The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-08-12
Expediting Settlement Of
the Famous Suit Con-
cerning the N. Y. B.
Cemetery.
VICE-CHANCELL0R PITNEY MAKES AN ORDER
Dispute Between the Buekmasters
Narrowed Down to Four Points
of Fact and Law.

Mr.. Everett P. Wheeler, Civil Service
Commissioner of New York. as counsel
for the Buckmaster heirs, was in the
Court of Chancery this morning to ask
Vice Chancellor Pitney to expedite the IA
nous suit of the New York Bay Gene
terry Company against ]. w. Buckmaster
by discharging the reference in order TO
bring the facts before the Vice-Chancel-
lor for final determination. This reference
was the outcome of an interlocutory de-
cree filed by Vice-Chancellor Pitney in
1892.
Briefly. according to that decree. quoted
from by Mr.. Wheeler. the original bill
was filed by the cemetery company and
it sought to restrain an action of eject
ment. The defendants. plaintiffs in the
ejectment suit are devisees of Thomas H
Buckmaster. deceased. and they claim
title to 2.100 burial lots in the cemetery,
by virtue of divers conveyances made by
the cemetery company in the fall of 1858,
which conveyances purported to convey
in the aggregate 10000 lots in the ceme-
terry.
The title of 969 of these lots derived
through these conveyances to Thomas H.
Buckmaster were involved in the case
of the N. Y. Bay Cemetery Company VS..
Clara Buckmaster but as the Vice
Chancellor remarked, CLARA Buckmaster
is not party to this suit, and the lots
here involved do not include the 969 lots
which were the subject of judicial action
in the case cited"
NO CONSIDERATION PAID.
The gravamen of the bill filed against
the heirs is that no consideration was
paid by T. H. Buckmaster for the con-
veyances just mentioned and that the
1F
Buckmaster a trustee of the company
Upon careful consideration of the
terms of the company's charter I have
come to the conclusion that the corpor-
alton proper" said Mr. Pitney, '.conn-
posed of the owners of lots bought fos
actual burial purposes, have a lien upon
the proceeds of the sale of the Bucks
.laster lots for the payment of salarie.'
of the officers and other expenses incurred;
in the maintaining the cemetery At the
same time l think that the proceeds of
the sale of the lots should not bear the
Whole burden of the expenses, but their
proper proportion. The result is that the
defendants, are entitled under their cross
bill to a decree to the proceeds of the
sale subject to the deduction for their
fair proportion of expenses, and to this
end there should be an enquiry as to the
whole number of lots belonging to the
Buckmasters at the time the corporation
took possession in 1875 and the number
OF lots sold by It each year since and the
amount received from such sales; also,
an enquiry as to the whole number of
lots within the present cemetery inclos-
ure, and an apportionment upon the
whole number Of lots in the Cemetery
showing the share which fell properly on
the Buckmaster lots.
REFERRED APPOINTED
The action of ejectment was allowed
TO go to Judgment; but execution on it
must be, enioined unless the complain
amt shall fail to pay amy balance which
may at any time be found to be due
from it to the defendants"
nne E1ce ChanTeor 50,sI5 then apponted
his report has not yet been made.
Concerning the report, Mr.. Wheeler
said this morning that ON consultation
with the Master and Cemefery Com
pany's lawyers, mass of testimony has
been taken to the end that the ex-
tremely complicated and tangled up ac-
counts of the company had been mar
rowed down to compass, and there only
remained four points to be settled by
the court, and this nixed-up case would
be settled after, a defay. of many years
What are. those points?" asked the
Vice Chancellor. adding that the delay
in the case was a disgrace to the Court
In reply, Mr.. Wheeler proceeded to
enR.msrate them. The first was a que--
tjcn of fact as to the scope of the settle
mer,t of gross and net accounts; whether
or not that included all lots sold In the
The second point to be settled was the
amount of deduction to be made; that
s. W1eCnSr or not all names on the pay
roll Of the cemetery were to be included
in the settlement.
Thirdly, in the case of graves sold out
and out by the company have they q.
right TO a. second sum for these privileged
interments
PRIVILEGED INTERAIENTs
'sWhat do you mean by that?" asked
the Vice Chancellor.
"Well. sir, there are graves which the
company sell at a certain price for what
are called privileged interments. Now
in the course of Years the remains have
mouIdered into dust and another. inter
ment IS made and the plot sold right
are not entitled to the second sum
when these lots are. on our. portion"
81 agree with you said the Vice Chan
ceMor, and then added, but doesn't Mr.
Lawrence (of counsel for the cemetery
corcede that point?"
Quickly rel repEed. If he does we viii con
lanshed and shook his head
Finally, Mr. Wheeler said that the
fourth Question was one of salaries. The
cemetery company claims SS0,000 and the
tant: hut Mr. Lawrence assured the
Corlrt that it was not.
sI will expedite this case" said Mr..
Pitney,l '.by making a pereuptory order
that the referee. Mr.. Charles d. Thonfp-
sor, be required to make mis- report by
October /, when the case will be finally
set ct rest"
drr{ina this month. Mr.. Lawrence ex-
nlained that other big cases had pre-
vented Mr.. Thompson arriving atA a de-
cision