The New York Herald Newspaper, June 12, 1852, Page 2

ciTY NEWS. “THE Al ERICAN ART UNION Declare’ Illegal and Unconstitutional, Supreme Court—General Term. Hon. Judges Edwards, Mitchell, and Roosevelt presiding. June B.— The People of the State of New York ws. The American Art Union—The Governors of the Almshouse vs. The Same.—Edwards, Justice.— The parties in each of the above entitled suits have agreed upon a state of facts, which they have embodied in ease, made in ac- cordance with the provisions of the Code of Procedure, for the purpose of obtaining an adjadi- eation of the question, whether the association krown as the American Art Union, has violate of the laws, or incurred any of the fo ed by the statutes of this State ets which are contained in the the year 1859 a volut ase are, that in aled the Apollo Association, was formed in the'city of New York, for the promotion of the fi United Mtates. On the h y ot May, IS40, Sociation was ince o Le ture of the State of New York, which provi the persons therein named, and such other p: as there w or might thereafter become, asso- ciated with them, were constituted a body corporate by the name ofthe Apollo Association, for the pur- we of the promotion of the fine arts within the nited States. The act further provided that the association should have power to make, from time to time, such a constitution, and such b and regulations, as they should judg the election of officers ; for ng th five functions, and the mode of discharging t for the government of the officers and mem thereof; and for regulating the annualerate of co: tribuions towards the funds thereot. It also Viddd that ty sist, aimongs ot que of its Men ment oly dotintes. the or vilegs of 2 ing of h of art a y lo 3 operty of individual member } entitled to one ¢' five dollar eoutnined a] works of art ninth day « passed, by ciation for t the Unite Ait Unor of wor vided tor fr en the Fi December stated int These are rati¢ the iwe instead of t a1 the | eons estions Which are presented to us for ud Amon; the admitted fects of ey appears that each member of the iat is entutled ive an or mal engraving an American painting, ro- gether with some other works of . Jed reeeive the puu 1 ler the direc’ of y appears that the gali at all sattable times, open ber bea eripty 1 has been any ed or made or disy be dietribu # the sole 2 Second, If nota Jot- 1 intent ef the ¢ bution a viola’ Btatute r of any of the sections thereof!’ | Third, If within the latter, and not within the for- mer, ar defendants a ial or other Jaw, for that im the manner pe r tution of Is2l provides that iter be authorized in this S ture © # laws to prevent within ry tic he State, already provided fur by 7,611) It will bese tutes which previous to the adoption of t constitu lature had passed a gene- | wai law, ¢ -y lotter: than such | as had by id be deemed | unlawful ar (Laws 1819, p 26m, 61) itteries was felt and ackno that time, to such an | extent, that it was deemed expedient to make all person d in promoting them the 4 punisbm But they were in some iv: - cially suthorized by the I i to what was supposed to by. and some- times for charitable But in the convention which esta’ stitution, the preservation of the me community Wa deemed paramount to al t and the Legis a Was deprived of the autho- i ction any lottery by the fam al law of in this ca Hie not define tutes ts most gener embrace every distrivu tainly, not iteel1, in ano BB exception te that we v meeting t they shall cause the Sena whieh vision in Ii meet, after the first uance of the constitution, reto be divided b lot imte four classes of eig hy ch, and that the seats of the firet clues vacated at the of the firet year, © second elass at of the second year, of the third class at the end of the third year, and of the fourth elass at the end of the fourth 3 (Constitu: 1821, art. 1, see 5) And under the const of 1846 there ba been a similar distribution, by lot, of their terms office, amongst the justices of the Supreme Cour Is ie ao method of distributi pich has heen pr tired in the partition of real estate, and in the di tribation of ¥ vietures and plate awongst the reprerentativos ceneed persons. But it h been rupposed, and itis not now such distribution is illegal or immoral, although the result h erally been more beneficial to rome of the } interested than to others. It is weil known as o matter of history, that the lotteries against which and statutes of this State were bad tain peculiar oljec- tionable featur charac Thore we Prizes in money, or something of a pecuniar Value which were exceedingly disprope tlotate to the amount paid. for a teket. There was in this re pect & strong appeal to the cupidity of the p These prizes were fixed at the time of the of the beh and formed the sole inducement to the pur- ehare. The proprietors or managers of the lottery rererved Lo themeelves large pecumary profi thur had every inducement to stimulate th: 4 for gain, which exiets in all communities, by ing out the prospect of great advantage with @ perat) slight risk; and the only object contem- Plated war to goin a pecuniary benefit by these cor- Fupting demoralizing means. It seems to us that it fe bare'y uecessary to refer to the facte which are ad- mmitted i this care, to chow that the associadon in , if not all the objection- of lottery, which called for the interporit the convention and the Legie- lature. The act of incorporation of the Ameritan Art Union declares that * constituted a bedy Sores Be the parpore of pre: the fine arte inthe \ " et in which ite ends are to be a plished is not pointed out; but it is authorized to make a constitution and’ by-laws for that purpore—subject, of course, to the vemites tiove preseribed by the general laws of the State The firet act, in carrying thi purpore into effect, mnst ne be the obtaining of pecuniary meaner Ys accompliahed by an annual subseri tion whieh gives a right of mem’ hip. There is MO prive at that time beld out « nm inducement to the wubseriber ; for at that time it has uot been ae- hasoa | howe | which | coustitution es it is cesential now to allude to for the purpose of | known in this cou the Ne | | | the purity of their] certained what will be the value or number of the | works of art whieh will be purchased. The money Abus subscribed is laid out in the most effectual method of promoting the fine arts—thatis, in the purchase oe works of art, and, as a nocessary cen- sequence, in the encouragement and patronage « artists. The works of art which parchased are exhibited in a gallery, which is ope only to the subscribers but to the publie, toe the gratifiea- tion and improvement of the public taste. Each member is emtitled to an eograving, and to the numbers of the journal et the association, which are admitted to be an equivalent for the amount of the annuals eription. Thus far there is certainly nothing objectionable either iv the acts or objects of the association. But, as the purpose of the association is a continued promotion of the arta, there must be new purchases, and, as a neoessary consequence, there must be some periodical disposi- tion made of the works which have been already purchased ; and the question arises what disposi- tion is best, having reference solely te the object and end of the association—the promotion ef the fine arts? The very causes whieh give rise to the association show that works of art do not possess s fixed pecuniary value, which renders them saleable | as an article of merchandise, and it seems to us that there can be little doubt that the proving the public taste, and in this respect pr ting the fine arts, is by distributing the works of art owned by the association amongst those who, from aleve of art, have been i ed to contribute to their purchase. We think that it may be asserted, from this statement, that every step which is taken from the original purchase to the final distribution, has reference ily to the avowed object of the association, ‘Chere is undoubtedly, aod mast necessarily be, an inequality in the dist and the ality is the result of lot or ¢ aid that the ebj wn t 9¢ Who now ndmini: i D, or of these w ers, is to gain a peeun dy not the rember less influe nthe d ¢ upon the sub of the ind I be or whieh m pseription i upon the dent rather ¢ der an_ass us in its in eS and purposes, a otiery within the spirit meani of the constitution? Th who pays ription can | noth admitted that he receives an equiva- lent for his money. and manag: the associ. gain noth and the py! exposed te any \lemoral pmDt ! ver, tho u « which the » constilulic particularly Ithovy 1 the spi o he prevente may ari iit, are wi he the t a t neourag admin ad counienanced in the 4 and enlightened portions of the world vent in their social aenge zpon public he led to the provi and, when cor 1 upon | which it isadmitied thet the Am: has been conducted, they are ne 1 t s Vic ofered. There must be a’ or thing in aeti tup or p ns, to other persons who, ia th hall have paid or contract. x the cha in the case b to be distributed v not proy » time that the members proposed or set up. | nncertainty az to what would, ted. “The conclusion to whieh we } the American Art Union, } ks of art, does not Violate eitin State, aud t judg- @ defendants h of ie Anwrivan « a ailms House v ame. stitution of the Art + the socic = to of the t meeting h newbs in such distribution ibed and paid. (Art. 8 | ur Of the by-laws, the mode | n is preser Sach work of art | o be numbered, aud its number be placed he pume of every member of the associa’ placed in a similur box; one number wa e drawn from first box, and a name was to be | jrawn trom the box of names, and the person whose as thus drawn was to be the owner of the | work represent r just drawn; and | 1 until all the works | d. (See. 1 of Art. the subscriptions for | Art Union published | | ] t l I r 2) bar Were received, th showing t tor the payment of $5 any person would become a subscriber, and entitled toan graving, to certain numbers of the Bulletin of their vil to the chance of one of a number | » Which in December of every year were ributed by lotamong the members, each bor having one share for every five dollars paid | by him.” (Pages 157 and 143.) “After this publi- he Art l & great many sub- and be number of pictures, whieh they were about to distribute according to their agreement thus inade with themembers, when made that their 4, of 1 Revised “Of rafiling and ns are not confined to the | oftences, technically called rafiling and lotteries, among the experts in games of chance. Section 22 | not only forbids any one setting up, or proposing, any money, goods, chattels, or things in action, to be raitied tor, hut also forbids their setting them up, or proposing them to be distributed by lot or chance, to any person who shall have paid any vuluable consid ation for the chance of obtaining such money, &e. Under this section it is clearly unlawfnl for any one to set up, or propose—that is, to hold forth to others he has, or will hay any article, although they he works of art, which are to be distributed by lot or chanee to any person who (betore the d ution) shall have paid any money for the chance of obtaining such article. The Art Union certainly did, by its constitution, and aiticles, and plan, propose, or hold forth, to every person who would become a member, that if he would pay five dollars, some works of art should be distributed by lot or chance, and that he should have the chance of obtaining one of them. Thoy also held out other inducements to him; such as that be should eertainly have an engraving, and numbers of the Bulletin, and that he would be a verron of (he fine arte; but still they kept distinctly vefore bis eyes, that he was to have the chaneo of the more valuable article—a fine painting. Noone subscribed without the agreement to give him that chance ; although, theretore, other motives entered into the consideration of, thes member, yet the chance was held out to every one as an inducement to him to pay * the valuable consideration,” which the proporers of the scheme were to receive from him. Those other motives only tended to entice a larger number to accept the scheme end to blind themeelves, a# well as the directors of the institation, to ite evil effects. The directors wished to promote the fine arts. They thought it could best be done by procuring _— market for the works of artiste at prices such as liberal men would give from a fund devoted to that purpose. bey Sivo concluded that thie fund could not be re'sed in suiigient amount annwally by voluntary they were stupped by the charg lotteries; S | they fi ! evils whether it be pe | Lie, Goes exist to obts | joyment without pa cher be Jawthl, w | | meno | dustice (Edwards) ther | can Tiwst an | not paying, the mortg: donations, even from the friends ofthe art. They therefore appealed to a passion which experience pat proved was oe sy oy — with those who knew pothing oft s. y proposed, as part of the inducement to the payment for a share, | v ereh re should entitle its holder to one | el of ob ing one of a number of valuable | paintings whieh should be distributed by lot. Tho money paid for each share was then, by ment, to be paid, and war paid, for the chance of obtainin; one of these artieles, which were to be distributes by lot, and the Art Union did propose these articles | to istribated by lot er chance. This isthe of- | fence described in See, 22 of article 4; (1 R. 8. 665.) | That ocher cousiderations wero mingled with this | unlawful eration, does not make any part of the contra: bat if this udlawful object of dis- tribution by chance was one of the considerations for the eontract, it vitiated the whole contract, and was within that seetion, otherwise the act might always be evaded by ona} ining any lawful object with o1 edly prokibited by the act. Thes were about to be so distributed by lot, by public acdver(isement announced andl offered by the said assoviation to be se distributed by lot among over 13,000 subscribers, when they were declared by the District Attorney as forfeited.” p. 150,151) Ifthere were any doubt whether the ollence in section 22 was complete until the articles were about to be distri fact, thus admit- | ted, removes that difficulty. ion 10 of article 1 | of the consti ©, ia, that “No lottery shall hore- after be authorized, or any sale of lottery tickets | allowed within this State."* The essential evils of lotteries, and which caused their prohibition in the constitution of 1821, ond again in that of 1846, is, that perrong pre igdueed to spend theic money in na the hope of obtaining, by chance, & far able return than they p Those are the he hibited by section 22 of p part of th Statute hich we have just been considering. 1s is essential to that effence that the purchase should have been made or valua hi rf A gob. This isto stitution the sale of lotiery be pronibited is e, and a ticket ven for t 0 » ca * and » word when pre f porsous alremdly + * works of art, o r property which dovs | rts, and whic of tho evil Nur is the choice tment of senators In neithe’ A Dotted tor the or the al st so estoomad thom rneedy fe Acaden i uence the in each « ents to be appointed na, it aid uve ait gi men i " men have in voew riain Jo evly hind sistent small sums, in whieh the 1 ¢ renrecly any infuel Yot in this they violate a known dav nre not influenced | base pecunia hers ai h Roovevelt did not with Judge write any opi Mitchell, and the pr ore announced tha 1 that the mode « Act Union wi Judg: conewrred | majority of the Court de tribution of the Americ ttional following de. pies vs. Sihgr with: and without pi Y {i's right, it ccocd in obtaiunga judgment to move for ons were rende | cution a st the person of the defendant. Th: was not sufi t evidence of the debt heing i | lendy contracted, to induce the Court to distur ch | onder discharging frou arrest. | TER without making it through the head of one of the De nts, n the matter of Ezra J. Coates, a nom-resident debtor, — Order appealed from, with costs. A non-— resident creditor, when debt was contracted abroad, can come in and claim a dividend with resident eros ditors after the debtor has been declared a bankrupt in his own country, and assignees have been appoint- ed there of bis estate, and the non-resident creditor has reevived a dividend from the assignees. West vs. Newton and Burkiam-—Motion for costs to plaintif, when the judgment of the Court below was entirely against the plaintiff, and it was held in the Court that the plaintiff was entitled to partof what he hadelaimed, The costs in such ment below isto be deemed reversed only in part— and it is a proper case to give the plaintill the costs on the writ of error. Motion for cost allowed, with- | out costs of the motion. | The People vs. The American Art Union.—The | mode of distribution of pietures proposed by tho | defendants is illegal and unconstitutional. Judges | ment for the plaintiff, in both suits. Henderson vs. Cairns.—The Sheriff’sretun onan execution that he had levied and paid to the plain- | tiff part of the debt, and that the defendant had ne property to pay the residue of the judgment, is legal evidence of the facts stated in the return, ag be- tween the parties to the suit; and these facts are sufficient to repel: the presumption of payment avis ing trom the fact that more than twenty years have elapsed since the judgment was rendered, when the udamignt Wes Oblaiziou beforé the Revised Statayes took . ect. The ease of Waddell ys. Elmendor? ap. proved. ‘ Masonvs. Jones.—Deeree appealed from affirmed. — The will giving an annuity of $2,500 for life, and giving the exeentors power to ineveaso the annuity, if they increased it for a single half year, with the intention of exercising their diseretionary power of increase, and limiting its exereise to that half year alone. This exercise of power made the increase soutinue during the life of the annuitant, althoagh the exeentors did not so intend, because the will so intended. Tells vs, Gr with costs. fic losare Was never 3 andthe plaintiff, with t whom he represents, subs tially advan mocured the moneys for which the decree was assign They are, therefore. en- tided to the benetit ‘ee, and net to be Pither ads: Ruckman —The depositor of raonoys , With a stakeholder, is only entitled belonging to him at the time of the deposit, with interest from the commencement ofthe suit as damages, and not also the moneys of other betters on the race, deposited through him. New trial granted, unless plaintiff cloct accordingly, Moore vs Moo Decree of Surrogate affirmed, i It retionary with the Surregate n order or sale of real estate for paymieny yts of the testator, When the exccuter has per- property on hand undisposed of; and. this ourt will net, on appeal, interfere with that dizere- | Hon. Jordan vs. Travis.—Motion io set aside report of denied, with costs. The testimony supports onclusion of the referee, or, at all events, was jent to justify t conclusion, $0 that the Court ought not to interfere with is. Court of General Sessions. ¢ the Recorder, and Ald. Denman and Ward, COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE 2MiatN— ORGANIZATION OF THE GRAND JURY—CHARGE BY RMAN WARD. z 2 9 —Ninety-six grand jurors, ina been summoned, a suflicient number answered to. their nomes this morning (being the third day of the present term) to form a quorum, and the follow- i sworn:—James 5. 1 Haitield, Abra Libby, (foreman,) Bae P y 0 Calnoan. 3 J.B. Ebilyer, W H. Van Klovek, WAKD—THE Goo. D. Peshine, nu Constant, Prost, John W. Howe, Havemeyer, CHAR NDAR oF AND IN WHATEVY! AND OTHER $8-- OB: torough the eded to ad e publiv poace- i ve ineve hte and pors rtaining and re- i ovils, sas be importar acticable, t y moving 6 individa nd he had but to ott refer t t sthight | 1 eir attention to t ore, though deemed | fi rs ctor, were well known as | fererucner of those of a higher deg y of the latte ainbling, and ¢ icense-—the ¥ the violation of the iy demanied their skenness, of Fiquors will those with } laws apaiust gamb attention. Mut istor vs. Order appealed from affier with costs, dant in an action to foree! a mortg: joined in the execution ef the mnertg) sno right to set up in his answer, in such action, that he had no tite to the property, when the mortgage was given. The part of the answer containing such mavter wae struck out. Curtis > vs. Leavitt, Receiver of North Ameri- d Banking Company.—Both movions to strike out parts of the testimony denied, with costs. Raney vs. Ni with costs. ‘se —Order appealed from affirmed, entitle the plaintiff to amend his reply, it is y to insiat that he personally should muke som javit to show his belief inthe truth of the facts aileged—-especially when the motion to amend bad been iaid over more than once on that ohjection. Lord vs. Fastil —Order for a resale reversed, with « Stich an order iz appealable, ¢ when the contest is which of the two persons is entitled to the property. When, by the terms of sale, the pnr- chaser was to pay ten per cent on the property being struck off, and the defendant, for whose default, in was fe id, was the highest bidder of one parcel, and was then required to pay the teu per cent, and bad been warned that the terms of rale must be complied with, and left the Exchange, aa she said, to procure the ten per cent, but without any waiver of Ube striet terms of sale by the officer conducting the sale, and then another lot was sold, and, she not returning, the fast lot, pitisuant to the terms of sale, was again put for sale, and struck off to another purchaser, and the first purchaser did not return until al! par- tics concerned in the sale bad left the Excaange; it was held that the second purchaser was entitled te retuin bis purehase. There was no case of fraud, mistuke, or surprise, made out; and the proceedinge were all regular and in good faith. Morthland vs. La targe,§-c.—Order appealed from, modified without costs.—Tho partners aisagresia 4 and one having sold to a creditor, in paymont, all the partnership Property, it is proper that an injune- tion and receiver should be appointed, and, as the creditor's debt was not yet due, that the injunction should apply to him also; but it is also proper that there should be a sale of the partnership property, either subject to the creditor’s lien by mortgage, or in such a way that if he should be a bidder at the sale, his mortgage should be deemed equivalent to a payment for a like amount. Van Valen vs. Russell and Alloa.—Although a partner may have an aay that the partnership property should be first applied to pay vad debts, yet this equity cannot be enforced by a dor- mant partner (who has represented that the active partner waz alone concerned in the business) against acreditor who had lent his money to tho active partner alone, to be employed in that business, and which was so employed. Injunction as to such credi- tor dissolved without costa, with special directions ae Nag moneys collected by the Sheriff on his exe- cution, Dobbin vs. Cromwell.—Order appealed from af- firmed without costs. Before the Tlnentinenté to the Code made in 1852, a defendant who needed a reform of @ receipt to make his defence under it sure, was entitled to file his complaint for that pur- pore and enjoin the first suit until that relief was obtained. Query—how it is since the amendment. Christopher vs. The Mayor of New York and Cor- lies —Order appealed from, affirmed with eoste. The Corporation of this city have no power to make a contract with a particular indi dial to build a mérket, without advertising for proposals, and conveyed a ssanil 5 of misery and sor- iow surrounding it, T relatives, eonnee- tionr—the sufferers, t ty 7 , and condi 85 were not here. They would probably discover that nicmperanee, and one or the other of the vices crumerated, were the causes of theee deeds; and by » melancholy causes, though not resulting in vimes, tivesand friends sere plunged ir co operation was therefore earnestly invoked to mitigate, or remove, as fur os practicable, these awful e The lawe required the Court specially to quire inte any violatio: « y those against lotteri d usury. The mainte- nance of t ight of suffrage aud the purity of elee- tions were Vital (o the existence of our institutions. Without them, eivil liberty, and the safety and hap- Pincss of the people, would’ be no longer realit and that, now regarded as the basis of our bles ings, would only n instrument Ot destruction Asto lotteries, the people at lorge, in framing two successive constitutions, as well as by the Legis- lature, by various suecessive laws, had manifested their serious determination to prob them, and their serious sense of the wide spread evil which they produced. The provisions against them in the laws, were expresred in language so plain and eom- prehensive, as to leave no doubt of the intention to Pro tel a et in whatever form they might be pre- sented. The usury laws were meant to prevent the keen and avaricous from over-reaching the weak minded and necessitous; to prevent the strong from crashing the weak, and to restrain within just and moderate limits of compensation the subtle eupidity of the sharper. It was true, many denied the justice and wisdow of these laws, but with that they had noth- ing todo. They were the laws, and must be upheld until lawfully repealed. The Court would recommend to them to keep all their proceedings undisclosed, and to communicate and take counsel only with the Distriet Attorney— @ sworn officer, competent and ¥ ight, and who might deservedly be relied on, He then direeyed their attention to the condition and arrangements of all buildings, including theatres, churehos, sehool houses, &e., designed for the accommodation or as- sembling of heed umbers of persons; to all steam engines, locomotives, and railroads, within the eoun- ty, and any violation of the laws connected with em; also the got of cattle, and storing of gun- powder, each of which subjects deserved careful ex- amination. They were also authorized to inquire into matters affecting the public health, such as bone boiling establishments, cemeteries, cow houses, &e. The approach of the warm season, now at hand, rendered this worthy of care; and, if time permite ted, it would be well to examine into the condition of the various hospitals and prisons and station houses, including, if they desired, the institutions on Uy dein ( wich onan the Ae men of the alms houge would, doubtless, provide the necessary accommodations, including those of going and re- Hee ged them particularly to observe greatcare lity in the investigation of all cases, find- Poppe giving the accused le werious doubts, and to and epee ing bills only on competent the benefit of any rensonabl racter, A destiny of t) cl other tenance of the laws. ment once found, the acquittal and soaniteotadlen of the innocence of the accused was but movalofthe injury inflicted-—the happinessof theindi- vidual, and thet of hie relatives, family and were destroyed. Tho low, unlike that of property or money, wae incalenlable, It bore no proportion Jere, where the only nobility wae derived from ¢ba- | of the community. ‘that an unjust’ eseape from trial or punish- | obtaining goo | vere feelings of hostility, leadin | serted his innocence. section or elags raeter, though there 4 : remember, too, They thou ment was a deep to the community; and where guilt was established, an indulgence in sympathy by the Grand Inquest, was a yio- lation of duty. tho cases of accusations of or property under false pretences, great care was requisite They were often made under all the delusions and excitements of disap- pointed creditors—of unfortunate, imprudent, and perbaps censurable, but noperiminal debtors. Mer- ebants were generally anxgous to dispose of their goods; and in the multitude and collections or the | extensive transactions ever curient in this large | case are discretionary with the Court, if the judgo- | conmunity, failures and consequent collisions would f to erroncous come plaints of this oature. It was important such cases should be very maturely and carefully examined ; the proof should be clear, the pretence material, and the act complete, to their satisfaction, before they indicted, as much injustice had been committed in ebarges of this kind. It was important that the cages of prisoners in actual custody should bo first at- tended to. Ard with these remarks the business of the term, for their action, was commended to their attention. 2 The Grand Jury then retired. TRE INDICTHENY AGAINST THE COMMISSIONERS QV EMIGRATION—DEMURRER, Mr. Jobn E. Devlin appeared on bolaif of himself and the other Commissioners of Emigration, He was instructed to explain that they had heard, and observed in the papers, that their couduct was con- sidered contumacious in not appearing to the indict- ment found in this court against them. They re- retted this, and had no idea of claiming any in- lulgence or priviloge from the process of the court, not allowed their fellow-citizens. The fret was, that the house in Canal street complained cf had been reprired and altered, and they understood a aclle prose;ui bad heen, oF was about to be, entered; otherwise they would have appeared on the first day ef term. “As that had not beon dono, he would demur to the indictment, on the ground that tho offence charged was insuflicient to constitute ublic i & zed that the nuis: the public he ned, he } he was persona! a notle prosequi would be ent Commissioner a’ the time li x revigned 2 month pre 5 5 OP Hall ‘Ausistane \ course involved 2 puro question of law, would not be necessary for the wit e3 to remain in attendance. He would argue it on Saturday. This Mr. Devlin undertook.to « ind che w were dis ged from attendance for the pres BME LE ICTION OF THE PRISONER, AND PROTESTATION OP INNOCENCE—A WIPNESS COMMITTED FOR PERJURY. Juxk 10.—The trial of John W. Me resumed, some further testimony was Jr, Spencer summed up briefly for t Alpin was aken, and ° defence. The agreement yuder yhich the prisoner acted havin heen pui in evidence, counsel 1 an Cojctuon that he was a guast partner of the prose eutor, and not a servant or salesman. The © held that the agreement did not so i and that he was a salesman, rece compensation, and as such was within the me of the statute. Mr. J. B. Phillips summed up for the prosecution, putting the main question to the jury, whether they would place credence in the testimony of Mr. Porter, who wag uvimpeaghed, ox the witnessess | for the defence, from the prison in Brooklyn, whose | aceount of the conversation betweon the prisoner and Mr. Porter coincided to a syllable, and each with a memorandum (produced) in the prisoner's handwriting, all of which were cireumstane: han} a strong suspicion that perjury had been committer toa gross extent, for what inducement they could not tell, The prisoner's own letter, too, in which he admits having * borrowed ” the sums in question, was at variance with the theory that he had been anibo: y them to his own use. Coun) ad the letter, which was oa rare specimen of coolness and effrontery. It purported to frem Boston, and was dated two days before est in Williamsburg. It was as follows :— Bosroy. 11 o'clock A. M.. Wednesday Mr, W. Ponte :—A short time since, L received a let- ter to the efivet that a near and dear relative of imine, in England, had died and left me three thousand pounds sterling, together with the fact that it is all moonshine for may one but a native Yankee to expect a pecinanent position in this country. as has baen proved'in my own ease y; slough the abilities of the latter are in all in- to very much inferior, still the native American prinepleis predominant, Taking these faets into considera | tion. | Dave had left bat the one alternative--of starting im- to England. [tet York at three rrived here about twelve # o'clock this day and as soon as 1 age, after landing I purpose writing to you from exceedingly have gree wo competed ty Derrow the undertontioned + you, te enable me to got ro Lurops: pororicn of my Im ree: ived it the Hur ead We dite from the znd $ ae Long flan Read. amount tor the th mailonss | there TLhace mulo arrangements with a « York 10 repay you every dolar of the you take it putienily, aud of two evils ug? is. to choove the hk 3a flor nd. [purpose writing both t themian that 1 bave authorized to setie wiih you pics of salt hanps, and one set of signalg’ ave the United States steamer at the sectional LK et of sare on board Captaln wn Light, foot of Water st Mr The oibe Ditt’s steamer Nort Grand m charge of 5 re Lassured with all confidence, (if you only have pa- de: eur ‘ou may » chief off ticuce ) tha youro.be re deed. it is to pluie God, Lam firmly'resolved to cance Leveryeent. ax soou as possible; and, in- source of the greatest mortification to nee you although it is but tor a short kewlee arranged with the Heman above terest at the rate of seven per feom Hngland, I will transmit ints in fifteen minutes, I mast con- t; and believe me to be yours sing J. McALPL The Recorder summe rrisover principally conducting his own defence, mitch more Ume had been oceupied than was neo: ful. Many cireumstances bad been introduced which were all admitted; but upon the main one there was a variznee. With respect to one witness for the Jtironer, (William Grant, who was yesterday com- sitted to custody till the cause should’ be eoncluded,) he certainly thought his testimony should be taken with great caution. It was for them, however, to weigh the credibility of all, in coancetion with the probability of their respective stories. The case was undoubtedly such a one as the statute was de- signed to meet. Tho jury retired, and after an ab- renee of nbout an hour, returned with a verdict of guilty, but reoommended the prisoner to merey. The prisoner, in reply to the usual question, as- Hie had never wronged the prosecutor by thought, word, or deed. The Court, in consideration of the reeommenda- | tion of the jury, would pass the most lenient sen- tence the law would permit—that he be imprisoned in the State prison for two years. Mr. MeAlpm complained that his lawyer in Brook- }yn had deceived him, and that justice had not been done. He wished to know whether it would be pos- sible to obiain a new trial, and was informed that the matter now rested with the Governor, to whom he could communicate anything that would improve the aspect of the case. The prisoner was then re- moved, The witness Grant was then called to the bar, and on the motion of the District Attorney, was come mitted to prison on a churge of perjury. DEFAULTING JERORS FINED When the jury in the above case had retired, an- ether was eniled, when only eleven answered; whereupon, a fine of $25 was inflicted on several of the defiuiters, and those in attendance were dis- charged. @onsequently, no further trials were taken up. HIGHWAY RONBERY. June 11.—Peter Hollis, an old offender, a jet black, con looking fellow from the Five Points, was indicted with Hugh McRae, a white boy, about sixteen years old, of quiet, decent appearance, for assaulting and robbing William Holmes, a young man from the country, one night last month. The cause was a very bad one, and SerLronn by the Prosecutor, as was alo a threat to “ knife him” with a pocket dirk produced. He had been with them for some time, and was certain as to their identity. In answer to the Court, the younger prisoner said he was sixteen, and had once, two years ago, been in court for robbery. The Recorder’ said thoy had uo discretion, at his age, but thore was a power in the Inspector of Prisons to tranfer him to the House of ge, which would probably be done if found well conducted. Tho sentence was ey both be imprisoned for the term of ten vorarry. A genteel loging Young man, Edwin Wilbur, Wir J.C itobwon, to’ check for $890, on rg. U. , toe April last. The paying teller, from the proved the on baka Be eck; he could not A Was a forgery, nnd that the prisoner hind co ad fe it. Mr. C. 8. Spencer examined tho witness prelimi- narily, to show that he bad promised the prisoner that some favor might be shown him if he confessed, ond at the same time tened to give him into eustody, a8 he had the means of provin; ilt, if he persisted in denying it. A long di booaten fol- lowed as to the tof the language used, and the vidence Was admitted, an execption being taken. witness had rot stated at the Police Court that be would not are the confession against him. © |} applied for em adjournment (it being three ) to produce a memorandum made at the Ume, and cliain the attendance of Justice Os born on the latter point, and it was finally consent. | The aveused is a “blood doe | up. Tn consequence of the | ed to—the jury separating till 10 o'clock on Mon. The Co adjourned tili_ eloven o'clock, AM., Soeeereres when motions will be he , and demur- Court of Special Sessions, Before the Recorder and Aidermen Denman and oyeo, STREET BRAWLS AND RoWwDyISM. Fripay, Jung 11.—The list for trial presented to this Court contained the names of thirty-five prison- ers and four defendants en bail. The greater por+ tion of the charges wore for assault and battery, some of them serious ones; aud the presented « picture of rowdyism and violence whieh ealied forth | oceasionally aris, often attended with florce and se- | Some strong remarks froin his Honor the Recorder, who passe! fenders. | Jeremiah Many, a row ly looking fellow, aboug twenty-two years of age, 2 member of the gang known as * Hounds,” was charged on two separate complainis—one for assaulting Julia Ann Hector, a colored pitls and the ot hor de Guish, a citizen, and As the Tenth ward. The occurrence took place on Sun- day evening. The last montioned assault was com- mitted in resisting the complainant’s attempts to arrest him. He was seat to the Penitentiary for six months on each chargs, or twelve mouths im all. Patrick Dogherty lalso a double charge to answer for. On the vist May, close to his own residence, near Jemes slip, ho had violently as- 6 fring some exciplary sentences on the of saulted Officer Doyle, on tho latter inte with him in a customary oceupation of his— ing his wife. Not being thon arrested, he availed himself ot his liberty the following’ week (7th June) to whip Officer Gleason, with the assistance of a friend, Patrick Watkins. Sentence on Dogherty, six months on the first and three on the socond charge, the one to begin on the expiration of the othei—Watkins to be imprisoned six months, Barney Donuelly, a young man of deeent appears ance, and not very ath proportions, was charged with an atrocious aseult on Leonard Rijken, & German, on the corner of Hudson and Canal streets, between the hours of twelve and one o'clock last Sunday night. The assault committed with # club (produced) of pine woo three inches and ove the end, and rounded to forn The eom= Ininant was knocked down, his shoulder disloeated, bis head cut and wounded t aud hig eye was still prisoner was s MOR: Among the prisoners fi it lareenies, several YS. ats 1, we Wiliiam Dolan, aged 1 Davis aud Henry Burns, Dy for s x kettles from a nt, was gent ho House of Refuge, his el lor companions being sent to pie ipenitea ey » ‘the following were also sent to the House of Kefu t ving in each case beer before the court fur rer petty thefs:—John Lowry, about 12 years oid, for stealing a cap from a store, value one doilar; Jaincs Owens and Michael Mavsh, 13 or 14 years old each, fer stealing ninety cents in copper coin from a store in Broome street on Monday. A third boy, impleaded with them, was discharged, it being histirst offence, A, REFINEMENT ON THE ANCL RING PROPPING AWE An ipgenious gentlem opt among many other aliases, Thomas Wood alias Gus. Fowler, ap- peared to anawer a charge of constructive larceny. of the first water. The style of his dress and equipment was unexeeptiona- ble; and as he advanced, | eda pair of lemon- tinted “ kids” encasing ighter” fingers wpon the bar, with aconfident air of anticipated triumph. The case has been before mentioned in our police intelligence, and it may be remembered that the ac- cused having “found’”a wallet which proved to bo stuffed with worthless bank notes, &e., the com- plainant, a green and philanthropic stranger in the city, hed redeemed it trom his custody at a cost of $20, with a view of returning it to the right owner. ‘The complainant being one who delighted to do good by stealth, And blushed to find it fue, was prevented by his modesty (as Gus evidently ox pected) from deposing to his story in open Court, und the accused was coneequently di ‘ged, bee stowing on the Court a patronizing cong Superior Court. PART FIRST. Before Chief Justice Oakley, ACTION FOR MONEY LOST AT A GAMING TABLE. Juxx 9—Williom Mootry vs. Sherlock Hitman —Tho plaintiff in this action eves at assignee of John Taylor, of Danbury, Conn.. tor the eum of $3 211, alleged to have becom won by th: ndont from Taylor. at faro, in a gambling house k lefendant in Broadway, and. i by him in Liberty street. the moncy. was exam: {fas was also William ed ‘hat, on an application not deey that John Taylor had ‘he defence, n Taylor, ined as a witners for th except pied the fact of the said that by a low of th: tain sum by pembling ti Fr. This law, whies diseovse¢e rarablivg, # v6 munity then any 0 alleged. kept a faro was made to injurfous to the com « “Phe defendant, it is (in scch places more frands ober way Tt wis said the tn order to convey a right 7 accignment must be real. If Mootry look the esi; t for services rendered to Taylor, he has a right tg «uc for it. But if he took it only asa speculation. he aniot recover on it. The law, from a wise policy, proven: altorneys baying up claims in order to sue for them. but it does not prevent them taking an assignment for claims which they have against. the arsignor. If the jury were satisfied that the assign- ment Was a mere fiction avd without value being given | fer it, the plaintiff could not recover. But if the assign- iment Was nade, and they were satisfied that Taylor lost the money, they should find « verdict for the plaintiff. Verdiet for plaintiff, $3,241 Superior Court—Part II, | Before Hon Juctge Sandford. June 8 —Hannah Bropiy edmr'x, §e., of John Bropiy, | deceased ageinst Messrs, Kipp 4 Brown —This was an ace tion brought by the plaintiff against Messrs, Kipp & | Brows. proprictors of a line of stages, in this city, for carelessly cod negligenily ruaning over her husband, | John Brophy. a carman, on the evening of the Sd day of November, 1851, while crossing, al strect at the eorner < Map _ — acel - ee | died, atter lingering three day: exert | agony, leaving a widow and three children in indigent eo nveluid at $6,000, Mr, Edmom Blapkman, on behalf of the plaintiff. ealled witnesses im support of his case. and mode a foreible appesl to the sympathies ofthe jury. § fence, it was deuied that there was any carelessne: “gligence on the part o the driver; but that tage was paseing at the right hand ofthe street at the time, which prevented the Which so impaived his vi of taking proper care of hime«if atter dark in the and was not able to recognire his own physician who at- tended him, or distingw'*h one eolor another, and consequently contributed to che injury from which, it is alleged, he died, Jur 9 —The jury could not agree ona verdict, and were discharged watil this «fiernoon at 4 o'clock, In the ease of Barber ayainst Greeley aud McElratlt, We are requested by the Judge to state that when the jury announced that they had agreed upon a verdict for the plaintit for $25 dariages and the eosts of suit, he the Judge, said that before receiving or entering the ver dict, the jury ought to be informed that such a verdie would not give to the plaintiff the full costs of the suit, #» that they rhould not act under a misapprehension, Ths Judge then told them thet in order recover full coste the plaintiff must recover at least $50damages. If he ob- tained a verdict for $25 dimages, it would give him $35 costs; if six cents damsges. he would have six cents costs.” The Judge then raid if the jury were satisfied on thw explanation to render their verdict as brought in, the court would receive it ; if (hey wished to deliberate fur- ther, they might retire for that purpose. The jury ex- erent desire to retire, they again went ont, and ia r oF five minutes brought ina verdiet for fifty doliars Camages. Supreme Court. GENERAL TERM. Before Hon, Judges Edwards, Mitchell, aud Roosevelt, June 11.—James Mason vs. Isaae Jones, George Jones, and others—In this case the late Vice Chancellor decided, four years ago, that it was the duty of the defeadants, Teaac Jones, George Jones. and An G, ih 1, to pay to James Maron the full amount of bis equal one- eighth part of the income of his father’s estate. The executors have refused ever since to pay to James Mason more than his annuity. and they have appealed for the of reversing this decision. The case was oe apresl, before this court last winter, and to-day it was decided that the decision of the Vice Chancellor was correct, and his decree was |. Itis supposed that the exceutors will sapped because by the will if they need not pay the income to James Mason, his rhare will be them, G Jones in bis own right, and frill ones Mid Andrew 0. Hamersley, in right of thet wives. Common Pleas. PART SECOND. Before Honorable Judge Daly. June 1l.—4ction for Breach of Contract.—In the ease of Alexander ys. Herman Vernheimer—an action for breach of contract, reported in the Heravo on the 9th instant, and whicb has occupied the Court for four Mr. Edward Sandford, on tho part of the aie for @ nonsuit, Loa the bi on inde that the prevent for the bene of the creditors, who had bee Tt was understood in pe A ae ereditors sce a mediately bring the action in their own name, a themeeve 8 of ‘the testimony of Mr. Alexander, who will then be a competent witness in the case, United States Marshal's OMce. June 11.-- Alleged Mutiny.—Seven of the crew of the American bark Helicon have been arrested for refusing to do duty on board that veesel, whilst lying at Havana, Charge of Macault agains: a Captain, ptain Gardiner, of the thip Liverpool, was held to bail ona charge of as- raulting one of epi at pi a belaying pin, during the late voyage of that veesel to this port, United States District Court. Tore 10. —Judge Judson pave a decision this day for the libeliant, in the ease of collision, against Ue Bay ate, EE a é medion | ee