Year: 1869

| THE FIGHT BETWEEN THE FERRY COMPANY
AND THE BROOKLYN GAS COMPANY.
! The investigation of the controversy between
the Jacksonst and HudsonaYe Ferry Company and the
Brooklyn City Gas Company brief report of which, be
fore the Committee on Land and Water Rights OF the
Brooklyn Board Of Aldermen was in TuE TRIBUNE
last Ihr-H@y hsy when resume OF the case was printed
resumed last evening, in the Chamber Of the Com
| mon Council.


The Ferry Company challenged the Gas Company, al
the LA, meeting of the Committee to produce proofs Of
any kind tn they own Hudsonave. to the middle Of
the street. as was claimed and this Of the tests
The " Ferry coROany has evidently the sym
pathy Of tie public At the 6rst examination. the
and the hrOng in attendance last night was Of precisely
the character and very large, despite tile
pal stockholders present were Messrs John G. Ighbody,
Christanson, and Carpenter, with Mr. Frank oeder as
counsel the latter being also with Dr. carpenter inter-


Mr. Cofey called the Committee 70 order at about
ers with the Ferry Company were on hand excedy dis
cussng the question at issue


Company who supposed to lve stopped the running
of the boats through apprehension Of the Gas Company
the first witness called up for the monopoly.


Mr.. Reeder the counsel of the Ferry Company, pro-
duced several letters, written Mr. Brown from the
of the pier rybrdge after sMay 1885, this
forming documentary evidence against ine asserIon
NNH'P'"y bANf'-N%'-N
made.


Mr Thorne one OF the Committee said that tine first
question was, whether the Gas Company mad lust claim
TO the property Including the contested right Of landing
They had been directed, at the last meeting, to produce
the deed Gf any existed) and should now produce IT,
they intended to do So


Mr. Reeder counsel for the Ferry Company produced
documents and maps, showing pretty concldsiyey that
the land and waterigt arrogaed by the Gas Company
were OF most imsy character He explained at length
how the large grant enjoyed by the Gas
Company obtained by purchasing (after the grant
Messrs Smith Bulky, and wrOngfuly obtaining that
OF Mr. Rugges, another neighbor Of the original grant
merely offered, in view Of that COmpany's pre-
tended right, the cOnveyances which has been
made by the former owners Smith and Bulky,
to the Company He had not come to the invesil-
cation for any other purpose than 20 speak the truth
The business Of the Company experienced great annoy
in the way OF their running lie thought it matter
OF negotiation between the Gas and Ferry Companies iii
which they might likely como TO terms.


Mr. Reeder argued that by the Interpretation Of the
statute, the Gas Company had no right TO fill up the
water between the river line and the buhead, aud Mr..
Howe cOntended to the contrary.


MT Reeder, In reply TO opposing and persistent argu-
ment that the Gas Company willing for the Ferry
Company TO renew its line that
negotiation could be had between representatives OF
each company, resulting in terms satisfactory to the
Gas Company-sad that the Ferry Company would have
no further business dealings with the Gas Company


The Ferry Company said Mr.. Reeder, had trusted and
beon deceived too often, The Gas Company had no au-
thOTity, but that from an individual TO the disputed
waterright and the statutes required them to have
legislative grant II the present Committee could not
decide whether the apology OF title offered by the Gas
Company correct or incorrect lie would under the
statute, have the thing speedily settled before West
chester County Jury. In word" said he, If
further hndered molested, determined to take
protection under the statute and try the case before


It was finally decided TO adjourn TO Monday nights
week. In the interval the Gas Company have chance
the Committee consult the Corporation Counsel in
the premises.