The New York Herald Newspaper, March 2, 1853, Page 2

THE BROADWAY RAILROAD. Standing Dis New Yorkers, The for the ANOTBER DECISION IN THE CASE. "The Case ot the Common Council in Contempt SUPERION COURT—SPECIAL TER The Hon. Judges Duer, Bosworth, and Emmet on the bench. Marcu 1.—The People vs. Oscar W. Sturteva Bosworth, J., furnished to Judge Duer the following advisory opinion, which was adopted by him as the opinion of the Court:—The specific question under consideration is: Shall the defendant be required to answer the fifth interrogatory? This proceeding is based on an allegation that the defendant has dis- obeyed an injunction-order made by a Judge of the Court in an action pending therein. The papers on which the attachment was issued allege that the de- fendant, in addition to disobeying the order, iutro- duced and voted for a certain amble and resolu- ‘tions relating to the issuing the injunction, the acts probibited by it, Cll change to state the | aac on which ‘the defendant assumed to disobey The fifth interrogatory calls A the defendant ‘to answer whether he did not vote for such preamble and resolutions; and whether, by his vote and others, they were not adopted by the Board of which he is, was then,a member. T rhethe the defendant should be required to answer it, it is neeessary to look at the nature of the present pro- eeeding, the ends thatmay properly be accomplished dy it, and whether the fact of having voted, or having emitted to vote for them, is one that can legitimately . be taken into consideration in the final disposition of this matter, and which can justly affect the ultimate decision. The code provides that the order which | has been disobeyed may be enforced as the order of “the court."”” (Code, sec. 218.) Section 471 de- olares that, until the Leglslature otherwise provides, | the code ‘shall not affect any proceedings provided | for by” chapter 8 of the third part of the Revised Sta- tutes, excluding the second and twelfth titles thereof, unless some provision thereof is plainly inconsistent with the code, and that any such provision shall be deemed repealed. These proceedings are instituted under the thirteenth title of that chapter of the Re- | vised Statutes. The provisions of the Revised Sta- tutes must, therefore, furnish a solution of the | under consideration. They provide that “every court of record shall have power to | punish, as for a criminal contempt,” persons ity of certain acts, and, among others, “wilful | bedience of any process or order lawfully is sued or made by it.” (2 R.S., 278, sec. 10, sub. 4.) This class of contempts may be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, and by | imprisonment not exceeding thirty days. This pun- | ishment may be inflicted irrespective of the conside- | ration of any injury done to a party to the action on which the process was issued, or the order made, and ie to be fixed irrespective of any such consideration. For all contempts of this character the offending erty vay be indicted(2 R. S., 692, st as for a mis- nor. If subsequently indicted, the court be- fore which a conviction is had on such indictment is meee forming its sentence, to take into con- sideration the punis! ent before inflicted in the pro- ceedings as for a criminal contempt. (2 R. 8. 278, 14.) St of chap. 3 of part 3,) remark that a “solid .and obvious distinction exists between contempts, strictly such, and those offences which go by that game, but which are punished as contempts only for the of enforcing some civil remedy. This tended to be included in the preceding sections. The latter class are treated of subsequently among mis- gellaneons proceedings in civil cases.” (3 R. S. 695, foot of the page.) The statute in relation to the lat- ter class,(2 R. S. 534, §1,)provides ‘that every court of record shall have power to punish, by fine and im- i ent, or either, any neglect or violation of , orany misconduct, by which the rights or remedies of a party in a cause or matter depending in such court may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced, in the follow cases,‘and s mong others, “for disobedience of any process of such court, or ot any lawful order thereof, or of any lawful order of a judge of such court.” It will be noted that the ex- preesion here used is, ‘for disobedience” of a lawful order, omitting the word ‘wilful.’ To punish as for a criminal c tempt. there must have been ‘“‘a wilful disobedience.” (2 B.S. aD sub. 3.) Although the disobedience was not wilful, a party offending may be punished in the cases prescribed in 2 R. S. 534, §1, if his neglect of daty was such that by it the rights or remedies of a party toa cause might be de- feated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced. But al- @bough in sueh a case the disobedience might have resulted from a misapprehension of duty, or from the advice of counsel, honestly given and implicitly believed, that the act which the law adjudges to be @ieobedience was not prohibited, yet the disobedi- ence may have been wilful, and hive been accompa- nied with such acts and circumstances as would show a to make the disobedience studiously offen- sive the court, and to publicly manifest by it a eontemptnous disregard of its order and anthority. Hf the latter should be the true nature and character of the act of disobedience, is it to be overlooked, and | are all ares peas calling for answers that might establish it to be suppressed? The 20th section de- elares, that if the court adjudges the defendant to have been guilty of the misconduct alleged, and that “it was calc d to or actually did” produce cer. results, ‘‘ it shall proceed to impose a fine, or to fain imprison him, or both, as the nature of the case shall | require.” If actual loss has been produced, a fine shall be imposed that will indemnify the party, and satisfy his costs and expenses, (sec. 21.) The sta- ‘tate is imperative, that in case of actual loss, a fine, sufficient to indemnify and to satisfy costs and ex- penses, must be imposed. In all other cases, that is, in those cases in which no actual loss is shown, but in which it is adjudged that the act of disobedience was calculated to defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of any party, the fine shall not exceed $250 over and above the costs and expenses of the eedings, (sec. 22.) For what, it may be ask- ed, is this fine to be imposed in a case in which no actual loss has been sustained, and by what considera- tions is a court to be governed in properly determin- ing whether it shall be $1 or $250? This question can be more advisedly answered ona reference to other provisions of this statute. It will be noted ‘that sections 21 and 22 speak only of the fine to be imposed, and nothing in relation to the imprisonmen Section 20 gives the power to fine and imp: Sections 23 and 24 relate to the matter of imp: ment, and embrace two classes of cases. The 23d reguiates the extent of the imprisonment, where the misconduct complained of consists in the omission to perform some act or duty which it is still in the power of the Pa e cf to perform, and provides that in such cases he shall be imprisoned only until he shall anil iie tne such act or duty, and paid euch fine as shall be imposed, and the costs and expenses of the proceedings. Insuch a case, the order and ess of commitment must specify the act to be ne, and the amount of fiue and expenses to be paid. If able Cpe the latter, the term of his imprison- ment will depend exclusively on his own volition; for when he has paid the fine and Sean and done the act, or performed the duty, it will terminate, and he will be entitled to a discharge. In all other cases, that is, in all cases except those in which the misconduct alleged consists in the omission to per- form some act or duty which it is yet in the power of the defendant to perlorm, he may be punished by imprisonment “for some reasonable time, not ex- ceeding six months,” and until the expenses of the proceedings are paid, and also, if a fine be imposed, until ich fine be paid (id. § The power to nish by imprisonment, conferred by section 20, so ras the imprisonment is ordered, by way of pun- ishment, is limited by section 25 to six months; but if the fine and expenses are not paid it would last through hfe but for the act of 1843, chapter 9. This Jimitation, of the power to imprison for a period not exceeding six months, has no connection with the imprisonment ordered to compel the payment of the line imposed, and of the costs and expenses of ngs. For if the power to punish by im- it in this class of cases is a powerto be ex- ercised for the sole purpose of compelling payment of the fines and expenses, then it would follow, as a limit is set to the power to imprison, and the impri- sonment cannot exceed six months—that at the end of that period the offending party must be discharg- ed from imprisonment, whether the fine and ex penses are paid or not. Yet, independent of the ex language of the statute, that where the punish- ment adjudged is merely a fine and payment of the nseg power wis competent to terminate it short of that period, aad hence the act of 1343 (chap. 9) was passed authorizing a discharge on proof of inability tw do the tkings required. The imprisonment author ized by sec, 25 imposed at all, is b; way of punishment, and must be endured, even though the fine and expenses be paid the moment the decision is made. This impri- soument for @ reasonable time, not exceeding six montus, may be impoxed in every case in which the misconduct alleged calls for it, except in the cases specified in sec. 23. In that class of cases the mis- conduct or disobedience consists in not having acted at all—in all others in having actually done some- beg prohibited. i. may be thought singuiar that ase of @ crimital contempt, and in punishin, it aswuch, the power to imprison should be restelosed to thirty days, und that’ in proceeding to punish as for a contempt injuries wo civil rights the power to imprison for a longer perld should have been con- ferred. Yet the revisors, in their notes to sections 23 to 26 of 2 R. S. make this comment :— “In cases of criminal contempt, by sec. 11, title 2, Sa 4, of this part, the imprisoument is limited to thi Lend Perhaps there may be® cases where a jm prison it for injuries to civil rights ousht to be allowed.” These three sections were enacted in war 5 my hy: en roposed, (3 RS. 773, bh ’ n,a posed as aun ishment where no loss has ‘ been by ihe diwbedienco—i/ iumprisyo- UC Ub. Obed To determine whether | ‘he revisors, in their notes upon this title, | aietinc ion has been observed, and the former are in- | ie imprisonment must continue until | they are paid, it has been uniformly beld that no | , Within the limit of six months, if | ment not exceeding six months may be ordered with the same view, if the ment, when,ordered, is to be for o1 period, it is obvious that some prince ple exists, by which the Court ought to be guided in diserimina- ting between cases, and by which in some it may properly fine to the extent of $250, while in others the fine should be nominal only, and by which it may determine whether imprisonment should be ordered as a punishment, and what term would be a reasonable period in any particular case. The re- pas cases show that ‘courts have regarded it as ree from doubt that the nature of the disobedie: as whether it was wilful or otherwise, was on matters to be regarded in determining whether any and what punishment shou!d be intlicted be- yond the imposition of a fine sufficient to indemnify an injured party for his loss and to satisfy his expen- ses. In Hawley vs. Bennett, 4 Paige, 164, the Chan- ecllor said, that * so far as the rights of a party have been affected by the breach of an injunction, it is no defence to the person who has been guilty of viola- | ting the same that he did it under the advice of | counsel, although, if he has acted in good faith, it may be sufficient to protect him from punish- ment as fora criminal contempt.” In Rogers ys. | Paterson, id. 456, the Chancellor restated the prin- ciple thus: “ And the advice of counsel cannot pro- | tect a party in disobeying an order of the court, so as to iprereny the adverse party, whose remedy is im- | paired or impeded by such disobedience, from taking the necessary oe to compel a compliance with the | order, although the fact tthe party has acted in good faith, and under the advice of his counsel, may | be sufficient to a Perea the imposition of a fine be- yond the actual amount of the injury sustained by the adverse party, and the nec expenses of the proceedings.” ‘In Sullivan vs. Judah, 4, id. 447, he said,‘ In this case it is evident the complainant has sustained no injury by the proceedings of the de- fendants, although they have naeaccedied in direct op- ‘ition to the injunction. nd the excuse offered yy them is sufficient to prevent the imposition of any | considerable fine as a punishment for contemning the process of the court.” In Lansing vs. Easton,7 Paige, 67, he remarked that ‘‘ The fact that the defendants acted under the erroneous advice of counsel, to whom they applied for information how they could elude the justice of this court, and at the same time avoid punishment fora breach of the injunction, cannot protect them from a fine sufficient to compensate the adverse parties for the injuries they have sustained by the wrongful acts complained of, though it may fur- nish a ground to justify the court in refusing to in- | flict a further punishment upon the offenders for a violation of its order.” In the Albany City Bank vs. | Schermerhorn, 9 Paige, 379, in which the Chancelior, on appeal, reversed a Vice Chancellor's order adjudg- ing parties guilty of a contempt, he stated that an | order of conviction should direct “to whom the fine | isto be paid, or what is to be done with such fine when paid, &c., so that the order, and the process of commitment founded thereon, may show the nature of the conviction, and what the defendant is to do to entitle himself to a discharge from imprisonment.” In the People ex. rel., Backus vs. Spalding, 10 Paige, 284, the report of the case shows that Spalding had been convicted, by a Vice Chanceller, of a wilful breach of an injunction issued upon a creditor's bill filed against him. After he had been committed, he | Was discharged by a Supreme Court commission in | proceedings under a habeas corpus. The Vice Chan- cellor made an order for a re-commitment, on the ae that the commissioner had no jurisdiction in that case to order his discharge. From the order | Te-committing him, Spalding appealed to the Chan- | cellor, who affirmed the order. An appeal was taken | to the Court for the Correction of Errors. That court | affirmed the judgment of the Chancellor. Chief Justice Nelson, in delivering the opinion of the court, remarked that ‘‘ the act for which the appel- lant had thus been adjudged guilty is a criminal offence under the revised statutes, and was so before at the common law, subjecting the offender to in- dictment, and, on conviction, to fine and imprison- ment.” (2 R.S., 692, § 14, id, 697; 4 Bl. Comm, 129.) “In cases confessedly criminal and in- dictable, the penalties for which would or- dinarily go for the benefit of the ple, the courts are authorized to impose a fine with a view to the indemnity of the party aggrieved, his acceptance of it being declared a bar to any private action for the injury. The fine, however, is no less a penalty for a criminal act than if inflicted for the benefit of the people; but the imposition of it in the way pre- scribed accomplishes the double purpose of punish- ment for the misconduct on the one hand and in- demnity to the aggrieved party on the other.” (7 Hill, 361.) In that case the court below adjudged that an actual loss had been occasioned by the duos bedience; and although the reports of the case show that he was fined for the contempt to the amount of 33,000, and the costs and e: ses in relation to the contempt to the amount of $196 51, it does not sppear how much was due on the judgment on which he creditor's bill was filed. The order of conviction directed the costs to be paid to the solicitor of the relator, and the $3,000 to be paid to the clerk of the court, subject to the further order of the court. (4 How, S. ©. R. (U. 8.) 21.) In that case Spalding was adjudged, on the 2lst of March, 1842, to have wilfully violated the injunc- tion. On the 7th of May, 1842, he was arrested on an alias mittemus, and continued under arrest until the 20th of September following, when he was dis- charged by the Supreme Court commission, on the | ground that a discharge in bankruptcy, granted on the 17th of September, relieved him ‘from the fine, costs, and expenses, which ‘he had been ordered to pay. In the Court for the Correction of Errors it was ntended, on behalf of Spalding, that the proceed- | ings under which the fine had been imposed, be- ing under the Revised Statutes providing for the en- | forcement of civil remedies, should, though in form criminal, be regarded sim I as another remedy for | collecting the debt Cainer in the chancery suit,and | upon which they had been founded—that the fine posed, under section twenty-two, solely as a panish- ment of the criminal offence, and that imprisonment may be ordered, under section twenty-five, for a rea- sonable period—‘as the nature of the case shall re- ire” (Sec. 20, id.) Lf imprisonment cannot be or- under section twenty-five, solely with that view, then that part of the section which prescribes the limit of six months is nugatory, for the reason that imprisoment ordered to coerce the payment of the fine must continue until it is paid, while this section expressly provides that the im- prisonment shall be “until the costs and expenses of the proceedingsfare paid; and also, if a tine shall be imposed, until such fine be paid;” and this is in ad- dition to an imprisonment ordered for some reasona- ble time not exceeding six months, which of course must terminate when the period expires, although the fine has not been paid, and cannot terminate belore, even if has been paid, while the imprisonment ma continue for years afterwards and until the fine is aid, but is continued simply because it is not paid. admit an inability to conjecture what case may arise in which it would be preper, in addition to im- posing a fine that would indemnify the injured party and satisfy his costs and expenses, to order an im- tara ig asa punishment exceeding in duration hat which the court could order if the proceedin, was one to simply punish the offender for a crimini contempt. The revisors, however, suggested that such cases might arise, and submitted sections ed with a view to confer such power, and the Legislature enacted the sections as pro) and render this exposition of the views with which they were framed. What effect the passage of the resolutions referred to in the fifth interrogatory should justly have upon the final judgment of the Court, is a question not now under consideration, and is one in respect to which the ies should be heard, and which should be carefully considered, with all other attending circum- stances, before any opinion is formed. But it must be obvious that%the passage of those resolutions un- explained is pertinent to the question whether the disobedience was wilful, or was an act done in good faith, and in the honest belief that nothing prohibit- ed by the injunction was done by the defendant in voting for the resolutions referred to in the fourth in- terrogatory. If they tend to show that the acts which are alleged to constitute a violation of the in- junction were done in good faith, and in the honest belief that they did not violate it, then, according to all the cases, and upon principle, there should be neither fine nor imprisonment, for the purpose of punishment, if no actual loss has ted to the relators. There should be neither fine nor imprisonment, for the very reason that the act of disobedience was not wilful, but was done in good faith and without any inten- tion to disobey. If this be so, then it would seem to be equally incontrovertible, that if, unexplained, they tend to show that the disobedience was delibe- rate and designed, and that the acts done were un- derstood as being expressly prohibited by it, such a consideration cannot be overlooked in any final ad- judication based on correct principles and justly ‘adapted to the nature of the case. 1 should not have deemed it necessary to have examined or discussed this question so fully, were it not of the highest im- portance, that in every case that may , these proceedings should be conducted throughout on prin- ciples applicable equally to the case of all ies of- fending, and with a correct understanding of the meaning and object of the statute under which they are prosecuted, and that I felt it incumbent, from the confidence with which eminent counsel avowed the views they presented, to distrust the accuracy of m: own previous convictions, and to consider, upon a fu examination, whether they were well founded. On such examination, I cannot resist the conclusion that the fifth interrogatory is tperenen and proper, and that it is the duty of the defendant to answer it. Mr. Field then read the following answer of to the fifth interrogatory filed against him in this proceeding: Fifth.—To the fifth interrogatory he saith, that he did, at such meeting and immediately after the adop- tion of said resolution, vote with a majority of the members of the Board of Aldermen, in favor of the reamble and resolutions, of which a copy (marked ) is annexed to the interrogatories. at in ating so, his only motive was to vindicate the dignity an assert the rights of the Common Council of the Cit of New York, and of their whole ona teen ey whic! dignity and rights he believed to be unjustly and il- legally assailed by the injunction, and complaint on which it was founded, of a portion of whose contents he had heard through public rumor. That the mo- tives of the members of the Common Council’ were aspersed, and their self-respect wounded, by the charges.of the said compiaint; and that the circum- stances under which the injunction was obtained and served were highly irritating. The resolution had been pending nearly two months; the chambers of the judges were within a few rods of the chambers of ‘ommon Council, and the Mayor's and other public offices of the city, andin the same building with the office of the Corporation Counsel. There had been ample opportunity to apply for the injunc- tion before; and even at the time when it was ap- plied for there was time enough for notice tothe cor- poration, and hearing them, before granting the in- Junction; that the termsof the members of the Board of Assistant Aldermen, a part of the Common Coun- cil, were to expire on the 3d January, 1853; and when the respondent heard that an injunction had been granted without notice and continued beyond the time when the Common Council was to expire, and requiring the defendants, as if in mockery, to show cause against it on the 12th of January, he be- lieved that it was a device of the Peet to defeat the resolution by indirection, and virtually to decide the case without a trial. This respondent also be- lieved, as he still believes, that the Court had no ju- | risdiction to grant the injunction; and believing that it is the right of every citizen to question and resist the exercise of illegal power, he was, in fact, imposcu for the purpose of being ap- plied to the extinguishment of the debt, whenever, | in the progress of the suit, it should have been e: tablished, but that it was incidental to the debt, | and dependant upon it, and that a discharge of the one must necessarily discharge the other. (7 Hill, 302, 303.) It was in answer to this argument that the remarks of Chief Jus- tice Nelson, above quoted, were made. The question was not presented, nor was any suggestion made by the court, in relation to the point, whether in any case imprisonment might properly be ordered as a punishment in ad- dition to the imposition of a fine, nor whether a fine could be imposed merely as a punishment in a case in which one was imposed to indemnify against actual loss, Section 22 is express that a fine may be imposed, not exceeding $250 over and above the costs und expenses of the proceedings, even in those cases where no actual loss was occasioned by the dis- obedience. Sucha fine, if imposed, must necessarily be imposed merely asa punishment; and not as an indemnity, and when paid goes to the benefit of the public, and not to the complaining party. Macey vs. Jordan, 2 Hill, 570, was an appeal to the court of last resort from an adjudication of the Chancellor, that Macey had wilfully violated an injunction issued on | a creditor's bill filed against him, and fining him to | the amount of the respondent’s debt and the costs of the proceedings. The injunction was served on the 23d of November, 193%. On the 5th of December | following, Macey violated it by making an assign- ment of his property. Onthe Gth of August, 1842, | he was discharged under the Bankrupt act. In | October, 1+43, an attachment was applied for, over a year after obtaining his discharge in bankruptcy, to arrest for the violation of the injunction. In March, 1844, he was adjudged guilty of the contempt al- | leged to have been committed in December, 1833, | some five years prior to the issuing of the attach- ment. Justice Jewett, in the opinion delivered by | lim, remarks that ‘the cause for which the fine was imposed was the criminal contempt which the ap- pellant was adjudged to have committed in violating | the injunction.” (2 R. S$. 278 §10.) The panish- ment for such an offence is by fine or imprisonment, or both, according to the aggravation of the case; | and where a party has suffered by the misconduct | which constitutes the offence, the fine is to be | paid to such party. (2 RS. 58s, §20 to 22.) It may | | be trie, that if the debt been paid subsequently to the violation of the injunction, no punishment, or only a nominal fine, could have been imposed.” * * * | “The proceeding after the attachment issued was | for a criminal offence, and although the respon- dent might incidentally derive a benefit from the conviction, still the proceeding was not upon the original demand, or for the re- vovery of a debt.’ The judgment of the Chan- cellor was affirmed by a vote of twenty-two to two. The views expressed of these proceedings in | the cases referred to, do not necessarily conflict or intimate any interpretation of the statute at variance | with the ordinary and natural meaning of its terms, if each opinion cited is read as all opinions should | be, with reference to the particular facts of the case in which it was pronounced. They seem to show a uniform understanding of the statute, that the diso- | bedience of an order may not have been wilful, that it may have arisen from an honest misapprehension by the offending Mak of the nature of the act which he did, and may have occurred in good faith, and in | the belief that it was not disobedience—that in such | a case, if actua) loss resnits from the¥{disobedience, | the court has no discretion which will absolve it from | imposing a fine which will indemnity the injured | party for the loss. That in such a case no fine should impored or cp Pang ordered, purely and | solely a8 a punishment, beyond the punishment | that’ may result from the imposition of a | | fine sufficient to indemnify against the actual lose, and to satisfy the expenses of the proceedings, | ‘That the disobedience may also have been wilful and | designedly contemptuons, and in such case the con- tempt is criminal, and way be punished according to the aggravation of the case. ¢ opinion is inti- | mated by some judges that, in case the contempt is criminal, and actnal loss ensues, the fine Ho shonid be regulated in its améunt with that of the actual loss, and is to be paid to the ty injured. But no opinion is intima’ that no imprisonment can be superadded in such @ case, solely tor the per pore of punishment. It seems to be , algo, im case of wilfal disobedience, although no actual jose in suffered, w fing uot exceeding $200 may be ia | been fluence of all these considerations, vote for the said resolutions; but, in doing so, he did by no means in- tend to question the exercise of any rightful power, or offer any resistance to the law, or any contempt to the lawful authority of the Court. Said preamble oe ocean were, therefore, adopted by said joard. Mr. Van Buren deemed it important that the piuin- tiffs should have copies of these answers. Aldermen Sturtevant and Wesley Smith are the only two de- fendants who have, in compliance with the order of the Court, served their answers on them. It may be necessary to make some affidavits in reply to answers, and they therefore ought to have them. Judge Duer—The answers, with the exception of one or two, are all the same. Ex Chief Justice Bronson inquired how many had answered. Mr. O'Conor—Three. Ex-Chief Justice Bronson—Then there are twenty- four yet to answer. Judge Duer understood Mr. O’Conor to have pro- mired to file the others in the course of the day. Mr. O’Conor would rather not pledge himself that they would be all filed to-day; there may be many delays; but the answers will be the same as those read. Ex-Chief Justice Bronson—They were to have been served on us on Friday. It may be all right when thirty aldermen are concerned; but if it was an indi- vidual, this Court would commit him for not comply- ing with its order. Mr. O’Conor—Take your remedy. -Judge Bronson—If the order was entered on the minutes I would move for an attachment. Judge Bosworth said there did not seem to be any difficulty. Counsel has read the form of the answers, and says that the others will be the same. Mr. O’Conor—There has been so much cavilling I will not make any promise. Judge Duer said the Court could not relieve Mr. O'Conor from the promise already made, that the answers shall be filed in the course of the day. Mr. O'Conor would do so, but there may be one or two that may not be found, and he should not like the Court to have the be sane of sending him to jail to keep company w his clients. (Laughter.) Mr. Van Buren, after looking at Alderman Sturtevant’s answer, ges to read one or two affidavits which would be applicable to all of the defendants. He then read that of Mr. Henry Hilton, which stated that he was present on the 29th Dec., 1852, when Malcolm Campbell delivered a copy of the injunction order, and showed the original to Al- derman Sturtevant; that no action was had in the Board on the Broadway railroad until at Jeast one hour after such service. Mr. Van Buren also read the affidavit of Mr. Campbell, corroborating Mr. Hilton's. He then proceeded to say that the twenty-first sec- tion of the act under which they were proceeding states that the Court shall impose such fine as will indemnify the party for any injury or loss they may sustain; with this view he presented another affida- vit of Mr. Hilton, which set forth that he was one of the firm of McMurray & Hilton; that they were em- ploy ed by the propertyholders on this proposed line prosecute this care; that Messrs. Bronson, Van Buren, Gerard, Wood and Whiting, were employed as counsel, and thatthe expenses to which they had jut amounted to $7,000. Judge Duer—The act says that the costs and ex- penses may be allowed to the party, as weil as the actual losses. After some discussion on this point, the Court said that that affidavit was not relevant at present. Judge Bosworth did not understand the affidavit be; ony any loss beyond that of fees of counsel em- loyed. " r. Van Buren—The Court would see that an affi- davit of the actual loss conld not be made ; if the id, under the in- | manufacturin; Mr. Yan Buren then proceeded to address himself to that point, and was followed in reply by Mr. O’Conor and Mr. Field. Ex-Chief Judge Bronson closed for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Field was permitted to file affidavits in answer to those of Mr. Hilton. The matter was then adjourned to Saturday next, when the sentence of the Court will be announced. An Opinion OF THE EMINENT CIVIL ENGINEER, JOHN B. JERVIS, ESQ., ADVERSE TO THE PROJECT OF A RAILROAD IN BROADWAY, New York, Feb. 19, 1853. Dear Srr—I have given such consideration to the request you made on behalf of the committee engaged in examining the question of the proposed railway in Broadway as the limited time | have at command would enadle me to do. A railway in a public street must be regarded as an interference, and injurious to the occupation of the street for ordinary vehicles. ‘The injury will be proportioned to the magnitude of the sroinaty traffic and the proportion of width occupied by the rail- way. A small traffic in a wide street would experi- ence little injury; but this would of course increase with the increase of ordinary traffic, the comparative narrowness of the streét and the frequency of run- ning railway cars. The causes of this inconvenience are obvious. The cars must occupy a certain part of the street. They cannot tarn out for ordinary vehi- cles, which must get round or past them as best they can. The rail requires a ve that is unfavorable for ordinary vehicles, even in the improved construc- tion. The case proposed is for a railway on one of the greatest city thoroughfares in the world, probably not surpassed by more than one. The project must be regarded as an experiment, and the consequences involved are very important. I do not know the exact width of Broadway be- |- tween the curbstones, but msppoes it varies in width of carriageway from, probably, thirty-five to forty feet. It cannot, I think, vary materially from this. The ordinary use of this street, other than for stages, is for various vehicles employed in the traffic of goods and passengers. It is a commercial street, mostly devoted to the retail trade. In its business, vehicles must often stop at the sides, discharge and receive goods and passengers. This occupies a por- tion of the carriageway, and com; those passing Becupy, the more central portion. If the most general width of the carriageway be taken at thirty- eight feet, it will not, probably, be found far from the truth. The cars of the Sixth avenue railway are about seven feet wide, which is probably as narrow as would accommodate a large tratfic. Iwo tracks are indispensable to such a business as con- templated for the proposed railway. The cars must have some space between them, and seven and a half feet will be as little as can be taken on each side of the centre of carriageway—vehicles, standing at the side, will require about six feet in general— this is for ordinary kinds—thus the rail car passing and the vehicle standing at the side will occupy thirteen and a half feet out of nineteen, leaving five and a half feet for an ordi vehicle to pass on that side. Many that travel in Broadway would require more space than this to move in. A e movin; on the same side, in an cope direction, woul: block up the passage. If were but a small traffic, either by car or ordinary vehicles, this incon- venience would be small—but it has to be kept in mind, that, exclusive of stages, there are a great number of ordinary vehicles, and to accommodate the paneener ic there must be a great nnmber of cars. It has been said that the stages are the principal vehicles in Breiner: but I think if any one will observe with a little care, they will see a great number of others, which in a gene- ral view are kept out of notice by the size and color of the stages, which gives them great promi- nence in the street. The cars cannot move along in regular distances from each other. They must stop to take in and discharge passengers, and as all must goto the central pest of the street to get in, they will be detained often by the passing of other vehicles. The cars will often be stopped by the passing of other vehicles across the tracks, which they will be compelled to do for various reasons. At the cross streets below Canal street, especially below Barclay street, the interference of the cross traffic will be very much in the way of the cars. A train of loaded carts will often ee ee street, and indeed there is no avoiding it. ey will insist on their right, and will often stop the cars,which cannot turn and work their way in a crowd like a stage or other ordinary vehicle. It may easily be imagined what a confusion would be produced by several cars brought up on each track with the ordinary traffic in Broad- way, brought into collision with the traffic in the cross streets; then, circumstances will often bring several cars together, and greatly increase the diffi- cule and delay to ordinary vehicles in crossing the si T have not the statistics of the Broadway traffic, nor is it a matter that could well be reduced by com- putation. The Propriety of entering upon the experi- ment must be determined, I think, by the general view of the circumstances and magnitude of this traf- fic. I have resided for the most part of the last six- teen years in the upper part of the city, and attended to business in the lower ‘The stages in Broad- way have been the means I have used in travelling. The parece that have often been agitated for a rail- way inthis street have engaged my attention, and the operation of a railway in this street has never a) d feasible. As a citizen, (now residing in nty-third street,) I would (apes that no railway be laid in Broadway. Iam fully convinced it would be a public injury, not only to Teondway,; but to the whole city. Itis, in m opinion: a t error to suppose the railway would any relief, (if relief is wanted,) 40 this street ; on the con , that it would increase the confusion and embarraas- ment, and be a damage to the commercial and interests of the city. Breday, is the favorite location of our large hotels. It is the resort of thousands of le from dis- tant parts of the country, that here find the articles of trade of the more expensive kind, and hence it is the most valuable locality for retail trade. To inter- fere with such a street by laying a rail track in the centre, appears to me quite inconsistent with the legitimate accommodation of the large traffic it now A tage Should the el eee be made, I do not e six months would pass before every impartial man would proclaim for its removal. As a citizen of New York,I regard the putting down of rails in Broadway, as a calamity that every reasonable effort should be enlisted to prevent. is my judgment ot the matter, and thongh I have had much to do with railwe 1% it has been my, opinion during all the discussions I have heard, that Broadway is not a pro- per place for a railway. Respectfully, your obedient servant, Joun B. JERvis. D. H. Haight, Esq. City and County of New York :—On this, the 23d da; ibaa 1853, before me, Edwin F.Corey, Commissioner of Deeds for the city and county of New York, came John B. Jervis, to me known, who being by me, duly sworn, did depose and say, that the statements made by him in the toregoing letter, to which he has subscribed his name, ave trae. Epwin F. Corey, Commissioner of Deeds. Theatrical and Musical. BowWERY TneaTRE —This old and favorite establishment, which is now in a career of prosperity, offers for the amurement of its patrons, a very attractive bill. The first piece announced is Bulwer’s excellent comedy of the “ Lady of Lyons,” with Mr. E. Eddy as Claude Melnotte, ond Miss Fanny Landers, a pupil of Mr. Stephens, as Pau- line. The entertainments will conclude with the drama entitled the ‘Felon’s La+t Dream.” The receipts are for the benefit of Mr. Hamilton, a favorite actor. BroabwayY THEaTRE.—Three excellent pieces are an- nounced for this evening, by the enterprising manager of this theatre. The first is the new drama called the ‘White Slave of England,”’ which embraces in its cast nealy all the leading artists of the establishment. The next will be the amusing piece of ‘‘ Who Speaks First?’ and the entertainments will close with ‘‘ Married aod Settled.” It is almost unnecessary to say that with such artists as Conway, Davidge, Mad. Ponisi, Mrs. Vernon, and Mrs. Abbott, the visiters will receive a rich treat in wit nessing the performances. Nrsto’s GARDEN.—Madame Henriette Sontag, who has had one of the most successful operatic engagements, so far as she has gone, is announced to appear to-night in “Linda di Chamouni.”” Much was expected of this great artist prior to her arrival in this city, and we must can- didly say expectation has not been disappointed. Badiali, whose rich and mellow tones are admired by every one, is an able assistant in giving full effect to the respective operas, Indeed, taking the present company as a whole, including the orchestral department, the efforts of the management cannot fail to be successful. Burron’s Tearre.—The same intense desire as ever to visit thi orite Thespian temple exists in the minds of Burton’s patrons. Searcely is the door open when a rash takes place, and in a short time every seat is filled. Shakspeare’s comedy of “Twelfth Night’ will commence the entertainments this evening. The cast containte the names of Dyott, probably one of the beet general actors in the country, Burton, Placide, Johnston, Fisher, Mrs. Dyott, Miss Weston and Mrs. Skerrett. The amusements | will close with the farce of the ‘ Phenomenon.’” { | | | grant is not declared void, it would be a very serious loss to the property holders. Judge Duer—They can’t sustain any actual loas, if the grant is declared null and void. Mr. Van Buren—The expenses are not only for the proceedings in this Court, but fora motion agair the parties in the Supreme Court. Judge Bosworth—-The act says we can’t fine be- yond $250 and the costa and expenses. Judge Ducr—The taxable fees to counsel would be $20 for each attendance, and that alone would amount to a considerable sam. The Court would not hear argument on that point now, but expressed their de- sire to k:.ow counsele’ views with regard to the na- ure of She punichment that ought to ve imposed. National Toeatre.—The same untiring efforte which have characterized the career of Mr. Purdy since his managerial duties commenced, seem {o lose nothing at the present season. He offers for thie amusement of this evening agvery attractive bill. The first in order is the drama called “ Michael Earle,’ which will be followed b: the fairy drama of ‘ Kabri, or the Wooden Shoemaker,” During the evening Miss Partington will dance, and the entertainments wtll terminate with the Irish drama en titled “O'Neal the Great,” with Mecsrs, Jones, Clarke, Mrs, Nicholls and Mra. Jones in the leading characters. Watiack’s Tazatre.—Where can an evening be whiled away with eneh unmixed pleasure and delight, as within the walls of this well rezulated theatre? Mr. Wallack possesses both tact and talent, and knows well how to lease the respectable audiences who frequent his estab- «hment, His selections are admirable, and the artists le has engaged are all gentlemen of first rate talent. ‘The opening feature of this evening will be ‘Old Heads and Joung Hearts,” in which Blake appears in his inimi table representation of Jesse Rural, All will terminate | with “First Come First Served.’’ | the grand » | | | American Musrom.—The bill of entertaiament provided for this afternoon and evening, comprises a repetition of te of Blue Heard, ther with the faree of ‘Family Jars.” “ Blue Bow «been put uyon the stage in’ style of great aplendor. by the talent- ed actor and energetic stage director, C. W. Clarke. St. Cuartm Turatus.—The popular comedy of the “Serious Family,” and the amusing farces of the ‘ Hus- band at Bight,’’ and the ‘Young Widow,” are the pieces casts include the appearance of Mr. Robinson, Miss Mitchell, and Miss Albertine, J PORTPONEMENT OF MADAME SONTAG’S BRooKtyN Concent. —The grand concert advertised to be given by Madame Sontag in Brooklyn, on next Saturday, hes been post- voned till that day week—Saturéay, the 12th instant. ‘onight ‘Linda di Chamounix” is to be presented ai Niblo’s tor the third and last time, Gxcvs.—The Bowery amphitheatre has been well pa- tronised this week, notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather. Wallet. the celebrated clown, is to appear again thig evening, in conjunetion with the entire troupe of gymniasts and equestrians. His benefit is to come off on Friday evening next. Corusty’s Overs Ho —Cbristy’s Minstrels continue to delight crowded audiences by their excellent delinea- tions of the negro character. The programme for this evening is exceedingly attractive. Woon’s Mixstrers, whose performances are always received with utmost satisfaction by large assem- blages, bave p another good programme for this evening. Horn, Briggs, Brower, Newcombe, and Camp. bell, will appear. Rowsext HeLter —This celebrated necromancer, whose Soirees Mysterieuses have alvays been extensively pa- tronized, continues as successful as ever. He offers a good programme for this ereving. Fisiey’s Trames.—This beautiful painting is to be ex- bibited again this evening, at 406 Broadway. It should be seen by the admirers of beautiful paintings. BANvARD's PANORAMA OF THE Hoty Lanp.—The exhi- bitions of this splendid panorama are attended with as great ruccess as ever. Mag. Vauentini's Concerts will be continued all this way, “She sings with con- lent. Bat.’s Move. oF attractive exhibition im Breadway, It should be secn by every one. , Tuvsrratep Screytiric Lecrvres —Dr. Boynton, whose lectures and entertainments have ersated quite a furore at the South and West, will commence a short course of his Sinatra ied ae at Metropolitan Hall, on Thurs- day evening. high reputation of the lecturer, as well as the interest of his subject, together with the low price of admission will insure a full house. It will be seen by the advertisement, that alarge number of the fashion- able magnates of the city have solicited the course. FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL. MONEY MARKET. TvEspay, March 1—6 P. M. We have no change of importance to report in the stock market to-day. The inclement, disagreeable | weather, doubtless, tended materially to the inactivity of speculators. At the first board, Nicaragua fell off @ per eent; Cumberland j. Morris Canal advanced } per cent; Reading Railroad j, and Sixth Avenue | Railroad 1. At the second board, the market exhi- bited a more unfavorable complexion. Prices were | all down, and a great deal of stock was pressing for | 399 sale. Nicaragua fell off } percent; Morris Canal, 4; | ben Harlem, {; Cumberland, }; New Jersey Zinc, {; New Haven Railroad, }. Erie and Cumberland at both boards were more freely sold than any other fancies. Nicaragua Transit fluctuates a good deal from day to day, and the buyers and sellers appear to be pretty equally divided. The opinions which have re- cently been . published, relative to the rights and privileges of this company, should be taken for just what they are worth, and no more. They were got up for the purpose or speculation—to depress the market value of the stock—and a bull operator can go to-morrow and get opinions of equal weight on the other side of the ques- | tion. Anything can be proved by lawyers, doctors, or scientific men generally; and we have had so much of this kind of evidence lately that no one puts any confidence in it. Coal stocks hang heavy on the hands of holders. They have had their day, for a atime at least. The really good ones will come up again gradually, and ultimately take their position | among the first class stocks. We refer particularly to those coal companies which depend entirely upon | mining coal for dividends. The report of the Cumber- | land Coal Company has done more to destroy public confidence in this class of stocks than anything | else we know of. side show. An effort was made, by patching up four rotten cencerns, to make one good one, and it failed, as any sensible person might have anticipated. In December last, the Cumberland sent to market between 2,700 and 3,000 tons of coal per week. For the week ending February 5, 1553, it sent down 1,276 tons; week ending the 12th, 1,044 tons; and week ending the 19th, 1,049 tons. It will require sharper financiering to keep this company in operation, at this rate of shipment of coal, than has been resorted to yet, and that is saying a great deal. The financial operation in the bonds of the compa- ny, a short time since, shows that pretty sharp prac- tice has been carried on there. The bonds were is- sued to certain parties at sixty-nine per cent; and not long afterwards a new issue of stock was made, at 75 per cent, to pay off the bonds at their par value. It is easy to figure up how much the com- pany lost by this movement. This system of finan- ciering has been pursued throughout, and the public can judge what condition the company must be in at this moment. After the second board, this afternoon, the market was very much depressed. Nicaragua was offered at 544, and Cumberland at 54, without finding sellers. | Prices must go much lower before they become fixed. The receipts at the office of the Assistant Treasu- | rer of this port to-day, amounted to $97,055 ; pay” | ments, $205,960 55—balance, $5,268,262 36. There was a large attendance in the Exchange to- day, at the sale of copper ore belonging to the North Carolina Copper Company. Considerable interest was manifested by those present, and the bidding was quite spirited. One hundred tons of copper py- | rites, about thirty per cent ore, were sold to the Re- vere Copper Company of Boston, at $6 for each per cent, being equal to $180 per ton, cash. This was the first public sale of the North Carolina Copper Company’s ore, but we learn that hereafter they will be of frequent occurrence. The mines are worked with a great deal of activity, and the production of | ore is very large. The proposals for $2,500,000 of the bonds of the Parkersburg Railroad Company—$1 ,500,000 guaran- teed by the city of Baltimore, and the rematnder by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company—were opened this afternoon. The total bids were for $5,340,000, from par to 101. 50. The loan wasaward- ed as follows:— $1,600,000 Duncan. Sherman & Co., 100. 90 1,000,000 C. H. Fisher... 101 ‘The steamship Humboldt, at this port from Havre and Southampton, ‘brings four days later news from Europe. The accounts are, on the whole, rather favorable, both in a financial and commercial point of view. There were indications in London of an easier money market. Detailed reports of the markets, &c., will be found under the proper heads. The following table will show the coinage at the mint of the United States for the two months of 1853 per cent. 3. Mint PriapetrmA—Coiwace And Dxpostts. January. Fetruary. al, Double Fagles. . $4,024,460 00 $2,300,800 00 $6,325,260 00 Eagles ,.. 114,600 00 202,330.00 316,930 00 Half Eagles 137,880 00 Quarter do. 129,715 00 369,490 00 Dollars... 298,435 00 691,108 00 Total Gold... ,.$4,809,388 00 $2,931,280 00 $7,740,668 00 Quarter Dollars 11,060 00 11,050 00 Dimes,, 9,500 00 9,500 00 Half Dime 6,750 00 6,750 00 ‘Three cents $1000 00 174,750 00 Total Silver 108,500 00 50 00 Cents 2,000 00 5,861 00 Gold, EEE copper, $4,006,999 00 $3,041,580 09 $7,948,579 00 In 1852, 4,242,336 00 3,04 7,286,186 00 Decreate this y'r Increase this y’r $664,648 00 The number of pieces coined in February, 185: was 3,659,835, of which 485,594 were gold, 274,200 silver, 2,700,000 three cent pieces, and 200,031 cents. The gold bullion deposited in February, was— $662,393 00 From California. .... From other sources... $3,548,000 00 $13,560 00 The deposits of the precious metals for January and February, were —— - 186: Gold. Silver. $4,161,668 $17,660 1853. -——. Md. Silver $4,962,097 $14,000 8,010,222 21,200 3,648,000 = 13,500 Totai.....87,171,910 $38,860 96,610,097 $27,500 The decrease of silver deposits in 1853, $11,350; increase of gold deposits $1,238,187. to be represented at this favorite theatre to-night. The | Hogan's accompani- | Francisco has become quite an | This concern has turned out | to be a perfect skeleton—all pretension and out- | The annexed is the general statement of the con. dition of such of the banks of the District of Colum- bia as have reported to near the Ist of January, 1853 gathered from official sources at Washington:— Banks in THe Disrnicr or Cotvmma. BANKS. Farmers? Washing. Metrop- Mchics, ton. oli Totals. Capital... $205,800 $852,258 $280,580 “$847,725. ; Loans and dise’s 5 7 $46,056 1,516,641 Stocks 412 cs 60,386, 31,914 = 115,516 56,547 78,250 Due by other bk 32/860 160,509 | Notes other bke 10,629 103,100 Specie... $5084 24,957 175.54 ireulation 84,757 66,355 243,881 Deposites,. 891,885, Due other banks... . 07 107.613 Other liabilities, . 15,128 10,460 119,136 The Bank of Washington reported January Ist, 1853. Bank of the Metropolis reported January 4tb, 1853. Farmers’ and Mechanies’ Bank, Georgetown, reported January 4th, 1858. Patriotic Bank. of Washington city, has not reported. Merchants’ Bank, of Georgetown, has not reported. The Legislature of Maryland having granted per- | mission to the Canton Company to issue $25 shares, in lieu of the old, there will, of course, be quadruple the former number, but it is, nevertheless, antici- pated, inasmuch as the nominal value of the share iz thus materially reduced, that the speculative charac- | ter of the stock will be greatly increased. The com- pany have a valuable property, and so located, ad- | joining Baltimore, that any addition to the popula- tion of that city, in an eastern direction, can only be | accommodated on the Canton lands. Of the capital | stock, a large majority is now owned in Baltimore, the capitalists of that place having recently made in- | vestments, based on their local knowledge, and we | may, therefore, conclude that henceforth all interest in this concern will gradually be withdrawn from our market. Stock Exchange. $76200 US 6's, °67., 12034 300 shs Phoenix MCo. 2140 Indiana 234.. 5635 1 d b6 18000 Penn St 5’ 98 100 50 200 30 201 | | $0 Hanover Bank”. 104 5 10 Continental Bk. 99 | 100 Morris Canal,.s3 2134 | 50 dows... D8 50 24 N Am Ins Co... 50 People’s Ins Co.. 30 do... 7 Roch & Syr R,b3 129 NJ aeeomegen OM 50 Nor & Wor RR.s3 5116 do,...,.b60 52 913g 300 do. 60 90%; 18 NY &NARR,. 111 26 Sixth Avenue RR 120 SECOND BOARD. 50 shs Canton Co... 50 Hud River RR. 15 do $4000 California 7’s.. 82 1000 N Y St 6’s, 64, 120 (25 shs N A Trust 20 ee -. 065 100 Morris Canal.... 21 8 Rome & Wat’n R. 105 50 Nic Tran Co,,b30 343 200 Erie RR. ee 87: 500 oe 100 34g aig 6134 | 700 Cum Coal C BAN 2 8735 100 5515 1 . 110% 100 54%, 150 N & Wor RR b60 5216 100 do: Sass 200 Reading Ri. ‘003 lo, . ing eeeee | £00 Potomac Cop Co. 33g 200 aie 20% 500 N J Zinc.. - 12% | pee CITY TRADE REPORT. Torspay, Mareh 1—6 P. M. | Asmmms.—Sales have been made of 45 bbis., at $468%{ @ $4 75 for pots, and $5 75 for pearls, per 100 lbs. Breapsturrs.—Flour displayed no new feature of an in- teresting character. The day’s operations amounted to 9,800 bbls. The day’s movements reached 8,800 bbls. Sour at $4 56% a $4683{; superfine No. 2, $4 6234’ $4 75; fine rye, $4 6234; superfine do., $4873; ordinary | to choice State, $5 0634 a $5 311; superfine Canadian, ir bond, $5 1234 a $5 25; mixed to fancy Western, $5 25; common to good Ohio and fancy Genesee, $5 31% a $6 43%; fancy Ohio and mixed to good Southern, $6 50 a $5 68%; extra Western, $5 €23; a $5 124; extra Gene- €e, $5 50 a $6 25; favorite Southern, $5 68% a $5 94%, and fancy do,, $6a $7 60, We heard that 170 bbls. Jer- tey meal found buyers, at $3 3134 per bbl. Some 6,500 burhels Southern red wheat brought $115 per bushel. Rye was quiet, at 9c , and barley, at 70 a 74c. per bushel. State and Western oats were moro freely tendered, at 47c. 40c. per bushel. Corn ruled duiland heavy. The day’s transactions jdid not exceed 30,000 bushels inferior to prime fouthern white and yellow, at 60 a G5¢. per bushel, | Corroy—The Humboldt’s advices have caused an easier market on the lower +tyles, the better grades being un- changed, with sa'es of 1,200 bales, at 93¢c. for low mid- dlings, 934¢. a 9%c. for middlings classed out strictly, and Me. a 1034¢. for good middlings of all growths. Coa1—250 tons Liverpool orrel were procured at $10, on four months credit—a reduction, Corrrr—Sales vere made of 80 bags Java, at 11}Zc; and 200 Maracaibo and Rio, at 914¢, a 93¢c. per Ib. - CorreR—About 10 000 Ibs. old were disposed of, at 30c, a Sic, per Ib.—an advance. Frurt—There have been 500 boxes bunch raisins taken, Sommer ith light engagements. | NIGHTS. —Rates were steady, with light ents, | 1,000 bbls. flour were engaged’ for Liverpool, at 2a. 9d., though there were some yessels asking 3s. Grain was taken at ¥a 917d. Cotton at and some vessels ask- { ed 4d To California, 6,000 f measurement goods were engaged by the clipper Highflyer, at 75e. per foot. The range was from 55 to 85c. There was no change to notice to Australia, or to other ports. Hay ruled quiet and languid at $1 a $1 1234 per 100 Ibs. Larns.—Eastern were eagerly sougth after at $2 50 per thousand, Lime.—There were sales made of 4,500 bbls. Rockland at $1 for commen, and $1 50 for lump, per bbl. Morassrs.—A lot of 50 hhds. Cardenas brought 27c. | per gallor |“ Navat Storms.—We have only to notice sales of 1,300 | bbls. spirits turpentine on private terms. | Ons.—About 4,000 gallons linseed were obtained at 74c. a 7de. per gallon. Provisions.—Pork tended downwards. The sales were confined to 800 barrel: new, at $15 50 for prime, and $17 for mess, per barrel Pickled meats moved to the extent of 180 packages, at 7%4c, forahouldere, and 10e. for hams, per Ib. The rales of lard amounted to 300 pkgs., at 10c. 2 103. per Ib. Beef was in fair request; the sales reached 250 bbls. ; country prime at $5 50 a $6 25; city do. at $7 a $7 25; country mess ai $9 75a $11 25; city do. at $15 er barrel; snd prime mess at a $22 per tierce. utter was in good demand, at 1c. a 17c. for Ohio, and I7c. a 2lc. for State, per tb. Cheese contfnued to re- alize 8c. a 9c. per Ib. Rat Estate.—Sales at auction by Cole & Chilten— House and lot No. 88 Columbia steet, Brooklyn, extending through to Furman street, 25.32190, $17,000; 1 lot on | Flank road avenue, corner Ninth street, 25x142.6, $420; | Llot adjoining, $200; 2 lots do., $276 each; 1 lot on Ninth street, 102.6 feet from Plank road, 25x100, $200; 1 lot ad- joining, $275; 2 lots do., $825; 2 lots do., $300; 3 lots do . 3200; 1 lot on Eleventh avenue, corner Ninth street, 100, $275; 6 lots on Ninth street, 125 feet from Eleventh avenue, Brooklyn, 25x100, $150 each; 5 lots on | Eleventh avenue, corner Ninth street, 25x100, $125 each; 1 lot on EI th ayenue, corner ‘of Ninth street, 25x07.1034, $225; 1 lot adjoining, $130; 3 lots do., $125 cach; 1 fot on Ninth street, near Eleventh avenue, $130. By A. Mulier.—1 three story brick house and lot, 389 | Eighth street, 60 fect from avenue D, lot 21.6x46.11, | $2,900; 1 do. do. adjoining same dimensions, $2,400; three-story brick house and lot No. 21 Sixth avenue, op- porite Amity street, lot 17.6x100, $7,350; 8 lots on Fifty- hinth street, near Seventh avenue, 25x100.5, $500 eash; 1 lot on Troy’ street, between Greenwich and Washington, with two brick houses on, $4,500:tthree-story brick house, 166 Chambers street, between Greenwich and Hudson, $23,000; three: stery brick house and lot adjoining, $23,000: three-story brick House and lot No. 115 Hester street, lot 21 3x75, $6,660 By FE, H. Lu¢low.—Lease of lot No. 28 Washington square, $11,000; three story house and lot 9+ West Thirteenth street, between 6th and 7th avs., $9,100; 1 house and lot adjoining, $3,600; 1 house and lot No. 128 Greenwich street, 20x50, $11,050; 1 lot on Twenty-seventh street, 163.6 from Fitth avenue, 35,6x98 9, $5,000; houses and lots Nos. 240 and 241 Bleecker street, near Cornelia street, 15.814x06, 85,150 each; 1 lot on Amity street, cor- | ner of Sixth avenue, 20.6x50, $5400, By Anthony J. Bleecker—House and lot No. 9 St. Marks place, 32x12234, $19,760; house and lot Nos. 66 Pearl street and 32 Stone street, $21,900; house and lot No. 69 Warren street, 25x 75, $7,800; house and lot No. 36 Centre street, 27x100, | $5,850; house and lot No, 61 Sullivan street, 21x80, $4,000; house and lot corner Suffolk and Stanton streets, $5,000; 2 lots on Eleventh street, 215 feet from Seeond avenue, | 25x94.914, $4,000 each; 1 lotin Tenth street, near Stuyve- | sant street, do., $4,500; 1 lot adjoining, $4,750; 1 lot on | Ninety-fourth street, 100 from Seventh avenue, 25x100, | $260;°7 do. adjoining do., do., $260 each; 6 do on Fifty- | third street, 200 fect from Third avenue, 25x100.4, $ each. SoaP.—160 boxes Castile found buyers to day, at1034c. } per Ib., uswal terms. | SUGARS —There were 150 hhds Muscovado sold to re- | finest, at 42¢0. per Tb | Tatiow remained very dull, at 9}gc, a 9%4¢. per Ib., cash, | Toracoo.—We heard that 100 hhds. Kemtueky wore | bought at 6c a 8e. per Ib, Wuiexry.—fales have been made of 450 bbis., at 230, for Jersey, and 2834 for prison, per gallon. RECEIPTS OF PRODUCE. By Ere Raitroap—1,361 sides leather, 38 bbls. provi- ba bd bag nee Ls 8, and cote iar her, 24 bbl ty New Haven 04D—18 sides leather, yn wi , aad 09 Lexen eheese, a -