Year: 1871




The question Of awards and assessments on
the projected opening or widening Of Broad
way has at length been brought before the
Supreme Court in Special Term. Yesterday
able counsel was heard first on the part Of the
Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, through
Corporation Counsel O'Gorman, on motion
to vacate the order Of confirmation OBJ
tanned by the Commissioners of Estimates
and Assessments, and by counsel for certain
property owners who hold to the action of the
Commisslopers. a. r.-..ss-. - -':':sT


The whole origin of the litigation is involved
in muddle. The three Commissioners origi-
naIy appointed to make awards for the pro-
perty proposed to be taken for the projected
improvements put down the figure, according
to their valuation, at over six millions of
dollars. This was nice little sum to be added
to the city debt. OF this sum over two mil
lions was to be imposed on the Mayor and
Commonalty and over million and half on
the Central Park 1t was charged that the
original abstract of awards and assessments
had been changed and amended; that they
had been increased and diminished by the
unauthorized act of the Commissioners. On
this point, on the motion to vacate
the order of confirmation, it was
argued that the act in relation to the opening
OF streets, passed in 1859, expressly required
that no awards should be diminished or assess
ments increased without notice to the parties
to be affected, and that the violation of this
statute In this particular instance was espe-
cially onerous aud vexatious, because, If the
information demanded by the statute had been
vouchsafed, the proceeding could have been
resisted and defeated at the outset. The
opponents to the proposed Improvement are
the majority in interest, representing in amount
nearly three-fourths of the entire assessment
to be imposed, and the claims of these pro-
perty owners to be heard against the proposed
measure should of course have been para
mount


The action Of the Commissioners Is the most
unaccountable feature in the whole case. It
is alleged against them that they made their
awards and assessments without any proper
evidence of the value of the property to be
taken for improvements or assessed therefor.
That in one instance, where the award is
charged to be most excessive, they based
their valuation on statement and representa-
tons of the owner, notwithstanding that the
law expressly forbids the sworn afidavits of
owners of property to be accepted as authority
or weight in estimating values. The
motion to vacate was opposed on the ground
that the order Of confirmation was final and
conclusive, and could not be repealed or va
Gated except on proof Of fraud, aud then only
by due process of law, and not in the form of
such motion as that before the Court.


This whole widening question becomes
eminently important from the fact that many
of the buildings on the projected line of i'm
provement have been already built back at
great expense, and now, pending the legal
discussion of the question, all transactions in
house letting, leasing, and, in fact, in house
building, are at q standstll. The proba-
bilities are that many minor litigatons in the
courts will arise from the complicated suit
now going on. Judge Cardozo, at the close
of the session yesterday, took the papers and
reserved decision.