New-York tribune., 1906-08-10
MIR. C0UDERT EXPLAINS.
Lazcyer GiUes Vie5cs of Oyster Bay
Pier Controversy.

The controversy at Oyster Bay between Mrs.
Elizabeth Coudert one of the summer residents
and mother of Frederic R. Coudert the lawyer,
and the Highway Commissioners OF that town over
the riparian rights in connection with small pier
built by the COuderts was explained at length
yesterday by Frederic r. Coudert.
Il don't usually like TO try my cases in the news
papers," Mr.. Coudert said. "and this case has
ceved much more prominence than it really de-
serves but the action of the Highway Commits
sioners seems so manifestly unfair that 1 cannot
refrain from explaining the true situation
Mr.. COudert said that there had probably been
riparian rights at Oyster Bay for hundred
years He had lived there for eight years, he said
and had never had trouble with the commissioners
before On Saturdays he explained it the
custom of some OF the farmers to drive along the
dig clans He had never opposed their going on
his property and paid no attention TO them, he said
some laws dating as far back as ieSO I think. the
riparian rights made it unlawful for me TO have
the pier, and that they were going to knock it
ure ana the Commissioners were very gentIemaniy
at that time and suggested that | bring a test
suit. thought that reasonable, but expensive,
and a lawyer never wants 10 litigate for himself.
a But eogsd Deg1n II the s IN IN the me lover courts and
Address grant. But. while there had been some-
the cases had never gone to the Court of Appeals.
and this case was therefore appealed and is now
before the Court OF Appeals"
Mr. Coudert expressed his indignation that the
commissioners should have attempted to destroy
the pier while litigation pending He said Il
was the usual understanding that nothing be done
in any case where decision in a higher court was
pending.
Considering the fact he continued. ''that the
town let me have the pier for nine years you can
imagine my astoniShment upon my return to Oyster
Bay the other day to find that gang of had
wrecked the whole pier. tearing away part of IL,
and incidentally crushing a boat of mine,
which they did take the trouble get out of
the way. Where they did wrong was not to notify
me of some intended action believe IL
gross breach of good faith their part take any
action while the case was before the Court of APP
peals It shows concusively to my mind that the
commissioners are not acting for the public good.
I had the pier rebuilt at considerable expense, and
found last night that part Of II had again been
wrecked. How the rest was saved the newspapers
have already told
Mr. Coudert acknowledged that his mothers
initiative he had brought personal suit for damages
against each of the commissioners He has not
brought action against the town, as he believes the
Court of Appeals will be sufficient in that
spect Mr.. Coudert refused to say whether he would
have the pier rebuilt not. He said he did not
desire to have the commissioners know what his
future plans would be.
1t is understood that the present activity of the
Highway Commissioners has political significance.
An approaching primary election at Oyster Bay
is said be the cause of the commissioners sud
denly becoming active in waging war on summer
residents.