New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-01-19
r EORT CONFIRMED.
~ DECISION IN THE NEW PARKS CASE

DECISION IN TILE NEW PARKS oA0n'
x.,rv onyrorroNs From THE COUNSEL os 1hA
srrrpaAN RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY
...,,,..nt was heard BY the General Term OF the
s,preme Court yesterday In the mauer oi Ing 60 ~
ermatfon OF the report OF tne y" -. o.
..,..,or.rs Numerous lawyers wee present. 0pio.
,.sso,s .n,crests The city was Represented
= r.s.,,,na p.,+,ett ExJudge Charles r pay, OK
80. r,.rusn Prescott Hall Butler, W. W. Mics
..a others aupesred for the property owners Da'
fan A. Harrison and Thomas l.. ogden iooAoo o"S .o'
The interests OF the suburban Rapid transit Com,
Many. and Joseph 8. Wood was present aS ooa',. s
- - r..s SIDE and Mount Vernon Railroad COMPANY
All ne oteotons to the awards. exccpt those VI sn0
s,,su-h.r paid Transit Company. have been WIN
s~.,r Ex-Judge Tappcn protested against having
~. axrarex tied up for years By ltiga1on IN 0oh-
seau,rce of objections by the Suburban COMPANY.
presiding Judge Van Brrnt here sac mat h''
asxociats Judge Barrett. suggested tna' "e fepol'
~ confirmed and the 100000 awarded Tor the nVe
..r.s c,aimsd by the Suburban Company be deposi'eo
Win tho court Mr.. Harrison. on behalf OF the COM
many Objected 10 this. SAYING that no haa cono "
court with the understanding that the nearink "o"u
be adjourned. He not ready for tho Akuniohe
Mr. BARTLETT declared thst ne CITY was WINK 'na'
81. course suggested by Justice Barrett should DO
.,,.s and the presiding Justiee told Mr.. Harrison
That n he wished to mako an argument againss the
confirmation he would be heard
Mr. HARRISON. after making some further objection
N proceeding at this time said that he hoped the
court would not confirm the report because IL would
DESTROY his clients rights and ruin the road ana the
property would be absolutely taken. The statements
Of the commissioners that railroads whose routes lay
through the parks would not be affected had Deen
relied en- The routes of this road had been laid out
under the Rapid Transit act. and II they were TAKEN
the company would have no routes Inc property
had already been devoted to public use. and comd
to take for
the intention of the Legislature in regard to the COM
psny was stated specifically.
Ex,Judge DAILY replied that for the first time ho
now heard that the commissioners had agreed tnat
the routes of the company through the parks should
not be disturbed The company had purchased prop
erty for its road 800 feet from the original route but
now had discovered that 1t was advisable to have
q route through the parks. 1t not true that the
company would be ruined by the proposed action.
Che Legislature had absolutely taken tho property
for the new parks and had described its metes and
bounds The property and rights Of this company
rs we'll as those of all others. had been taken
WHERE TILE ROUTE BEGINS.
Mr.. wood, in opposing the confirmation. said that
the route of his company began In the middle Of the
Bronx River, where the Suburban ends and oonnecS
with the Eew-Hayen road. The land had been I'M
pressed with public and could not Do oeoicaseo
TO another public unless the intent OF the Leesa
turs already expressed. me routes wero
act and Il that act affected road IL affected all
IL was as II Chinese wall had been constructed across
New-york from Long Island Sound to within lew
feet of the Hudson River That the effect Of the
New PARKS act, as the parks and pathways were
continuous across that section Of the State.
Mt Bartlett spoke again favor Of the confirmation
and the Court decided to confirm the report, subject
to the rights Of the railroad company in regard TO
which further argument will DO heard on February 40
THE WRITTEN DECISION.
After the Court adjourned. the following written
decision was handed downs
would appear troP the DISCUSSION IN ,a segsaSS
20 ,s that 'ss npy beer
ad out over PsrsSs1 lands s 1ns O tSs snd has
to Se' and until hat has occurred the Legislature
"a, s to ssP Il L ~
to vested rights which may have been scqmreu
by preliminary proceedings which are to oum r6ass
which have been constructed there Is no question Is
to their h lands Stbs sRS O@ ho public railroad
without specific LEGISLATION on the subject ana IN.
,rssbts are inchoate, the owner may se subject 70
the execution Of the act as against DIS glansec %
nS gu 5sa o @ as an % ordinary grantee mi take
pay for Them subject 70 the execution OF the oIlgna
s IS se Il d nos the Tf takes a
souteiy for public use II It did the city wiz have
70 oS ysq b ss Solution on tie part Of the Le
nature whore large blocks Of land arc involved, small
s Sst another there being necessarily great difficulty
IN Specifying these small parcels in the act itself
xos ss R e co@ &c sa report ns to sa
Of those railroads, any exist to acquire title TO the
posed route II they have right to so acquire they
have It preserved, and that dsposes Of this whole
parlng any vested rights acquired and protecting the
fights Of owners, as against rights which may be
10 have existed.