Historic Pelham

Presenting the rich history of Pelham, NY in Westchester County: current historical research, descriptions of how to research Pelham history online and genealogy discussions of Pelham families.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Confusion Over Where Residents of Hart's Island in Pelham Should Vote in 1884


During the 19th century, confusion arose over whether Hart's Island was part of the Town of Pelham, part of Westchester County or part of New York City. This created confusion over where residents of the Island should vote. The matter was clarified by statute, but later Pelham residents became outraged as the political machines of New York began to push people who worked on Hart's Island to vote in Pelham.

A brief article published in The Sun on August 31, 1884 recounted the confusion and how it was addressed by statute. The text of the article appears below.

"The Hart's Island Vote.

An employee in one of the city's institutions on Hart's Island wrote to the Election Bureau to ask where he ought to vote at the coming election -- in Pelham or in New York. Investigation showed that custom sanctioned Pelham as the polling place of inhabitants of Hart's Island, while the map plainly put the island in Westchester county. On the other hand, chapter 238 of the Laws of 1869, which empowered the Charity Commissioners to establish an industrial school on Hart's Island, referred to the island as the property of the city and county of New York. To offset this, in the Revised Statutes of 1875 Hart's Island is included in the town of Pelham, while chapter 782 of the Laws of 1870 takes the same view, saying that the boundary line had not been altered since Capt. Bond drew his map in 1711. The Chief clerk of the Election Bureau concluded that the balance of authority lay with Pelham, and advised the anxious inquirer to vote there. The vote of Hart's Island is not large. The island is tenanted chiefly by the dead in Potter's Field."

Source: The Hart's Island Vote, The Sun, Aug. 31, 1884, p. 6, col. 2.

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, August 27, 2007

1861 Judicial Decision Involving Collision of Two Ships in Pelham Waters


Pelham's maritime traditions have contributed to the body of legal knowledge known as maritime law. In 1861, a federal court in New York released a decision involving two ships that collided in Pelham Waters. See Randall v. The Zebra, 20 F. Cas. 241 (Cir. Ct., S.D.N.Y. 1861). The decision resulted from a collision between two ships named the Planet and the Zebra off the southern point of Hart Island. The owner of the Planet sued the Zebra in libel. The Court below dismissed the action. The Circuit Court affirmed, noting that there was evidence below supporting the proposition that the two ships approached each other in nearly opposite directions. Thus, it was not clear which ship was at fault.

The text of the decision appeared in the November 8, 1861 issue of the New York Times. The text appears immediately below.

"Decisions in Admiralty on Appeal.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Before Judge Nelson.
COLLISION - LOOKOUT.

J. Orlando Randall vs. The Sloop Zebra. -- NELSON, C. J. -- The libel is filed in this case against the Zebra, to recover damages for a collision off the southern point of Hart's Island, at the head of the East River. Both vessels, the Planet and Zebra, were bound for the eastward; the latter had come out of Cow Bay on the Long Island shore, and was making her way to a point between City Island and Hart's Island, on the opposite side of the river. The Planet had passed City Island and the southern point of Hart's Island, making her way into the Sound.

The wind was strong from the northwest, or a little north of northwest, the Zebra close hauled to the wind, the Planet, perhaps, two points free on the larboard, and the Zebra on the starboard tack; and, while thus beating across the river, they came in contact, the stem of the Zebra striking the starboard side of the Planet, some twelve or fifteen feet from her stern.

It is claimed, on the part of the Planet, that the Zebra was to the leeward, and that she was justified in the attempt to pass her on her starboard side; and that the Zebra should have borne away, and not kept her course till the collision happened. The Zebra insists she was on the privileged tack, and was bound to keep her course, and had a right to assume that the Planet would obey the rule of navigation, bear away and pass on the larboard side. The Court below found that the line of the two vessels was in nearly opposited directions, head to head, and although there is some conflict in the evidence on this point, we are inclined to think the weight of it is with the finding below.

The truth of the case undoubtedly is, that the hands on board the Planet did not see the other vessel after she came out of Cow Bay, some half or three-quarters of a mile off, having been engaged in reefing the mainsail preparatory to entering the Sound, notwithstanding the strength of the wind. If they had seen her the collision could have been easily avoided by falling away before the wind. And the same may also be said of the hands on the Zebra, as they were engaged with the chains preparatory to coming to anchor under the shelter of the islands till the wind subsided. But we cannot say, if the Zebra had had a lookout who could have seen the opposite vessel, her course could have seen the opposite vessel, her course could have been properly changed; for, if she had fallen away before the wind, and the collision had occurred, the very manuever would have been decisive that she was in fault. It is possible, if she had seen the Planet, that in the pressure of impending danger she might have used her helm in a way to avoid, or, at least, to have modified the blow; and this she would have been bound to do, even if the other vessel was wholly in fault; but we think this possible ability to relieve the other from her own fault in the emergency, too slight a ground upon which to charge her with any portion of the loss. The duty of the vessel without fault at the moment of impending danger is an imperfect one, not capable of being reduced to any fixed rules; and can only be entitled to weight or consideration in a case where it is clearly shown that some movement had been omitted that might have been adopted to avoid the catastrophe at the moment of its occurrence.

The decree below affirmed.

For libelant, Mr. Stoughton and Jenness; for appellants, Mr. Morton."

Source: Decisions in Admiralty on Appeal, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 1861, p. 3, col. 2.

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Abstract of Will of Thomas Pearsall of Spectacle Island Prepared in 1723 and Proved in 1732


On Thursday, December 21, 2006, I published to the Historic Pelham Blog an abstract of the will of Thomas Pearsall of Spectacle Island prepared in 1723 and proved in 1732. See Thurs., December 21, 2006: Thomas Pearsall, Owner in 1723 of Harts Island, Also Known as Spectacle Island, Bequeaths it To His Son, Henry Pearsall.

Today's posting provides a more detailed abstract of the same will, followed by a full citation to the source of the abstract.

"ABSTRACTS OF WILLS -- LIBER 11 . . . .

Page 238. -- In the name of God, Amen. 'I, THOMAS PEARSALL, of Spectacle Island, otherwise called Harts Island, in the county of Westchester,' being in poor health. I leave to my wife, Christian Pearsall, the use and profits of all the real and personal estate 'towards her support in her decripet age and during her life.' 'I leave to my son, Nicholas Pearsall, £5, as his sole and only right, and not to claim or make any disturbance in law or equity as my heir at law' [Page 51 / Page 52] I leave to my son Henry one certain island named Spectacle or Harts Island, lying within the manor of Pelham in Westchester County. And he is to pay £300 in installments to my estate. I leave to my daughter, Eda Dobbs, £15. I leave all the rest of my estate to my children Nicholas, John, Henry, Hannah and Eda. I make Thomas Pell, Esq., Hermanus Rutsen, and my son, John Pearsall, executors.

Dated April 20, 1723. Witnesses, Johanes Roelofsen, Jane Francis, Edward Fitgerald. Proved, April 6, 1732. And the executors having refused, Letters of administration are granted to his son, Henry Pearsall. The widow was also dead. The daughter Eda married Walter Dobbs, the daughter Hannah married John Lanyon.

[NOTE. -- Harts Island is now owned by the city of New York, and a large part of it is the city cemetery, better known as 'Potter's Field.' -- W. S. P.]"

Source: Pelletreau, William S., Abstracts of Wills on File in the Surrogate's Office, City of New York. Vol. III. 1730 - 1744 with Appendix and Miscellaneous Documents in Collections of the New-York Historical Society for the Year 1894, pp. 51-52 (NY, NY: The New-York Historical Society 1895).

Please Visit the Historic Pelham Web Site
Located at
http://www.historicpelham.com/.
Please Click Here for Index to All Blog Postings.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,