The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-04-21
TO GUST LAND CONDBMNBRS
CRY GETS AFTER mn VIEW
WATERSHED COMMISSION.


f~r ESoiAtlag law AMI IgnorSRg
tsurt Ia.IrUctIsas waste charged
Corporation COunael Watson has asked
the Supreme Court to- throw out of once
J the Hin View Watershed Commission.
consisting % George y. Rigby. James y.
Apgar and Bernard p. Martin. on charges
OF improperly prolonging condemnation
procesdings for the Catskill water sup
ply and on sundry other charges % vto-
lating tho laws. Justice 1OInpkins al
lsocklRnd county signed ah order yestsr-
'lay Tn show cause why Theses men should
not 10 removed from Office. the order
icing made returnabls CA SATURDAY next
at Nyaok.
Justice Tompkins ordered the service
81 his Ortlsr personally upon the thres
members 81 tho commission and dlrects-i
further that a copy he Ssrvet On Joseph
4. FlRnnary. counsel f"T the claimant
for tho real estate designated In the NOV
ing paperS lie specified that in the ease
81 Mr. Flanuery service az IN" order
at Mr. Fllnnery's once should lie deemeh
sufficient. "a IL said that around Mr..
Flannery cluster many insAIes which 'he
city's law Department intends 10 in
vestigate further Mr.. Flannery has leen
hear,l at before in water supply pro
ceeslinRs ~ n successful counsel.
M-asrs. Rigbv and Apgar are Reppb
leans. tho former hailing from Sonkers
and tho latter from Peekskill. and Mr..
Martin IL a Democrat of this city And
TammAny leader in III. Fifth ASSEMBLY
district The work for the Catskill water
supply is divide, Tor engineering p'Ir-
poses and purposes 81 general COnven
ience into district. an'l that IN The charge
~ this commission 10 known N Hill View
No. I. II IL said n az this rs tho first time
that such disciplinary action has haen :
aSGel foT in conn"ction With any such 3
Condemnation prnc seedlings "r coininis- I
sions
Mr.. WatsOn's AFFIDAVIT. on which jus /
iic.' ToIapkin-'s order IL based. after r-- !
citing that the com nissioRers toSk the I
oath 10 oiHic.. in Nav. 1871. quotes the Law |
providing that IN sU'h proceedings the .
cnuimissions report shall b. hls.d within /
one year ami that Ito SIpr-m- Court \
shall hav" power 90 ex'snd this 'iIna for .
eight months only. ana then sets forth /
that thee commissioners have violated
the law in n"' fling their report within
year and -igh, months. Mr. Watson
says ia bi- AFFIDAVIT that the commission
es have wilfulIy and without justifcs-
ton held and tina, thsv are holding I'M
necessary and mprop.r sessious and
adding greatly 90 the coat 10 the pro-
ceedinss t. the city. that they illegally
and improperly permitted tho claimants
counsel TO treat the parcels % land Cd~s-
ignated a. Parcels Nos l and - as 10 they
had been subdivided into hFiy-ssven
different lots. amt for this reason held
twenty -tbres meetings AZ which 10 pages
~ testimony were taken. which was
grossly excessive and Unnecessary
Mr. Watson says that the matter could
have been tried and determined in much
less time. and that the expense incurred
bv tho illegal actions 81 the commission
era was At least Si0OD He sets forth
that by r-asOn ~ these errors thu AW ards
aside by the Court In January. iHDa in
an opinion an which the tire procedure
was laid out bsIt that the commissioners
ignor'-i ihi~ opinion and proceei~u 20
permit claimants 20 Try claims On the
In. C"nrt again -, aside IN. v.r,,ic,
of awards. Mr. Watson sets forth. theee
vsrciic,s applying to Parcel S and To
Psrr~ts 1 and , The Court IN the second
insian,,. said that The reasons given ia
the fir, cas. applied with equal force 60
{ he second
Mr. Watson saws in his affidavit thai
q outstanding these decisions Of the
court The defendants have proceeded viii
fully N the same illegal and impropsr
manner a. tn Parcel 4. ami that thew have
a ii"urnei their proceedings IA an nm .
necessary aud improper manner -on
mot cons AFFECTIONS aud reports in reRarvi
10 IN" claims for which Joseph A. Flannery T,
appears as attorney therein exhibiting
such hia- and pTejudic. in favor ~ said
counsel a. to render said commission IN
the opinlOn oG Your petitioner unfit To Act
a. AN impartial tribunal
MIR Watson charges that the COM
mssioners have acted IN 'r"ckl-Ss disTe-
gard and contempt Of the court and
tia, they are unit AMI incompetent 10
act a. commissioners
Mr. Watson anneXs~ "a his petition the
opinions Of Justice TOmpkins in the
matter Of the awards already referred
the Justice referred 10 the land IA aIIs-s-
ou a. rough piece 81 woodland
which hal never been subdiv idei al
though the claimants and their counsel
submitted claims to compensation on a
basis % the lands subdivision into sal. (
able lots The Justice said that there :
was no evidences to Indicate that the land
would lie 80 Ealable for many years and (
hat therefore. a. well a. because Of the
Improper procedure the awards must
he set aside.
The reason for asking the court 10 order
: stay 81 further proceedings pending the ,
hearing OF ext saturday N that the COM
rissioners. a. set forth in Mr.. Watson's
papers. have arranged for further CON a
.inuance % the hearings TO which the city q
now objects.
Bernard p. Martin sad last nigh, 4
hat the matter Of parcels I ard
vas tried before Justice TOmpkins by I
Mr. Mcllvaine u the firm Of Parsons,
'Iosson a McIlvaine. Herbert Paruods's \
Aw firm, representing the property =
pwners. Justice Tompkins ruled Ad- ,
vers ely 60 the report Of the Commissioners '
and the case was carried 90 the Appellate !
Division whore he said II Vas pending :
n Part II. This matter. ne said. was ia :
charge IT the Parsons firm all the way !.
through. Mr. Flannery appeared in q
subsequent proceedn <. he said. 4
q
TWO EGGS AND TEA. SLsJ.