot tuc w. ~. NGuUIuy
w." .itn. u.'-cu Icu Us saw Nlr. Ford RET.
srcnc' Co iNc tfc oHt aWcn'. u" told Nr. Ford
th.f a. W "utpo. ..rd 60 treat with uim ON the
.ut ioct 10 g. rt"c .f"'ive of the Iru1ne. lhe
soci uou Wus dl- o.. ~rd. Mr. Ford offered q
| rlirri 4. n...r' Nr O'iir.,n. tue frpmi,
flf 40 lad ~ IlT fHr ia.
crfarI.fl. iINl. Z been NIaut, ut,lurin- ia 10
| Vs.. h'lud"t .f rs foreman.
Nr. Cordan T.. FUri W.. TIE nrsi witness call
| cd ou % hait 81 thc defendant. II" rrodu ed a
! sual tn tnsd pie @ Of board rcur, rantius inc
| extent oi ttc egg, 'oachmeni. He admitlcd That
| tnr iFilpHt Nuii.lug tUrrOscucd uuun the lanu
| of lHE frN auovr the surface Of the ground
! hut denied that the found ,tons wcrr over e.,
! line. Ho ~lil, however, that hc con. iderrd
~ - line to 800 In possession " the sun Asso-
! citation.
a.r. Rapp, the architect employed b. the Tri
| bfnc building, and Sir Peter T.. O'Brion. the
| bpiider, BOTH eNll tined the nn.nre II the en-
! from the t,siii4 1ny o. behalf of the
plaintiff. lhcN dcrl red. however, that the wal
| uf the IthunD building thus inserted under III,
feet above che S. rfgcc Of tho ground cUustitutet
rroper support for that wall Another witness
nawci Fell r.whe na-a builder, testified To tbs
/ prrpiirty az the l'ihiNlc wall A. asgppprt. bu
] ou tfo-.-cN iuiu .tiuu admitted. a. the uthe
] witnesses haI dom" IA there we're many oth'
| SrNs wall could have been unh'ld withuu
| causing thr Tfnrire huilding To- cucroach upoi
! tnc lnI of ~. SCs AssoDi ton.
he case was then sCnmcd up 10y MIR RInk
/ ou tehHlt ct tie d,i"uuW I, ana on behalf "
tla' thn 90. iurn DESIRED aot damages. hut th
recovery of tae ind watch lad been uuIADf-h
Ar. Jusuce Lawrence then charged the iur
2 who tied. and alter al aDscufc pi ten iniU
eNcn,irt in favor ot the ri intin fur the GOV
/ cry 81 The irtmia IS described IT. the complaint