The New York Herald Newspaper, February 22, 1849, Page 1

“ THE NEW YORK HERALD. NO. 5376. MORNING EDITION----THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, “CURIOUS LIBEL CASE. Superior Court. Before Judge Vanderpeel. D. W"Clarke vs. James Gordon Bennett.—This was am action for an alleged libel, contained ina report of certain proceedings which took place at the police office in June lest. There was a second count, charg- ing another libel, asset forth in an an: to a publish. i. The case lasted till Saturday, and seemed to excite con- siderable interest, as the court was crowded each day. Verdict for the defendant The Counsxt for the plaintiff addressed the jury.— ‘He said that the opening of the case had devolved upon very unexpectediy,in consequence of the indis- position of his astoo ute. He bad not read the papers ‘until withim @ very short time, and therefore he would briefly stace the general pature of the case, and the facts upen which their veraiot would be asked. The Jaintiff was an aciorney ac law, keeping his office at Beekmen street, New Yors, aad the defendant ‘Was the editor and proprietor of the New York Herald. ‘The action was brought for a libel contained in two successive articles in two successive numbers of that paper, which would be shown Lo them was one of large Ciroulation, and, for eurtain purpo.es, of extensive in- fluence. 10 appeared that the piainzil had beoome the #ger’) ter coliecting the debts of the firm of Harris & y jouil, aud that be had been authorised to do 50 wed under #M assignuent, and by @ direst power Which had been given Lo him for the said purpose. It Dad become bis duty to present # claim from the firm aguinst Mr. Bonnett, the justice of which was not dis- puted; but the ciaim was not paid, and the plaintiff therefcre commenced # suit, aud brought an action. Mr. Bennett, Huving (hat the matter was to be pro outed with eerioucness, and not wishiug to It himeel! to costs, pad the debt; but subsequently, the laintifl was arrested oo au affidavit. ‘Cat atiidavic, owever, Was HOt as jet followed up by my present- Bent, The defencant, in profersicg to give « police Feport, had stated inst the plainuif bad arrested on a charge for obiaining money under false pretences Every explanatory circumstance had been omitted, the report had bewn intentionally garbled. 80 a3 toleave doubi that the plaintiff was guilty of the offence arged agaimet him. ne plaintiff, not wishing to submit to such an accusation. by 5 pape of so wide a tion as the New York Herald, asked for ao ex- planation, which was tolowed by an article manifestiy Malicious, and to which was appended a garbled de- cision of Chancellor Walworth, put forch for the pur- of damaging the professional ch: r of the iff. If ever there was ® case where the trite adding insult to injury— was veritied. it was the went. If Ubejury believed these things, they would give their verdict for the plaintiff? It might be proper, for the better understanding of ths case, to read the Hibels. The learned counsel was proceeding with the reading of the libela, when _ ‘The Count interposed, and asked what the plainti@ complained of—whether the complaint was for publish. ing whet had occurred in the police court, or for giving @ coloring to the report. The Counszt said, it was for having given a garbled statement of the proceedings, and for having omitted every exculpatory und explanatory c:roumstunce. Emanuen C Peacn was the first witness examined. He went to the office of the New York Herald, on the days on which the papers containing the libel in ques- tion were pubiished, for the purpose of purchasing them. Cross-Ezamined —Bought the papers at the request of Mr. Clarke, He (witness) rerides at 96 Centre screet, and is a barber by trade. ‘The Counser then proceeded to read the articles. The Count— Consider them as having been read. The Counsen said, that there was something else in per which he wished to read a! Count did not see the ol hich was to be gained by such acourse as that. Suppose the paper contained a libel upon any one else, would the plaintiff sock to derive benettt trom that ? Was he interested in the expedition to Catitormia? (Leughter.) Inere aight be sumething about that in the same paper, and, if 60, was that tobe read ? Irrelevant matter, and th which formed no part of the subject of the action, not be pressed into it. ‘The Covnset said, there was in the very sams paper & paragraph, declaring..the circulation of the Herald. The Count ~Tbat was admissible, as it was admitied py the partica themselves. ‘The paragraph was then read. Samuer Hagnis was the next witness called, but he @id not appear. Mr. E, pavevonn then tose to edacsen’ th jary for the defendast. His speech was distingui 4 for the cleaners and force of its reasoning, the obstinacy of ite logic, and the commanding character ot its elo- Quence. He thought that they must have been -ur- ised when they bad heard the matter which had Tien oharged as libelious read. ‘The first alleged libel was a report of proceedings which had taken place in ® public court of justice ; and the second had reference to certain legal pre copings, the whole scope of which was, that Mr. Clarke Da t Chancellor Walworth had been quoted to that he (Clarke) had beenso, What was complained of ag libsjicus, wase fair and correct report of what had trenspired in an epen court, and that he would bs able to demonttrate to the entire satisfuction of the j ‘The grounds upon which the publication had ‘appeared were not maliciour, aud what had been set forth in them was true; and that was the iesue which they badtotry. THe sbould lay before them tho depo- sitions from which toe reporter had taken his informa- tion, and upon comparing them both, they would seo if the report wes fair or not. The editor of a newspaper was not responsible for the trath of any complaint which might be wade ina court of justice. If he gave what was alieged, if be published oo more than what was stated, he was justified by law. If, on the con- trary, it appeared that important facts in the deposi- tions hed been euppreseed, it the caso had been pud- ished for the purpore of gratifying matiotous feelings, then, indeed, there would be ground tor the compluiat made against the defendant. Bat he would show that he (the defendant) had not been actuated by any such motive. The report in question hed ben prepared by the ordinary reporter, in the usual way. Mr. Bennett had not teen it until after it was im print; he iad had no agency in the affair, and was net cognisant of it until other perso: dseonit. If d counsel) could satisfy the jary that rue, and that the report oftarged 8 libellous was no more thau a fcr report of what had ce in @ court of justice, then they could not @ to pronounce a verdict for the defendant, It was an action for the publivation of teutis, of which Mr. Bennett had neither knowledge nor participation in, The second article, which was also charged as libellous, was nothing more than 6 reply toan attack which the plaintiff bad made upon the report, which the defendant had published as an ordinary item of news, The firm of Harris & Rennoull had been en- gaged by Mr. Bennett. to make some aiterations in his extensive establishment. On the 20th of April, 1848, the firm had some dispute, and each gave notice to Mr. Bennett not to pay to them the amount of the bill which they had Aplost him. The plaintiff was ob- jected to by Mr. mnouil, beeause he had not his (Mr R.'s) confidence. Mr. R gave notice to plaintif that he was not to collect, and to Mr. Bennett, that he was not to pay him. fhe rule of law was, that one artner might collect, aod appropriate, but the legal Fiterect im the property remelned the seme after the dissolution, 80 that neither could give apy lien upon tight to bar the othar by giving noti tors not to pay. The only couree was to appoint a reoeiver. Under the circum- rtancer, Mr, Bennett could not have patd the money. Had he done otherwieo, be would have had to pay it over again. Mr, Bennett was not annoyed by the in. stitution of the suit, as he thought it might save had 8 into one sult, so Al ings must always ready to pay the dem at once referred the matcer his legal advirer, Galbraith, in order to tain, if he could, who had the right to reo he mouey, and with instructions to pay it to euch party. The pisinti had presented himeelf toMr Galbraith as the party ‘who was entitied to receive the money. He (plaintiff) had raid that be had received an atsignment from Harris, empowering bim to collect the debts due to the firm. to whieh Mr, Galbraith bad replied that that did not satisfy him bat said that if the plaintiff brought him (Mr. Galbraith) « written authority from Mr. Rennouil, he (Mr. G.) would be ready to pay the claim The plaintiff then began thore equivocations which had led to the diffloulties. The piaintiff said that he could pot get a written authority, as he (Mr Rennowil) had gone to France. Mr. Galbraith thongbt, that as that ageertion had been made by @ profersional man, he might rely upon it; and he there- foreborne to press for the written authority, supposed that Mr Rennouil was ‘The jury would recollect, that the ¢ it upon oath that h received the debts, such jon being contained in an addition which nd which was to the foliowin; nt further says, that he has recel vathority from Mr. Rennouil to o t the debts and rettle the affairs of the firm. T erning, Mr nouil, whom Mr. Galbraith had aup- pored was in France, called upon him, and asked bim why he had paid the money; and stated that what th Taintiff had asserted was untrue; and that he, () ennoull) having had no confidence in bim, had gi him no authority to collect the money, Mr. G remarked, how extraordinary it was that th: should have made euch a statement under a solemn oath: and when Mr Galbraith called fo explanation, he (the plaintiff) said that he had been obliged to resort to a little finesse to get the oer Mr. Rennonil then desired to know what he could do, He (Mr. R.) had told the plaintiff that he had robbed him—he felt that be bad robbed him. Mr. Rennoutl was advised that he could have the plaintiff arrested, for having reprerented that Mr Rennouil had gone to France; which reprerentation he had succeeded in obtaining ihe money from Mr. Galbraith; and, secondly, for hb worn that he had received from Mr. Rennouil authority to collect the said money. Mr. Rennouil, og that be had been defrauded by the plalatiff, rred @ complaint against him at the police offloe; for having reported whieh. the action was brought Mr. Bennett The complaint before the police wi lo by and with the advice of the ttorney, Mr, Galbraith did not ulsory proeess ia that Me. Forret, the legal adviser of Mr Rei ve Pe veatherity to collect the debte; an ia he admitted that that gentleman had not given him any 4; aimat of the court such authority; and part of the money (the whole of | which should have been id to the creditors of the firm) was handed over Harrie, The only fact not noticed in the report was, that Clark Herris bad undertaken to cheat Mr Rennouil, that omie- sion was beneficial to the repu' mm of the parti ‘The report was eminently fair. Would the jury, th under euch cireumstances, take money out of pocket of Mr. Bennett, to give to Mr. Clarke? If plaintiff had put artic into the public papers for t purpose of impugnin; ad thereby brin; 2 A little asperity, either in law or morals, was justifia- Ye. With regard to the quotation from the decision learned Chancellor of this State whieh the plain- id had been garbled, they would find. upon com. g it with what had appeared in the Herald, that ‘a faithful copy of what was given in the book; end there was nothing wro: laying before the pub- lic the opinion of a high le; metionary upon a sub- ject whi h was interesti meny in the commu. ity The view of the learmed Chaneelior was the ich they would find it, the opinion of jaintif to the contrary notwithstanding. (the learned counsel) would repeat that the report was & correct report, and that the precise form in whioh it bad appeared before the public was warraated A truthful correction had been mads of an error in law into which the plaintiff had fallen, and that he consi- @ered libellous The law permitted the truth to be peplahed: however malicious that publication might . His client bad not come into court of his own ac- cord; he had been brought there by the plaintiff. It would be fcr him (the lvarned counsel) to inquire how far the plaintiff wasa@ man of good nam», fame and oredit, to entitle him to the redvess which he so pre- sumptuously and 80 unjustly sought at the hands of » jury of bis country. After one or two other remarks, the learned counsel conoiuded his able address, and resumed hie seat. Sypney H. Stuart, Clerk of the Police Offic», testi- fied us to the proceedings which took pluce bef-re Jus- tice Lothrop. The object of thie witnesses’ testimony was to show that the report was a fair one. Jexzmian Lotunor, Esq, was next examined.—He said that he was one of the Police Justices of this city; heremembers the complaint in question having been made; it was sworn to betore him on the 19th of June, 1848; ‘he them issued a warrant fer the apprehension of Clarke, who appeared before him, but was discharged out ef custody; witness having told him that hs bad not yet made up his mind to send the papers before the exe jary, but told him that he had behaved very jishopestiy in the transaction, if not criminally. Henny A. Morr, Attorney and Counsellor at Law, ‘Was the next witness —He said he lived at 25 Pu: and had been @ member of the legal profei there was no busines: , and of which he was to pay; father, Dr. Mote; his to this matter, when Clarke and Harris oame to the office to converse with Mr. Galbraith about the mon Mr. Galbraith stated that he bad no objection to it, but that he wished to_know to whom he was to it. The plaintiff's Coun: ited to this line of evi- dence, and said that they did not want to know what had taken place in secret conclave, but what had taken place before the police justice, The question was, @ report true. ‘The Court.—Do you complain of the slander ? Counsxx for defendant —His client’s answer was & justification. Couns for pl intiff.—Their groungt of action wa: whether the proceedings before the poli 7 oorsectly reported. The opposite side say He said they were not. The vbject of giving bled report, was te show that the plaintiff had reovived money under false pretences. The Coust —That lays the ground for justication. Counsex for plaintiff.—If his client bad obtained money under false pretences, 80 as to be liable to be sent to the State prison, that would not justify the defendant in giving agarbled report. By the new code,a mere copy of the matter charged as libellous was only re- quired to be set forth, without any averment or innu- ende. He would repeat, the question for the jury was, whether a correct report of what had taken place at the police officehad been given by the defendant. If it pea ry. them he was justified—if not, he was not jus- led. The Court told him that hisown commentary upon his text was against him. Counsx for plaintiff.—The eomplaint was made af- ter the enactment of the new code, when neith a nor lawyers were supposed to be acquainted with the sublime mysteries of that sublime humbug. The Court (with much earaoestness ef manner)— ‘What says the learned counsel ?—he must act in a manner becoming his position. He rebuked him. Mr. Sanprorp would again state, in reply to the ob- jections of the counsel for the plaintiff, that his (Mr. 8.’s) client’s answer was a justication and if that did ry conetitute an issue, he (Mr. 8.) did not know what y The C ruled it Examination resumed~Mr. Galbraith desi Mr. Rennouii’s authority Mr. Clarke threw himself end said he (Mr. G) kuew that that was impossible, as Rennouil vas well on his way to France; nothing more eo- curred that day ; witnees did not see Clarke or Harris until he saw them at the Tombs The evidence being again objected to by plaintif’s counsel, The Covnsen for defendant raid his object was to rebut the allegation made im the opening by the other side, that Mr Bennett had caused the prosecution to be instituted against Clarke. Examination resumed —Witness, in the first place, made a complaint to Justices Lothrop, who had told him to draw up an affidavit ; witness did eo ; Mr. Jus- tice Lothrop was not ratisfied as to the assignment mentioned in the affidavit, in consequence of which witness went the next morning (Saturday) to the Court of Sessions, stated his case to the Assistant District Attorney, told him that all the facts were stated In an afiidavit, a copy of which he (witnesy had in his hand. and that the police justice was unwilling to instigate criminal procesdings against Mr. Clarke; wi'ness wished to know if he couid give authority to proceed, when the Arsietant District Attorney took the draft of the affidavit, and endorsed upon in it the following : “ We have no doubt that thie is a proper case for the investigation of the police, and that the complaint ehould be entertained, Jonas B. Parcrres, Assistant District Attorney. ‘Witness then went to the police office, and showed the affidavit to Justice Lothrop; had bad no communica- tion whatever with Mr. Bennett ; had not seen him at all; bad acted as counsel in the proceedings before the’ police court ; Mr. Galbraith was soated on the op- ia posite f the table ; he (Mr. G) had not even sug- ge question. so far as witness Galbraith had been subpoenaed to at fused to attend without @ subpon him more frequently in Fren own language better than English ; witness was not Present when tke mo: was paid. Mr. Mott was oross. examined at great length. Jonn Reane was the next witness. Plaintifi’s Counser objected to his being examined as to the general character of the plaintiff. The Count raid that s man’s general character was bates) in iesue, and when he came into s court of jus- tice, he must be prepared to stand upon it, and defend it If pecessary. Therefore. the evidence of the witnoss Was admissible. If, indeed, a charge of stealing was to be brought up, In that case it would be right that notice to that effect should be given to the party against whom the accusation was to be made, that he might be prepared to rebut it. But the present was a different care. The witness’s examination then proceeded :—He said he lived im Bloomingdate. and kept a hotel ; Clarke ; was introduced to bout eight years ag kept cows, and sold milk ; can’t say hew lon, d continued in that b nows his gener: as he understood his character ; knows it as spo! being bed; had heard it spoken of us such within the last 1x montha— in fact, within the last four months ; Clarke had been presented to him as @ poor man, and witness had passed his word for him for $20, as his cows were stary- tng; bad met him, and asked him for the money; Clarke turned up his coat tail, and clapped his —, (lan, Cross-examined —The money which witness had been ‘urity for, had not been paid back by Clarke. Clar! ty it was not worth $8. He (witness) had inet Clarke. He had treated him (witness) very unkindly and improperly, but he wouid not do him the smaliest injury on that sccount. Witness came from Wiltehire, in the West of England, about twenty years ago. Had left his former residence as a decent man ovght to do. Had psid his rent. and his friends came to eee him after he had jeft Had lived in Bos- ton two years. Could not say how he had some to be subpoenaed, Me had not expected being calledas a wit- ness, and had not known anything whatever about the difficulties with Mr. Bennett, Mr. Hawkes had known bim for three ye Had heard several per- sons epeak of Clarke's general character as being bad. Clarke himself had told witness, that about seven years ago he was apprehended for stealing wood, and confined in the Tombs Captain Thompson had told witness that Clarke's character was not ood Had heard others say that Clarke was a bad, a very bad man Bensamin G, an attor: Park placi Mott for two or three firet time witness become acqu &t the pericd when he commenced a ruit for money due by Mr. Bennett to the firm of Harris and Rennonfi; the elaim was fer a joiner’s bill. Clarke had served a declaration upon Mr. Beanett, which was sent to wiiness in the usual way to defend, and with it were one or two notes written by Clarke, and witness thought’with them; information had been sent that notice had been given not to pay the money to either of the partners; both bad given notloe that they had had a quarrel. The notice had been given by Ren- nouil; Clurke ealled upon witness, and demanded the money; witners told him that the only difficulty in the case was, to whom the money ought to be paid; witness coud not ponitively scate the cay en which Clarke had called upon him, but it was some time be- fore the 14th of June; witness told him how the diffi- cary bed arisen; hed told him notice had been given not to pay the money; then sald it was “us? who bad given the notice; Clarke repre- sented Harris at that tim de produced ‘and claimed to represent bot! . (Clarke) might have given no- ) information was that notice moouit ; Clarke the id at it had been signedin e by id; witness thought that the first question he Slarke was when the assignment or after the dissolution; t it wes ir, witas idity; Clarke then d ended by eaying that the assign: efore the dissolution; witness thea by whom it wae made, and he replied that it was made by Harris, in the 1 of the firm; witness asked him if Mr. Rennovil comrented to it; Clarke re;lied that at that time he (Rennouil) had not con- ted, aud further ewid that one party bad fall power sign the partnership effeots without the consent the other; that was the ground which Clarke bad teken; wit: atked him ho: Kennouvil bed given notice not to pay the money; witness told him he hesitated to pay the money mentioned in the as- tigoment, and that he would like toratisty Mr. Ben- nett that that amount was due, and more particularly that he (vlarke) authority from Kennouil to receive it, “iarke said that Rennouil had consented to it by coming to his (Clarke's) office along wich Mr, De Forest tor that purpose; witness remarked that he should like to be satisfied of that fact, aud although he (witoers) might be personaily sacisted with what Clarke bad told bim (meaning bis own atatement,) yet, as he hed amotber party to setify also he wished to ehow that he bad acted with sufficient eaution im the matter. and that he (Clarke) would oblige him very much if he would get Mr. Rennvuil to put his name to the arsignment himeelf, or, if he woud rend aletter to witness, stating that he had consented to the arrignment, and to the payment of the moavy, or bring bim to 2's ofiloe, or in any other manuer that would satisfy witness and Mr Beunett, when he (witness) came to mention the thing to him, that both parties were agreed that the money snould be paid to Mr. Clarke, that be (witness) should be perfectiy wil ling that the money should bu paid over; whea witness faid that he wished to have Mr Rennouil’s signature, Clarke began to laugh: id that that could not be dene, as Kennouil hud gone to France ; witwess then toid him that he must satisfy him that he had full authority from Rennouil, as an individual, to colle the money, otherwise he (witness) would not advise it to be paid; witness thought that Clarke then went away, promising to return with an afiidavit that he had exprees authority from Rennouil, apart and sepa- rute irom the partnership assignment, witness toid Bim if be would make affidavit o: thore facts, he would id; Clarke bad left for the purpose, as witness prerumed, ot drawing the afi. Gavite ; mers next saw Dim in the library below, when he (Clarke) saia to him thet he had bea looking for him with the affidavite, which hoped would tisfactory, and would cause the meney to be paid. (The affidavits were here produced] The wered unhe- then remarked firet affidavit was satisfactory, as it related to the pur- formance f the work done at the Herald Buildiags, jount dus; the second was not satisfuc- hority for paying the money; it core had made an ment to Clarke, without eying anything about the authority or content of Rennouil; wituess told him that ke bad been already aware of the fact stated im the affidavit, and that what b nied was the au- thority of Mr. Renpeuil, he having given notice not to pay the money to Harris, cr to any one else; Clarke tock back the affidavit, and suid he would make a forther afftdavit of that fact; Clarke then went away, and was away some eonsiderable time; he then returned, with un addition to it, in the following terms: “ And deponent further saith that he has autho- rity from Renuouil,of the said firm of Harris & Rennouil, to eollect the debts, aud to settie the affairs of tae said partnership;”” witness then told him that he considered that sufficient authority to pay the money on; witness then went with him to the Herald office, and asked the bookkeeper to pay $825; the bookkeeper, without saying @ word, counted cut the moacy, and wit- ness handed it to Clarke; Harris was in the of- fice at the time, but witners did not know where be bad joined them; witmess took a receipt, and the bookkeeper tock one also; witness asked Harris to the receipt also; in ali ‘the neg whatever ked Mr. Bennett a indeed he (witness) knew that the money kau been paid; the money had been paid on hi (witness’s) oraer; he had advised its paymvat. because ho belisved the statement of Clarke that Mr. Remoouil had gove to Fran given him fall power to collect th solely upon thei grounds the money was paid; the paymeut was made on the lath of June; the next time witness heard of the matter was f Mr Repnouil bimeelf » day or two after; Mr Renncuil came to witness’s office, and arked bim if he had paid the money due from the Hevaid office to the firm of Harris & Rennoail; the re- sult of the interview was, that he took Mr. Rennouil to Mr, Clarke's office for the purpose of getting au expla- nation; witness found Ciarke in his office, 27 Beekman street, and told bim tbat there seemed to him some- thing ese share the traneaction, but said he bi deubt that he (Clarke) could explain it, and make it satiefactory to Mr. Renoouii and to witness; he (wit: ness) turther said he thought it was due to Mr. Ciarke togive him an opportunity to wipe away from ble (wit- nebs't) mind any bad impression rerpecting the state- ments he had made; Clarke said that he had used s little finerse in obtaining the money; when witness that that was all the explanation which Clarke tendered, be (witness) rote and left; Mr, Rennouil either come away with him, or soonafter; Mr. R KOU! dame to him. but he would not have any more to do with either of them; he positively declined to act in the matter; witness bad had nothing to do with the pro- ceedings at the police office; bad been # witness; had taken no part, except giving his evidenee and being cross questioned by Mr. C From the time that the money was paid to Clarke down to the complaint befere the police office, had had no interview with Mr Bennett. Witnese might bave seen him, but ke had no recollection of that, but if he hud, he (witness) did not meption anything to him about law euits. He never asked bim any questions respecting them. He dealt with them to the best of bis Judgment, without consulting bim in any way whatever. The Witness underwent a long cross examination. His Honor said that the witness, if he were oxamined for five years, could not be driven from the testimony he had given on the previous day, and, therefore, ne (bis Honor) appealed to the counsel's nense of the neces tity of brevity The case had already occupied a great deal of the public time; he had written ail the morn. ing with great patience, but finding thet they had not adva th and that it war the same thing, he had given up writing. Mr. Gaiaratn was asked to give the partioulars of what Mr. Clarke was alleged to have done and said re- speoting his having used a little finesse in obtaining « money. The Witness said he had assumed ; had looked be hter,) and seemed sto assume an attitude of efial His Hownon—He (Lavghter.) ‘The Witness replied in the affirmative. Here plaintifi’s counsel made sov19 remarks in an under tone of voice. His Honor stopped the witness, and told him not to answer such a question, that it was impertinent and ungentlemanly. Platntift's Counse. said, he protested against his Honor being the judge of bis manners. His Honor said he had @ constitutional right to be s0,when gentlemanly courtrey was diregarded, and when the grounds of propriety and good breeding were gerne it was his duty to ciroumsoribe thoes unds Plaintiff's Counse. —Then they must be governed by the code of Chesterfield. ‘His Honor said it was very painful to him to indulge in such animadversions It was not bis habit to do so. Plaintiff's Counsex said it was more painful to him, Furorsick Rennovurt, examined.—He raid he was e native of France, and hed resiced 11 or 12 yearsin the United States, looked knowing and cunning. posted by = book keeper; it w: 1848, that he had expressed aid be out on the Istof May; Harris need of a book keeper, but witness insisted upon g one, to see how the aifairs of the ficm etood; at that time the work at the Herald office was but half done; when witness insisted to have the books te: Harris consented; he (Harris) objected to Mr books were removed to Clar! before they ited, where it was agr witness and 6 arked to nee 6 it was, in good plain writing; Haw! nd asked Clarke if he called that @ b je ahs Clarke said it was, and Hawks eaid it was not; Clarke asked why, Hawks re- piied that it was only ® balance sheet fortwo years, when he (Hawks) knew that the firm had bean doing business for three years; Clarke then said, if witness wanted a long explanation he had not got time to spare, and pulled out his watch; that meeting took piace on Saturday, the 29th ef April, and on the follow- ing Monday, Hawke, according to'the agreement of Ciarke, was to call at his office to settle the books; wit- ness next saw Clarke at his office on the appointed Monday; Mr. Hawks was with him; Hawks Ped met witnes: and told him that Clarke had objected to let him tee the books, and requested witness to come and see Clarke upon the subjeot; ood that he objected to let Mr. Haw! Clarke eaid yen; witness asked him ton his objection; Clarke replied that he did ym to a jain; with jection was; that he must know what it was, be (Clarke) would pleare him very much if tell him ; Clarke repeated that he did Mr Harris before he | t to find Herries to Jarke wished to see him; Harris for; witness replied he did not wished to see him; witness told Clarke had objected to let him see the which Harris replied that he hed confidence Harris thi books, te in Clarke, but said he did not know what hia object ea War; witners went agaio to Harris, he believed, on the Wednesday Mr Hawkes told witness that Clarke had an anignment; witness arked him toexplsin what an ignwent m he did expiain it: witness then mt to Mr vest; witness had never heird of b an instrument as an assigoment; Hawkes was the firet person who had toid him anything about it; Hy rie bad bad various opportunities of seeing witness, and had seen him, bué he had not mentio: word to him wb-nt an aseignment; witness had never contented to any bad ben habit of seeing H Sbeemoney wos Detore it war paid; wai De Forest but no aesignm bed objected, im the presenoe of Mr. De Forest, to larke; bad raid that he did pec want that Clarke pela have abyibing to do with the affairs et the firm, and wicuessiequested Mr. De Kees’ to explain that to Clarke; Mr. De Foreet told Clarke that alt he (-it- Deel Basia hale pay the ereditors; C! ur Forest that (hat could 20% be done, ners) covld mot collect the debt: y tinm took place two or three days before the money Was paid; wiiness bad never told auybody that he was going to France; when Clarks bad onjected to let him Fee Ue books he (witmess) gave notice to Mr, Bennetts not to pay; had taken # witue-s with bim to Mr, Beu- peit’s office, he hud requested Mr, Bennett to be kind enough not to pay witvess, or Harris or Clurke, UDUI the matters were eettled; witness went to Vir Be mnett becaure be felt that he was about to be robbed; Mr. Bepmett said he would uot pay the money; wit- ners called ageim Upon Mr Bennett, toask him if the notice he bad giveu was sufficient, and whether be would require @ wiitten notice; Mr, Bennett said that the notice which had been aiready given would do; witness bad not authorized Clarke to bricog @ suit rgainst Mr. Lennett, or anybody ele; had never withdrawn the notioe he hud given to Mr Bennett not to pay; had uever given auy authority to Clarke to collect ibe debts of the firm; when witness and Mr, De Forest were wt Clarke # ottice, be (Clarke) said, lookat that map, (meaning the witness); he was full of sus- against biw (Cistke); baving heard from one creditors thatbe bad rroeived pa,ment of his outof money which bad been paid by the He- raid ho wentto Mr. Benvett, who referred bim to Mr, Gaibraith; witness went to Mr Galbraitn’s office; he Know him, not having seen him befor id to bim. he understood that he bad paid the money to Ciarke, aod be asked him what right he had h replied, that be (the wicnens) right; witness replied that he hed pot; Mr Galbraith repeated that witness had done so, and shoved him the assignment; witness eeid he bad not econrented to any assignment; Mr, Gasbraith then told witness that he (witness) had gi- Ven suthority to Clarke to commence asuit against Mr. Benvett, witners tad he bad not, and toat he would swear that he had not given him any such au- thority; Mr Gaibraith then said that witners and he had better go and ee Clarke; they did go; Mr. Gal- braith asked Clarke it witness had given him authority to collect the debis and settie the uffairs of the frm; | Clarke suid yes, he bad authorized him to reovive the money; witness toid bim he was a liar; [thie the wit- Less repeated with great emphasis, while the expres- sion cf his coustenance showed how indignant he felt at what he contidered the mendacity of Ciarke;) Mr. Cla ke then ewid to Mr, Galbraith that he did not care a fig; they then lett Clurke’s office; wituess afterwards msde ® compiaint at the police office; from the time that he had given notice to Mr Bennett not to pay the money. down to the complaint before,the police office, be had bad no communication whatever with Mr Ben nett upon the rubject ; hv bad seen bia in the street, buthaa pot spoken to him ‘This wita-#s underwent @ lengtby cross-vxamination, but his evidence was not sbaken in any particular, Atrase E Baker was next examined.—In June last be was the reporter for the Herald; his department was poiice reporting; his duty was to report the traneac- tons at the police office; had prepared # report of the proceedings at the police cfice before Justice Lothrop, and took it down to the office; had written out the re- port, and then rent it up to the printers; the reports ‘were sometimes supervired by Mr Hudson; when they were, that duly was performed by that gentleman; the report in quertiop bad not to bis (witmess’s) kmow- idee been svpervised; Mr Bennett had had ne know- leoge of it; it was en accurate report of the proceed- inge, to far ae it went. The learned counrel asked this witness whether any- thing favorable to the plaintiff had been omitted; which quertion was objected to. The witness said he bad no feeling in the matter either way. The report had been prepared in the or- dinary way in the discharge of his duty. Cross examined.— Was now the reporter for the He- vald Hevxny H Hawkes was the next witness. He his ccoupstion at present was @ collector of debts. bad been employed by Mr Rennouil to ex accounts of the firm of Harris & Rennoull; Clarke had Tefured to Jet bim see the books after he bad agri doro; be had produced acme accounts waich di embrace the whole of the buriners. nor the balances ‘up to June, 1846; witness hadtoid Clarke that it was 0 jato the accounts until the books bad be ttied up thorougbly; Ciarke suid that he could not attend to the maiter tl nd made another ex- had never hear that Mr Rennouil was going to never beard @ word about it; the 29th of ‘art April was the first time he had ever sven Clarke; he knew that his general character was very bad. Cross examincd.—Had never been arrested; had heard that @ comp'aint of perjury was preferred against bim by Clarke; witness went forward of his own accord to meet it, and had waited some time with his counre! for that purpose but Mr. Clarke had not deemed it tit to make his appearance, witness had no ii] feetivg cr avimority whatever against Clarke. Several witnerses were called for the plaintiff, ws0 tpoke to his character Same. Hanns was the next witness, He sald thet he had been one of the firm of Harris & Rennouil; thet Rennovil bud told him several times that he intended to go to France, and after that he (witness) went round to Mr. C., and told him that he was siraid that Ren- nouil bad # notion cf going te France, and that he (the vitnesr) would be called upom to pay the oredi- tore; he sald that it was with the counsel of Rennouil that Mr. Clarke hed been appointed assignee; that he had asrented to the ass gnment to Clarke, and that it was with bis (Rennoutlr) authority that the money bed been paid to Clarke This wituers wos under cross examination for near- ly three hours. ‘The witnees was giving opinions instead of evidence, when Derenvant's Counsse objected, and told him that be war not the countel. Piaixtire’s Couns+. eaid that the opposite counsel ‘was acting worse than he The Derenvanr’s Counser rejoined, that that was im orsibie. The plaintiff's counsel baving again objected to the courte purtued by defendant’s couneel, in cross-ex- awining thir witners, as to the assignment, The Count eid that the witness had a strong bias; that he was inclined to bolster up and sustain his a by which he had divested his partner of t or trol of all be bed on earth, and that therefore it wan the pro- vince of the opporite side to examine him to show that the traprnction was not ro fair as he representedit. It was fair to inquire if the plaintiff and the witness bad obtained money from Mr. Bennett, by having had re- courre to falne expediente, aud whether they had con- cocted a sobeme by which Revnouil’s eontrol over his earnings bad beem taken away. That weat to the vital part of the action, It, therefore, ruled that the question war admissible The defendant’s counrel was proceeding with the crors examination, when the plaivtiil’s comnsel made snother objention. which was overruled by the Court. The plaintif s Counset then said that the defend- ant’s coun:e) was the mort impertinent man that had everexaminedawitness. It was more like @ sornb race than a trial 80, raid the defendant's Counser, was every race in which the plaintiff's counsel navengaged. There were some wnimals who never moved but in one way The Covert said it would make a role which it would enforce. viz: that counsel, when they addressed the Court rhould rise. It did not know whether the re- mark of plaintiff's counse! applied to the Court or net, but it was most improper, Such scenes were unbe- coming the oceasicn and the time Cr amination resumed. Plaintiff's Couxser again but bis crjection was overruied, Examination in-chief resumed—A question was put to the wituens. as to che valve of the debts tn the arsign- ment, to which Mr Sandford objected, The Count, after bearing counsel on both aides, decided that the arsignment was not valid. Even ifa man was bankrupt, he ought to have something to tay in the matter, The law gave it to him. It was glad te find thet the law regarded hie view of the ques- tion—that one partner bad no right to make an arsignment, without the conrenmtyof the other, was in accordance with it; and {it was further in accordance with strong every day common tenee, aad the dictates of jurtice and equity; and he hoped it ever would ye #0. Pericintif’s Courses aald he clatned the benefit of the inquiry, on the ground, viz ; that the plaintiff was the attorney for the firm The Count overruled the point. Plaintiff's Coursy1. expressed bis dissent. ‘The Count eald it was responsible for the discharge t the counse) do his, Ww MeCatioy was the next witness, He eald he w eporter for the Courrerand Enquirer, and wasn ‘june. 1848 ; recollects when the plaintiff was before the police justice ; had seen the account in the Herald ; could not distinctly ray that he had read it (The paper containing the report. war here pro- dueed and banded tothe witness | Could not say that he had read It before; knows ; had no personal acquaintaince with him: Mr. Galbraith was At the police office at the examination ; knows Mr. Baker ; reporter ; he was about the Halls of Jua- tice at the time of the examination ; he (Baker) was in the mall room at the ride of the court, and witness sitting at the olerk’s desk, od, was not in the room where the exawination going on, it was outside the room; had eeen him in the emall room first; hid seen Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Baker together; Mr. Baker was sitting at the clerk’s desk, and had his book, upon which he was taking notes; Mr. Galbraith came up and took hold ef the affidavit, and said some- thing to Mr. Baker, but as witness did not wish te hear it. be stepped on one #ite; they were together as long astbree minutes; Mr Galbraith hed hold of the am- davit, while Mr Baker was a toe Here the witness described the portion of the affidavit on the clerk's desk, and the way in which Mr. Galbraith | throughont his end ifthe evid held it } This witners was not cros mined, The Count having overruled another of the plata- tiff’s counre)’s objections, b-jvut. om his coat, folded u; his papers. and then, vader great ecubarrassment an with deep emotion said that the Court had “ crowded” | | upon bi; he might be wrong bat that was hie impres- on, and, therefcre. he would rather step out of the sult aitegetber, or let them withdraw a juror and have the suit tried before another judge The Counsen for Defepes rald it was not bad policy on the part of the opposite counsel to conslude the proceedings of the day with something pathetio. | ‘The asreciate counsel for the plaintiff then rose, but otherwise it would bave great pleasure in hearing him, | He bed conducted his part of the suit with propriety, | courtesy, and good order, It did not see what ail the | flourich was about. he bad been oppreesively ured ‘This cause wae tried like any other. There was nothing in evi that the plaintiff had made any unfair disposition ef the money which he had received under the assignment; the question was, whether or not he had obtained t money hom Mr, Benpett under false pretenoes? If a | persan bad obtained meney by dishonest means, aad ad applied it to obariiabie purposes, that would be no excuse, and would have but little bearing upon the case, Hin Honor, Judge Vanpenrorn, then rose to oharge the jury. He raid it was to be é@xpeoted that the counsel on both sides would have takea @ wide range in the dircharge of their protessionul duties. A t many topics which were foreign to the issue ad been dragged in; but he was sure they would | have no difficulty in dirabusing their miade of, and freeing them from. eli iwpreper influences which | were extraneous to the facts of the case. The of Mr Benurti, as apokea ot by hia learned on the one hand~ end bis demerits, as spoken of by the learned counse! for the platuciff ou the other; | the poverty of Mr Ciarke—his present character | and standing—ali these were not warranted, and had nothing to do with tre case before them, They wer trying the defendant on a rpecitic chargs, and if the epped ene inoh beyond that, they would be usurpin a duty not given to them by law; and more, they would | be faithless to the ebligations of the solemn oath the; | bad taken, to decide according to the facts disclosed to them by tbe tertimeny. After the wide wanderings of | doth the counsel it would be his duty togive them the law. Jurors and judges bad each thvir particular daties, His duty was paramount, and theizs was equally so. | The duty of the Court wan te dispore of the law,and | the jury were to respond @® the facts, If the court | wus wrong. the party could appeal to another court, | and have the error corrected; but if the jury rebel: | Hourly set themselves up agsinst the court, the party | Wasremedilers, The Jaw hud wirely ordained thateach | Was ropreme within its own legitimate circle or orbit. | ‘The intelligence of the jury, und the patience with | which they had listened to the case, was an ample | guaranty that they would discharge their duty ho- Jy, boldly, impartially. wud independently, His or then defined what « libel was. If the defendant | bad shown that the report was afair sccount of the | proceedings which had ta! ice before the polive | Bagistrate, then he had proved a justification. If they concluded that it wes ‘airand impartial account, they were not calied uson togo farther; but if they should decide that the defendant had not succeeded in his attempt to justify. that would go in aggravation of damages. The boloners of the defence would rise up in judgment spainet him. It was for them to say if it Was an impartial and accurate report. If @ reporter, for instance, rhovld give the vicuperative parts of the speech of one counrel, and not do the ¢ as regard. ed that of the opporite counsel, and if he omitted to give the evidence ov both sides, that would be @ libel of the grorsest character But if reporter saw fit ta condenre, by giving the substance and essence as fairly end smpar’iully as if the whole of the evidence bad been given. he wouid not be held linbie, and the omiesion would net be fatal to ube party undertaking topublith The learned ceuorel for the plaintiff had contended that the proceedings at the police office were ex-parte. and that therefors the report was pot & privileged communication. According to their sta- tute, the proceedings bad not been ex-parte, All pro- ceedings in their courts cf justice were open to the public; and it was well that it should be so, For verbal slander there were privileged communications, as well as for libel For example, if a person went to another to inquire into tho character of & man whem be was about to employ, and if tbat perton told bim that he was a@ thief, that, under the circumstances, wus a privileged communi- cation, and did not expose the party to an action But thete privileges should be weed fn a fair and im partial spi:it,and not for venting private spleen or malice. They must not be used as barbed and poi- scned ipstruments, to wreak private vengeance and give unnecestary pain These were high privileges in countries that boasted of liberty. Im despotien they were woree than useless They were the offspring ef that popular will which threw open the doors of their courte of justice and their legisiative assemblies. But they must not be perverted to unholy parposes. Let them beware how they ciroumseribed the right of privileged communications om the one hand, or how unwieely they conceded it om the otuer. Had that privilege been abused? That wae for their consigeration Mr Bennett was legally rerpon: sible fur everything that appeared in kis paper. If he debberately read over @ defamatory article, and then ineerted it; If, in word, he was the father cf the article; if bis the hand that chad penned it; and if his was the veice that had approved of it. then they would give heavier damages; but if he had been made liable by the iudiscretion of his subor- dinates, their own common sense would tell them that that would go in mitigation of damages. Tae evidence of all the doings with the plaintiffs and the Frenchman showed that Mr, Benuett bad had little to do witb them. And that was not surpris- jog. The demands upon the time of an editor of & jcurnal cf so large & circulation as the Herald was tsid to Lave, must be very great. It was an exclu. tiveand an ellengrossing eccupation. He (His Ho- nor) bad leoked over the affidavits und the report, bat it would be treading oa their ground, poaching on their menor, togive bis opinion He bad a decided impres- rion, but he would keep that impression to himself — One thing was favorable to Mr. Bennett, viz: his wil- lingnete frcm the start to pay the debt. He had been between two fires—Harris on the one side, and Ren- nouil on the other, He had evinced an entire wiliing- ners to pay, ifhe knew towbom He had never evinced the least repugnaner to dircharge the claim upon him, and the jury wou!d say whe ther it was #ot natural that updir such circumstances he might have said to H rir, Clarke had sued bim, he might sue and be ——; which, perbaps, might be tsken to mean, that although he war willing to puy, be hed been eued. They would ray if that was the deep walice which had instigated Mr. Bennett to publish the articles. But if Mr, Ben- nett had wot been ro amiable towards Mr, Clarke, that would not camse bint to love his privil But if the repert had been made and published for malignant purporer, and for malicious motives, then the defen- cunt lost bis privilege. If, on the other hand, he had given the report like that of other cases —fairaudimpar- —then he dié not lore bis privilege. If they decided toshow | hesitating, trut! wo! jon, on th had | t! rf t should hay | lll had execut | was not material, ner was the dispasition which he had ‘Wade of it ~s¢e t, | Of the proceedings at the police office a fair on The Counr raid that there was no question before tt; | fury would esmeor by thee vondice It would require a gr: part of Harris to believe that his "of if the jury regarded thore marks, then they have no difficulty | eoming to a safe cou- t deal of credulity ner yi the country, and gone a distance of three housand miles, if be (Harrie) had not known it to b> 0, It wasam event, and one whioh it was reas 0 BUppoTe +e t 4919 he, as the late partner of Rennaui!, ‘The manner in which the plain- the trust. whether it was good or bad, pertinent to the question. Wes the report The An attempt had been made by the defendent to assail the general cha- racter of Mr. The counse) seemed to think that | that be bad not succeeded; and, therefore, if the plain- jarke. He (his Honor) was bound tonay tiff had pr. ved to their satisfaction the libel, them they | would have a mght to look at his general character, With view of giving him a larger amouat of damages, The witnesses cal ed for the def. jant had been labor- ing under rank prejudices, and therefore it was not safe | to rely upon their testimony Mr. Smith, they all knew, was a highly res pectabis police officer. but he had had a difference with Mr. Clarke about bailing thieves, It was Mr. Clarke's privilege asa Mr. Sanproxo hei lawyer to do no, Tose, and begged permission tore~ mind the Court that thut was eight years ago, before Mr. Clarke was a lawyer His Honor resumed —The witnesses whom Mr. Clarke had called were all rexpectabie men Mr. Hollister, an r of the court, had spoken of bim tn the highost terms, as having bren @ boarder of his ‘The prepon- derance of the evidence an to character was decidedly n favor of Mr. Clarke. | that they | against bim by the plaiutitt, and not for the liberties | which were alleged to have been taken by him with With these remarks, they would retire to their room te delibs others, The jury would bear in mind were trying Mr Bennett for the aot charged 1 upon their verdict It having been intimated to his Honor by tho ofMser of the court, that the jury vere not likely roon to agree, and an his Honor w ing of the Judger at bi it being then 6 o’clook, | sealed verdict at 10 o'clock on the following morning. obliged to atteod a meet. past 6 o’alock that evening wy were ordered to bring in a On Saturdwy moruing, the jury camo into eourt, aud after bis Honor had taken bis seat upon the benoh, the | forewan of the jury handed up the verdict, whivh’ was | for the defendant. . The reporter would be doing his own feelings, if he failed tu ble terms, the urbanity the Clerk of the Court, iu | modation ia his power, to report this cas this opportunity of acknowleding the sam powledge, in kindness of Mr, Taompson, ffording bim all the aesom turning him hie best thanks, The bark Clyde, at Pier N | sents a cesirable opportumity for those contem- Emigration to California. MOVEMENTS IN NEW YORK. 5 North River, pre- pleting a voyage to San Francisco, via Cape Horn. Phere is an appeurance of comfort as well as ele- gance apout her cabin arrangements, which to us seem all that ea ead wish. The captain 18 one who und no small i lerstands his business, (a matter of mportance,) and the owners men who are accustomed to carry out their plans with energy. Her treight, we are told, is mi en- aged, and her passengers wilt be sufficiently imated in number to avoid crowding. The bark St. Mary, Captain Reeae, hence for San Francieco, sais to-day. She takes out thirty paseengers; many of them have heretotore been engaged in mercantile houses of the first class. They go out under the name of the West Coast Trading and Mining Company. deposites and cargo. an agsayer and mineralogist, physician, &e. every article for their own advantage aod May succees attend them in every honorable un- dertaking they may see fit to enzage in, and may they, [individually and as a body, realize their hearts best wiehes. i T. R, Warren, Prosideot; F . W. Ludlow, Treasurer; E MoKeige, Capt ; Gideon Odell, J. E Walker, J.D. Driggs, W. D H. Ryall, W. H. Hoogla 8. Throckmorton. J. V. Walton, J. B. Wert, R. A. Powers,S. Conner, J. R. Ingersoll, D. R, Johnson, E. Le O, Eldridge, W. M Painter—Total, 80. The bark Nautilus, Capt. Wilson, sailed yester- dey for San Francisco, with the tollowing passen- gers Vrapken. Wellingto: ton, C.R 8. Lyors, that it wae a fair xecount, they would dismiss it, whe- ther the tacts were true or not The antiquated no- tion that the greater the truth the greater the libel, was exploded. It bad its origin in a most polluted source— the memorable old English Star Chamber; it had been exploded there. and it could not long live in s ceuntry where wholeecme liberty prevailed The liberty ef the prers in this country waw regarded a¢ an inestimable pri- Vilege: ite licentiourmerr, a curse. It was right thats pleiptifi shouid come into court with clean hands, The great question was, whether Mr.Clatke bad been guilty of obtaining money under falre pretences Did he tell Mr. Gulbraich, a8 @ means of getting the money, that Rennouil had gone to France? And, secondly, did be ray that he bad authority from Rennouil to re- ceive the money? ‘These were the most material mat- tera relied on by the defendant, Mr. Galbraith had proterted bis unwillingness to pay, unless other evi- dence than the assignment bad been exhibited. Had | y authority in addition to the assignment? the point It was faith on the pert of Mr. Clorke, if, after Mr. raith’s entire and inexorable unwillingness to pay the money, he authority from Rennouil to re- elieged he ha the money, while in bis own breast ived that authority from the assignment. It ap- j¢sred that Rennouil had not only not given him au- thority to receive the money, but had objected to his | having epy eoncern in the matter. It was a question of credibility between Rennouil and Harris. They were the antipodes of each other. Harris sworn ‘bat Repnou)! had given the plaintiff authority to re- ceive the pey Rennouil denied that he had given any fuch authority. Wh in such & position, they aie to cast about —probabi ith from the antag of the parties. by hise: that he willing to pay hii ( Honer, with much earnestne: er,) had la- bored herd with bim for three years, that respect which wae due to him, by conferring with him upon the subject of the assignment heforeband? it was an act cf deceney from one partner to another. Why rhould he have entered into au arrangement with Clarke before be had consulted his own partner ? ‘There wae a probability, but, perhaps, not such as they might deem fit to apprectat Then let them look to the hostile position of Hariis and Rennouil, after the aerigoment. It war in evidence thet Rennouil had a Obetrust of Harris, who thoughtthat he would finda a:fficuity If be had made en overture to his part: reepectivg that aetignment. Harris had said so him- felt. They must cart about for some m that equipol Rennovt right to finesse; that was a significant. @ pregrantremark, The great privilege of trial by jury was the circumstance of the witne being underthe eye of the jury, who could cee t! or, their prompt ners, or thetr hesitancy to an- It wos fcr the jury to ray who bed figured the In truth, there was arecret feiver—it covid be frit. Se it was with prevarication, When a tried to give a coloring to bie testimony, ond to narrate (hat which had no ex- (wer nore faverably- Harris or Rennowil Mckim, Jobn Swi P. Fargo, V. Keep, Kathbon. Davey Powell, E. WAY, ompt Pbip H. fornia :— Colonel drick, Cap Jordan, Alabama. The com of fessional sick. ployment for that not o istence ip fact It wax eimort impossible that his decity could ercape an inteiligent jary. A lie crawled over them; they feit it, they emelt ii, they knew it was falre, nO matter with what plausibiity it might have been attempted to prop itup, Phat was the expert ree of aliasiute men He looked in a witnees’s face, at the probability of hisrtatement, He feit its infla- epee upon Bim, and be war conviaced that he had fore eecrn himre Ir one of the witorrses, Harrie and Renuouil, bad exhibited necve~if be had speken in Third st reizing @ of $7,000, made off with it. The Albany Mining Arao Clark, President; T. J, Wa Cammon, Treasurer ; BE. F. Cady, A. P. Wilbur, E A Cornwall.S. W Hardy, F gan, W. Hostord, J Sanford, ©. C. Walter, J Cole, R Staley. 1 Wallace. H. Ruper-berger, B_ W. Sammons, KE. N. Bennet, R, Packard J Van Boskirk, J BStevenr, M. A Marceilue, H. P Holmes, N. J. Van Thomas S Aurtin C Jamer A. Benson. W. B. MeClatchery. John Peppar Jobn Brickett, J. F. Clw S J. Webb, A. B M. Barris, William Campbell, William Taylor, Tho- mes B. Simmons. S. § Simmons, Andrew Molivaia, Jchn E, Chalfin, Conrad Gunter, Willism Taylor, J F., Piaeter. Carter H_ Gibson, J. E Chinn, James L, Gregg PR. C bey, William Fenton, Jobn B Baldwin, Jackson Fual- kinion, Henry Wooceon. Total, 62. Beard, T. D. K Ys G ‘Turner, William Gillespie, H. Clark. J. M. Seabror, Pettcm avd Barclay, J. A. Menicher, J. H. Tann:r. tweety recond class passeogets.—Total §5.—N. 0. Pi- coyune Fr The following gentlemen arrived in this eity on Sunday evening, per the steamboat Iowa, from Quincy, Illinois. Jobn Woo © M Sheldon, Denis Guttery. Charles Browa, John Mikerell. C G Ammon, John MeClintock, David Woo, Lentiel Davis, of lowe i ‘They are all stopping, previous to their departure, at the Commercial Hotel, corner of Girod aud New Levee streets —N. O. Delta, Feb. 13. ui Each member $500, and 1s a share holder in the vessel Among the company as member rotit. Annexed are their names: P. Rogers, Secretary ; urhans, E. WO Stoughtenburgh, W. Hartshorn, I. Lambert, J. awron. J. Rathbone, A C. Rathbone, P. G. W. Arnold, T. O. Williams, J. Higgins, Robert Watson, Dr. jon, consisting of A. Seorvtary; J. Mo- Stephen Clark. W T Skinner, T. Fex, C. Styles. J.D, Mitohell, A C Streeter, J 8. Holton, 8. C. Birdsall, A H_ Disabell, 3 C. Peck E. 8. Cheney, C. H. Walcott, W H. Courtright. J Finve- H. P. G. Vibbare, E. Pacey, W. H. Carlow, J. G. np, P V. Lewis, A. Abbot, A. W. MoNeagh- Bromley. 8.S Sweet, J Castieton,€. Van Loan, W ©. Winne E Gregory, S. D. N Bennet, L. Gray, M_ Van Booskirk, H. H. Barton, D.E Jones, J. JL. Pangburn, ©, Reagles, J. Cooney, 8. T. Korrkrans, J. 8. Gorbam. Wm. 8. Butler, J. Noonen, E. Westinghouse, E. 8. Barney—Total, 64. MARYLAND, The bark Kirkland was to have sailed from Baltimore yesterday, fcr California, with a large freight, and the folluwing passengers :— Dr. George W Lawrence, George Golder, Wilifam Golder, P. RL Thompron, T B. Flaonigan E. P. Linek, tepb P. Reynolds, Thomas Reynolds. G. Hei James Henderson, Wiliam Knox, Joseph Knox, W. Keyser, B. Howard Keyser, Wm. Quinlan, Murphy, George R Barclay, RM. Dunkin, C. J, Hall, David P) Mi Thomzs 1. Creagh, William Bissell, James B. T. Schaffer. JH. Foster, George Reppart. T Webster, W. S. Byus, Dr Sn, les Kettlewell, H. B, Hosmer, William Adams, H, J. Irons, MoCréery, Joshua Peduok. George rain. David W. Paxon, Tho: R. Ro- LOUISIANA. The following is a list of the passengers by the bound for California:— Mr Hennings and lady, Messrs, Solomon, Tinoberg, T Purnnell. H P.Watkios, JR. Painter, F Baker, thout. Dr. David Goodale, J, Gar "7, C. J.P. Painter, Murphy. J. B_ Wadsworth, H. J. Vandyke, B. Tillman. George S.H_ Roberts, E nt, 8. Larue, W. T. L o Hommedieu, Fought, S Jones, J. Alston F. Sohiffier, A. Fiseher, J. Ryan, G, Gillian, A. Mitchell, WH, Bowden, Francis, C, Wocd and son. A Elkin, Sperier, P. P. B, Osborne, A Guyal. Harris. Stewart, Rus. rell, W. Gish John C. Robb, William Wiggios, G O. Henry Steele, J A. Donn. E U. Ganty. W. r, David Austio, H Herring, maneeand +b. 13 They are bound for Cali- John Wood, Dr. 8. W. Rogers, ‘I T. Ken- tain J.© Dorman, William Matlook, D. M. GW. Burns ‘George, J. Rogers, Esq., d. Jt. Davie! Wood, A, Nash, J. H. Miller, ALABAMA, The echocner Princeton suiled on the 10th inst , from Mobile for the Brazos, with a company of 55 gold seekers, made 0) principally in the interior of , with afew adventurers from the city, The ‘eaders of it are Capt. Baldwin and Lieut. Adiian, both of whom served 1a the Mexican war. pany have a series of laws tor its coatro! 1 and its members are bound together tora period two years. essential for an Overland journey, including pro- It has taken almost everything men and comfortable provisions for the HAVANA. A letter from Havana states that the California fever was reging there with much intensity, and was carrying © i its best mechanics, who have found profitable em- its thousands, and among others, on the railroads and sugar estates there ears —Newburyport Herald. ‘The following statement, contrary to the above, 18 from the Borton Journnl of yesterday : cantile house at Havana, writes that it had had a vessel up for California for a whole month, and ‘A mer- ne passenger had presented himeelt Darina Ronpery at tue Mint.--Yesterday, while a drayman was delivering seme epecte at the Unitea States Mint, in Chesnut street, for a reet broker, a man came along, and bag ot Engheh gold, containing upwards He was seen to com- mit the bold robbery, was pursued and arrested, and taken to the Mayor’s office, and seat to prison. The robber is an John Phi himself Englishman, callin, i fore he llips, He dropped the money was overhauled, and it was recovered.—Phtla. the confident spirit of trath—if he had manmifusted | Bulletin, Feb. 21. i ai aa a a