The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-02-18


been urgently pushed to trial. | i'm
mediately began q thorough investigu-
tion into all questions, records and facts
barring ou the case, and prepared the
suit for trial; it was noticed for the Sep
tember and December terms in 1889, and
in both instances was continued upon ap-
plication of the other side. In April,
1890, the trial was held before Justice
Dixon of the Supreme Courtssitting WITH
out jurv. Mr.. Gilbert Collins. who. by
reason of his connection with kindred
suits in the case, was well acquainted
with the facts in controversy, was at my
suggestion retained by your honorable
body to aid in the trial of the cause. The
case was most elaborately presented
upon both sides, aud upon conclusion
taken into consideration by the Justice.
JUDGE DIxON's VERDICT.
During the summer OF 1890 Judge
Dixon found verdict for the plaintiffs,
subject to the opinion of the Supreme
Court upon the special case which was
brought for the purpose of a writ OF error
and might turn into a special verdict or
finding; this was victory for the city.
Immediately thereafter the special case
was prepared; this was a difficult task,
but finally obtained the approval OF the
Judge. The case was noticed for trial at
several terms of the Supreme Court sit
ting at Trenton, but was not reached.
Il
up for hearing before the main court of
the Supreme Court. consisting OF Chief
Justice Beasley and Justices Depue,
Van Syckel and Scudder. the court
gave extra time to both sides. and the
matter was fully argued by Gov. Bedle
and ex-Chancellor Williamson on the
part of the railroad company, and Mr.
Collins and myself on the part of tht
city. AS in all such cases the judgmen;
of the court was held until the next term
therefore expect decision in the Su-
preme Court on opinion day, which will
be the 18th of this month. This decision
the council for the city confidently ex-
pect will sustain the Judgment below
and uphold the title of The city to the
valuable lands in question.
Throughout this whole litigation his
Honor, Mayor Cleveland, has taken great
interest in the controversy, and has been
constantly informed as to the progress of
the suit.
EXTRA DUTIES.
"While 1t is true that during the past
three years Il great many extra duties
have devolved upon the law officers of the
city through various causes. among them
~ the new charter and the necessity for
frequent opinions and construction there
of: (2) the act creating the Board of Street
and Water Commissioners and the many
questions arising upon the tranSference
of powers of other Boards to that body;
(3) the service Of notices under the Martin
act for property purchased by the city;
(4 the City Hall Commission and the ac-
aulrement of land for its site Still,
submit that these multifarious duties, to-
gether with-the ordinary routine of the
office, have not worked to the injury of
the city on the South Cove litigation.
There are fewer cases undetermined and
unsettled against the city at present than
for many years past.
"There seems to be some misapprehen-
sion in the minds of some people as to the
attitude of the city in the South Cove
matter, and l think that this is proper
time to straighen that matter out BY the
act of 1879 the lands were ceded to Jersey
City by the State; the city did not accept
the grant. In 1874 the Riparian Commits
sioners attempted to revoke the grant
and conveyed the property TO the Central
Railroad Company of New Jersey; the
railroad entered into possession. In 1885
the city did accept the grant and paid the
money therefor. The question then arose,
how should possession he obtained.
VARIOUS METHODS OPEN.
"There were Two metnods-either the
city could obtain possession by force and
retain it only SO long as it guarded the
property by force, or an action of ejectment
could be brought. Ny predecessors in
this they acted wisely, and upon the sug-
gestion of such thorough lawyers as Gill
bert Collins, then Mayor, and Allen l..
McDermott, then President of the Board
of Finance. The gist of an action in eject
ment ia that the person entitled to posses
sion is wrongfully deprived therefor by
another person, and the judgment OF the
Court is asked TO put the right owner into
possession. Without admitting the possess
sion in the railroad company. the city
could not bring an action of ejectment.
Pending the action OF ejectment ana
just before the trial of the case, the Board
of Street and Water Commissioners
passed a resolution to take possession by
force, ana they did so; the railroad COM
pany applied to Judge Knapp for writ
of certiorarie. 1t was granted upon the
application, and Judge Knapp sent for
me, and told me that If the city persisted
in taking possession of the lands by force
the action of ejectment would be dis
missed. / have had the greatest trouble
in impressing this situation of affairs
upon some of our city officials; in their
zeal they have practically played into the
hands of the Railroad Company. l SUBJ
NIT that it Is unfair, as we'll as unwise to
retain extra counsel in this case at this
time, when his only duty would be to
draw his salary. Inclosing this letter of
explanation desire to say that the sue
cess of the city In this litigation has been
materially aided by the efforts of the
chief engineer, Mr.. Ruggies and Mr..
Fowler of the Street Department. | here
with send you copy of the special case
as presented to the Supreme Court.
Yours respectfully,
WIN. b. EDWARDS.
CORPORATION Counsel