The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884, Volume II, Part 157

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: New York, W. W. Munsell & Co
Number of Pages: 1345

USA > New York > Kings County > Brooklyn > The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884, Volume II > Part 157

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

It appears that Mr. Martin owned another piece of ground in this now populous part of the city, which is described as follows: " Beginning at a point on a line, being the continuation of the line of the easterly side of Adams street, 84 feet 5 inches, to the southern boundary line of said Martin's land; thence westerly along the said boundary line 60 feet to a line, being a continua- tion of the line of the westerly side of Adams street; thence northerly along last mentioned line 85 feet 1 inch to the land of John Dikeman; thence easterly along said Dikeman's land 60 feet to the place of beginning."

We have given the particular boundaries of these particular pieces of land as an item of interesting history, not only of the origin of certain now populous streets in the city, but the origi- nal title thereto, and the sources from whence the city derived its title to the property of such immense value, and showing the property really in dispute in the great case we describe.

As we have said, in March, 1828, two petitions were presented to the Trustees of the Village of Brooklyn, one for the opening of Washington street from Concord to Fulton street, and the other for the opening of Adams street from where it then terminated, near Concord street, to Fulton street. Washington and Adams streets were to be opened through the said" rope-walk. On the 31st of March following, these petitions were duly granted by the Trustees of the Village of Brooklyn, and in May following the Court of Common Pleas of King County, under the statute in such cases, appointed three commissioners to assess the damages accruing to the owners of said lands from the opening of said streets. These commissioners were James W. Burtis, John D. Conklin, and Nathan Young, three highly respectable and well-remembered citizens of Brooklyn.

On the 9th of June following, the said commissioners having examined the said lands and estimated the damages which would result from the opening of the said streets throngh them, reported that the damages of Mr. Martin, for the opening through the first described piece of land, amounted under all the circumstances of the case to $7,424.24; that

1267

BENCH AND BAR OF BROOKLYN.

the damages due him for the opening through the second described piece of land was $2,880. The damage occasioned by the opening through the piece of land last described amounted, under the circumstances in the case, to $6,714.66. The aggregated damages of Mr. Martin, for the proposed opening or continuation of these streets through his lands, amounted to $17,008.90. These damages were satisfactory to him, and believing that the trustees would have the report of the commissioners filed according to law, and that the said streets would be opened in due form of law pursuant to the ststute, took down his rope-walks, for he now had several on ths lands, and a valuable stone building erected on these lands for the safe keeping of his stock, and proceeded to erect a new sud valuable building on the line of Adams street, as con- templated to be opened, rebuilt the said stone building in an- other place, and erected three valuable houses on other lands along the said streets contemplated to be opened. All these buildings would have been of great value as soon as these streets were opened and extended.

We now approach the most interesting, and we may say strange history of this case, and the immediate cause of its commencement. We have seen that the commissioners appointed to assess Mr. Martin's damages resulting from the opening of these streets, &c., duly discharged their duties, estimated bis damages and made their report; but, strange as it may appear, all proceedings concerning the said dam- ages terminated with the making of said report, and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Brooklyn utterly refused to file said report in the clerk's office, according to law, and to proceed with the opening of the said streets, pursuant to the carnest petition of a large number of citizens interested in their opening, notwithstanding Mr. Martin had in good faith sub- jected himself to large expenses in removing his rope-walks and buildings, and in erecting other buildings, along the line of one of the proposed streets. Such were his expenses that he was compelled to borrow a large sum of money to aid him in meet- ing his expenses until his damages were paid, and he was other- wise greatly injured by the singular course pursued by the trustees.

Thus the matter continued until about the 18th day of January, 1830, when the Board of Trustees adopted a resolu- tion to proceed forthwith to open Washington street, and Adams street, from near Concord street to Fulton street, under the. petitions to which we have already alluded, provided Mr. Martin and the other persons interested in the matter would consent to waive the damages awarded them by the commis- sionera, and that a committee of six members of the board be appointed to treat and agree with the owners of the ground re- quired for the opening of the said streets. To this Mr. Martin and the others promptly assented; and yet, to the astonishment of Mr. Martin, on August 2, 1830, the said Board of Trustees, without his consent or knowledge, rescinded the resolution, and by another resolution placed the said parties who had consented to waive such damages, and to take whatever sum the said board might award them in lieu thereof, in the same situation as they wers before such waiver was made. Here the matter rested until 1832. Mr. Martin began an action in the Supreme Court against the President and Trustees of the village for the damages sus- tainsd by him, which we have described.

In 1834, the village was incorporated as a city, and the Mayor and Common Council thereof invested with all the powers of said Board of Trustees. By the act of incorporation no suit sgsinst the village of Brooklyn, and no cause of action against it, wsa affected by said incorporation, and the suit of Mr. Martin against the trustees of the village was continued against the city.

Never, perhaps, has the Shakespearean phrase " of the law's delay," or its uncertainties, been more strikingly exhibited than in the history of this action, by every kind of dilatory device.

The city by its counsel at once interposed a demurrer to Mr. Martin's declaration, assigning as one cause of demurrer that the Board of Trustees of the village, and the Mayor and Common Council of the city, had, under the act of April 23, 1827, a discre- tionary power to go on or not in laying out the said streets, until the final confirmation of the commissioners' report of damages; that Mr. Martin, in whose favor the report was made, could have no action against the trustees of the village, or against the city, for neglecting to file the report of the commissioners, even though he had sustained special damages. Secondly, a municipal cor- poration is not liable for the misfeasance or nonfeasance of its officers in respect to duties specifically imposed by statute on them, unless the duty be imposed absolutely on the corporation. There was a joinder in demurrer by Mr. Martin's counsel, and then another long delay ensued, and it was not until January, 1841, that the demurrer was brought on for argument, before the General Term of the Supreme Court. At the July term for 1841, the court handed down a decision sustaining the demurrer, substantially on the grounds we have stated, holding that Mr. Martin's only remedy was by mandamus to compel the Mayor and Common Council to file the report of the said commis- sioners, and to pay him the damages awarded by said report, and cause the said streets to be opened according to the said petitions.

Another singular feature in the case is, that during the time that elapsed before the said demurrer was argued, Washington and Adams streets, above and below said rope-walk grounds, were opened and converted into public streets, a part of the buildings upon the lands torn down, and other parts of them consumed by fire; a fence which was placed across Washington street upon said rope-walk by Mr. Martin, to prevent intrusions upon his lands, thrown down and destroyed; and the said streets continued through the said rope-walk ground traveled as public streets and thoroughfares for several years; the said streets were lighted with gas at the expense of the city. And also, the said streets at the time of the argument of said demurrer were in the very centre of the population of the city, thickly built upon, and all the adjacent streets running parallel or crossing the same were filled with a dense population. Washington street, between Concord and Fulton streets, had become one of the most important and thronged streets in the city, with a large number of public and private buildings constructed on it. Was it not, therefore, right and just that Mr. Martin, and other persons interested in the lands occupied by these streets and buildings, should receive and enjoy the benefits accruing from this great advancement in the value of the said property, especially as the titles of the said lands still remained in Mr. Martin and many of the others, and especially as the city refused to pay them the damages awarded them by the said commissioners, and as it had opened the said streets, without any legal authority so to do ? The mandamus to which we have referred was, among other things, to compel them to comply with the law in regard to opening the same. The city authori- ties refused to obey the mandamus, which was alternative, and instead thereof set up in an answer various reasons for not obeying it; among which was that the damages assessed by the commissioners were unreasonably large, and if assessed would be a grievous burden on the city, and that the expense of such improvements would greatly exceed the benefit to be derived therefrom; that the Board of Trustees had no author- ity, on the original petitions presented to them, to proceed to open the said streets; that no injury whatever had been sus- tained by Mr. Martin or any other person, and that no vested right had been conferred in and by the proceedings of the said Board of Trustees of the village. These were substantially the answers to the alternative mandamus.

Judge Greenwood and General N. B. Duryea appeared for Mr. Martin, and N. F. Waring, Esq., for the city. The issue thus tendered was argued before the General Term of the Supreme Court in July, 1845. At the following October Term the court

1268

HISTORY OF KINGS COUNTY.

handed down a decision holding that the Mayor and Common Council of Brooklyn were not bound in law to file the reports of the said commissionera, nor to pay Mr. Martin the damages awarded by them, or to take any further action whatever con- cerning the opening of the said streeta, under the petition pre- sented to the Trustees of the Village of Brooklyn. From this judgment of the Supreme Court, Mr. Martin appealed to the Court of Appeals. In January, 1848, the matter came on for argument before that court; in the following April it rendered a decision affirming in all things the judgment of the Supreme Court, holding that the Trustees of the village and the Common Council of the city of Brooklyn were legally right in the course they had pursued towards Mr. Martin and the other owners of landa through which the streets were laid.

Thua it is seen that twenty years had been consumed in this great and important litigation ; and that Mr. Martin, after having complied with a reaolution of the Trustees of Brooklyn, that he should give up hia lands for public streete; after having sustained great damages by his compliance with said resolution, in removing his rope-walk, in taking down his buildings thereon ; and after public streets had been unlawfully forced through it, and had become the most thickly populated in the city; and after commissioners appointed under the Revised Statutes had fully and carefully assessed his damages in the first instance, and after being mulcted in large billa of costa, he was turned out of court without any legal remedy. After seeking in vain to compel the trusteea to comply with the law touching the open- ing of atreets, he commenced hia action to recover it, and was defeated on the several grounds we have stated, and on the further ground that his remedy was by mandamua to compel the Common Council of Brooklyn to pay him his damages awarded by the commissionera, and to legalize their other acta in regard to the opening of the said streets. That, in conform- ity to the decision of the Supreme Court. he did proceed by mandamus against the said Common Council, and was defeated in those proceedings by the General Term and the Court of Appeale, on the grounda we have stated, which, in substance, meana, that hia only remedy waa an action against the board to recover hia damagea, etc. Unfortunately, however, for Mr. Martin, as he had already resorted to an action in that court, and been defeated by a judgment against him, which must be regarded as res judicata, he was, as we have said, left without legal remedy, and thus, so far as legal redress is concerned, the matter still reste. This case is a monumental case of the oft- repeated failure of justice in our courts, so far, at least, in the view of common sense and good judgment, upon which law is said to be founded. It is said that, after the lapse of some time, the matter was finally adjusted between Mr. Martin and the Common Council of the city.

COPPIN agst. GATEWOOD.

THIS case waa conducted for the plaintiff by the late James T. Brady, and tended largely to establish his splendid reputation as a lawyer.

The facts in the case are, briefly, these : In the summor of 1837, an Englishman of the name of Richard Coppin, with his family, consisting of a wife and two daughters, embarked from Liverpool for New York, leaving one son, a young man about twenty years of age, who was engaged in business in Liverpool. Mr. Coppin had with him considerable money. During the voyage he, with his wife and one daughter, died of ship fever, leaving the youngest daughter, Sarah, then about fourteen years of age, alone in the world. She landed in New York. An Englishman and his wife, who accompanied them, and who were on their way to some of the Western States, engaged board for Sarah in-as they sup- posed -a respectable family near Williamsburgh, wrote to her brother informing him of the state of affairs, and pursued their

way westward. They were imprudent enough to entrust all of Sarah's money with the man in whose family she boarded, directing him to pay it out as her necessities required. Instead of doing so, however, he robbed her of her money and turned her over to the Overseers of the Poor, representing that she was a pauper, which appearances seemed to indicate.

She was a atrong, bright, active, intelligent girl; and instead of taking her to the County poor-house, they bound her out, under the statute relating to paupera, to a man by the name of Gatewood, in the neighborhood, until she should attain her ma- jority. In her new home ahe waa cruelly neglected and compelled to do work beyond her strength. After the lapse of several montha, her brother Jamea arrived in New York in search of his aister. It was a long time before he found her. The meeting between them was most affecting.

After a brief interview with his sister, he proposed that ahe should accompany him to New York. She joyfully acceded to the proposal, but when in the act of leaving Gatewood in- terfered, forbidding her to do so, and roughly ordering the young man to leave, informing him that the girl belonged to him, that she was his property, and would be until she was of age. In proof of hia claim, he produced the written indentures, duly executed and delivered to him by the Super- intendents of the Poor of Kings County, making Sarab his property, as he had alleged. This was a terrible blow to the brother. He had heard of American slavery, and believed his poor little sister was reduced to that condition. Gatewood would not listen to any of his importunities, and, with threats of vio- lence, drove him away. Almost heart-broken, he returned to New York, and was directed by a young friend to James T. Brady, then a young lawyer firat emerging into eminence. The young man's appeal to Mr. Brady waa most touching. "They have made a slave of my poor little sister," he said; "all the relative I have in the world. I cannot endure it, and I have come to you for help, for indeed ahe is not a slave; she is the daughter of a free-born Englishman."

Mr. Brady drew from the young man a full history of the case, and became deeply interested in it, promising to do all he conld to regain the liberty of the girl. On investigating the matter, he found the Superintendenta had bound Sarah to Gatewood in the usual indenturea, under sec. 5, chap. 8, vol. 2, of the Revised Statutes, and that they were in due form of law; but, on full in- vestigation, he believed that he could set aside the indentures, and he caused the girl to be brought up on a writ of habeas corpus before Hon. Nathan B. Morse, then First Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Kings County.

The matter now became very important to the Superintend- ents of the Poor, as well as to Gatewood, who greatly desired to keep the girl. The Superintendents had, as they believed, complied strictly with the statute, and it therefore became their duty to sustain the indentures by every means in their power. They accordingly retained George M. Wood, Esq., one of the most eminent lawyers of that day, and under his advice, a return to the writ was made that Sarah Coppin was held by Gatewood as his servant or apprentice, according to certain indentures executed to him by the Superintendents of the Poor of the County of Kinga, under the statute made in such case and pro- vided, the said Sarah being, at the time of said indentures, a pauper within the meaning of the statute aforesaid.

The hearing of the case took place before Judge Morse, at the court-rooms in Brooklyn. Its aingular nature, the contem- plated blow at the right of the Superintendents to bind out paupers under the statute, and the question whether persons situated like Sarah Coppin could thus be deprived of their free- dom for a term of years, the interest attached to her case, and to that of her brother, gave the matter great publicity. It was a matter of vast importance to Mr. Brady, in a professional point of view. He was to meet one of the gladiators of the State; he

1269

BENCH AND BAR OF BROOKLYN.

was to contend for a new principle in law that was to overthrow the official acts of men in high authority.

After closing his opening to the judge, Mr. Wood, who believed he had a very easy case, asked the court to remand Sarah Coppin to the care of her master, Mr. Gatewood, on the ground that the indentures by which he held her were legal, in strict conformity with the statute, therefore conclusive; that the court had no power to go behind them to inquire under what circumstances they were executed. He closed by reading the statute and the indentures. But Brady was prepared on this point; and after an elaborate argument and the production of numerous authorities, the judge decided to allow him to introduce evidence of the facts in the case under which the indentures were executed. Among other things, Brady proved by the Keeper of the County Poor-House of Kings County that Sarah had never been an in- mate of that institution. He proved by the Overseer of the Poor that he had never, in any way, assisted her, or been called upon to assist her. With this and some other proofs, he rested his 0868

Mr. Wood proved by the man and woman with whom she was left that they soon discovered she had no money, and being un- able to keep her, they sent her away, and afterwards directed the Overseers of the Poor to care for her. Brady, on the cross-exam- ination, compelled the man to admit that when Sarah came to his house she had some money, but how much, or what became of it, he never knew. It was certain she had none when he sent her away. At the close of the evidence, Mr. Wood insisted that nothing had been proved showing that Sarah should be dis- charged from the indentures; that she was in every sense of the word a pauper; that if she had not received actual aid from the Poor authorities she was in a situation to become chargeable

to the county; that, within the meaning of the statute, a liability of becoming chargeable was sufficient, in analogy to the condi- tion of a putative father in an order of filiation; that the public policy and the due administration of the poor laws demanded that the indentures in this case be sustained and the girl remanded to her master. It is said Mr. Wood never made a more able argument than upon this occasion, the outlines of which we have briefly sketched, and which at first seemed conclusive.

Mr. Brady's argument was never forgotten by those who heard it; never, even in the days of his most brilliant success at the Bar, did he excel it in logic, learning, or in the manner in which he marshalled and arranged the facts in the case. The pathos of his appeal to the sympathy of the judge touched all hearts. If it failed to affect the learned judge the manner in which he presented the law applicable to the case produced re- sults which pathos could not. Among the authorities presented was the opinion of Judge Yates in Schermerhorn agst. Hull (13th John's, 269), which is not only a leading case, but one so strictly analogous to that at bar that there was hardly a shade of differ- ence, therefore a case in point, sustaining the doctrine that be- fore the Superintendents of the Poor of any county have any authority to execute indentures, under the statute, like those under which Sarah Coppin was held, the person bound by them must be reduced to the actual condition of a pauper under the care of the Keeper of the Poor-House. The judge, after due de- liberation, sustained Mr. Brady's views, giving Sarah into the care of her brother, who in a short time returned with her to England. Before leaving, however, young Coppin took means to recover the amount of money placed in the care of the man with whom Sarah had been left on her arrival in New York.

THE PRESENT BAR OF KINGS COUNTY.

Albert N. Abbott.

Benjamin V. Abbott.

Phillips Abbott. William A. Abbott. Andrew H. Adams.

John P. Adams.

George H. Alexander.

Frederick E. Barnard.

John T. Barnard.

Edmund Barnum. Joseph H. Bartlett.

William A. Barto, Hiland G. Batchelor. De Witt C. Bates.

B. H. Bayliss.

A. P. Bates. Rollin E. Beers.

John A. Armstrong. L. Hastings Arnold. Joseph Aspinall.

Ansel B. Arnold.

Henry Ash.

Henry S. Bellows.

Henderson Benedict.

Charles L. Benedict Robert D. Benedict. Wyllys Benedict. Edgar Bergen. Edward Bergen.

Foster L. Backus. Albert W. Bailey. Benjamin Baker. Fred Baker.

Gilbert Badeau. Charles H. Bailey. Charles J. Baker. D. Ira Baker.

*John J. Allen, 201 Montague street, was born in Utica, New York, 1842: graduated from the University of Vermont, 1862; graduated from Columbia College Law School, 1866; was Provost Marshal during the latter part of the War; admitted to the Bar in 1866, at which time he became a resident of Brooklyn; Asaiatant U.S. District Attorney, from 1866 to 1873; Member of New York Stata Assembly in 1874; ie U. S. Commissioner, and Chief Super- visor of Elections.

Eugene M. Berard. John H. Bergen. J. C. Bergen. De Leguil Berier. Jacob H. Bernkopf. Marcus P. Bestow. Stephen C. Betts. Clarence F. Birdseye. Henry M. Birkett. John Blauvelt. William W. Bliss.

William R. Baldwin. Charles W. Balz. C. W. Bangs.

William J. Barker. Frank L. Barnard. George G. Barnard. Joseph F. Barnard. David Barnett. Anthony Barrett. Willard Bartlett. Arthur Bassett.

John A. Anderson.

John Andrews. Frank W. Angel.

John Andrews, Jr.

Edgar D. Anthony.

George E. Apsley.

Henry Arden.

Theo. J. Armstrong.

James E. Bedell. James D. Bell. W. C. Beecher. Franklin Beames. William M. Beggs. Fred P. Bellamy.

Joseph E. Austin. Frank M. Avery. Donald F. Ayres.

Albert C. Aubery.

William H. H. Austin.

William M. Benedict. Frank S. Benson.

Jacob I. Bergen. Tunis G. Bergen. Marx Bernkop.

John Berry. N. A. Betts. Henry D. Birdsall. Lucien Birdseye. Benjamin F. Blair. George C, Blanke.

George B. Abbott. Samuel F. Abbott. Oliver S. Ackley.

Phillip L. Balz, Jr. Ira L. Bamburger. Daniel P. Barnard. Frederick L. Barnard.

John D. Ahrens. J. R. Allaben. George F. Alexander. John J. Allen .*

William H. Allaben. Daniel B. Ames. Robert Alling.

1270

HISTORY OF KINGS COUNTY.

William Boeckel. Peter H. Bohanna.

Edward W. Bloom.

Nathaniel B. Cooke.

Albert G. Cortis.

John Cooney.

Nathaniel Cothren.

Herbert W. Bower.

William R. Cornell.

Harold G. Cortis.

Edward W. Crittenden.

Timothy C. Cronin.

Abel Crook. Sam. J. Crooks.

Wm. W. Britton.

James B. Brinsmade.

Edgar M. Cullen.

Geo. F. Britton.

Winchester Britton. Amos Bradnax.

Cullen & Bergen.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884, Volume II, Part 157

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed Publication date: 1884 Publisher: New York, W. W. Munsell & Co Number of Pages: 1345

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: New York, W. W. Munsell & Co
Number of Pages: 1345