tract; that in accordance with such advice, he continued the work and actually finished locks No. 8, 9, 10 and 11; that in so doing he incurred a heavy expense, far beyond the amount of compensation specified in said contract, no part of which has been refunded to him. It seems that the petitioner rests his claim upon the State for further compensation for building said locks, upon two grounds. 1st, Upon the misrepresentations made to him by the original contractors, as to the amount of labor that was intended to be included in the contract; and 2d, Upon the advise given and promises made to him by the Canal Comissioners. It may be true, as the petitioner represents, that the original contractors practised a fraud upon him by misrepresenting the amount of work that was intended to be included in said contract; and the committee have no doubt that he has suffered losses in the prosecution of the work, but they can see no reason why the State should be held responsible for the frauds practised by an original contractor upon a sub-contractor. As to the second ground upon which the petitioner rests his claim, the Canal Commissioners have expressly contradicted the allegations of the petitioner in a report made to the Assembly in the year 1829, which may be found in the Assembly Journals of that year, page 930, to which the committee beg leave to refer. The committee, upon a view of the whole subject, recommend the adoption of the following resolution. Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted. IN SENATE, 29, 1833. January 29, REPORT Of the select committee on the petition of Rufus Stanton. Mr. Edwards, from the committee to whom was referred the petition of Rufus Stanton, REPORTED: That upon an examination of the subject referred to them, as set forth in the said petition, it appears that the said Stanton is the owner of the west half of blocks No. 21 and 10, and of the whole of blocks No. 4 and 5 in the village of Lodi, in the town of Salina, and that the same was sold by the State on the 19th of June, 1822, as it appears by referring to the proceedings of the Commissioners of the Land-Office. The committee further report, that on the 10th of March, 1827, an act was passed authorizing a sale of twenty-five acres of land, to Moses D. Rose, which act was amended by a subsequent act passed on the 23d of April, 1829; and that by virtue of the aforesaid acts, the Commissioners of the Land-Office, by the consent of the said Rose, or otherwise, (by what authority it does not appear,) passed a resolution on the 3d of May, 1829, authorizing the Surveyor-General to issue a certificate of sale for the aforesaid twenty-five acres to John H. Lothrop, which land comprises a part of the east half of blocks No. 21 and 10, and that in pursuance of the said resolution of the said Commissioners of the Land-Office, the Surveyor-General made a conveyance of the aforesaid twenty-five acres to the said Lothrop: But the committee cannot ascertain from any map or document in the Surveyor-General's office, that there is a gore of land belonging to the State, lying between [Senate, No. 36.] 1 the aforesaid twenty-five acres and the west half of the aforesaid blocks No. 21 and 10, so owned as aforesaid by the said Stanton, nor is the Surveyor-General aware that such is the fact, but admits that it may be so. The said Stanton however admits the fact in his petition, that there is a gore of land lying between the land so owned by him as aforesaid, and the twenty-five acres so owned as aforesaid by the said Lathrop, about six rods wide at the south end, running north about forty rods to a point; and that he has had the same inclosed with his land above described, about six years, and that he is now desirous that an act may be passed authorizing the Commissioners of the Land-Office to cause the said gore of land to be appraised and conveyed to him, on his paying the appraised value thereof. The committee have therefore come to the conclusion that the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted, and have instructed their chairman to ask leave to introduce a bill accordingly, IN SENATE, January 29, 1833. ANNUAL REPORT Of Robert Barnes, an Inspector of Hops for the city of New-York. To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New-York. In conformity with former practice on the hop inspection, I herewith transmit a statement of all proceedings as inspector for the port of New-York, during the last 12 months, ending first of first month, 1833, say quantity and value as near as I can obtain information on sales. 1,801 bales of hops, containing 365,603 lbs. at 21 cts. $76,776 63 Inspector's fees at 10 cents per 100 lbs. commissions on sale of 1 bale at auction by Pell & Son...... Deduct for extra labor and other incidental expenses, Inspectors nett fees and commissions, $365 60 1 79 25 37 $392 76 90 05 $302 62 I may also add there has not been an article subject to inspection stored with me except as above stated. I may however remark my disappointment on the issue of the replevin suit with Livingston, my having with advice of counsel, followed the strict letter of the statute on hop inspection, and am now left, as far as I can discover, without the power of remuneration for advances made on said suit, amouting to $72.50; also apparently deprived of commissions on amount of invoice, and Capt. Pell's forfeiture, amount[Senate, No. 37.] 1 ing to a still larger sum. Perhaps the present Legislature in their wisdom, may correct pasterrors by supporting our former statutes." Yours most respectfully, ROBERT BARNES, Inspector. P. S. I may add payments to the commissioners of almshouse on May 5th, 1832, of balance received of Daluze & Co. on the compromise, ... ... $92 00 Also nett proceeds on single bale, paid commissioners almshouse January 21st, 1833, .... 8 88 I certify that the foregoing statement is correct and true. ROBERT BARNES. New-York, January 21st, 1833. Personally appeared before me, said inspector, R. Barnes, and affirmed to the truth and correctness of the foregoing statement. JOHN YATES CEBRA, Alderman 1st ward, and Justice of Peace for city and county of New-York. |