The New York Herald Newspaper, January 22, 1851, Page 4

ustice Baroulo. tian J. Bartow, and others vs. a ‘ |, in continwation—They, the Legislature, - map, ‘ae lade indi: The ay. tabs eveg sos property of may viduals; these are Sowers veated im the Legislature, In support of this proposition I reter our honor to # punber of authorities on that. point Were counsel handed u, long list of au and that, upon an attentive perusal of au thorities, there could be no doubt of the power of the Legislature to interfere with, control. and repeal all powers granted to municipal o ‘tions of & public nature, provided, omly, that they do uot interfere with the constitution of this State, or with that of the United States. The first charter granted to the Ni York, was the grant ofa single ferry, which was tg ltd bdetore the court, called the Old Ferry. It was charter of Governor Dongan. bseqaent- ‘ly, im 1708, another charter was granted, which con- firmed the old grant. apd also gave « grant of land and other franchises to the corporation; then came the Montgomery charter. which confirmed both the previous charters and then goes on to grant, in & eral terms, the right to establish new terri: ‘his charter constitutes the title under which the corpora- tion claims; but I apprehend that right does not give & general power to racablish ferries and ive toils. I do not understand that they pretend to make t case out by che affaavit re a the other side don’t pretend that the existing ferry is the sai that which was called the Old Ferry- It is true that the affidavit states chat im 1844, they, the corpora- tion, granted @ lease to Pierpoint and Melatyre of the ferry, commonly or knowa, by the mame ef the Fulton Ferry, and two others from the foot of Whitehall street in the city of Ne York, to Brooklyn Now, in respect to this a! davit, it is not evidence ot t! Ddecause the making it ment from information and belief, and the rul well settled that your honor cannot take any notice of astatement mude upon information and belief. and erpestally ‘Decause we have bad no opportunity of a. swering it. 11, therefore, it is meant to contend that it is proof that oue of thore ferries was the old ferry, we contend it does not prove the fact; but suppose the statement was only meant asa description, or else he would have alleged tat this ferry has been continued there since the old graut aud for fifty years before, and is the same ferry leased to LeRoy and Pierpoint Now, the affidavit vei: ber bas or could say so, because it terminss Was altered bfty years before therefore there is no proof now of the tity of this ferry not of whetber they own tht land on the east sid Bant River, because, «ven it th doth shores, it would nor ight to grant ferris, 6, barn Peters » Kendall, and also # case in Lith Wendell The prin- ciples laid down in the former case were contirmed by the Supreme Court of this State. Now, I suppose these two'cases will be regarded as the law to govern in this case. The principtes taid down in both those cases deny, to owners of land on botti sides of a river, the right toestablisn ® ferry. Ic follows, then, that the ownership »fiand on both sides of the Kast River, the ownership of slips and wharves, does not take with them auecereary right to establish ferries. [n other words, the corporation of New York ¢ii not. by that means, get # right; if they have amy they must get it some other way—it does not appertain to any property they may have, it is only an incorporeal right to license ferr nd take tolls, that isthe ocly right they have this right. Inthe Srst place, 1 contend that it is not & grant of private property; but, perhaps, t may be met with the statemrnt that all the old charters 0. the city ot New York use formal words of “ grant and con- veyance,” but upon bat it may be remarked. in the first piece that those words were used in ail old charters. vey legitlative powers to the mayor, » Of the eity of New York, and to the art of Common Pleas ds ey ae tacts stated therein, ot the al old Co granted, whether it be private property or not. In Fegard te this there ism rule,and itis this. At com- mon law a technical grant ouly conveys what the grantee has to give; and if what he takes is public, it is of such a pature Chwt it might afterwards be assum- ed, for the grantee canmot tuke it under apy words however stripgent th-y might be, as the Legislature canvot be restrained trom interfering afterwards, and resuming their rignts as a legiiative body. No: us see how the terry tranchise will stand in respect to | those rul+s, in cases of contract. Im the first place, t Here, they do not pretend that the city of New York gave auy consideration for those terry gravts, The charters expressiy say that the persons making them made itof their own free will and mere motion, and it does uct aver that thers was any consideration given by the city of New York for them In the next place, there was uc mutuality If & right to tet up ferries and -pjoy them for ever bould bea corraative right on the part of the corporation; and there is no sach duty shown on the part of the city of New York nor, indeed, is ther odligatio 0 comprl the corporation to establish any the cities ot New York and Brooklyn. eis not any. #0 how can ft be considered & mutual contract which imposes no duty on on» of the parties, but leaves it voluntary with chem either toestablish or not to ertablish ferries, at their mere will and pleasure Mr. Dikemau em behalf of the defendants Le Roy and Pierpoint, replied to Mr Marvia. He rsid he was not called upon to go intothe questicn ot the right the Mayor, Aldermen Ac . of the Uity of Now York He appeared for the defendants Le Roy and Pierpoint as, be suid Joss to know why they were before thie court et all; but chey were here ey would answer for themselves—aud their ob. Jection to be brought bere is. that t set forth in the compiuint to ask an injunction thore gentiemen | maintain, im the firet 4 and call your hover's attention to the articles o Sssociation of the Union Perry Company, which are annexed to the complaint in this cause, and marked ae echedule B. end | co it for this purpore—to fix upon your honor’s recollection, that ot the time of thei ¢ Roy and Pierpoint bad possession of th and but two ferries—the one commonly other called the White @ articles of association erry, that is the third fe sbed asthe managers, as the # ot arsociation they are tc the proper management of the ferries, to see thi public interest i@ ettended to. aad eouducted tor the padlie good. But a managers of those ferries they bo pecuniary iuterest et all They own no stock so it is with» wamoer of other gentlemen, sad We were called im to advice but no | men, todo any the company Ball Ferry. Whe: adopted, the Hamil b hing ex nterred the-e geo Abol ang it is im reepeet t d extracts from the articles of assoc show the power « red by (hem on the Danagers I aay, therefore said he, the board of managers as t roperty, bare nothing todo. It is « din the jeneees Now. te they de net pr had nothing 4 Fulton and South ter ton terry # ars the Jeare afterwards. 10 and mapagewent were confined to th Now, let us look st the compisint and se bow It affeo thore parties. It sthat on the Lith of(otober #48 the plaintiff app pers under thy sect of 1545, tor the purpose of obteining & licenre for whieh the Falton and Bouth terries four ferries of were two | they for Hamilton aveaue ferry, aad for an entireiy n sty trom Wall to pure grante! (hem a their » would to be in porseenion the law provices that they must @ fore getting possession , that is wharves and slips, And it is ba ertaia things be bey must procs: ly necessary t that they must alto provide b But ther say they have, aa the law direote. served notice on the Mayor of New York to les-e them slips. &e.: bet it jappears t with them The next granted, and at the control of the Union Ferry Company, under th of narociation made iu ii4. be 1 joint and the at alter they ob position or communication to the ferry company. ich communication war addreaed tc the Board of Managers of the terry company alone and not to Le Roy end Pierpont. They made the proposition to the Board of Mavager?, which waa to.thie effect —That they would appiy to the Commissioner: umder the act of 1845, and that they would receive « licen ° and upon cert b they propos azible aint there j* n from th conditions the: otbing the ince of thie com Le Roy and Pierpoint They, the compiainante, do not pretend th jected to their management at the time hint that they wire mot the sort of artic like; bat they do not cond-scendt articles would please them, but should be managed by tome np Now, that if mere ‘ I believe, and ourt. that such ® communication binding ef any of the parties. I it does amount to, why jast to this t new lense we w 4 er rf eteck or not. These are sil the meke, and asl eatd befor what 4 seaming that the Boerd of Managers tof Le Rey and Pierpoint. Bat « ¢ action of the Roard of Managers say the Beard acceptel the pr * mere «i go ee tommy that the pew but wbee any thing lo be dour sockbolders of the com it thet could empower | pre udier the nothing therefore ip and Pieryoin! Now. let us see what is the nature of | the public. there must ds | ay | al right exists in | ‘They also iikey bat f - Would ask, ia there that ‘ould imp and to ask what ib ten ote ac- uired agains! Pierpoint. It i] the ‘ier- int, complaint must show'on the eho wheats ‘he Bas such rights himeelf as entitle him tothe relief which he seeks; and upon the state of facts here sho: hat bill be drawn and placed o: thia court to compel these gent to do, or refrain any one thing in those articles and propo- sitions, or a Ses cere ge tate ts oo: ane 6 & management? At think not. Mr. Rent on the same side—He said that in regard to matter before the court, as far as re- bad been so fully set forth by bis for him to theretore, say pects the ts of the defendants, Le Roy and Pier- Teun bls views bea ot S68 associate that very little was lett on the eubdject. I will, Trilttle repetition as: possible, trusting, boweve ae le re} mas je, your honor will give us ap op; lemen on the other si ears on the face of the com Pierpoine, he plaintiffs sey ey have @ right Telief asked for, or to some part of it; but for my o part, notwithstanding that the master hands of the two senior counsel appear in every line of it, and al- though they have presented their rights with the great- elp thinking that est advantage yet still I cannot a wit , however, that ortunity of criticising On apy new facts that may be introduced by the u ide. Now, on the case thei it, against Le Roy an to th from its remarkable opacity, there must be some diff culty in the way, as they have not mere explicitly 2 case ted, 80 far as we te be this: ere members of the in the are stockholders of the com- em bers share of the ferries already established, to- gether with a new one which was to be established, and which was thought to be necessary for the public roposition that a mers, Under the.act of 1845, he court. placed their clients’ rights befor which our opponents have here pi can conjecture among ourselves, app It appears three of the plaintiff Union Ferry Company, and they are named Board ot Managers, ap pany. In the year 1848, those three of 21 ask 10) convenience, Thoy_ suggested « license to the Commissi should be applied for, and tha formed upen the tame principl d expended a thousand dol they then allege that the detends Pierpoint, declined to lend their assistan out the project; and detendante bave Council for @ lew apprehensive it would be gra that the Mayor and Common Council may be from granti of the ferrie: say whether they will or not them’ Have they made any contract Waat they done’ What have they agreed to do’ Does the complaint state that they made any acreement ’ No But they bint a: something about a a lease. Now, I would ask agai | estop themselves from so doing’? | enter into any contract after 1851’ therefore there was no ft them. This want of authority, or po’ known to them; what, then, have the; | of I ask, which one of the stockholders be sued upon that contract? Not one; is not pretended, tnership out. | to carry euch a p: under this complaint. averment against tl plaintiffs themeely toils, rents. and profits of these ferries | of any otber party claiming under beginning I am at a loss, therefore what this bill is grounded. intiffs was ed $30,000 tor a grant ot it refured. | of the sgreement alleged to be entered into in 1848" Why, the very fact of bis having made the applics- tio | them run thelr ferries them | clent one cept ® license under what we allrge to unconstitutional act im possersion For | au application before no dm pretext; but I consider the matter well before it | foment. with the ri of the deendants Mr. Davies, on the part of the corporation of the clty He commenced by ssying he would sabmit a few observations in regard to the title ot his clients, the corporation of the city of | New York, to the ferry which is Known as the old terry | He said he had, the firet day, the honor ot laying betore the court, the several charters and other instruments nd corporation title to this | h they might at any time t ew York, followed Mr. Cutting which gave the Mayor I now desire to call the attention of | commentaries of the late Chancellor ent, the individual clauses of the charters, with the notes of th llor thereon. He refe granted in ihe reig contirmed the grant of the old ferry, which w | istence and used for fifty yeare before that charter was | granted; and begged to im on the mind of the | court that as early ae 1792 the Colonial Legislature parsed « law prohibiting all per ot the common council of this city, to establish ferries | snd that charcer bas been fully confirmed by all the | laws passed tince by cur own Legirlatuees. and by the | three constitutions Now. we suppese it was with re: ference to this grant that the clause ares that it should not aj jon have established. any fer +d to anil to take them corporation bave abured their powers e, to state that one of the pinin «Mr repels the idea of this alleged agreement | they bave license, as I have no doubt they have, let We do not want to prevent But no, they come here to ask for am injuno- | thom to cust us from our possession, which is an au d to give it to them who have no title ex- be wn and. moreover, they were never wy part, I never beard of such to a Court of equity, on presume the Court interferes partnersbip shouid be thore ou which the pinto the question | Unien Ferry Company were based, and that they con sented to the proposal: that they obtained # license rs in obtaining it; nts, LeRoy and that they are ed; and then they ask ined and that the defendants, Le Roy aad Pierpoint. may be enjoined trom accepting it There is no complaint as to the Montague street terry, they may go on and run that if they please, but they do mot ‘Now. if the court ple: 4 Pierpoint, what equity of this complaint agai ght of the de- tendants. and that they applied to the Corporation for what have they done, 80 far as appears ou the face of this complaint, to But, supposing | there had been # contract executed between them where was the power of the twenty-one managers to They knew this; id or deception put upon T, was well to complain ould and it om the face of the compiaiat, | that anything bas been done to obtain the ceusent of the stockholders. nor is it pretended that LeRoy and Pierpoint themselves, nor the stockholders, ever had any authority to enter into # new partnership with them for these ferries, in 1851; nor does it set forth any thing that cam be enforced. or which would compel them No relief cam be had t is not filed en behalt of and by the people of this State im their sovereign capacity. at the time of framing the three coustitutions of this State court te the fi of American law, because the corporation, in reference to their property, stand before this court as a private The learned counsel then read the various e late din particular to the t (Queen Anne, which nex: the act of 1345 the commencement of the interfere with their ut of their egaticn im their complaint that is pro Bare tow, made application very lately, to the corporation. for a lense ut thore terrier « it, but they (the eorporsti him, and to giv thought proper t he defendant that thoee che: ich they can be divested by ¢ will and he that these charters not being directly grante! by the rovers that they are not oe and valid grente: but your Honor will find m look bg over the case of the charter tmouth liege—chich was shown never to have beem ap proved of by and upon whieh I believe wi he court held it t valid grant aefirmstion by the by the Bt aling act of 1828, which it i# raid repeals all tbe colonial acts aod aly 1764, and he referred te sect t of Unat repealing clauee: but if th hi - tion five be would ree that th whole of bis argument on that bracch of the subject I now devite to cail the attention of the coart te the opinion of the Judges red in ase of Dart mouth College; and thors opinions app equaily supported by sound reseon a decisions of the ecu Judge Wa ivering bis opinto ich there lays it down (hat « grant fre tract within the meaning of the tution Theg here waa no cope they were invalid tho 4 oifered them $30.40 tor refuse oiended that as grants entleman looked a little further, he would find that there was a consideration both exprested and implied. tor there f f rente in our charters but in College tt prees or implie and all the oth the f Dartmouth College a0 we think ut Hone rererrat sined by either of th. ty of New York, or by the ; e ip 1921 and 1 ake to my friends & reservation { Dartmouth elves for the rriee on the preme bh nnot dispute ehar nett Ihave who r their license the Legisia. t which th A cuffictent . at the Uorporation ot New York have used th and mansged the old ferry which was estab the right to manege never yurstioned to set up an opposition h hat hae > ore 1708, and nt wae vierced in by all our neighbors. and by the Legiria ure and by all ws; and | will further remark, hat 4 read thie law attentively he n min favorof t cor t their rights are t rights, Until the present attempt who bave not eve eaislative council ef thie city their franchises ra per by p 4 amply recognized oI a colorable title, to wrest from the feos julsites. which have been givem to them for the od government of the city, I undertake to say our BP sion 80 ware res title F ponents will net find a ease wheres party having bee ° for two hundred years, will be turned brs eating ot those tion of the city of New York It, . interest of the corporation is divested by the law of 1846, then, of course, a lease made bo ee cot ration conveys no title, and they take ji ‘an it be tolerated that those gentlem prevent us establishing ferries ’ and yet, by th plaint, they don’t offer to establish them themselves, nor do they even allege that they have the means of doing it. Your houor should therefore take into your consideration, that wharves, slips, piers,and boats, are wecessary appendages to ferries; they do not allege that they have any of those requisites—they do not alle, ane thing. In fact, they are in no condi- m; the bed p plica- iF i zt aye no means to run 1 therefore, that will result by be all on one side, y, by @ nues, and by depriving the citizens of New York Brooklyn, and all other persons connected with those two cities, from having any intercourse with each other. Its not shutting out intercourse between a renti fow individuals, but between tesm of thousands~bat by refusing this injunction, your honor cannot injure those parties until the question is decided on it merits, end it ra aenee is sustained by them, the corpora- = is ly able 0 Tespond t, on the part of the plaintiffs, re- He said, that before entering as resp-cts sons holding licenses trom the com York, I desire to ya Roy and Pierpeint. Your honor has supposed that in one point of view the corporation and defendants stand in the same position. New, I apprehend, it the corpora- tion be restrained, so also will all persons claiming through them. But apart from this, there are equities against thore gentlemen themselves. Avd no call your attention to what those equities are, apart from the general doctrine we reek to establish. The first fact in regard to them, which I lt notice, is this —[n the year 1844, the corporation of this city granted a lease to Mcintyre and Pierpoint of three ferries, and this lease was ex, y granted to be held by them, their executors, administrators and assigns, Deing thus lessees of the corporation, and holding those rights. and, having rights to assign, they entered into with this proposition, that it was pertectly competent for them to enter into a partnership with thore parties, and that their sole object was the management of thore ferries, Now, sir, amongst the rules for the If will gc vernment of this partnership, the 0th rule atates, that a majority of the board, at all their meetings, shall govern and pass by laws, provided ten are pr sent; but, seys counsel on the other side, the general intention of the parties was the management of the ag t | ferries. but the 9th clause of the articles deciares that | the partpersbip shall coatinue during the lease, aad if it be renewed, then they are to continue during such renewed lease. Now, if the partnership provided for a renewal they had clearly a right to renew it; and by | that contract they not Only bind the partnership. but | Le Roy and Pierpoint, who, we contend. were parties to authorize the passage of the resolution fora renewal of raid lease, and are consequently bound by it _ Itmay id that the stockholders might terminate it before, but however that may be, a partner cannot dissolve where a contract involving the righ parties has beep entered into. I will here to the renewing of the lease, After the passage of the law cf 1645. the plaintiffs in this suit addressed a com- munication to the managers of the association, which is set forth in the complaint. Now, I wish to remark egein, that when they wished to consent to a renewal of the lease, all they meant was. that it should be re. newed by the proper sutherities; but if, in the in- terim. the renewal was takeh fromthe old lessor, would not the new lease, containing the nti ot the old lease, come within the for it is the essential covenants ot the old lease = If { am right thus ter, the n Tecelving the license ef the State Commissioners, and offering it to the managers, which a '¥ | offer they accept, does not that come within the scope but the averment is that the ere entitled to ferries, ani the | In fact, the | Dill is filed om behalf of themeecives. and not on behalf this pretended agreement. to which LeKoy and Pierpoint are no par- jes. and which they have entirely repudiated trom the to know upon Now. as tothe three fer- upon what ground do they stand’ We haverhown competitor tor the but it was Now, if it sae granted, what would become ot thi “eles of agreement; the offer was made and accepted, although it is asserted on the other side that itwas noc. Now. sir, Lesy thet this contract imposes on Benson and others to obtain a lease from the com- missioners, aud that the agreement on behalf of the managers, that if they would get the lease, they would sct and form this partuersbip But it is seit, on the other side, that « spect Pertormance could not be entorced by a Court of Equity; bnt if it be specific enough to compel them to carry it out, LeRoy and | Pierpoint were bo by it. Now, I way that thos defendants having 4 partnership with us. they “hay gone in fraud and violation of our rights, to receive a jease, In their individual capacity, under whieh we would have no righte whatever, and in that partieular they are acting in contravention of the well established rules of a court ef Equity. But they eay we bave been guilty of negligence? Now, what i+ the charge brought against usin this particwlar A law is im 1545, amd im purruam w, Om the October, 1546, we obtain @ lieemee to run oar ferries. Notice is given by us to the Mayor onthe Tth of No- Yember, 1548, and aceording to the corporation couneel that body itamedi a complaint to restrain us fom proces Now. under these cireumstances, where is the delay, and wbat ground fe therefor charging us with ne, gence. when they themeel ves have filed a bill to reati us trom going cn to complote our arrangements The gentlemen say we do not intend to apply for slips. that we have not eid so in our complaint; bat ¥e have raid that we have got license, and we hat called on the corporation io pursuanes of it to co forward and treat with us, and we further ray that if not We would apply to @ judge, and havea k te put a value on what weark for, and they & Dili to stop ur, now laek, where is our neg A few words now as to the propriety o! grant ing the Injunction. We say we are entitled to it, be cause the granting of this lease will be injurious to ourrights Judge Kent then referred ty the passage from Judge Story, read the previous day, and contend ed that it was not applicable to thir case He, how ever contended that they were entitled to take the ferries, but with respect te the slips &c., he d the did vot pretend to be entitled totbem ex were Douod to With cente; and they also admitted they pay for them the full valuation of the land gard to general rights, our proposition ix this: We ad- mit thet no State iaw can invalidate a contract. We admit further, thet an instroment granted by royal authority isn charter We also admit that the legista ture have no right to take from the grantees their rights, but we contend that all charters whether roy. al or not. come within this claue+ of the constitu. D, that the legislature have a right to interfere with porations, and take from then municipal and other powers, but not to take from them psivate pro perty—and next, that the act of 1845 did not ailect private property, but only the political right of the corporation of the city of New ¥ Now if we are right in thore propositions, it /¢ no answer to us te say they derive their property from three charters—that they are in the peaceable posseation of it for two cen- turies. Let them show that it is private propert and we have no right to tosh it ; but ifit is = pablis right, ## we contend it ir, them we bave «right te take it from them, however strongly it And here I wish the court to take o now tay, as it will be « concession te the other side i yt no evidence before the court old ferry waa lo: onted , mn chow where it was we do uot bat all the other ferries, the political rights. thove we cau and I will now proceed to make « few re rhe We admit the general prope and we ad wll take on the general subject sition that no Btate can impair contrac mit that acharter by a Btate or by royal authority is jo gemere| & coptract and that it is rot com the Legislature to take a charter from a pri pany. nor from @ public company a privat distinction between a pri d pub tent for well expreseed Judge Story, in 6 in the great cause of the Dartmouth Coliege, which is Tecognized by all the courte of thie country. those rights ere defined and laid down; bat the case of the college conteine a distinction which |. nited by our jaws It ie this, that the interfere. Judge Washington the Legilature ba ually reoog lature way 0, that pages to interfere wich n corporations. Here Judge Kent cited a ow autherities. to show that corporat can be con trolled, their charters modified, rep: aled, Ke Mr Jobn Van Buren replied t Kent After making some preliminary remarks, h ay reement ther lama ontended for by the ty cnee for 4 nary proc go into a court of wrong. he bas no title t ite wid. by th: aordinary pr tiem. The relief asked for here is te letendante tothe plaintiffs the title of there terri under this set of 15456 This ect pointe out the mode ion. and tor that purpore divects ew request of the Mayor lines. it then proceeds to direst them wha ded to the & poration againrt the plaintiffs, to restrain them fiom taking poreesion ot the wharver and Flips, In that suit. however, no injanction waa hed for the corporation counsel having ¢ f the conetitutionality of the inv. The procerding was therefore commenced with a view to test (te coustita tionelity, butas the pied otiffs commenced pro ceeding, and the juertion ef constitu it would be ine rany art and reek an ipjane tran rom the noir necessarily come w have it raited in two courts, a# fron of circumstances. the courte might be of akon and decide th avoid ary embarrassment practicable, to your honor, With thet the act of 1845 i uncomaticutions!, and void cause it impaira the obligation violates @ contract between the peep . ration of this city, and if the cow t pleases, ar #0 many concessions hare been made b I can show that that que care Mr. Ven Buren then w various authorities cited by hie opp contended that they had no bearing om this cept euch ae was favorable to their view of it referred to the rerervations of the act of 1846 fret rection the commissioners may grant licenses Ko, but it prohibits them from granting lieenss for ferries, that rfere with any ler¥ies ». ished by the Mayor and Common Connell of this city n@ section tem deciares that nothing therein « nitrued to impair th ment on ante, on rights to apy fercy =« an agreement with various persons; and I now start~ pt by tami. | nent domain, which they took in right of their li- | ter the Chancel ict Kent's notes, te rhow that it was his epinion | ten They are trustees they with the usual practice, reserved their objections to have violated their duty ax such trusters. Another the indictments to be adduced, on motion, in arrest ropesition has been stated by the other side, which | of judgment, in the event of adverse verdicts. js, that thisis conse authorizing them tohayean in- ‘The District Attorney, lir. Hunton, then followed in Now your support of the indictment, and of the evidence which {ener n restraining us from giviog a lease onor will Bot conceive an: old ferry from this city to Long Island was in It confirms the right to that ferry, and giv ferry rights. to establish others ; it also confirms the right tothe | referred to. which, it is said, Jands already peld by the city, and 'y tolls ai Fries to thi and will it be said that this grant is not as binding and conclusive as if it were made to an individual, an: the Crown, this grant? cept so far as it is a grant of a ferry right between this city and Long Island. side does not reriously insist that other ferry rights were not granted ; an thi land is granted for every one which its follows that the ri granted, and to ree thereot. question wi tiom was presented to the Crown, to seoure it; and your honor will observe that another grant was given confirmatory of the old charter, with full power t establish other ferries, appoint landing places, and to re- ceive the tolls, rents, perquisites, and emoluments 0 the same, excepting thereout the liberty to all persons | Attorn who had plantations near the river to transport them- arecomene and back again, in their own boats, with- out ferria; iy round the islands sors. whieh includes under it t it also contaii them and their successors for ever. Now let ua sce | money, and ammunition;” and the ninch, that he did | © what this graut is. so far as the proposition to enjoin | provide “arms and ammunition.” All these counts us from granting those leases is concerned ; and what I wish to inquire of your bonor is, whether it isin the power of the Legislature to make a more exclusive right, or grant a more absolute power than this char- docks. slips, should become necessar: making it exclurively the duty of people, living on the other shore. and repass in their own boats. but port surapgers. exclusive privilege of transporting men, hor chandise, Xc., from Long Island to this city, and from this city to Lon, this city, and this privilege has been enjoyed tor 200 ears, and was confirmed to the city by the statute of 813; and now if the court pleases, we are not prepared ge to dispute that a grant like thisought to be strictly which the District Atto: construed according to thera Justice Taney; but this is not a care for struction. for can there be any doubt on your hono: mind cf whet was intended to be con poration of thi | leave it with the corporation to select any point they please as 8 lending place; but dees that raise any rea- ropable doubt of what was intended to be conveyed; oud I would here ask if the Legisiature have power to convey (hore franchises; to whom. as Chancellor kent wisely says, would it be more proper to convey them to than t er intesest tham the corporation of the city ot New York, whose mersbers are the subject of popular elections and popular feeling? They po | property for 2(0 years, which is now to be ailvoted by this law. and have they ever injured it,or have they ever put up thoge ferries to such oppress the citizens of Brookly fact before us’—it seems that they have to two citizens of Brooklyn, of honorable cheracter, tained in the familiar authorities respecting the steal- having as I am informed, property to the amount o: | a million of doilare in both cities, fixing the same rates | of Voll aa te fix ries under the same contro! time of the parsage of the act. te your honorthat this question of right to estal | lish otber ferries hi rassin| where wi deprive us of our tolls. &o. Now, if your honor pleases, the right to establish ferries in this case—but before I tay what I have to ruggest upon that point, I ought to say that it is wo where held to be a political power, aud the caser cited on the other side do not sustain | trade cere im 12 Wheaton, he showed the difference their proporition—I maintain itis mot @ political there could pot | perty ured by Ties; and { contend, raid he, that the corporat indictable it they tailed to run those ferries your honor jl-ases some other suggestions were ma in regard to ne conriderstion a the sutherities ab net comply with t granted +2 mero m agelost the grantor. of (bis care, it seems tome the most palpabie and sented the exposition of the same rule, aan elem: mort unconsctonable attempt to wrest property from those who bave been in postersion of it for two hw dred years, that ever came before a court of equit and such ap attempt at conilecetion ar your honor cannot fail to are two parties interested in the order for an injano- corpor | while thie controversy is pending, both injured during the whole term of the lease and LeRoy are raid to stand upon peculiar ousted, or to be indicted. Having Row stated what fa not the question, Twill mow inqatre what it is, whether the legis which bas been Witadel sen saute ee were an whem thid law passed was not establishe jature can take a freuchise ented to A, and give i ich we formerly leased to Le Roy wnei by any interference with that, or that we ce to grant | whole State. This corporation is created tur the 4 it to any body, @nd so far asthe motion is concerned pose of promoting the interest of the people it it is oud of tw case—The People vs the Super- | reside on the island, and 27 joomla eae terest visors of Westchester county, 4th Barber, 624.— it promotes the interest of people of the whole Buch being the power of the Legislature. it becomes State, Mr. Butler then went into a very learned dis- important to inquire into the rights of property of the | quisition, to show that while p corporation holds some corporation at the time thie act was passed; and in things as private property, they bold others as public this connection your honor will bear in mind that at | trusts; and ofthe kind wore the ferry franchises, the time Governor Douga: which might always be resumed by the power that n’s charter was granted, the xis ives the right to profits of th assigns for to receive the rents an heir successors a: if it choose, as it did, had a right to make But it is not necessary to discuss it, ox- Indeed, counsel on the other itis also remarkab! that it to the ig! e the emolum But it seems that, in proce raised in regard to this righ’ sad a _— nfir ‘nd 0 as they did not transport or carr) ranger ; and this grant gives the lands al ‘0 the corporation and their suco absolute right of fei round Manhatten and the neighboring islands, ovenant for quiet enjoyment to It grants this ferry, together with the land for tc, and the right, rom time to time, as it to establish other ferries, themsrlves to pass ot to tran By this, it will be seen wt the mer- to confine Island is given to the corporation of leid down by Chief trict con- yed to the cor- city’ It is trae that the charter ¢ corporation of this city’? Who hase great- ersed this extent as would Now what is the ranted lease d by the license, and placing those fer- hey were under at t] Here I would remar: behind it another very embat estion and that is canthey esta blish ferries ve already established them, and thereby it is an imeident to it; and I now im your h * attention, to show that the | out # versel with intemt to be employed in the al cited contain no sition simi to | trade, so that the criminality may be incurred, even eva they contend He then read without its actual employment tor that purpose The ye wny distinction between the pro- the old, end that wed by any new fe om ai there charters. namely never signed or recognired by the soveretgas of Great that the repealing act has swept them away; tract because there is All ly, that there ja no ec ic duty imposed indictable terms of the ebarter should be taken Now. it I am correct in my view w cont out of court. In this cave. there one is Pierpoint and fon of this city—ai oy, and the other the if they are enjoined arties will be and ic is or will be said, he distinction bet ween a title from the State and anybody else, and ia reference to it, I will show your honor that it is like an 4jsotment care. It in not charged a any public wrong traordinary powers of the ‘This cam is for none of the ex tio grant an injune- tion. and the court will hardiy resort to those powers before the hearing of the cause, unless very strong rroundeare me on the of this property for two hundred years; and I suppose your honor w party who bas only « naked title under a disputed act of the Legislature Mr Benjamin equ tt Mr paok that But follow that the plaintiffs have y is bound to protect against all invasion, no matter what party also decide the ques tien sow asked for should be granted in in pert the rig P ubjeet of difference en eo and certainly it is of the firat ance that counsel should clearly appre hen'l the precise character of the question in dispute, and one safe method of arriving at strip it of all the extrageous matter that result ie tc it jto be the troe question to be dew this question—<( atanted to A.a amend it by inserting a few words, there will be no difference bet Legitiatare g York, end th cennot the grantor afterwarde re en invalidat in the p but since th plaint of the ind+fensible tithes har been bing bes been ¢ then, howeve Court grounde for In e out. Here ne case has been mate pepere, and we have been in the enjoyment pause before youturn us out for a Rutior replied cn the part of the 4 the remarks which he should make arranged under three general heads. In the , be would inquire into the chara grants which could be made by colonial wuthority in respect to ferries, and also into the validity of the act of 18 ming. for the purpore of thie discussion, that this act should be construed as plaintiffs arsume it should; and, under the second head. he would briely in aire into the construction of the | wit endeavor to secertain whetber it be true ia p of law,and whether it answer the porpor et of 1845, and at hich it we suppose it ruction of the ned to accomplish, and wh ing established the cou en follow that the plai ish thie to your honor ti title whieh & court of y attempt to make j on whether the summary injume- the whole or the Court intimated that it bad » tof the party to an injunotion Butler, in continvation--My oppove I the court inst. stated st the comm was important to understand wh: doubt of letived from this debate, I have nothin jon# of the counsel who precede ¢ by which he endeavored to show uestion put by my are ye determined here. Io here wore time, f migt I will take the question as be stated mined. Hie d n the Legislature take a franchise d give itto B? Now, if he will int me ten gard to bavea mous. I will put it thur—Can the nt to the corporation of the city of New ir successors, municipal tranchiees. and d take them been anid han since sion of ere not iMr Thet is the quer here f Dartmouth College, that they wer of the Legislature Well Butler, we wont no higher Jaw than the last resort Rut these contracts reterred to imply obligations and refore. canno invalidated by any law or Btate constitutic they may not contain any obliga- tion, or they may contain exceptions which would leave | it oti open to legisintive inteforence; and the question here Is, was there a contract which implied an obli tion, and does the act of 1845 Inv: biiga tion, Prior to the decision h College care, they had not been fo the habit of riing @ rving to themerives th resut 1, & reservation is inverted in every char ter granted by this w, notwithstanding all that ham been raid in regard to the poverty of our com which. | amit, if drawn by my learned friend on the other ride, would be drawn mach better i up under the cher still obliged to look to those charters and re giten by them. and ¢ find that tablish ferrien in fury complaint, we show rposing for our prote may bein my judy ment t thi on peor powever this torne pon the dietinetiom between propotty managed by private right, and » public trust is granted, whether it be to a natural person or toa corporation. the grantee f+ | the grantor ie entitied to he When property ntitled to hold tor has a title. the erantes the world: but this tefa nts, aad with thos eninet end if the gr J spain rpoteal heredican it toB. The | id id 5 ‘The fourth ferry it is conceded | nd it is not pretended there is | wi thet | ow, if thet they were | br z ” s3 it more than one-seventh of the people of ih granted them. | question—th @ come n n There is harter xisted during the Dutch » = Bie ores in ie rey nara Saas Le corporation long time in possession those sights He thei it on to argue, from all the " facts and circumstances in the case, that there was no evidence that the Fulton Ferry was the one referred to as the old ferry. He then entered into an elaborate argument to show that the grants contained in the old charters were similar to those granted to the old Courts of Common Pleas, which might be revoked at pleasure by the Legislature, Judgment regerved. The Cuba Invasion Tri: New Orieans. {From the Orleans Delta, Jan. FOURTH DAY. UNITRD STATES V8, JOHN HENDERSON, At the meeting of the Court yesterday, Mr. Hen- derson resumed the argument which he commensed | Previously In order to keep clearly before the mind of the Cor take inst tke in- dtetm: proceeding of the District , he recapitulated these positions. The in- The , pace y ie said he, to the main | he had old o| ite side, the ar; tions for carr: under tornishing said of Tn the course of his remarks, Mr. Henderson, jw before somewhat discredited an opi tying bis havin he jury to go about their business, provided would be punctual in their attendance to-morrow. reupon, retired, and Mr. Henaerson re- argument, which he continued till halt. one, supporting with further authorities the raving that the answer of Oppo- he abilit; one 0 of those tlemen, hed +f a1 established to Without following Mr. Henderson at length through ment, the following are the lea: which he contended : That incipient acts with mere intent, towards the into effect an expeditio e statute, consummation being requisite to constitute the offence ; and ment of such consummation in the indictment, the prosecution had no prove that an expedition was in fact made. ‘That if even incipient acts with intent were sufficient to constitute the offence, yet a jal averment of such intent was also necessary ‘sah tines there was not even such an averment, th ce to show such intent. ig propost- ere not oriminal since there was no aver- right to imtroduce evidence to y could not even intre- mer. i ‘ fon casually intimated on one occasion by Judge theimdictuscuterere thet hee aia Renta sestaia ou, | Story, referred to a tingle case, in whieh Ju gn Btory terprise to be carried The second. third, and | 28d, himeelf, overruled two of his own previous do- eighth charge: he words “ did set on foota military | cisions, and remarked that few lawyers would proba- expedition to be carrie ” @he fourth, sixth, and | bly rei doing injustice to the moet of coven counts abanes 2 ly, a bs aie “ provide oh ae Aes . means fora certain military ex, ition to be carrie |Cn.” The fith avers thet he aid provide menus, | /Udges op bench, and poseessed more learni refer to “the enterprise to be carried on thence” — meaning New Orleans, using prospective language — not that it had been carried on, or that it wi tended to be carried on. | The Distriet Attorney, in his opening, had stated | that he ted to prove that John Henderson pur- chased the steamer Ureole, and took the title in the name of W.H. White. When he gets his witness on the stand, be proposes to prove wees expedition was fitted out, and did preceed hence. He (Mr. H ) | objected to such proof, not because it was not essen- ‘tial to make cat a case under the law, but on the plain and well settled principle of law, that it was nowhere avowedin the indictment that an expedition did pro- ceed to Cuba The objections ge er to be raised inthe present attitude of the case adit been by argreement LL his 0! tions to the proofs ys he intends to make. He bas stated that he intends to prove that John Hi: dereon did purchase the le. To this he should ob- jeet, because it was not go” on such averment of his supplying and furnishing the Creole asa part of the expedition. He had shown, too, that under the general averment of means, the prosecution could prove nothing. and certainly they could not, un- der it. prove that Jobn Henderson furnished the Creole, Jor two rearons —lst. Because it is not set focth that the Creole was means ; 2d. Because the term “mean does not refer to the furnishing and equipping of ships, because that offence is inciuded in the third section of the act, and canpot be wri d up in the bundie of upmesping terms which make up this sixth section On these several points Mr Henderson proceeded to 4 read several guthorities. He cited Archibald’s Crimi- nal Pleading, pp. 1, 63, 61, 62, 63, on the rules of pleading for which he contended. He referred to those extreme illustrations of the strictness of the rules eon- ing of cattle; that when the stealing of a horse is ing it the Court woudd rettle troduction of evidence in this tri they might have some rule to recution of the case. P. Harrison, on a charge of frat ly aletter. They were then discharged till next Monday week, with the understanding, however, that they should meet again if summoned. New York In ation for the Iastruction of the Deaf and Dumb, Wr? have received a copy of the Thirty-second annual report of the the instruction of the Deaf ani Dumb, one of the best institutions that ever came under our ao- tice, and under its present able management, an ornament to the whole country. The following is a list of the officers of the insti- tution:-—Harvey P. Peet, LL. D, President; Pros r M. Wetmore, First edges, Second Vice-President; Robert D Weeks, Treasurer; Professors and Teachers-—-David Ely Bart- Josiah Adoison Cary, M. A., Oran orris, M.A, Jacob Van Nostrand, M. A., Thomas Gallaudet, M_ A., Isaac Lewis ry. Ret M. A. Wilkinson y other ten. njamin expressed the hope that in render ision on the points at issue in the morning jes on which the was to proceed, that uide their future pro- lcCaleb said he would rinel Judge do #0, as tar as 4 full decision of the points which had been raised in the argument would serve tor that pur- pose. st John F. Harris, capta Johnson. New York Institution for ice-President; Timothy George 8S. Robbins, Secreta— cherged, that ef » mare cannot be proved; if amare, | Peet, M. A Sdward Peet, A, Jeremiah that of a filly cannot be proved ; it « cow, that of @ | Wood Conk Gilbert C. W. Gamage, Sater | heifer cannot be proved, cto. Keterring to the admit- | meg Spofford, Isaac Hoyt Benedict. Attending | ted general rule, that @ change in the terms of the | 1" a Ma, VM DB. G statute is eufficient. he also urged,that when those ysi icholas Morre: ‘ep a Conau! | terms are yeneral, there must be, also, a specific aile- | Physician--John T. Metcalf, M.D Steward- | gation of the material circumstances intended to be proved and that it does not mean that the mere exact words of the statute are to be copied Pros- into the indictment, without errrying with them | that same prospective rense. Referring to @ slave | between the estate against the slave trede and ge | neutrality act of 1818 The former forbids the fitting Jetter, im th th seetiow under consideration, saya nothing tf imtent, while, om the contrary, it exhibits | @ ditinetion and contrast in tbis respect, betweea that section and the third section of the same ast, in which inceptive acts, with intent, are expressly forbidden Mr Henderron then referred to Chiet Justice Mar. sball plication ef the 6th amendment of the Con. } ftitution, on Burr's trial, 4 Cramch, which entitles | persom accused to be ‘intormed of the nature and cause | Of the uccusation,” as affording a still higher authority than ali ihe common Jes and decisions in be- balf of the principle he rguing, which Marshall declared to require that the material circumstances of | the alleged cifence must be set forth, He also pre- tary prineiple in Btarkie's Evidence; and furtber, ite familiar application in ctvil pleadings, @ fortiori appli- cable to cfiminal proceedings. Br. Henderson concluded by referring to the indict- ments in the case of Smith & Ogden, and.that of Burr, which were in substance the same as the present one. The first named was the precedent from which the others had copied. with ite defects; these defects never having been bet aly zed, beceure in these cases the juries bad given verdicts of acquittal; and, doubt less. the counsel in those cases had, in aocordance Nlow- he proposed to introduce under it. Withont ing Mr, llenderton in the widely extended resen! had exbibited, his positions by & i ih he thought «for the purpore. He objected to this ge- on of the sufliciency of the indictmentet | the present state of the case, as unsual. It wou'l be moreruitable on & motion te quash the indictment before going to trial. or one in arrest of judgment after verdict renaered. The plea of not guilty already made by the defendant, was an admission of the legal rufficieney of the indictment; and he commented with . reitly r i remark ot y terday, that he would © drive a coach and four through it,” contending that he bad not even broken a crack in ite extensive walls, on which be could hang a doubt. Mr. [upton then went into mentary discussion ot the ure and objects of an indictment, urging that nt one satisfied ali the conditions required h all the circumstances necessary to consti- tute the odeece and to correspond te the enactment of the statute, namely : the fact that an expedition was begun end set on foot, ite time, piace, military charac- ter, destination against o foreign State at peace with the! nited States, That averment of t ingot the Creole was not ight be cases it d of the nature and cause of the accusation Mr. Hunton adduced numerous authorites in sup- port of his views, through which it is impossible for @ Lewspaper report to fellow He segued that the 6th fection oid net require the corsummation of the expe- dition to attach criminality to the beginning or pro- Viding of means for an expedition intended to be car- ried on, ete., but that the fect of the expedition » made could be proved as one of the evid t » ow The be g with the inte: tuted the cffence. The Sd section of the statute, Argued applied to an entirely different matter, and did not aflect (he proper construction to be put upon the terma of the 6th rection. If four persons were charged with beginning though all might not alike have taken part in the fret inception, yet ail were alike prinet- yale ond alike responsible It thie construction cf the statute be not sound, then the law can at pl nullified, that everybody might tak . wards the fal consummation of the offences, and pro- claim aloud to the governmentiteelf at Washingtor and waiting for the convenient moment to de parton t intended illegal expedition ding to involve the country in war, sould do ro with impunity and satet; Mr. Tlunten. in conclusion, rterred to the remarke in whieh Mr. Henderson bad rebuked and scolded those citizens who, without anice investigation of the terms | of the law. which Chief Justice Marshall deciered ob- revre and dificolt of application, had yet formed gone. ral opinions on the subject, and contended that this wor aright whioh would always be exercised by i ligent Americans, and which ought not to dr them such iongusge as Mr. Hendersoo had applied to them Mr. Benjamin war when one of the juror bout to follow on the same side, Mr Greenwood, aeked permis sion of the court to g hie office on business of im- | Thomes Ward, were brought before the Commins portance The Judge submitted the application tothe | this morning. on a charge of endeavoring to mak counrel, whose mutual content was necessary to aa- | revolt on board the brig Radius, The onse stands o thoriee it. Mr. He nderwon hed no objection, but Mr. | until to morrow (this) morning rpjamin suggerted, thet a¢ he contemplated gol fully into the law of the and this vould to the Court of General Sesstons, only oveadion on Which be Before Judge Bebee and Aldermen Grifin and Dov 0 #0, he pre- t: andas he was oll that | ferred that all the jury sh uld not fnish in the sing how remained of the day it would ‘be better wot to egin till Thursday worning — This euggestion wan | 1? adepted, and Wednerday bein Sth ot January, the | Ne to Thuraday. at 10 o'clock A. M adjournment, Mr Henderson, in anawer | fT) oaromark of Mr Benjamin, denied that he had yet ene folly into the law of the ease at iarge; he had enly touched «lightly on some of the importwnt pointe which, at arother stage, it would be his duty te direuss, rir ¥ ay, on the open Jory met and pro 410 thei room Mr Benjamin stated that, owing to a severe india pevition with whieh he bad been the court on Tuerday, he was nm ge inte the more law of the ene manner in which it reemed to have been opened by | The the defendant. Om the immediate question of the | gyi acmirsion of the tettimony offered, he did mem |p mund B. Peet. Mrs. Louisa A. Frisbie, Assistant; John C. Miler, Wm. M. Genet, peetive words in the statute cannot be transferred | Samuel S. Sturges, Tailor; J..L. moker; Garret By the Treasurer’s report, we learn that she re- ceipts of the society, from every source, du year just closed, have amounted to thirty-nins @ | thousand two hundred and sixteen dollars and thirty- nine cents; and the disbursements, including the balance of two thousand one hundred and tweaty- eight dollars and fifty-seven cents, due the Trea- surer at the close of the year 1819, have been thirty-nine thousend four hundred ead cighty-iwo dollars and niaety-eight centa, Jeaviag a balance due the Treasurer of dollars ond filty-nine cents. The number of pupils returned to the last Legis. lature was two hundred and twenty-two. Of these ine have left, and one has been removed by During the year just closed, forty-one h been admitted, and four former pupils re-admitte 4 The number of pupils resident in the institution on the 3ist December, 1850, is two hundred anc twenty-eeven. Including graduates of the institution employe: | as teachers, or in the domestic and mechanical de partments, the whole number of deaf mutes resi dent in the institution, is two hundred and torty two pils, one hundred and sixty are bene ficiaries of the Stete ; sixteen of the city ; thirteer of the State of New Jersey. Their own friead detray, in whole or in pert, the expenses of twen ty-feur ; and the remainder, fourteen, and instructed gratuitously by the These last, as in former years, are mostly chil dren selected by the superintendent of commo schools, in anticipation of vacaaies in the Stat list, @ certain number of whom ere received at th beginning of every term. By this arrangemea! among other desirable resulis, the State list : kept full without the necessity of receiving pupil in ‘he middle of the term, when there are no clase hh they can advantageously be placed, ‘The health of the institution has seldom bee | better than during the past year | elllicted with any (amet season of sickness ; th cases of severe ill only death to record, in the household, was th ase of a female pupil, who came with a constity tion so impaired, that had medicel skill been ab her life, it could afford no hopes ef pe Bookbinder; thirt deat! _ eee whi to prolon, manent occurred during the patiest had retutned home to her fricads. rt urges upon parents and friends of dea mute children, the ve aitention to the careful intellectual «ad moral trai ing, at home, of their interesting charge. It is t cften the case, that deaf-mute chi entirely neglected in the early years of childhoo- Parents who will freely incur any trouble or ¢ pence in the fallecions hope of restoring the lo faculty of hearing, strangely neglect the means! the diligent use of which this loss will cease co | felt as a calimity. Ia conclusion the report says: been the progress of the institution from year year, great asis the amount of goolit has dou and is still doing, the evils, which have just be considered, show that the task of the friends the deaf and dumb only there shall be leg’ for the education of all, buta pablic sentime that will regard the keeping of a deaf-mute ch from the offered means of instruction, ia the lig of a wilful murder of an immortel soul, and euy v necessary shorte ning of his term, as only a tit less reprehensible, the: gon the future of these our unfor nate fellow men; and our anxiety and our inde need have no other object than how best to ful ovrown part of the placed at our disposal to promote the most ray and durable imp the interesting youth committed to our care cloud U. 8. Commissioner's Ofice. Before Geo W. Morton, eq, Larceny on the High Seas wenger in the ship Arctic carpenter of the ship, were committed won thir morning. to take their trial en a charge ving stolen property of the value of $1 000, cons itches, watch chaina, breast-ping, ce longing to ® man named II. Levy, on the voyace tr Liverpool to this elty Bejore Com'r Bridgham Two sailors one named Hugh Wright, and the ot ling Power, t ‘on | ing of gold Breaking named Jobo Williams charged with burglary in the third degroe, in brenk foto the efiice ot Lenry A. Royo, 564 Wert vtreet, on ng ® BumMber of cots amd two bull in all at o pight sbove mention the} cvs on Wert the door at ov the priyoner and anc From the New Orleana Delta, Jan. 10 the of articles 5 ing of the court, the Grand | mova | aeeotn plic | his ercope de telded the ¢ffler derek Mi Up near the door, ae if ready made for A very large chivel was taken by the + var no Mrs. Harriet Stoner, Matron; abinet maker; . Sanger, Shoe ead, Gardener. ng the two hundred and sixty-sia re boarde: jastituvion It has not bee ness have been few; and th Another death by consumptic ear, some moaths afier tt tance of e great iidren are almo atifying as bh not finished. When » lative provision sufficie n there will remain no da task, in ustng all the mea rvernent, and the greatest good ~ John Kelly D id Thon nto an Ofice.—A young espe was brought to the » lumber dealer the night of the doth of 1) $14, It wan im proof that officer Wiliam Cargill Was trying the doors of ties ¢ when, coniing to that of Mr. Ro The cfieer entered and foi her boy tu the act of rammag There were aid bold of the prisone ne reat of the oft ketot Williams, and on ecamic m were discovered why by this tame chisel Th The cae wan a oioar ¢ ation, returned a verdia ced the ptieoner to