« ZurückWeiter »
of changing the law, and throwing the duty of judging in this matter upon any other department of the government. It now is reposed in safe hands, and with the power which that officer now has, it is believed an investigation can be conducted with almost positive certainty of arriving at truth in relation to a matter of this description. Under these circumstances, the committee are of opinion that the Comptroller has full power to execute the deed to the purchaser for the lands covered by the lost certificates, and are of the opinion that so much of the prayer of the petitioner as relates to this subject ought to be denied.
But the petitioner further states, that at the Comptroller's sale for taxes in 1830, one Arnold Nelson purchased four hundred and fifty acres, parcel of division No. 66, of great lot No. 36, in the Har. denburgh patent in the county of Delaware, for the taxes then due thereon; that in the month of April, and before the time of redemption expired, he purchased from said Nelson the certificate of sale taken by said Nelson from the Comptroller, and took from said Nelson a transfer thereof; that having other lands which had been sold for taxes in that section of country, he called at the Comptroller's office a few days before the time of redemption run out, for the purpose of redeeming his said other lands, but not intending to redeem lot No. 66; but the office was so thronged with persons who were then redeeming their lands, that the petitioner directed one of the clerks in the office to pay what was necessary to redeem the other lands of the petitioner before the time should expire, and left money with him for that purpose, and went home; that shortly after the time of redemption had expired, he called at the Comptroller's office for his deed of said lot No. 66, and found that the clerk, by mistake, had applied a part of the money so left to the redemption of said lot No. 66, contrary to the instructions and against the wishes of the petitioner, in consequence of which the Comptroller refused to execute to the petitioner a deed there. for. The certificate of the Comptroller to Nelson, and his transfer to the petitioner have been exhibited and established to the satisfaction of the committee. Under these circumstances, the petitioner asks that a law may be passed authorising the Comptroller to convey to him the land covered by the certificate to Nelson.
The committee are of opinion that the erroneous application of the money left with the clerk in the office, did not discharge the
land from the effect of the sale. That it must have been the result of mistake cannot be doubted, for the petitioner had purchased from Nelson his certificate of sale covering this very land; and it cannot be believed that after that had been done, he would then redeem this very land, and thereby destroy the object of his purchase.
With this view, the committee are of opinion that in this particular the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted, and they have prepared a bill for that purpose, and now ask leave to introduce the same,
February 20, 1833.
of the committee on claims, to which was referred
the petition of Samuel Hollister and Jesse Hollister.
Mr. Russell, from the committee on claims, to which was referred the petitition of Samuel Hollister and Jesse Hollister,spraying remuneration for the diversion of the waters of the Cawasselon creek,
The petitioners allege, that in the year 1816, they erected a saw mill on the Cawasselon creek, in the town of Lenox in the county of Madison, at an expense of about two thousand dollars, which was in successful and profitable operation when, in 1819, a portion of the waters of said stream were diverted from said mill into the Erie canal, which stream forms the peincipal feeder between Wood creek and Chittiningo; that it was then believed that the mill would be deprived of the waters of said Cawasselon creek about three months in each year, and that for the residue of the time the mill would have the benefit of the surplus waters of that stream. Upon this hypothesis the canal appraisers estimated and assessed the damages of the petitioners for the diversion of such portion of said waters, as was then thought necessary, to the amount of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars. Founding their estimate upon the idea, too, that for the nine months in the year the works of the petitioners would be rendered more valuable by the increased quantity of water flowing thereto from the superabundance during that period on the canal. [Assem. No. 202.]
After this the petitioners, at an expense of between three and four hundred dollars, brought to their works another stream which passed off under the canal, for the purpose of supplying, in some degree, the deficiency occasioned by the aforesaid diversion, and again put their works in successful operation: That in the year 1827, the whole surplus waters which flowed from this level were sold by the State for the sum of nearly five thousand dollars, and the petitioners deprived wholly of every participation in them; by which, their works were rendered wholly useless, and have since gone to decay: That the petitioners were the owners of the land on which their works were erected, and across which land, said Cawasselon creek naturally flowed: That before the diversion of said creek into the canal, there was a deficiency of water upon this level; and that the redundance of water thereupon which has been sold, of right belonged to the petitioners. If these allegations are true, and they appear to the committee to have been well authenticated, it is obvious that the State has made a profitable operation. Before the waters of this creek were diverted, there was a lack of water on this level; but after all the stream is taken, the superabundance is sold for nearly five thousand dollars, for which the State has paid, by way of damages, $2,250, including $1,000 paid the petitioners in 1828. The actual expense which the petitioners have laid out on their works, and the improvements connected therewith, is about the sum they have received, leaving them wholly without compensation for the water and the important site for their works.
The petitioners allege the last $1000 was received by them under peculiar pecuniary embarrassments; that they had incurred heavy responsibilities, lying on their aforesaid works to relieve them and when they were deprived of that source of revenue, their destruction appeared almost inevitable, and to relieve them from this pressure, they were in effect compelled to receive the said amount.
From the view which the committee have taken, and the importance of the subject, they have thought it their duty to advise sending this claim again to the canal appraisers that they may do what justice shall require; they have therefore prepared a bill for that purpose, and ask leave to introduce the same.