IN SENATE, February 25, 1833. REPORT Of the committee on claims, on the petition of Matthew Pratt and John Pratt. Mr. Sherman, from the committee on claims, to whom was referred the petition of John Pratt and Matthew Pratt, REPORTED: That the petitioners claim from the State seventy-eight dollars forty-five cents, being a balance of the proceeds of a sale of a lot of land of theirs by the State, under the following circumstances: The lot consists of twenty-five acres, being part of lot No. 44, in the East-Hill tract, in New-Stockbridge, and was originally purchased from the Surveyor-General of the State, by one David Manchester, for the sum of $112.50-fourteen dollars and fifty cents of which was paid down at the time, and he received the usual certificate, dated 20th May, 1824. Manchester sold and assigned his interest in the lot on the 20th February, 1826, to one Pyune Tower, and he, on the 17th July, 1828, duly assigned the same to your petitioners, John and Matthew Pratt. The petitioners, after having entered into an agreement to sell the premises to Orsamus Pratt, discovered that they were advertised for sale by the Surveyor-General, for non-payment of interest due for the same-and as the said Orsamus Pratt preferred taking a tltle directly from the State, he concluded to let the sale proceed and attend on the day and bid it off; not supposing that it would sell for more than the balance due the State. But unexpectedly he found that he had to encounter a competition, and was obliged to [Senate No. 59.] 1 bid up to 225 dollars before it was struck down to him. This sum the petitioners paid, believing that the surplus would be refunded to them, according to law, whenever the same should be called for. That in June, 1831, the petitioners made application to the Comptroller for the surplus, and was informed by him, that after deducting $146.50, due the State for interest and costs, there was due to them the said balance of $78.45; but that as the law authorising the payment over of surplus moneys had been repealed at the last session of the Legislature, he was not authorised to pay the same; and therefore declined doing it without an act of the Legislature for that purpose. The committee being satisfied as to the truth of the foregoing facts from inquiry and the accompanying documents, see no reason why the balance claimed should not be refunded to the petitioners; or as they have intimated in their petition, endorsed on the bond held by the State, against Orsamus Pratt. Accordingly the committee have prepared a bill to that effect, and ask for leave to introduce the same. IN SENATE, February 27, 1833. REPORT Of the committee on the petition of the heirs of Moses Brockway and others. Mr. Sherman, from the committee on claims, to whom was referred the petition of the heirs of Moses Brockway and others, and Anthony Rhodes and others, REPORTED: The committee deem it unnecessary to set forth in this report, to be again spread upon the Journals, all the particulars relating to this case, as they have been so recently before the Legislature, and are to be found on the Journals of different sessions. The committee would, therefore, refer to them as a part of this report, and more particularly call their attention to the Assembly Documents of last session, No. 295; also Senate Documents of 1830, No. 395; also to the report of the Surveyor-General, Assembly Journals of 1826, page 511, and the report of the committee, founded thereon, page 560. A brief view of the case, as will appear from the said documents and the accompanying vouchers, is as follows: The claim of the petitioners is, for compensation for improvements, and relates to lot number 28, consisting of about 476 acres, in Freemason's or Bayard's patent; and about 146 acres of lot number 64, of same pa tent. They set forth and shew that their father, about forty years ago, purchased the said land in a wild state, of one Eli Brown, and paid him therefor, one dollar per acre: That his title failing, they were under the necessity, in order to save their improve[Senate No. 60.] 1 ments, to purchase the same property of one Henry Platner, which they did and paid him therefor, four dollars per acre. Soon after they discovered that Platner's title was defective, and that the property was claimed by the State, as forfeited by the attainder of one Weatherhead, a former owner; in consequence of which, the settlers petitioned the Legislature to assert their claim, that they might know where to obtain a good title to the lands. Before the proceedings on the attainder were perfected, and while suspended on account of some difficulty in substantiating the fact of forfeiture by the person who discovered the same, the settlers were informed that John Thurman held a mortgage on a large tract of land covering the lots in question; and they were advised, and did effect a compromise with the said Thurman, and paid him one dollar per acre for a release of his claim under the mortgage, so far as related to the lots in question. The State afterwards became the purchaser and assignee of the whole of the said mortgage, and paid Thurman therefor, about a dollar an acre. The State having obtained a title in this way to a large tract of land, consisting of several thousand acres, proceeded to sell to purchasers according to the appraised value made by Wherry and Myers; and in which appraised value were included the improvements of the petitioners. The petitioners, or those under whom they claim, as is stated, being desirous of avoiding further trouble and litigation, and of obtaining a valid title to their lands, became purchasers from the State, at the appraised value as aforesaid. Lot number 64 was valued at seven dollars an acre, and lot 28 at six dollars twenty-five cents per acre. The petitioners shew that the improvements on said lot number 64, was worth $3.50 per acre, and which made a part of said seven dollars: That the improvements on lot number 28 was worth $2.50 per acre, and included in the said $6.25. In 1830 an act was passed in favor of Nathan Underwood, who owned a part of lot number 64, and similarly situated to the petitioners', paying him for his improvements at the same rate per acre as before mentioned, |