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

IMPORTANT PATENT CASH. Woodworth Moulding Planing Machines, United States Cireult Court. Before Hon Judge Nelson. JOHN LAWRENCE Ve. MARCUS COLBURN AND OTHERS. This was av action for damages on account of an alleged infringement of a putent by the defendants The Lape im question is for making wood mould- ings ‘Was sudsequently surre’ for detective specifi- @ation, and re issued on the 7th day of January, 4851. Under this iast patent, the plaintiff, (Law rence,) brings this ruit as assignee of Serrell for the | eastern half of this city, within which the aleged infringement of the defendants took place. Bome evidence was introduced on the partof the Plaintiff tending to show that the invention of Ser- Fell dated back as far as the fall of 1816. That gimce that time the making of carpenters’ mould- ings by machinery had grown into very general use, | and (hat » great saving of material, as well as of Jabor, bad veen effected by the introduction of the | plaintiffs’, and otber similar machines. The defend- ants are engaged in the moulding planing ousiness, and evidence was introduced showing their use of maobines substantially like and similar to Serre!!’s. The oounre! for the plaintiff then rested. One of the defendants’ counsel in opening the de- | fenee to the jury, remarked that there were many | \d grounds of defence to the action of the plain- , both technical and otherwise. One was that | Berrell had not complied with the provisions of the patent law by describing clearly and exactly the supposedinvention made by him, or the manner | ef making and using the same, so as toenable a | skilledin the art to make and use hisalleged dearer: That Serrell’s specification and drawings, at tho first appearance, were infinitely complex and obscure, resembling rather a description of an intri- @ate stexm engine than a simple planing machine. His specification appeared to be full of prolixity, re- incy, inconsistency, and ambiguity; and it Was very difficult to ascertain, from even a careful perusal of it, what indeed Serrell did discov claimed to have discovered. That it would b i factorily ere to the jury, by conclusive inferences, ‘that al) these additions were made for the purpose of deceiving the public, and disguising i i ment and violation of other and exis' The machine, however, in fact, as couristed simply of rotating plan yy machivery, and was origiually issued to | Alfred T. Serrell, on the 16uh day of May, 1848. It | | of the mach ne, he puts forth what required pattern for the moulding to be planed, in | gombination with @ pressure roller, and a pressure bar or block, or stationary plane, for the purpose of eon'rolling the material against the action of the | outters. ‘The only apparent novelty or improve- | ment in the whole machine was the adoption and use of am serrated, conical, or bevilled pressure roller, instead of the ordinary oylindrical pressure roller, to hold down and feed in angular or bovilled material, in order to economize the samo for mould- purposes. The alloged invention of Mr. Sorrell Teeolved itrelf timply into this, and nothing mre; | and if he could not sustain his claim to this con‘cal preseure roller, his whole patent was a delusion and a@ fraud upon the public. Mr. Mootry, in behalf of the defendants, farther insisted that even a | eonical preseure roller, in the same combination, | was not new. That it would bo clearly proved, that | from 1843 to 1845, a similar planing machine was im use in this city, belonging to Mr. Horace V. Sig- | Jer, and used by him at that time for planing his | mouldings, a period of at least five years before tho date of Se: patent, and at least three years be- fore the earliest assumed date of his invention. That Mr. Bigler’s machine had a serrated conical or be- villed pretsure rolier, intended and used to hold down and feed in angular or diagonal material for moulding purposes, and that Mr. Sigler at that time | invariably sawed his material into angular forma, or | ‘aa near az possible into the form of the moulding to be planed, inorder to economize the sams, 80 as to enable him to make two mouldings out of one piecoof wood. That this machine was in continued and suc- gcesful use for about threo years, and that fact woald be proved to the jury by the evidence of Mr. Sigler himeelf, by Mr. Howe, his foreman at that time, under whose perzonal inspection the machine was erected, ‘and by several of his workmen who were familiar with its successful use and construction. If, there- fore, it could be proved titat this machine was not @ mere experiment, or for a trial, aud sha’ it never ‘was abandoned or given up, but was an actual, run- ning, tuccezsful machine, in daily use for years, and always doing satisfactory work, and that it was substantially like and similar to the machine long afterwards patented by Mr. Serrell, then Serrell’s patent was void tor want of originality. But not only woul the defendants prove the successful use and similarity of Mr. Sigler’s machine, but they would also prove that Mr. Serrell was in the habit of visiting Mr. Sigler’s shop at that time, and must necessarily have geen the machine in operation, and the infsr- onoe would, therefore, be strong, that there Serrell first obtained the idea of his subsequent prevended invention of the serrated oonisal rolier in the same combination. But the defendants did not rely en- tirely on Sigler’s machine. They would prove con- ively tae successful use of many other similar machines, embracing the combination of the al- leged invention of Mr -Serreil, long prior to his mt. The machine known as the ‘*Ansoa ma- ehine” was substantially identical with Serrell’s, and yet the present Honorable Judge sitting in this court enjcined the same, in 1848, as an infringement of the Woodworth patent. But, seviing aside all these defences, Mootry further insisted that the whole of Serreli’s pretended invention was embraced and described in the patent issned to William Woodworth, ia 1828, for a new and uvefu! improvement in the method of planing, tongucing, grooving, and cutting into mouldings, wood and olber material. This macdiae for planing consists of a combinatton of rotating planes or cutters, with pressure rollers, or any anala- yous dev Many attempts had been made before is time to use rotating planes for planing pur- poses, but all were unsuccessiul, b 2e the board ebattered and vibraved under the action of the cut- ters, that thus destroyed and ruiced it. The idea of placing a pressure roller before, and another be- hind, these cutters, to con’ the material against the action of the cutting knives, and at the sume time feed it through the machine nrst ocurred to Woodworth: andthe result wava perfect planing machine, that has been in il use from 3 to the present time, unrivalied and unsarpassed. The history of this patent is almost a romance, taking into consideration the long and severe liti- gations it bas passed through, aod its uniform tri- umpbant success in all. Woodworth machine is pow in common uee for planing flag eurfaces, euch as floor plank, and by Bimply alteriog the form of the edge of the knives to the rever moulding detired, a Woodworth m» machine is produced, involving the combination claimed by Serrel} To mi change required neither skill nor invention, bat simple ordinary mechanical tact, which was wholly wpp.tentable Woodworth co! ed no particular form of roller, nor did he claim any particular method of feeding; of rotating pla: Planing purpose pressure was pre conical pressure rolle used to effect that purpos.. ehine bad precisely the same com therefore totally devoid ot originality or noveliy ‘The defendente would also prove that Serrell, the patentee, had recognized this fact, hy asking and obtaining a verbal permission, about the time he commenced operating his machine, from the owners ef the Woodworth patent in thie city, to ran and operate the same under that patent, had repeatedly assured parties desirous of buying his machines that no danger or treuble was to be apprehended from Mr. Wison or ir. Van Hook, the then owners of the Woolworth tent. Besides, when he first obtained his patent, claimed the combination of rotating cutters, ith a pressure roller and a stationary plane, and at that time placed the chief novelty aud yaluo of his invention on that stationary plane. Having been beaten by Joseph Mitter, in 1849, in the only liti- gated trial ever had under his patent, he abandoned wisely this stationary plane, snd, in 1851, in a re isened patent, throws himself back on his serrated conical pressure roller. It was further contended, ‘on the part of the defendants, that the successful ‘use of a single similar machine, prior to the date of Serrell’s alieged discovery, was suffisient to void his claim for originality, and, in the view of the law, annul substantially bis right to » patent The facte proved on the trial, on the part of the deferdants, were exbstantially as above stated by the defendant's counsel, as will also be eeen by reference to the Judge's charge, to be found below. Bome conriderable ditisulty existed in ascertaining exactly what was the preciso invention claimed by BSerrell, contained in hit re-iemed patent. The trial was of considerable duration, (upwards of four aye.) and the respective counsel having summed up, his Honor, Judge Nelson, then pro- ceeded to charge the jury, as folle Gentlemen of the Jury :—The patent to Alfred Berre!l for making wood mouldings fa ques- tion, was granted on the 7th day of J and was 8 re-jesued patent, having be on account of some defect in the des first patent. The first was issued o of May, 1848, for an improvement i meking wood mouldings, at th Plsintiff, Jobn Lawrence, shows a tent fn a portion of th Fe gel infringement, on ‘ took place. Serrell, it apps: mwechine—that is, a werking m 1846. His brother, a witness for the platoti that in the fore part of that year, be constr model corresponding with the workiog m wabseqnently built The model of that machine, marked ‘No 1,’’ is now in court On looking into this re issued patent of Serrell, it | will be seen that a very minute and detailed descrip tion is given of the varicus parts comprising the when complete, and this wae done for the | ed the combination in wh f the de Mr. | Tpore of compl: with the provisions of the act of Congress, wih Rae every iuventor to give a description of his machine so full and exact asto enable a aa pei of paar, xf, on examining it, to cons! ruct a similar mac! ing his description of the various 3 After finishing his desorip ey me: 0 which is thie: The combination of the feed and pressure rollers, cocstructed and operating substan- tially as described, with one or more cutters or planes, for giving the proper form or. dressing to the monid- ing, when said combined parts operate upon material which bas been sawed or cut, u¢ nearly as may be convenient into the general form of the moulding to be produced, as herein described, for the purpose of economizing the material, or facilitating the opera- tion. That is his claim—the combination of feed and pressure rollers, constructed as described, with the cutters or planes to give ® proper form to the mould- gs. . For this alleged discovery he obtained a patent, and, prima farte, he is entitled to recover; and this throws the barthen on the defendants to rebut that inference, by showing that this combination is not an original one of this patentee. The claim, it will be remembered, is for the combination of pressure rollers and cutting Knives, formed and operating as deecribed, when raade according to the description | This is the combiuation claimed as new, and appears to be all that is claimed by the patentes. The defendants insist, as a main ground of their defence to this action, that the plaintiff, or the per- | gon (Serrell) under whom the plaintiff claims, was not the original or first inventor of this combination, or of the machine described in his reissued patent. And they allege that it is embraced—first, in Wood- | worth’s patent; second, in the Sigler machine; and, third, in the Anson machine; all of which were prior, in point of time, to the date of the invention claim on the part of the pa Now, Woodworth’s patent was issued in 1828, for a planing machine, which was the result of a combination of pressure rollers, with rotating planes or cutters, according to the description which Woodworth gave in his ecification. By means of that combination, Woodworth, as early ag 1828, succeeded in makin; a machine of extraordinary practical utility, an which has been in operation successfully otis factorily from that timo down to the present. Wood- worth was the first person who conceiyed that par- | ticular combination—that is, pressure and feeding rollers, with rotating cutters, tho pressure rollers keeping the board firmly in its bed, while tho re- volving cutters planed the board. Many persons had attempted to make or con- struct @ planing machine by the arrangement and combination ot well known instruments or machine- ry, previously, even as far back as 1780 or 1790, | and from that time down until 1823. Bat until Woodworth perfected his machine, no person ever succeeded in making a practical working planing machine. He, therefore, is entitled to the credit and profit of this discovery. No fact is better settled in this country than tho one I have just stated in respect to Woodworth. No | cjaim under a patent has been more thoroughly and laboriously examined by adverse claimants, before courts of justice, than Woodworth’s claim to this. It bas been tried ia various States, and many months have been consumed in the trials; and the fact is now established beyond all question, that he was the first person who, by means of this combination, constructed @ euccessiul working planing machine. The firet question, then, is, whether the claim of the plaintiff in this case, as assignee of Serrell’s pa- tent, is or is net substantially comprehended in the invention of Woodworth. Woodworth, in his original specification, as early | as 1828, in setting forth the various uses to whica his planing machine could be applied, among other things stated that it could bo applied to the plan- | ing of mouldings. That was one of them. It was, ot course, a use which he had anticipated, and | turned in his mind. He appoars to have compre- hended and stated very clearly the various objects | and purpores to which his invention could be adept- ed aud applied in practical use. Hoe did not bring out or describe the changes which might be neces- sary to give a practical application to his invention, as it related to a planing moulding machine. Of course, if the operator choose to plane mouldings, he would know that the edge of his knives or planes must correspond with the form of the moulding to | be produced. That was 2 matter which required no | je ckill or exereie of invention, for it must ave occurred to him that it would be necessary to shape the edge of the knife or plane to correspond with the pattern of the moulding he desired to make. In that way he could easily apply Wood- worth’s combination to the purpose of planing | mouldings, after having been informed, by Wood- worth, that this was ono ofits uses. Ifhe desired tomske a moulding ona square or flat pieco of | board, or plank, be could, of course, use the ordi- | nary cylindrical preseure rollor without difficulty; but if he undertook to put a moulding on an angu- Jar picee of wood, he might, perhaps, find some dif- ficulty in using -ylindrical proeaure roller. It, ho w- ever, Would require nothing but practice to got over this, av.da mau must, of course, possess some itttle ine telligence, (hardly the exercise of i to erable him to adapt his rolior to the req ed perticular purpose s0 as to accomplish successfaliy | his object. Now, it can scarcely be denied but that the pro- | cise combination detailed in Woodworth’s patent, and invented by him, is to be found in Serrell’s pa tent, to wit—the combination of the rotary planes or cutiers, with pressure and feed rollers then, the two are identical. T lea incorporated in Serrell’s machine is the idea Woodworth struck out in 1828 derstand the particular ground on which r tho plaintiff endeavors to take Ser- @ out of the invention of Woodworth, form of the pressure feed roller is dif ordinary form of the pressare roller patent; first, that they are bevilled so asto be adapted to the avgular shape of the material to be planed iato mouldings; and, second, that they are serrated or corrugated, so asto impinge more strongly on the wood, and so shaped a: to impinge most strongly on the part to be cut away by the entter nd 89 formed and ad- justed az described by Mr. omes down to this: a difference sim- pe and construstion of the roller, and jjusting the same to the plank. I can see no upon which there be any color for ged improvement of Sorrell ou’ of the combination of Woodworth. Let ua see how thia ig. As exrly aa 1832, a corra- gated 0 ted pres oller nsed on Wood- worth’s machine, as te ed to by Mr. Gibson. The mere fact, therefore, of serrated rollers being used, in combination with rot 3, is not @ new in- vention, inasmuch as prior to Ser- rell’s patent. rival; but it was mrrated to bite and feed the beard more firmly and strongly to tho rotary cutters In addition to this fact, Mr. Gibson slso testifies that he saw, in Rhode Iceland, about that a Woodworth ma- chine constructed with a b or conical roller, jor the purpore of feeding and p boards at a time. This roller was in the fo double cone, which is but two bey tegether, mede so as to adept it which the beard in " There is really nothing novel, therefore, in tho be m form of the eerrated or ved immedix: 3 brought P operation. It ia not the fori of the roller, whether tcrvated or bevilled, that can determine whether tao bination is, or is uot, that of Woodworth. some considersble difficulty exists, also, in m of Serrell, as set up by the counsel for the Y, in regard to the shape of this roller. If I understand his de jaim is not confined simply to the bev part of bis specification reads as follows :— two pal of metal standards, corrying 44, taking the journals of # shaft, 5, which is pro- longed outside the machine to receive a dram, 0, with a belt going to the power through a pair of conical drums, by means of which the speed is regn- lated, and the ebaft, 5, carries between the atandards 3 3, the feeding roller or rollers ¢ 1, which ia formed of one or more flat rings or discs, wish serrated edges, of diameters varying with the depth, at which each is to work, cut either bevilling or straight aud Keyes on.” he description is plain, both for bevilled rollers and straight rollers, and not confined to either. Now, gentlemen, it will be for you to determine, on the evidence of the case, looking at the machine of Woodworth in evidence bofore you, the uses to which be applied it in his deecription, and the forms of construction and of use sined the issuing of the patent in 1828; to determine, whether there is eny- thing really new in the combination set forth and claimed in the patent of Serrell, and in the machine constructed and arranged ag he has particularly described it, different from the combination of tho Woodworth, so that it may bo distinguished ag an invention, eltheras to the form in which the ma- chine is constructed, or as to the bevilled or corru- gated rollers. The next ground taken on the part of the do- fendanta, to show a further want of novelty in Berrell’s patent, is the machine consteasted and used by Mr. Sigler, in Canal street, in this city This machine was built in 1843, according to the testimony of Mr. Howe, the foreman, who built it, and contained the combination of rotary outters aud pressure and feed rollers) Tho cutters were made in the form that it was desiredto cut the mouldings. The roller was bevillod tor the purpose of being nt was us It was, to bs eure, eyli rg put © form to to bo planed 3, are journal boxes rposes, and was rerrated by a series of 3, driven into it, and filed off so as to firm bold ofthe material to be planed, and thus in feeding to the entters. Now, this machine rihed to us by Mr Horace V. Sigler, the owner, Mr. Howe, his foreman, Mr. Pollock and Mr. Hoffman, two of his workmen, end Mr Josiah M. Smith, the machinist who made parts of the fron work Mr. Howe, the foreman, nnder whose per: ronal superintendence the mashing was made and operatec tro years and a half or moro, has giv- | €n us a detailed dercription of ite various parts tive faculfles,) | So far, | ed to angular wood, sawed into that shape for | This was at least from two to three years before the Berre)l machine was invented, taking the earliest period claimed by jheeenseals Se the tiff, say to the early part of the year . If es are not “mistaken in their description ef the ma- chine, and of ite construction and working, I do not sce how the plaintiff's (Serreli’s) machine can be guished from it. The machine of Sigler was ally constructed in 1843, under the superia- tendence of Mr. Howe, who operated it hims:lf in reon down to the time he lett Mr. Sigler, in 1815. t wes partially burned in the fall of 1844, and then rebuilt, and put again into successful operation. If theee witnesses are to be credited, it was not thero- fore a mac! gt y a8 an experiment, or for a mere trial, and then thrown away. On the contra- ry, it appears to have been constructed, put in ope- ration, and worked succe: ly for two or three years, though it was finally given up when entirely destroyed the second time by fire, as Sigler then-be- to get his mouldings from his brother. Now, this machine had knives er s made in the various forms whioh they were ded to out upon the wood. It had a bevilled roller, and it was ® corrugated bevilled roller, which operated suc- cessfully in planing mouldings; and if this descrip- tion of the machine can be relied on, what is there in it but the combination of Serrell’s patent, de- | soribed and claimed by the plaintiff? Ifthese wit- | meeses are or can be mistaken—if they have given & | | colored account, or an ble account of the machine, then this branch of the case constitutes no ground of defence to the action ; but, if well | founded, if there is no mistake, (and that is for the jury to determine as to the weight to be given these witnesses,) it seems to me that there will be great difficulty in‘ distinguishing Serrell’s machine, a8 a different combination, from what is to be found in this one of Sigler. There is, also, the Anson machine. We have an | account of that from Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Duryea. | Mr. Duryea states, that he saw @ working machine | exhibited in Nibio’s Garden, at the Fair of tho American Institute, between the years 1843 and | 1845; that it was a machine for making mouldin, | sashes, Ko , by a combination of rotary cutters an a pressure roller. Mr Gilchrist also states, that in 1846 and 1847 he constructed a great many ma- chines of this description, (that is, the Anson ma- chine,) and sold a great many of them, and con- tinued® to sell them, until he was enjoined as in- | fringing the Woodworth patent, in 1848, and was thus compelled to abandon the business. He states that they were machines embracing a combi of rotary cutters with pressure rollers; that these rollers Were adjustable and could be taken off and on at pleasure, and that they were in successful | operation from 1846 to 1848. This machine em- braces substantially the came combination as that rrell and Sigler, aud stands on the same foot- ing. . There aro all the observations I intend making to you on the subject at iseue between the parties. | ed Judge, as to whether Scrreli claimed or patented an improvement on Woodworth’s machine. The Court replied, that the claim in Mr. Serrell’s tent is not for an improvement on the machine of r. Woodworth. His claim covers the principle in- yolved_in Woodworth’s patent. He does not ex- | elude Woodworth’s combination, and then claim | specially for a new mode of forming and adjust- ing the bevilled pressure roller. If he did, that might bea different question; but he does cornet his claim on the form of the feed roller, the bevi or serrated rojler, nor upon the adjastment of the | feeding roller. He does not put his claim on either | of these, but ho makes it cover the whole of Wood- worth’s combination. If Woodworth’s combination is used and claimed by Serrell, his patent is void, be- sears a material part of it is the invention of ano- ther if he made an improvement on Woodworth’s ma chine in the feeding or pressure roller, he should | have limited his claim to the improvement only. But the difficulty is, that it is not limited to that | part of the arrangement of the machine, but covers the whole combination, If you find for the plaintiff, the value of damages is the amount of prokt he might make from nis machine, if the other machine had not been intro duced. But in estimating the profits, the jary should leok with suspicion and care at the amount | estimated, as they may appear to be much larger | upon paper than in reality The jury after receiving the above charge from | his honor, retired, and in about an hour returned for further instructions. intimating that they did not perfectly understand the case. Judge Nelson oo instructed themin writing to the following effect :— Ist If the jury believe that the Serrell machine embraces the same combination as that of Wood- worth, then the plaintiff cannot recover. and that.the defen same as the plaintiff to recover. ”’s machine is substantial ly the But they must find all these facts for misapprehension of the caze, were unable to agree, and were accordingly discharged. appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and William Mootry and Charles M Keller, Ezquires, as counsel for the defendant THE BROADWAY RAILROAD, Mr. Field’s Argument. [Reported by A. W. Harcombe.} The committee of the Common Council, to whom this project has been referred, met on Saturday last, in the chamber of the Board of Aldermen, Alderman Sivetey ant inthe chair. Mr. Wuitine concluded his argument on behalf of bis clients, some of the remonstrants against the echeme. Mr. Davip Duprky Frenn, counsel for the appli- | cants, then ross and replied at length on the whole case He spoke ag follows :— Mr. Chairman and Gentlemon ofthe Committee— It devolves on me to reply to the objections of the remonstrants, and to re-assert the practicability ond expediency of the proposed railway. In doing 0, I shall leave unnoticed the perzonalities of come oftbe remonstrants, and the threats of others, as well as the insinuations against the committee. It ispew tome that it shouid be thought proper for thore who ere debati ga public question, bofore a committee of a pu! body, to assail the motives of its members, while it seems a strange method of convincing their undersvandings, to uster suapicions respecting their intentions. But these are topics into which I ehall not follow tho remonstrants. Nor thull I dwell on the inconsistencies into which they have fallen, though it is fresh in your recollection bow they at one time denounced the railway as al- ver impracticable, and at ano'hor pronoaneed it £0 cortein of success as to be of immerse values, too great to be granted toa private company. One row atained that the preseure of Ty was owing tothe exc e another maintained t! P the pressnre existed before the improved. One gontleman mide a rong point, that the railway eould not compote with the omnibuser, and in the samo argument, another point equally strong, that the omnibuses would be ruined by it. Some donounced the scheme as an outrage upon the citizens, and.an ebuee of power, and before they sat down implored ee to make the grant totem. One of el objected that the change from car to ompibus at the cross streets would be inconvenient, but the next insisted that a systom of transfor tick- ets was indispensable, whether the railway were built or not. Some declared that the Interest of property own- cre on Broadway would be disastrously affected by | the railway, and while they admitted the overcrowd- ing of the streets, proposed as a remedy the opening | Of sido streets, but at the same time conceded that the eice streots would not take off the travel un- tor vehicles into Bre ofi pavenie less they took off the foot passongers ; and if the | | foot paseengers wont the businees would go with them. Others were strenuous that Broadway was not overcrowded, and equally strenuous that the | overcrowding wae a good thing, and ought not to be relieved, because it would force business up town. | But I will not weary you with a repetition of these inconsistencies. The applicants for this grant havo an active inter. est and strong "aide tne to overcome. Thoy have against them the proprie*ors of the omnibuses, who suppose that their interests will bo materially iojured _ by the railway. Thon there are owners of property on tho treet, who conceive, erroncously, as I think, that their property will be depreciated by the road. These are indefatigable and vehement in their oppo- sition, and their zeal has carried them sometimes to the length of aescrting that a mojority of persons interested in the street are opposed to the road This my clients believe to be a mistake. They tell me that a majority of merchants and othor: oe business in Broadway have petitioned for | We Mr. Whitney, Judge Roosevett, and Howland & Ag pinwall. More thon thirty thoueand persons, in- cluding seven hundred aud ninety-six licensed eart+ | men, and nivety-two licensed porters, have petition- ed that the grant bo mide. here is aloo a pexition signed by sixty physicians. road, and the number and rospectabili titioners for it, have led to the appoint special committee on the eubjest. bof fulleet discursion has been iavited. There aro prejudices to be overco) gine that the gencrel beauty and clivences of Broadway will be impaired. For my own part, I should be sorry to do any thing to injure the appar ance of that fine street. Ido net believe that this will, Certainly it will not be contended that the removal of the omnibuses will tave away any of the y of the p it of this owhich the Some ima- beauties. The cars may bo made at least as pleasant | to Jook upon. Prijudices againat railways ta citios I know ex- | iet, bup I do not believe them to be well founded. I | Two of the jurors here put questions to the learn- | 2d. If they believe that the Berrell machine does | notembrace the combination of Woodworth, and | that he wes the first inventor of his combination, | , then the plaintiff is entitled | the plaintiff, before they can find a verdict tor him. | The jury again retired, but owing to some further | E. W Stoughton and M.G Harrington, Esquires, | now that some of the largost lend owners in | the city have done #0, among whom J may mention | Tho importance of the | know that rrejudices strong existed railways on nanae Ear ir ilesiscten Some said tant the traing would never be able to ran twenty miles an , for that life could not be sus- atthat rate of speed O:hers said it would be ible to use them in the winter, that the frost snow would prevent that; and I remember to have seen a letter from a gentleman of some dis- tinction, written when railways were first projected, prophecying their failure as means of transporting merchandise, because the jar would be too groat. These perntioes have disappeared, and so will the prejudices against reilways in citi I venture to predict. that it will yet become an admitted prin- | ciple, that the rsilway car must supersede every | other mode of conveyance, on all routes where the rail can be laid, and the amount of travel will justify the expense of constrastion. What ¢ application now before the commit- tee? lt ie the: application of Jacob Sharp, John Anderéon, William Menzies, and their associates, “for tho privilege of laying down » railroad in Broadway, from the South , through White- hall street, Broadway, to and through the Bloom- ingdalo road, to Manhattanville”? No mention is made of ao particular kind of railway. You m3 wake such regulations on that point as you thial moet expedient. You may require the applicants to lay down a donble or atreble track. aah peer If 1 were to express my own opinion, I should say that a double track was preferable. I should recommend two tracks only, and cars twenty-four feet long, and six wide, capable of carrying sixty persons in- side and on the top. And, in my argument, I shall suppose, by way of illustration, such a track and euch cars to be actually m: I shall endeavor to show how, u such a pl e Eanades es prac- ticable, and will answer the intended. It must be borne in mind, that the application does not suppose any interference whatever with private vehicles. The carriage, the cart, every sort of private conveyance, will circulate in Broadway as before. What is proposed is, to substitute one kind of public conveyance for another; to let the car take the place of the omnibus. Inetead of these heavy, noisy, racing vebicl on high wheels, which now encumber the street, stunning you with their noise, battering the pavement, an from one side of the street to the other, we should have cara, on low wheels, moving upon smooth iron rails, on a fixed line, making litile noise, and doing no injury to the pavement. The applicants allege 1. That they can lay a double or treble track of iron rails even with the pavement, and insert in it a groove so narrow, that no foot or wheel can enter it. 2. That they can place on these rails carriages capable of taking sixty persons inside and on the top, and move them with two horses at tho rate of | five or six miles the hour. Is this practicable? There can bo no manner of doubt that a rail, flush with the pavement. can be laid, so that a carriage crossing it in any direction would feel no jar; and if a flange of half an inch in | Width will be sufficient to guide the car, the groove may be made so narrow that no wheel used in | Broadway can get into it Upon this point we have the evidence of Mr. Edwin Smith, civil en- i pincer, who says, ina letter which I holdin my ‘and, that uch a flange would bo suflicient, if the cars do not move ata greater speed than six or eeven miles the hour. As to the cars, it is beyond question that they can be built of the kind and copes I describe. f, then, the plan is practicable, our next inqui is, what object is to be gained by it, what good wil it eerve ? For though it be never so feasible, yetif it will answer no good purpose, it ought not to bo | undertaken. This brings me to the main argument. What are the objects to besought? They are these :— 1. A better mode of conveyance for passengers, 2. The relief of Broadway. 3 Increased facilities of communication between the upper and lower parts of the city. ih ae I will venture to state the following propo- | sitions :— First. That if there were ample room in Broad- | way for all the omnibuzes necessary to carry all the passengers who do now or may hereafter need the Senvavance the eubstitution of cars for omnibuses would be desirable, because the cars are easier, quicker, cheaper for the passengers, lees burdensome to the city, and less annoying to persons passing or living in the street. Second. That there is not sufficient room in Broad- way for the omnibuses we now have, much less for those which will be necessary hereafter, if that mode of conveyance is to be perpetuated; or, in other words, that Broadway should be relieved, and in- creased facilities given to the intercourse between the upper and lower wards. Third That a railway in Broadway is a measure indirpensable to the accomplishment of these objects. Fourth. That there are no solid objections to such a railway, and that, therefore, the application ought to be granted. These Propositions I will now endedvor to enforce. First. ‘The rai] car is preferable to the omnibus as a mode of conveyance. It is easier, as 1 think everybody will concede who has ever compared one with the other. Oxe is a uniform motion upon a emooth rail with very little jar; the other is une- ual, liable to jolt. and made more disagreeable by the constant practice of racing. Then the car is quicker. Why isit quicker? It is because a less force is necessary to move the same weigh! upon the iron rail. One of the renner es who argued for | the remonstrants, asserted, indeed, that the Russ pavemect had as little friction as the iron rail; but thie, Mr. Chairman, is a palpable extravagance. experiment which he made in London, ona stone | trackway, on which the friction was reduced to one- one hupdred and cightieth of the weight ; he gives the friction on railroads as one-two hundred and eightieth of the weight. The stone trackway men- tioned by him was smooth, net grooved and roughened as isthe Russ pavement ; of course the latter has nothing like the advantage of the stone trackway in respect to friction. Mr. Edwin Smith, whom I bave already mentioned, estimates the proportion between the iron rail and the Rass pavement, as one to five in favor of the rail. Gwlespie, in his treatise on roads, mentions an | The railway is cheaper than tho omnibuses, be- | cause less expensive to construct and work. On this point I tske the calculation of the remonstrants themeelves, who have stated tho capital invested iv omnibus¢s, running on Broadway, at $2,500,000 ; and the entire eost of the proposed rauway, fur- | pished complete, at $250,000. gain in proportion of ten to one. But this is not ail. Now, asI shall show hereafter, sixty one cars will do all the work of 527 omnibuses. “Allowing Here, then, is a | two horses to an omvibus or car, we have 122 horses | doing the work of 1,054, being a gain of 932 on each set, and ag each vehicle has three sets of horses during the day, the total gain in the number of | horses, necessary to work the two kinds of convey- ance, will be 2, The railway cause the expense of the pavement is vastly | that must be apparcnt toevery one. We all ken: Jess bardensome to. the elty, be- | that the great injury done to the pavement of New | York is cansed by the ompibuses pavement, after two or three years gor in some places materially indented. Besides, the railway will be Jess annoying to per- fons passing or living onthe street. There will be less noise. Per:ons waiking in Broadway are un- oe, is now able to converse with any pleasure, the noise of the | omnibuses is so great; the cars are ulmost noive- less, £0 much £0, that it js cometimes thought neces- fury to put bells on the horses, to give noties of their approach. There would also ba less dust. Whet makes the dust in Broadway? The chief caure of all that fills our eyes and lungs every morning is the omnibuses. Again, if you put down a railway thore will be | less obstruction than is caused by the 527 omni- buees, for which will be substituted sixty one cars. Can they cause the same obstruction to passengers ? There is also less danger, because you know when the cars are coming, but you do not knew when omnibus is coming ; you must look outin every di- | rection for omnibuses, as they come racing up and down Broadway, and get out of their way. | I pass now to the next proposition, and that is, | that Broadway must be relieved, and incroased fa- and lower wards in the city. First, is Broadway overcrowded? Upon this sub- bad every man has tho evidence of his own senses. e know that no person, in the morning or evening, can pass up and down Broadway without encounter- ing serious obstructions ; you are sto ped at halfa dozen places, especially in the vicinity of Fulton | street and Maiden lane; if you are in an omnibus or carriage you are stopped ‘of course, and threo or four times, before you can*get to the Park or Trinity Church The statistics ef travel in Broadway have been carefully taken, once in August, and as it was suggested that travel was loss at that timo of tho ear, the observations were repeated in October. (ho results are nearly tho samo; ao that I shall moke ure chiefly of the first table, the same that was published come weeks ago, and stated in tho opening argument of my associate, What do these statistics show? Look at thom fora moment. Whatis the number of omnibases | pews the Museum daily? Six thousand three | hundred and seventy-three. What is the number of other vehicles? Nine thousand four hundred and forty two, making tho total number passing the Museum during the day, fifveen thousand eight hundred and fifteen, giving an average of one thou- | sand two hundred and sixteen por boar. Darin; the hour of heaviest travel there are ono thousand four hundred and forty, or from twenty to twenty- four a mivute. Bupporiag each omnibus to have two horsos— some of them have four; but supposing each to hays two, and half the other veh t> have the same, and the rest one, wo havo during tho day 26,909 horses, or 2,069 an hour, and during the heaviest hour of travel, 2,424, or from 34 to 40 a mioute Thus we have duriag the day 15,815 vehicles, and 26,909 horses, and during the heaviest hour 1,440 vehicles, and 2,124 horses, making 24 vehicles aad 40 horses every minute. And yet gentlemon tell me that Broadway is not overcrowded! This is cilities given to the intercourse between the upper | Even the Rass | | Let ue seo what it will do. exclusive of any crossing at any portion of the street. Tt is, in dangerous to drive in Broadway, and sti}l more dangerous to cross the street iW the Park. No one can cross without first looking right and left, aud thon running with all his might. Some say this state of things is attractive; that is a matter of taste. But, says one gentleman who addressed you on behalf of the omnibus owners, there is no oscasion to legislato about this; everybody goes up Broadway voluntarily, and why should you come in and help them? oF all the arguments used in this discussion, that, I think, is the most extraordinary. What! do nothing to facilitate the means of communication because a man uses tho present voluntarily! Do nothing to blow up the rocks of Hellgate because a veesel goes thero voluntarily! WEY: then, increase the facilities of travel? Why build light-houses ? Why build any improved road? Whoever goes on | @ common road gees voluntarily, but a man would be thought insane who should give that as a reason for not making it better. So far I have confined my argument to the quos- tion whether Broadway ought to be relieved There | is another consideration of great importance, and | that is the increased facilities betweon the upper | ae ewer parts of the city which our condition | mands. These increased facilities are demanded of you— ou are bound to give them—you must give them. The omnibuses, of course, are powerless to do any- thing more for us—they cannot give us increased | facilities. There are as many of them in Broadway ascan be run there. They cannot carry more per- sons from the upper wards to the lower. If that be 80 now, how long will it shortly be? The city is probably increasing at the rate of 60,000 a year—in ten years 600,000 persons will be added to our population, occuping probably sixt; streets. Ton thousand is a large estimate for eac! street, including the adjacent avenues, and making allowances for squares and public buildings, so that, | if you go on increasing at the rate of the last five ears, in the year 1863 this city will be compactly hiled from Twenty-third to Kighty.third street. This supposes that the draining off of our popula tion to the adjavent cities, to go on as it has done; but that ought not te continue, and the govern: ment of the city ought to do what it can te vent the drawing off of our population | om the upper wards to Brooklyn, Williams- burg and Jersey City. They there for the rea- son, that business being donc in the lower wards of the city, they will live where it is convenient for | business If you do not give them the meansof easy communication with the upper parts of our island, they will go to the adjacent places. great mistake to consider this city confined. are an island, and Williamsburg, Brooklyn, aud | Jersey City, arc in fact adjuncts of the Firat ward, and persons go over there because they can reach the lower parts of the city by the boats easier than if they lived in the Legs parts. If you had means of communication between the | upper and lower wards, what would have been the results now? Brooklyn has a population of one hundred thousand ; Williamsburg upwards of twon- ty-five thousand. Now, if these one hundred and twenty-five thousand had remained in the city the population would have now reached to Thirty-sixth treet. The learned gentleman who last adi ou (Mr. Ayitiog) ttatod that he thought it uawiso 0 give facilities of communication between the up: | per and lower parts of the city, because you ought to force the centres of business ‘‘up towa 3” hit language is—‘‘ you will do a great disservice to the city by increasing the facilities of communication.” | 6 argument is this: ‘If you don’t increase the | facilities, business will follow the population up town.” Now this argument omits an important fact, which is, that persons who do business on this island can live elsewhere. | This island is not isolated, but is part of a large territory, and if you do not 6 the communi- | cation between the upper and the lower wards, men | doing business in the lower wards will go to adja- cent places. Business will choose its place; all the city government can do is to give facilities of com- munication, and leave business to take its own course. For these reasons, I insist that Broadway must be | relieved, and that you must give increased facilities of communication between the upper and lower wards of the city ; that the strongest considerations in regpect to the improvement, the health, and the pepuiision of the city imperatively require it. come now first to the third proposition, which is, | that this reliefof Broadway, and these increased fa- cilities of communication, cannot be had without changing the mode of conveyance in that street; | that the railway will do it, and nothing else will. Now, what will a railway in Broadway do? Let | us look at the figures: jixty cara will take, at sixty each, three thousand six hundred passengers each hour. 100. een 12 f T 4 travel, gives two hundred and seventy-one omnibuses passing the Museum up Broadway, taking two thourand eight hundred persons and twe hundred | and fifty-six omnibuses passing down, with eight hundred and thirty-three persons. | Now, il yseee! each car to take sixty persons, | these woul be take by forty soven cars up, and | fourteen cars down. The omnibuses require one | thousand and fifty-four horses, each omnibus hav- ing twohorses These cars take one hundred and | twenty-two horses; therefore, by substituting sixty- | one cara and one hundred and twenty-two horses | for five hundred and twenty-seven omnibuses and one thousand and fifty four horses, we take all the passengers, and thus get rid of four hundred and sixty: six vehicles, and nino hundred and thirty-two horses every hour, or during the thirteen hours | which the vehicles run, we get rid of six thousand | and fifty-eight vehicles, and tvelve thousand one hundred and fifty-six horses, moving the same num- | ber of passengers. Willit be said that the car is larger than the omnibus, and therefore takes up as large an amout of rcom, and so we gain nothing in that way? Let us, then, compare them. i I will assume the car to be twenty-four fect long | and six fect wide, and how much does that give you as the superficial contents of the car!—ove hundred and forty-four feet. Now what is that of the omni- bus? Iwill take an omnibus of the smallest di- mensions, with a superfices of forty-nine and a half feet, that is nine feet long and five and ahalt foot wide—sixty-one cars will then take a superficies of eight thousand seven hundred and eighty-four fquare feet. What is the superiicies of tho five handred end twenty-seven omnibuses which aro re- quired to move the same amount of passengers? The superfices of five hundred and twenty-seven omnibuses is twenty-six thowsand and eighty-six feet, and it you add the superticies taken up by the horsec—that is enpposing they take ton fect in length by five fect wide—tifty equare feet, you gain in horses twenty-three thoueand three hundred tect, moking a totel gain in superficies of horses and vehicles forty-thonsand six Lundred aod two feet. Is not this relieving Broadway? Wuil tho railway give increased facilities of communication between the upper end lower wards of the city? Sixty care, as [have etated, will take thirty-six hundred passengers and | one hundred cars will take six thousand, so thet | one hundred cars, moving thirtoen hours, will take seventy-eight thousand persons. Now, the largest number of persons taken up during the whole thir- tecn hours by the omnibuses, iz seventeen thousand and thirty-nine, and if all the omaibuses moved up Broadway during the day were filled with as many | as they could take, they could take only forty-one thousand one bundred and one persons, that is to say, one hundred“ cars would take four and a half times as many passengers as the omnibuses do now | take, and twice as many as they could take if | stowed to their utmost capacity. ¥ Ninety-four cars up, and twenty-oight down, will | take dcuble the number of passengers now taken in the hour of beaviest travel. Five hundred and twenty-seven omnibuses will take up as much room as one hundred and eighty-one cars, which one hun- | dred and eighty-one cars would take ten thousand | eight hundred and sixty personas both ways, or one hundred and forty-one thousand one hundred and eighty during thirteen hours. The comparison may be stated thus: the samo number of persons may bo carried through Broadway, taking the vehiclos alono into consideration, at about one-third os much | of the atrect, and, taking the horses alse into con- sideration, at less than a quarter; while the same use of the street during the day, at least ons hw dred and seven thousand six hundred and ninoty- feven more persons would be taken than aro taken | now, and fifty-eight thousand nine hundred and | sinty-ctght more Pate could be takon by the | present number of omnibuses. Tho gentlemen on the other side may answer this argument if they can. If I am right in this, I havo shown that a railway, | a8 proposed, will reliove Broadway, and will give additional facilities of communication between the | upper and lower parts of the city, he form and situation of thia city indicate the system of public conveyances which wo ought to | adopt. Tho island is long, with deop water sufficl- cient for the heaviest ships on both sides. What We want is ono groat truvk Jine through the centre | of the island, with branches to the shore on both | sides. Broadway and Bloomingdale road are in the centre, and on the ridge nearly midway between the two rivers. There the trunk line should run, and that must be a railway, because no system of omibuses would ever be gnificiont. What expedients havo heen suggested ta place of a rnilway in Broadway? The opening of sido atrests and running cars or Omnibuses there, This would | not avawer the purpose, unless the foot pasengors would go there. Yon may © sido streets, but | | you will not take off the traflic from Broadway un- — esa you can force foot paceengers into the side streets; public conveyances must go where foot pas- sengers are. You cannot divert tho foot travel into aside strect, for tho reason that you cannot move | Broadway into tho side streete; the shops and | hotels there aro the great points of attraction, and you cannot move thom. What side streets woul you open? Tho only streets contemplated are Poarl | street, Willitw street, Church and Greenwich strecte | four feet for the length of the | for his labor. | written contract, and produced « paper Pearl street and Greenwich strect are too far from Broadway to relieve it, avd so is William street. Chureh street is the only one which willdo any good- The expense of that wouldbe immense. Bat su; it ed to the battery. and ines of omnibuses or running there. Wonld Broadway be relieved? The way psssen cers—that is, those who get inatthe lower part of the city, wisbing to go oa in Broadway, south of Bleecker street, would not leave Broxdway, go into Church street, go up aud then return to Broadway — J¢ is only the through passen- fez who would think of taking the Church street ine. Now, would any person in Broadway. or onst of it, go over to Church street? He would not, if + there were any pubiic conveyance in Broadway; he because would take that because it was nearer, and the line through Hroadway is moro agreeable. If, however, you feck to force the travel into Church street, by excluding the public conveyances from Broadway, you at once depreciate the value of the Broadway property. The foot passen; will £ where the public conveyances are, and where sengers go the busincss will go. The certain ef- Rect of opening Church street, and forclng ye conveyances out of Hocadney, into it, is to lessen the business of Broadway, and to transfer, by do- grees, the shops and hotels to the side street. Inow come to the fourth sition, that there are no valid objections to o railway in Broadway. | First, as to surface of tho street; if the rail be even with the so small that neither foot fas re can enter it surface beige be injured. ee Ee Fri se day, and no cars were ever put u} street, the slightest inconvenience would be felt from tho presence of the rail. Then, as to the ocoupstion of the street by the cars, or, in other words, the substi- tution of the cars for the omnibuses, I have shown that the cars will look as well as the omni- pavement, and the groove be made the | buses; there will be fewer of them, they will take up less room, they will be confined to o fixed line, they will make less noiso and dust, and be quicker asior. wil the interfere with the use of the street for private vehicles, or foot passengers? The latter will be better off, certainly, on the side be- | cause they will be more quiet, and in crossing will be less danger. Then as to vehicles, there will | be room between the cars and the sidewalk for a cart to stand back to the walk, or for twe oi 08. ‘o pass each other; if in two or three places at ower end of tho street, the carriageway is a little Jess than forty-two fect wide, that would occasion but a slight and temporary deviation from the gone- sal course of travel. But it is said that the cars will be so frequent as to make it dangerous fora carriage to eross from one side to the other. Let us look at this now; sixty cars starting overy minute and moving in the same direction at the rate of six miles an hour, will be five hundred and twenty-eight feet apart, from the centre of the train to centre. Allowing twonty- ear, and ten for that of the horses, thirty-four feet in all, dedacting that | from five hundred and twonty-eight, leaves four hundred and ninety-four feet from the end of one car to the horses of the succeeding. And takin sixty cars each way, one hundred and twenty in all, will leave two hundred and thirty feet, and ninet; each way, one hundred and forty-two fect. It is not probable, that one hundred an cighty care will be often upon the road at the same time, but sup- posing them to be there, will there be an; n= venience or danger ina carriage passing from one side to the other, between cars one hundred aud Bos Auch) feet apart? Not tho least. low long does it take a carriage to cross Broad~ way, say from Maiden lano to Fulton atreet? About six eeconds. Observations made the otherdayupon the time, taken by carts loaded and unloaded, in cros- sing from Maiden lane to’ Cortlandt street, showed that the averago time for a single cart was 6] sec- onds, and for three carts in succession, eleven sec- onds. The legal objections to granting thie sppli- cation, have not been very strongly insisted upon, and I do not know that it is necessary forme to be- stew much attention upon them. Tf the power of the Corps. to grant a railway be denied. f have only to say that the Porporetioa havealready exercized it in the cases of the Harlem Railroad, the Hudson River Railroad, and the Sixth and Fighth avenue roads. Those precedents will doubtless be sufficient for this committee. Besides these cases, the Su q emo Court, in the case of Drake pgains the Hudson River Railroad Company, settled the question, until a revercal by the Court of Appeals, and there I leave it. Having thus, Mr. Chairman, gone over and en- deavored to establish these four sitions—Firat, that the rail car is in itself a better mode of convey- ance than the omnibus; second, that Broadway ought to be relieved, and increnged facilities given te connection between the upper and lower parts of the island; third, that a railway in Broadway wil accomplish these objects, and that nothing else will: and fourth, that there are #o valid objections to such a rales follows, Isubmit, that the application of my clients acer to be granted. - But, say the re- monte! pee io; this application ought to be Us. Mr. Chairman, this application ought to b granted to those who e applied for it, and nob to those who opposed it, for two reasons :— Firat—Applicants have had the labor, vexation, and expense, of sustaining their application, meeting the vehement and protracted opposition it ensoun- tered, of taking upon themselves the priya of providing the means for carrying through thi project. They are first in time, and eo between rival Uae! they who are first in time ought te be pre! ferred, according to all ust and all reason. “* First in time, first in right,” other things bein; equal, is a maxim of law and justice. In the next place, the rewonstrants have been bofore you for nearly a mouth—fiom the 9th October to ‘the 6th November—urging every objection, resorting to every expedient to embarrass and Wits Aes grant of the road, and moving in all directions to get up re- monstrances against it. Surely these are not the Sere to make and work this railway. They have een incessant in declarations that they do not be- lieve in it; some contending that it is impractica- ble, others that it is inexpedicnt, and ali denouncing Jou in advanco for granting it, as guilty of & grosm abuse of power, No rule cam be safer than not to trust an under- taking to the hands of its enemies. If these remon- strants belive in the project, they ought not to be here oppo:ing it; ifthey do not believe it, thoy bas not to have charge of it. ouare told that my clients are sooking their own profit. This does not coms with a very good grace from gentlemen who come here for their pri- vate interests, and finish by asking tho graat for themselves. But what is there in the objection it- self? My clionts are not adventarers; they are men of property, eome of them holding Jand in Broad- way, and their characters are a guaranty that they will keep their engagement with the pablic? And what if one of their motives be personal profit? Ara public enterprises, w involve # large outlay of morey, commonly undertaken from mere benevo- lence, eee who spend without expecting a re- turn. here is the railway that has been bailt by chariteble contributors, without hope of dividends or other private benefits? No, the government gives the priviloge for the public good, but the indi- viduals construct the work for the hope of reward for their expenditure. And thoy ere wise states- men who krow how to make the desire of private emolument subserve public advantage. This is not # question which concerns the owners of property on Broudway alone. Every citizen who uses the street bas an interest in it. We, the citi- zens of New York, havo as faeel right to dictate to the owners how they shall use their fots as they Lave to dictate to us how we shall use the street. ‘The conditions of the grant are matters to be stipulated between the Common Council and the applicants. Iam not here to discuss thom. I am here only to discues the general question Lot that question be approached with impartiality and can- dor. Let it be decided without regard to clamor on the one hand, or solicitation on the other. My clients ask no more than that pula tion sball be carefully considered, and dir onate-- | ly acted upon, not in a narrow spirit, but with a | wise forecaste. What this city wants is a compre- hensive plan of public improvements, looking to the presenting tothe future, This is now the third city in Christendom; in ten or fifteen years it wild be the second; and the child is born who will see it the first. Fortunate will it be for us if its con~ yeniences and embellishments keep pace with ite enlargement. _ Superior Ceurt.—Part Second, Before Hon. Judge Duer. Nov. 11.— William Johnston, against the Wilkes- barre Coal Company. This was an aotion brought by tho plaintiff against the defendants, for raisin; canal boat, sunk with @ load of co: Williams- | burg. The allegation of the plaintiff is, that he raised the boat, and is entitled to a reasonable sum The defendants say that thoy made a igned b; one William Spence, the agent of the company, bul not signed by the plaiatiff. This paper siates that the work was to be done for $150. It is also alleged by the defendants, that the work was not properly done. Testimony was given, that the paper was not drawn in the presence of the plaintiff, but waa written a“terwards by the agent, Spones; that the boat wa raised, ard coal taken out; that it was a most dificult job. The jury returned a verdict for the desendants. Executions —Lucy, a negro girl who was sen= tenced to be bung at Richmond oa the 22d ult , for the murder of hor infant child, was respited by the Governor of Virginia till Noy. 12th, thisday, A slave named Miles, convicted for committing a rapo upon a white girl in Princess Ann county, Va, was —- to be hung on the 12th of November, to-day. Posr Orvicn Orsnations.—Establishod—Roe’s Station, Cambria county, Penn, Eaoch Roos post- mester; Sabbath Rest. Blair county, Penn , Witter Beighe postmaster. Discontinued—Pittsburg, Darke county, Ohio; Lathrop, Suequehanna gounty, Peng ne ER CN