Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

IN ASSEMBLY,

February 21, 1833.

REPORT

Of the committee on claims on the petition of Joseph Minard.

Mr. Russell, from the committee on claims, to which was referred the petition of Joseph Minard, the surviving heir of Antoine Minard, a Canadian refugee, praying a grant of land for the revolutionary services of his said father,

REPORTED:

The petitioner claims to be, and probably is, the only surviving heir of Antoine Minard, a Canadian refugee, who served in the war of the revolution.

Antoine Minard's bounty land was patented to him on the 28th day of January, 1790, as appears from the Comptroller's book.

It also appears, that in 1808, (see Session Laws of that year, p. 234, sec. 6,) that the Commissioners of the Land-Office were directed to issue letters patent to the hiers of Anthony Maynard, deceased, a Canadian refugee, for 200 acres of land, in the refugee tract, for the revolutionary services of the said Anthony Maynard.

It now appears, and is so conceded by him, that the present petitioner was one of those heirs, and that the patent was issued pursuant to the law of 1808. The claim then must have been made and sustained upon the ground, that their ancestor, for whose services the grant was made, was Anthony Maynard, not Antoine Minard. It is, however, now obvious, that Antoine Minard was the soldier for whose services the aforesaid grant of 200 acres was made in 1808; this grant too, must have been made by the government, and the land received by the petitioner in satisfaction for the [Assem. No. 182.]

1

claim now advanced; and whether the ancestor was known by the name of Antoine Minard or Anthony Maynard, cannot be very essential to inquire. The petitioner claims to be his heir at law by whatsoever name he was known, and did in fact participate in the benefits of the law of 1808.

But it is now alleged that there were two persons by the name of Antoine Minard, both soldiers of the revolution, and both Cananadian refugees, one a captain, and the other a private soldier; that there was one who was a private soldier is certain, for his name appears on the returns in the Comptroller's office; but that there was another of the same name, who was an officer in the same service, is not so certain; none such is to be found on the books in said office, and which is prima facia evidence that none such existed; but yet it may be open to explanation, and the petitioner supposes that this prima facie evidence is overcome by the testimony which he has adduced. If the view herein before expressed in relation to the law of 1808 be correct, it will not be necessary to inquire how far the additional testimony countervails that arising from the books. This point, however, together with the merits of the whole claim has been so fully and ably discussed, and presented to the Legislature by the committee on claims in this House, in the year 1831, that the committee have thought it would be a work of supererogation to go further into detail, and beg leave to refer to that report, (which is herewith submitted,) as presenting more in detail the views of this committee.

Under every view which the committee have been able take of this claim, they can arrive at no other conclusion than that it cannot reasonably be granted, and therefore offer for the consideration of the House the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner, Joseph Minard, ought not to be granted.

IN ASSEMBLY,

February 21, 1833.

REPORT

Of the Committee on the judiciary, on the petition of Huldah Randall.

Mr. Livingston, from the committee on the judiciary, to which was referred the petition of Huldah Randall,

REPORTED:

That the petitioner prays for the passage of an act authorizing her to sell an undivided half part of a farm in Herkimer county. It appears from the statements of the petitioner, that her late husband, Joshua Randall, deceased, together with his brother, Jared H. Randall, made a joint purchase of a farm in Herkimer county, in the year 1829. The said Jared H. is now willing to purchase the half part of the said farm in which the petitioner and her children are interested, at an advanced price from the purchase money agreed to be paid for the said property. But she alleges that if the said Jared H. cannot make the said purchase, that then he is determined to apply for a division of the said farm, and to have his half part set off to him. To avoid the expense and trouble of the said supposed grievance, the petitioner wishes a law passed, giving to her the right to sell upon certain terms, her interest and that of her children, in the said farm.

Your committee have no doubt that this application is made in good faith, and would with pleasure recommend, that the prayer of an industrious and enterprising widow, who has been left by a providential affliction, to sustain, alone and unaided, a large family of children, be granted, were it not that the precedent thus set would the door to numerous applications of a similar nature. The effect of which would be that we should be found assuming [Assem. No. 183.]

open

1

to ourselves the powers and duties which properly belong to courts of justice. Ample provision is made by statute, for cases like that of the petitioner. She can have a guardian appointed for her children, and cause a partition of the property to be made, in the manner pointed out by the laws of the State.

For the reasons stated, the committee think the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

All which is respectfully submitted.

IN ASSEMBLY,

February 21, 1833.

REPORT

Of the Attorney-General, on the petition of John A. Ferrell.

The Attorney-General, to whom was referred, by the Assembly, the petition of John A. Ferrell, respectfully submits the fol lowing

REPORT:

The petitioner, in 1817, purchased of the State lot No. 2, of block No. 13, in the village of Oneida Castleton, and like most other purchasers at that sale, agreed to pay much more than the land was worth. In 1822, he purchased block No. 33, in the same village, at a price beyond its value. On each sale he paid a part of the purchase money, and executed his bond to the people for the payment of the balance. Both bonds amounted to $463. A large amount of interest being in arrear, the petitioner was sued on the bonds, and a judgment has been recovered and execution issued against him. He now represents that he is unable to pay the judgment; and prays that the State will release him, and take back the lands, or have them re-appraised.

The Attorney-General has satisfactorily ascertained that the petitioner is wholly unable to pay the judgment, and that the State will lose nothing by cancelling the sale on payment of the costs. Respectfully submitted.

GREENE C. BRONSON,

February 20, 1833.

[Assem. No. 184.]

1

Attorney-General.

« ZurückWeiter »