The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-08-01
TIMES UP SAYS CURRIE.
And His Partner Must Lose
100000 of His Property.
THE CHANCELLOR INTERPRETERS
The Ten Year Limit, ON the Cnrrie
Shore Front Filling, Expires
Today, and the Heirs Threaten
a Big Seizure.

On the application of Counsellor Charles
d. Thompson, of the law firm of Dickin-
son, Thompson & Heaney. Chancellor
McGill last evening temporarily enjoined
the Currie heirs and the Point Breeze
Ferry Company, which is the personal
property of the Curries, from mortgaging
or otherwise disposing of property worth
$1,800,000 on the shore front to which
they claim exclusive title.
Mr.. Thompson acted in the matter as
counsel for the Morris and Cunning
Dredging Company, who claim to own
one-half the property. The Curries con-
fess that yesterday the dredging company
was half owner with them, but insist that
the expiration of ten years. limit in
vests the title in them alone today.
GREAT ENTERPRISE.
1t is known of every one that the Cur :
rie heirs own valuable water front on
the Greenville shore. Great mud flats
that extend q mile out into the water
value. For years they have been trying
to solve the problem of making the front
valuable for wharf and dock and ware
house sites.
The most practical solution of the prob
lem was the extension of the line of solid
filing beyond the mud flats to deep
water. The government has refused to
put the filing line out to the channel,
however, and the owners of the front
have concluded that the only thing to do
is to extend the filling as far as possible,
and then dig out a channel around the
wharves and piers to be built on it,
1t was with this idea that the Curries
in 1875 entered into an agreement with
the Morris & Cunning Dredging Company.
The heirs were to supply the ripa, and
they made leases with the Riparian Com
missioners. The dredging company was
to bear the expense of the filing.
They were given ten years to complete
the work, and at its completion the made
ground was to be, half and half, the prop
erty of the Norris q Cunning Com
any and of the Curries.
TINES UP.
The Dredging Company went to work.
In 1855, when ten years expired, the work
limit was extended from time to time till
August l, 18S9-that's today. The COM
pany claims to have done the work it con-
tracted to do, except the building of the
bulk heads
These have not been put up, the COM
pany claims, because of the indecision of
the Curries. The Curries wanted the
filling extended to the further1nost point
reaching deep water. The ex-
terror filling line has been located
further out since the work was begun,
and proposition is now under considera-
tion to extend it away out to deep water.
The uncertainty as to the point to which
they will ultimately be able to go has
made the Curries doubtful as to the place
where they desire to have the bulkheads
built.
Because this part of the work has not
been done, the dredging company deemed
it advisable to ask for an extension of the
time for the completion of the contract
to beyond today. The application
was made, and the Curr1es are
said to have hemmed and hawed
around till yesterday they notified
the company that no extension would be
today the company pays the forfeit of its
delay, by losing its half of the property.
To-day" they practically say, 1--WE
own the whole of this great estate you
have made for u.s."
THE VALUE OF THE FILLING.
The Dredging Company has redeemed
1900 feet front of the mud flats for 5000
feet out. 1t claims that while the Curries
are responsible to the State for only
S3, 500, it has spent $780, 900 upon the great
improvement.
It asserts that the value of the estate it
has thus added to the Curries is over a.
million and a half of dollars; that an
offer of 81, ,S0O, ,0000 has already been made
ries to extend the time is a prac-
tical seizure of nearly million
dollars of property, to which the expendi-
ture of SO, 500 can give them no equitable
title In the fear that the Curries might
do something to wipe out its title
- - ~.
pany decided to seek relief from the courts;
and hence had Dickinson, Thompson &
Heaney make application to the Chancel-
1or for an injunction against them. The
Chancellor granted the writ temporarily,
and issued a rule to show cause on the
18th instant why the injunction should
not be permanent.
CAUSES OF THE DELAY.
The Dredging Company claims, as al
as far as Curries would permit. 1t further
asserts that the filing would
have been completed at the
expiration of the first ten year limit, but
for what were practically providential in
references. The assertion by the New
York authorities of jurisdiction clear
across the bay to low water mark led to
interferences that suspended the work for
two or three years.
When this obstruction had been got
out of the way the United States passed
a law forbidding the dumping Of any
thing into the waters of
At authorities imposed restrictions and
conditions, as to the manner of filing,
and the building of cribwork, that not
only largely increased the cost of the
work, but materially delayed its compile
lion.
Damage in Jersey from Rains.
BLOOMFIELD, n j., August 1, 1sS9.-It