The New York herald., 1876-10-28
THE COURTS.
The Lower Bay as the Reservoir Of
City Garbage.
Our Street Cleaning Bureau and the
Shore Inspector.
SkirmiSEing for Position In the
Legal Fight.

Although with the passing away OF the summer
sostce there has naturally subsided the war ON the
transmission OF ,he city garbage down the Bay and ,s
consignment there 10 marine burial, the war In ths
courts II regard TO the matter Is still pursued with
fcrcely rabid intensity Of the dog days Mr. Corne-
Illus Ferguson, the shore inspector considering that
tcones within the range OF his duties undertook TO
interfere with the barges in tYdnsitu down the Bay
This being considered by the police authorities OF this
city an uIwarrantcd intrusion an injunction was
obtained putting an cstoppel on Mr. Ferguson. When
the matter was brought before Judge Donohuc, at
Supreme Court, Chambers, he decided that the
tho Legislature creating the office Of shore inspector
was unconstitutional. This judicial ruling, however
did wipe out Of Official existence Mr.. Ferguson
and did not put end to the garbage war, in which
the really aggressive parties certain oncals OF
Brooklyn. who, as claimed, simply put forward
Mr. FERGUSON as hgurehead. A suit was brought by
the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty OF the city OF
New York against Winchester Brirlon. District Al
torncy OF thecty Of Brooklyn, and others winch suit
is still pending Having instituted y suit, the great
question now appears TO be where the same shall DO
tried city authorities Of New York being desirous
OF trial here and the Brooklyn officials insisting
that II shall ue tried in tho City OF Churches. A mo-
ton made by the latter for change OF venue. and
tins motion came up for argument yesterday before
Judge Barrett, IN Supreme Court Chambers District
Attorney Britton was present IN person, and Mr..
Charles F. Mclean appeared for the Street Cleaning
Bureau OF New York.
Mr. Britton briefly explained tho law under which
Mr.. Furgusson was appointed shore Inspector and the
duties which ne was to perform. He said that the
action brought by the plaintiffs sought to prevent Mr.
Furgusson from dong his duty and 10 prevent the
District Attorney from lndcting persons violated
the law under which the office OF shore inspector was
created He would not 90 into the merits OF the case
but merely quoted the precedent OF tho case OF The
People against Fowler, which II held that tho
defendants had right to change OF venue before the
issue WAS joined In the case cited be said was held
that county official had the right 10 demand trial in
the county of which he Official, and when such de-
mand wss made It prccluded argument Nr. Brtton
submitted an affidavit showing that issue had not been
joined
Mr. Mclean replied behalf Of the Street Cleaning
Bureau He said, in answer to Mr. Brit!on, that Mr..
Furguss0n 0ffcer OF the county Of New York
we'll as tho county Of Kings.
Mr. Briston replied thas no vas really officer OF
Kings county but that his jurisdiction extended TO
New York and Richmond counties, though the law
compelled him TO reside in Kings
Mr. Mclean then submitted several afdavits, stating
that a far tr,nI could not be had In BROOKLYN Tnc
affidavit Of Captain John Gunner, inspector OF street
Cleaning set orh that nothing but street dirt was nut
upon the scows: that no dead animals placed
board; that In order to prove violation it would be
necessary TO call every ono connected with the depart
ment, from Commissioner Nichols all the way down;
that the Street Cleaning Bureau had nothing whatever
to do with tho removal OF dead animals offensive
seas; that nearly all Of the material and necessary
witnesses employed in cleaning Streets and that If
they were compelled to attend trial outside the city
It would be at great Inconvenience. II was
stated, in addition that many other public
officials employees would be necessary; that
during the past summer and autumn CON-
plants were made to him by residents Of the county
OF Kings that carrion, putrd and offensive
dumped In the Bay that upon investigation he found
that such complaints groundlcss ana he believes
itmpossbe II get fair trial in the county OF Kings.
II alleged further that the OF the Brooklyn
newspapers last summer and this autumn convinces
him Of the existence Of popular prejudice in Kings
county concerning alleged violations; that last
summer attended certain proceedings before q
justice OF peace Gravesend, and that the spec
tators exhibited such unreasonable and btor prsju-
dice against the officers and employees Of the street
Cleaning Bureau OF New York that q fair and partial
trial Of the action its merits could not be had In the
county of Kings. The affidavit OF Captain Thomas
killaea, superin tendent OF the boats the Street
Cleaning Bureau, was OF a similar character.
The affidavit OF James Heaey, detective Of tho New
York Police Department, went to show that he had
searched Fort Hamilton and Coney Island, but could
find no evidences Of violation OF the law The de-
ponent believed shat fair trial could not be had
Kings county.
Judge Barrett said that tho law quoted by Mr.. Brit
ton perfectly clear that Official had right to
trial IN the county OF which he official before
issue joined There only case in the books
against 1t. He, however. would take the papers