New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-12-06
THE COURTS.
OWNERSHIP OF A NEW STRIP OF LAND.

OWNERSHIP OF A NEW STRIP OF LAND.
hog ISLAND BEACH NOT PART OF Long BEACH,
THE HEMPsTEAD LEASE VOID.
A decision just handed down from the Court
OF Appeals OF considerable mpOrtanc, TO the owne
of property Far Rockaway. II involves the question
OF the e the whole % the sandy beach VI Long
Beach, commonly known Hog Island Beach This
sland Is about four miles long, averages about OOo
feet IN width and Is sci arated from the mainland by
cove or p Of 11e same nt M nd h4Is s beach
residences. John L. G. Morton was one OF nnmber of
authosi,ie of OF Hampstead Ia 1850 lease for
fifty years OF this sandy sretcn and threatened 20 erect
considered would become nusances
Michael Mury, who had sumner hotel and owned
about 500 OF the mainland opposite the island began
proceedings In the Supreme Court or an injunction TO
restrain Norton and his associates from taking posses
sou OF the beach in front Of MurTs land tue ground
that he was The owner He also Bsked that the lease
from the town OF Hampstead he declared void Mr.
MLry supported by the other properly owners and
this was made u test IL was Conceded that Long
Reach belonged the town of Hampstead The question
formed west OF Long Beach within comparatively few
years aecretion to Long Beach, or ~ whether
it vested tho State OF New YORK, or 81 whether it
vested those owning the mainland opposite Justice
Pratt at the Special Term found for the plaintiff and
Issued "a permanent injunction. Ater diSagreement
betwee, Justices Barnard aud Gilbert this was after
yard affirmed at the General Term and has now in turn
been affirmed by the court OF APpea7, ine glSt OF
controversy was succinety stated by Justice Brown
in writing the 0puiOn OF the General Term. He SAID:
Prior TO 1851 Long Beach was bounded on tue west
by Bruckleface Gut East ROckaway Inlet, an inlet
which connected tue waters Oh WIN tue
oeeau Between 1895 and 1869 the west point III Long
Beach extended iuO tie about four miles 10 tho
west This WAS dOne by additions 0n its west end
From the action ~ the tides aud storms tue inlet
Aforesaid was constantly changing to the west Asn
ady anccd the mainland or shore was In the first
instance washed away, then shoals form, where the
beach previously existed the shoals then became par
and the bar finally solid beach In the progress or these
changes the beach in front OF plainths lands
was washed away and the land OyerfOwed; the Inlet
moved from place to another, and hDay moved to
point west OF plaintiffs lands ami the beach In question
arose from the sea. separated from plaintiffs main
property by the channel OF the inlet. Then as the
result OF other violent disturbance OF the sea. the
OF the broke through to the east OF PLAIN
ti's lands the point where the inlet originally had
existed; the inlet 10 the west shoae and nlled up snd
the beach became attached TO the main shore at
point west OF plaintiffs lands tnus ncosng the waters
which we're between the main shore aud the outer
each that the waters flow between the property
upon which the hotel stands and the premises which
are the subject OF this action.
The defendants contention Il that Long Beach has
EXTENDED and by accreOn across the plalntlns
premises and has carried the title To the lands in dispute
the town OF Hempstead the owner or Long Beach,
The Court OF Appeals has by its decision sustained tho
holding of the lower courts that the addition to Long
Beach did constitute accretOD. The paintln anu
tho property owners were represented by John u
Parsons and f. f. Daily; the defendants Dy Downing
& Scarborough and by ". " Dykman.