New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-12-13
PERTH AMBOY LAND INVOLVED.
A COMPLICATED SUIT BROUGHT BY THE CITY TO
RECOVER THE TRACT CONTAINING THE
RAMSAY SHIP WORKS.


RECOVER THE TRACT CONTAINING THE
RAMSAY SHIP WORKS.
lawsuit involving the title to a large tract OF
land in Perth Amboy has occupied the attention Of
the Middlesex County Circuit of the New-Jersey
Supreme Court. sitting In NewBrunswick this
week The trial before Chief Justice Beasey
and jury, but late on Wednesday afternoon JUS
tice Beasey. by consent of counsel dismissed the
Jury, and said that he would decide the questions
raised himself The case is an action of eJectment
brought by the city OF Perth Amboy against Hugh
Ramsay, a wealthy drydock owner and shipbuilder.
whose plant Is on the tract in dispute. A. J. Keas-
hey & Sons, OF Newark. represented the city. and
c. & W. Parker appeared for Mr.. Ramsay.
The city Of Perth Amboy brought the action to
eject Ramsay and TO recover possession Of the tract
The deeds surveys. warrants and legal papers pro-
ducei by the city date back far 177i. The
original proprietors passed the property to three
Commissioners. and the city acquired possession
from these Commissioners In 1873. The city's titie
however, was upon condition that the land should
never be alienated but should be forever main
tanned public property for the free use and en-
joyment of the residents Of Perth Amboy In spite
of this condition, it appears that about 1880 the city
lea sed the tract to the Perth Amboy Manufacturing
Company for a term of ninety-nine years. This
lease assigned. and later through different par
ties came into the possession of Ezekial NJ. Patter-
son. For a while he subleased the property TO
purchased $500 Pattersons interest, which was
solely that OF assignee under the lease. with no
warranty interest In the title.
In the opening OF the Mr.. Ramsays law
yers moved for non-suit the ground that the
legal papers produced by the city did not have the
effect Of giving to the city Ggal e the and ac ha
brought Chief Justice Beasley denied the motion
portance in the consideration of the case. Another
point which consumed considerable time in the
the question whether the entire tract was originally
covered with water from the Rartan Bay at hign
contended by the defence that all of II was covered
by water. up to the time when Mr.. Ramsay
point brings into the case the law relating TO RI
parian rights; and so much of the land as the high
the state ' not the city Of Perth Anboy, and the
State should. therefore. bring the action The case
is further complicated by the fact that since ac-
curing possession Mr.. Ramsay has filled up large
portion Of the tract so mat 1t is not affected by the
W Wues and pA on this r Ramsay has built his dry
dock The tract il bounded the south by
Fayette-st, on the north by Commerce-st. on the
by arsa Il is about ab 'ne state" 'a"
The determination Of the case may have an I'M
The city contends that the adverse possession of the
land for many years does not invalidate the citys
legal interest lessen It's duty to keep the land
forever free and open TO public use The contention
OF the defence is that there is cloud the citys
enters as practically TO determine the case.
At the works of Mr.. Ramsay there are employed
all the year from two hundred TO six hundred work
men. and the works are now running at their fun
capacity under a pressure of business. Mr.. Ram
say has on hand large Government contract ana
large orders the Central Railroad of New
Jersey and the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.
Many of the employees have been brought from other
places Perth Amboy and Mr. Rlmsay has erected
a number OF houses. in which many OF them live
If the city wins the II would seem 70 be neces-
sary for the plant To be taken away. If the lease.
of which Mr. Ramsay Is the present assignee. is OF
no effect. being forbidden by the condition under
which the city acquired the title the cry cannon
rent him the property. nor. nueed. make any ar
rangement with him by which he may retain posses
sion 10 the exclusion Of the public. Therefore many
people In Perth Amboy believe that if the city
wins its case il will lose more than ii gains