The New York Herald Newspaper, January 23, 1855, Page 2

110 LEGAL INTELLIGENCE. United States Circuit Court. Before Hon. Judge Betts. ALLEGED OFFICIAL MIBCONDUCT—A MAKE’S NEST. Jan, 22..—The Judge met the United States Grand Dary in their rocm this morning, pursuant to adjourn- ment, to receive from them the complaint against an eficial, (the District Attorney,) a intimated in the pro- eeedings before the Court on Saturday. Having perused ‘tHe communication, the Judge said that he wished to wtate to the Grand Jury in answer to the recommendation ‘and to their inquiry on the paper that there did not appear to be in this matter any criminal offence against the laws ef the United States. There is no offence in the District Attorney refusing to prosecute. If there was any evi- dence of extortion, then the statute provides for such effence. If the District Attorney has been inattentive to his public duties, he is amenadle to the government. The ite subjects the public officers to criminal indiet- ment for certain offences, but mere neglect of duty, af there bas deen any, is not punishable as an offence. Mr. John McKeon, United States District Attorney— May it please the Court— fadge—I cannot hear you, sir. Itis mot right that ‘thie matter should be discussed, The District Attorney—Is not this an open court, and ‘would it be proper to allow insinuations of this kind to @© abroad without some explanation from the District Attorney? Judge—It is certainly an open court, but it is not ne- essary that the case should be discussed here. The District Attorney—I would merely state that everything ! have done { have done under the instruc tiens of the department at Washington, and the fore- man of the Grand Jury has seen the correspondence. Vor everything I have done I have the sanction of the department. The Judge again said that it did not appear that the Diswrict Attorney had done anything to render him amenable, and that discussion was unnscessary. The District Attorney—I may be permitted to say ‘that } have never prosecuted 8 man unless 1 saw there were good and sufiicient grounds for Placing him on trial. In my judgment every man acquitted presents the case ef an innocent man unjustly prosecuted, or a guilty man eveaping. Kither position brings discredit on the crimi- aal jurisprudence of a State, or of the United States, the tare may occur. Aw presecuting officer of this State, % have acted on this principle, and have, so far as I could, applied it in the execution of the duttes of my present office. { have investigated every case which has come before me, and the result has been that every man ‘Wat | have prosecuted, with one exception, hae been eonvicted; and durieg the time I have been in off « Ahere has been no verdict rendered against the United ‘States in any contested case. Judge Betts—The presumption is that everything done hy the District Attorney has been fairly and honestly done The District Attorney—In this partiewlar cage I know net shat the specific charge against me is, but I feel ‘Mrat I took ry reasonable measure to discover the facts, andacted after proper examination. It was a ease for the violation of the revenue laws. I found that the informer could not be substantiated; that he eoald be contradicted, in fact, by the government efticers. { addressed a letter to Mr. Odell, the Beputy Collestor, informing him that 1’ was investigating the case, and required certain 4nformation. I personally applied to Mr. Odell for in- formation in relation to the accused. I also applied to Mr. Willis, one of the sppraisers. After receiving such information as I could, I reported te the proper depart- ment a: Washington, and received their authority to ex- ercise wy disoretion inthe matter. I disposed of the ease as I deemed just to the accused and to the interests ef the United States. Whatever 1 haye done has been by the authority of those whose directions I had a right te obey. Mr, Sperry, foreman of the Grand Jury, said thet messes state that his books are in the hands of the Dutrict Atiorney ‘The Court said the discussion must cease. The District Attoroey said all the boots were still in Rip office, and be would send the whole correspondence before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury then continned in deliberation on ether matters, with closed doors, and the District At- torney sent the correspondence before them, for tbeir information. United States District Court. Before Hon. Judge Ingersoll. Sax, 25.—Phe Untied States vs. Fifty-two asks of Ale —Phe Same vs. Jomes M. Hill,—In these cases, a motion wos made by the District Attorney to set aside orders s@eyig the proceedings on the part of the government, Mr, Jonctimssen, for the government, insisted that ‘Meve orders wee irregular. It wasan attempt to enjoin the government from prosecuting for infractions of the Fevenue laws, when the parties plead guilty to a commts- @enof the oilencs. The United States conld not ne en- NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1855. : himself president, cash carry bis “office of discount and deposit”? about his person. He may, in effect, as the law books express it, constitute if a ‘‘corpora- tion sole,”’ And even a * association,” it is pro- vided, may be formed of ‘any number of ns,’? a8 few even as two. It is sufficient, however, for the pur- pose of the ment, to know that the charter, as to the fund referred to, imposes no express condition on the de- posit, except that, while it may be in a ‘form’ to draw interest, it shall in a form that is ‘‘available;” and no implied condition except such as results from the very nature of the trust. With these objects attained, and reasonable caution and good faith observed, it may be deposited with an individual, or with an individual banker, or with a banking association, or with a body corporate, ‘‘as the trustees may direct.”’ In either “form” it is their duty to see to the sufficiency of the security, and in either form the careless or intentional taking of inadequate security, would be coatrary to their duty, and, as a consequence, contrary to the charter. But to say that for that reason, the security taken—in- sufficient as it may be—is to be wholly given up and can- celled, and the money left, and even protected, in the hands of the wrong doer, and that by tbe acti ofa court of equity, is @ proposition at variance, it seems to me, with every notion of common sense and common honesty. As well might it be said, that if the trustees made loans to themselves which, as we have seen, they were prohibited from doing, the court, by way of re- dressing the injury, must release them from all ebliga- tion to pay. Or, ‘taking the case of o1 private trustees, by deed or will, was it ever heard that a person borrowing money of thein on note or other mere personal security, was entitled toturm round immediately and, without payment, ask return of the securities? And yet all trustees, unless specially authorized in the will ‘or deed to the contrary, are prohibited from making such loans, The wrong, in such cases, is a wrong done, not to the public, and to be punished by making the act void, but to the particular cestud que trusts, and to be tedressea, as far as may be, by adding to the imperfect sarurity, improperly taken, the individual liability of the trustees themselves, and by feliowing, whenever it can be done, the very fund or subject of the trust in the hands of the knowing partici- peer, When thi cause comes to a final hearing, there fore—it has now been discussed ald on an informal motion—the plaintiff, instead of being entitled to the decree he asks for, will be adjudged, by way of counter- claim, to pay to the receiver of the Savings institution the whole $10,2/0, with interest and costa. If by bis own showing, then, he ia not entitled on a final de- to the relief he asksin his complaint, the rule ositive that be can have no claim to # preliminary Junction at the commencement of his action. The one is merely auxiliary to, and falls with the other. Motion to continue injunction deniei, with costs, MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEXT FRIEND, JAN. 22,—Stephen Woods and Wife vs. Susan Thomp- son and others.—CurKe, J.—Before the code a married woman must have sued jointly with her husband, both in equity and at law, unless she claimed a right in op- position to him, amd the suit was deemed to be the suit of the husband only; se that # decree or judginent would not have bound the wife. This was probably in analogy with the principle of the common law, that all acts per- formed by the wife during her coverture are void. But now by the code (sec. 114), when the action concerns the separate property of the wife, she may cue alone, and, as a necessury consequence, she is bound by a judg- ment in the action. Does it alter her liabi! ty in this respect if the husband is jeined with her as a co-platn- % It is alwayy proper, though not always necessary, that the husband should be joined with the wife in prosecuting her claims, when they have not ad- verse interests in relation to the subject of tue claim. It has been decided in many cases, in- deed, that the husband ought not to join with the wife as a co-plaintiff in a suit relating to her separate roperty; but this was on the ground that he might Pave tied the bill without her knowledge or cousont; and in such cases the court has, on demnrrer, ordered the name of the busband to be struck out as plaintitt, and inserted as defendant. But, in this case, the wife verifies the complaint, signifying mot only her full knowledge of ita contract, but her consent that the action should be commenced. Sbe ia, therefore, the principal actor in the suit, and the mere circumstance that her husband is a co-plaiatiff cannot exempt her from the liability of being bound by the judgment, to which she is expressly subjected by the “code when she Jeived, avd the orders, one of which was in a n ‘whkh the defendast might be held to bail, and tuus give him the opportunity to escape from the jurisdiction. Mr. Jamis Ricgway, in opposition, cited authorities from ‘6 Practice and Conklin’s Treatise in support ef tbe orderr. The orders were made on the petitions to ‘tbe Fecretary of the Treasury for a remission of the penalties, and thus prevented an accumalation of co#ts. ‘The United Staten District Attorney said that there was me precedsnt for any such proceedings. Judge Ingersoll decided that the orders were irregular. Me conc uct of causes for the government was dy law epirosted to a sworn officer, appotnted by tho Pres.dent, and contirmen by the Senate. e discretion of this of eer, in br suing suits for violations of law duly rep 4 to bia, cannot be coxtrolled by the Court. He .4 re- wnaidle for his conduct only to the appointing power. ye Court is to hear and decide the suit, nut there was no jurisdiction to enjoin the District Attorney from the performance of his duty. The costs of $5 were too small ‘B Object to be noticed. 1 The order must be vacate) Supreme Court—Special Term. M. HOPVER MOTT VS. TEE REVEIVER OF TRS ENIOK- ERBOCKKR SAVINGS INSTITUTION. Jan, 22.—Rooseveit, J.—This is a controversy arising ent of the incongruous alliance and aubseqaent very na- tural bankruptcy of the Knickerbocker Bank and the so- ealed Knickerbocker Savings Institution. If illu ®m a manner caleulated to strike, and even to shook, all aetions of fair dealing, the tendency of the one to prey ‘spon the vitals of the other, and thea upon ‘ts own. ‘The plaintif, it appears, in bis charactor of a momber of the Banking Assoc'ation, on the 21st of March, 1854, ob- aimed from the fants of the Savings Institution—and it ‘will be borne in mind that the chief managers of the for- aaer, as the published liste show, were trustees of the Jetter, and carried on thelr operations in the same vici- wity—a loan, so called, of $10,200, payable with interest on demand, ‘substituting in the place of the money 40 withdrawn from the Savings Institution his promissory note and a certificate of 490 shares of the so-called stock ef the Knickerbocker Bank. This loan he now says his triends in the Savings Institution had no legal right to make, and he, therefore, however muth accommo- dated at the time, is under no legal obligation to wepey it; and be accordingly files his bil in equity “he conjunction can hardly fail to provoke a emile— - modestly praying that the Supreme Court, sitting character o( Chancelior, and as auch, of course, the guardian of charities, will order the receiver, without poyment, or any offer of payment, to doliver up the note ‘aad certificate—on the pretended faith of wich, with ‘the concurrence of the friendly managers of the charity, qanlawfully, as he contends,) he had abstracted of the SSrings of “the poor the large smouat of $10,000 and up- wards! The charter of the Savings Institution, as emond- ea in 1853, provides tha er Joaned on, public on: ity funds shall be invested in, ‘tocks or private mortgages, and ‘that when | ot invested in—such stocks or ages, it bord, or other satisfactory per- sonal seccurity in addition, shall be required of the bor- rower.”’ A stock note, thereiore, like the one in ques- being a personal security in itself, was perfectly lnwful; and had the stock accompanying it been that of a '* town, city, county or State,’’ no question could have Deen raised as to either. What, then, is the proposition advanced by the plaintiff? That if, as reqnired by law, he bad given good collateral security, his personal pro: mise to pay thus fortified would have besa binding; but having paimed off as collateral security a stocs which was comparatively worthless, he cannot justly de called Bpon wo pay anything, and is equi-ably entitled to be shielded from all possble prospective annoy ance—and that, too, it ir said, is the levitimate and even necessary tonstruction of a legal provision made, as the act ex- presses it, ‘for the interest aed advantage of the deport tors’’—the poor anc helpless and confiding depostors of an inetitation orgamed by th ure to encourage, in le walks of life, tues of sobriety ty, and to provide for ment of the proposition carries with it, tomy mia refutatons It assumes an the law of & Ct principle which could hardly be tolera ff swindlers. The trustees of the «avi t the plaintiff knew it, ba barity. They were ‘ not tc @ireetly or indirectly, any pay or emolament (or tivit services; nor directly or indirectly to borrow ‘ts fun is or ."? Sections 3 and 6. Ani thay, like a board of muardians for minors, were to invest these deposits wit je eye to the interest and perfect security of | the re. The loan in question, therefore, under aay tion of the charter, was a breach of trust apd knew it, and co-operated in it, and my fairly be said to have ii ite perpetration. He ‘ook the fund an a necessary consequen-e, charge! with the trust —and #0 far from protecting him in his unlawful depre- dation, itis the duty of the court, on the contrary, to evmpel him to » and to account for whatever he may or mig it have made, by the unlawful mix- CFerthe trast with his own, and ompioying them tm his private business. This is o familiar rale of equity jur' dence—and it in an equally Mar ‘rule he who asks equity m equity, Befere, therefore, calling for any [nterposition im his favor, the the principal and interest of the moneys mits be took from the vault of the Savings’ I took, I say, because although the faithless tr may have been the willing instruments, it was he that handled them, and made them subservient to his purposes, and ‘Mt is he that would now, in more than one sense, ‘the benefit of the act. What I have thus far argued ansumes that the trustees were forbidden by this charter from making even a temporary disposition of the funds, except on the security o! publie stocks or real estate, an mn, however, which it seems to me the lan guage used, when taken in connection with other pro- visions, does not call for. “To meet current payments’’ deponit on atees were authorized to ‘keep on arenes otherwise, in such « int might direct, an available fund o dred dollars,’ ko. Now with interest, is neither move nor less certifisate of such deposit, stipulating to return the oant with interest, it bas been repeatedly and correctly p16, is peltber more vor Jers than a promirsory vote suet alone. By the same section, she is obliged te prove cute by a next friend only where her husband cannot be joined with her, meaning, evidently, that she claims s right in opposition to him. I therefore coaclade that the husband ia properly joined with the wifs as a co- plaintiff; that no next friend ia necessary, and that any judgment which may be obtained in the action will be binding on her. Motion denied, without costa. Before Hor. Judge Roosevelt. THE EMPIRE CITY BANK. Jay, 22.—In the Matter of the Petition for an Injunc- ion and Receiver of ,the Empire City Bank,—This case came on again before the Court, and a further adjourn- ment was ordered to Tuesday (this day,) at ove o'clock, P.M., and that the President. and Cashier should ap- pear sud be examined, and furnish statement of ac- counts, stockhulders, &c. The order was in form simi- Jarto that made in the case of the Kaickerbocker Bank, Supreme Court—General Term. Before Hoa. Judge Cler'.e, CONSTRUCTION OV WRITINGS— ASSIGNMENT FOR TEE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS—FRAUD. JAN, 20,—Bellows vs. Partridge.—The trust ‘to con- yert the assigned property into money by sale, either public or private, as soon as reasonably practicable, with due regard to the rightful interests of the parties | concerned,’’ certainly cor.tains no express authority to delay the conversion of the property into money, beyond what the effectual performance of the trust necessarily required. It would defeat the object of any trust of this kind, and would be at variance with “the rightful ic’ rests of all the parties concerned,’’ including those of the plaintiff, to force a salo before it was “reasonably cticable.’? On the other band, why should we imply rom the terms of this clause an authority to delay the sale in detriment to thove interests? To infer any such intention would not only be contrary tothe rule, that an unlawful meaning is never to be implied, but to the ex- rese import of the language employed; and if provision Titan sablgtinent(,.(ta, sell naa dispose of the property upon such terma and conditions as in the judgment of the trustees may appear best,’’ has been held not to au- thorize a sale upon credit, the clause disputed in this case msy much more’ positively be pronounced as implying no authority to the asswnee to de- lay the sale longer ‘than the ordinary time required for the efficient performance of such a duty, which, of course, depends upon the peculiar circum: stances of each case, and the condition in which the assignor’s affairs are placed. To say that a sale of roperty assigned for the benefit of creditors shoald be made within the same period of time after thi tion of the assignment, in all cases alike, wi crimination, would be mani‘estly impracticabl ed absurd; and if this cannot be maintained, there is no alternative butto leave itto the judgment ef the trustees, controlled by the rules of law, prohibiting all delay, except what suitable preparation and the inte- restsof the creditors obviously demand. It is also ob jected that the power ‘ to compound, compromise and settle’’ the claims assigned im the discretion of the as. signee, avoids the assignment. In Woodburn v Mosher, referred to by the counsel for the plaintiff, de. cided at special term in Otsego county, the assignee himself was indebted to the assignor, and under a pro- vision of this kind, compromised with him:eif; and atl | the circumstances of the case showed thal the assi | ment was fraudulest im f.ct. Justice Sutherland's | opinion in Grover va, Wakeman, applies to an authority laintiff must at Jeast bring into court | take | to compromise with creditors; and ge vs. Bell, de | cided at Special Term, does not aiford sufficient light on | this point to enable ns to ascertain for what reas th ge considered this provision objectional 1 I see no sufficient reason why it should ren: mment vold, unless a sale of debts or any ion be also prohibited; for « sale even at blic auction woul leave ag much room for corruption and collusion as the more direct and easy method of composition and compromise. Posides, if the assignee does not poesess this power, he may often loss a favora- ble op unity to unite with others ia a composition with a failing vebtor—thus losing the whole claim—per- | bape a considerable amount due to the trust—whea, by 2 judicious and timely settiement, ne coald have secured | a large portion of it, While we recognise thes assiga- | ments atall, the asegnee must not bs divested of the means and the diseretion pisisiy essential to the proper execution of his trust. The provisions relative to the notes of Harrie, and the debt due to the piaintill, ars nothing more than the exercise of the assignor’s un- doubted right to 1 he ordtr in whieh ndgment of the Special Term shoald be costa, Superior Court—General Term, Refore a full Bench. CONSTRUCTION OF WRITINOS—2JROTMENT. Judge Bosworth delivered the following decision, which was concurred in by the court:— Jax, 20.—Towle ve, Farney.—The facts in this case will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court, which was rendered by RoswortH, J.—This is an action of ejectment, to re- cover @ lot, between Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth | streets, on the weat side of Tenth avenue, It was tried in Mareh 1851, before Chief Justice Oakley anda jury. | When the evicence wi |, the court raled, Sor at the plaintiff was entitled toa veriict ror the | premises claimed (to which defendant excepted), and» verdict was rendered accordingly, A jndgment having | been entered on the verdict, the defendant appealed from the judgment to the general term. The lot is » parcel of remises devised in 1802, by Mary Clarke, to trustees, | im trust, to receive and pay renis and profite to her grandson, Thomas B Clarke, during his life, and to convey the same, upon his death, to bis lawful surviy ing issue. The plaintiff claims tit!’ under several acts Y | of the Legislature, under orders of the Conre ot Chance ry made under the authority of these acts, (and a convey ce of the lot in the manner and for pu authorized by the acte and orders, The defendant dotends of the surviving children of T. B.C) n 1826, and insists that the statutes, orders in and other and | The Recent Presentment Grand Jury. subsequent were incompetest to vert tn the. pyre “ be ay y a utle ‘There were threo statutes eee Sh oat 0m8 in 1514, coe in 1615, and ee ne ie T have read with seme interest the presentment by the act of 1 tees named late Grand Jury, empanelled by the United States Cir- authorised the Co {aeppoint a ozone cuit Court, as published in your paper of yesterday. estate might be provided for lneation and | _ Those portions of it having reference to of- preserving the principal of the proceeds of the sale. The | ficial record of whichis made in the department over petal eee & lee Pe B. Clarke | which I have the honor to preside—require correction. he hady the llor’s assent, who was requir- | Had requisition been made, or opportunity been given, as to oe Sree hen the Jressads of such | by the Grand Jury, while in session, official information or so much thereof as think pro; should be vested in Clarke as trustee.” On the 31 ot | Witain their reach would doubtless have saved the ne- July, 1815, the Chancellor made an order, founded on a | °#sity of correcting thelr errors, by preventing them. previous » an order of reference under it, and a The presentment says:— master,” and directed the pentna to be vested in Clarke aa trustee, for those of children who ht survive him, and the mode of such investment. The master’s rt showed that debts to the amount of $5,400 had been contracted by Clarke for the necessary Support of his family, and that the moneys raised contracting such debts had been applied by him to that object, and thatthe whole income that could be vealized from the property without a sale of part of it, was insufficient to support the family and would leave no ning for the education of his children. The act ot 2816 authorized a mortgage of all lots, which had been or might be ordered to be sold. under the previous order of the Chancellor, and also directed all moneys raised by sale or mortgage to be applied to the purposes required srto be required by tne Chancellor under the statutes eferred to, In March, 1817, the Chancellor made a fur- her order, that the Southern instead of the Eastern moiety of the devised property might be sold, and also uthcrized Clarke to convey any part of the moiety, in ayment cr satisfaction of any debts due or owing from him, on a valuation to be upon between him and his creditors, provided such conveyance sbould be ap- proved by a master, and such master sbouli endorse a certificate of his approval on such conveyance, The deed in question was executed by Ciarke to one Molntyre, In October, 1818, McIntyre subsequently mortgaged the lot; on a foreclosure of that mortgage the plaintiff be- came @ purchaser, abd the master’s deed to him is dated in February, 1845. The deed from Clarke to McIntyre had on it a master’s approval! in these words :— Having examined the within deed, I spprove of it, ag to manner and form. JAMES HAMILTON, Dec. 14, 1818, Master in Chancery. Mcintyre, the grantee, was examined as a witness at the instance of the defengant, as to the consideration of the deed. His testimony tended to show that the whole consideration was mace up of money pal to Clarke, an} in boarding him and his children. ‘The Court of dornier resort having held all the acts constitutional, they must be so treated by this Court. We construe the order au- thorizing a conveyance in satiffaction to refer to and al- low such conveyance in payment of such debts only aa were or should be contracted for the necessary support of Clarke und bis family, and in the event tha: a Master in Chan should be satisfied that the money raised by contracting the debts hac been so applied, We con- der that one of the objects in view in requiring the ap- proval of a master, as a condition to the validity of the sale and conveyance, was, that he, as a snbstitute to the Chancellor, should see that a p application was made of the property conveyed, and that his certificate was to be some evidence that it had been 0 applied. It is objected that the certificate only approves the form of the deed, and not the sale which the deed con- summates. We construe the certificate as designed to salinfy, and as satifying every requirement of the Chan- cellor’s order, so far as to make the transaction and deed valid, in the sense and to the extent in which their validity depended upon the fact of the master’s approval and the form of the cet te. We do not understand any decision to which w re been referred, as hokling ‘tha: eed in faction of a deot contracted necessury support of Clarke and bis family when ¢ ofthe debt have deen so applied, and when a si lot for such a purpose, and the deed in pursuan have been properly approved by master, is void, or that the acts, if construed to authorize it would be unconsti- tutional, nor that the orders allowing it would not be war- ranted by the statutes. The deed i# good on its face. We do not think there is any such evidence that the consi- deration of it is not what it purports to be, or was not of such a character as to satisfy thy requirements of the sta- tutes and orders as will justify usin holding it aaauthor:: ed and void. We do not understand that anything was decid- ed in any,of the reported cases in the Supreme Court of the United States in conflict with the conclusions which we bave formed. The powers of J. B. Clarke as trustee, de pend upon the proper construction of statutes of this State: whether they are expounded correctly or not by Court of last resort of this State, isa question about which the Supreme Court of the Usited States cannot inquire, provided the construction given does not im- pair the obligation of contracts, or authorize that Court upon the construction go given to declare it null and yoid. When a statute of a State bas been construec by its Cour: o: last resort, the Supreme Court of the United States, in deciding questions arising under *t, w bound to adopt and follow that construction, unless the statute as thus construed is obnoxious to some objection, which authorizes that Court to declare it unconstita- tiona) and of no effect Robertson et al va, Coulzer et al, 16 How, 8. C. RL We do not feel at liberty to re- gard the decisions which have been made by the Courts of cbis State, meludimg that o’ the Court for the correc- tion of errors, a» establishing @ construction of the statutes and orders, or as justifying thie Court in adopt- ing one under whi ae plaintitl’s title could be declared to te clearly involved. For reasons more fully stated in anopipion which has been prepared, we think the judg- went must be affirmed, Court of Common Pieas. Before Hon. Judge Ingraham, IMPORTANT DECISION ON HABEAS OOKPUS. In the matter of the petition ef Eliza Thompson for the discharge of Sarah Stewart,—Sarab Stewart is brought before me on habeas corpus, and is alleged to be uniaw fully detained in the Penitentiary. The return shows that ehe was committed as a vagrant by Justice Coa. nolly on the 15th January instant for the period of three movths, he having tried her upon a charge made against her and convicted her of being a vagrant on competent testimony of Daniel Carpenter, Captain of Fifth ward pelice, and that he had made and filed the record of vietion in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Sessions, Under this proceeding, if the commitment is recular on its face and the record 07 conviction ‘s properiy made and filed, I caunot review the decision of the magistrate. ‘That ean on'y be done om appeal to the Supreme Court. The certificate of the County ‘x i¢ furnished that no record of conviction was filed there, and a copy of the re- cord as filed with the clerk of the Sessions is also produced. It is contended by the pevitioner’s counsel that the record of conviction sbould hay» been filed with the County Clerk and not, with the Clerk of Sessioas; that the cbarge aga:nst ber of being @ prostitute as stated in the commitment, did not warrant a conviction of vagrancy, but of being a disorderly persen, and that in such cases the statute requires the record to be filed with the Cenpty Clerk. There is some confusion im the diferent statutes, which without careful examination may lead to error. By the statute as to vagrants, vol. 2K. ¥. p. 34, (Ath edition, ) certain persons are declared to be vagrants an@upoo conviction by a magistrate may be sentence to the pentiensiasy, and the record of conviction is to be filed in the office of the Clerk of the County. But in the enumeration of oftences which may be tried under thie chapter, the one of which this person is convicted (being a prostitute) is not enumerated. By the Statute as to disorde: (2 RS. p 58) a similar provision is as to other offences, and the record of conviction is directed to be filed im the office of the Clerk of the County. Under tnis clase of offences is enumerated that of being a common prostitute. In 1853, a statute was passed prescribing tue form of the record, and directing thar in all cases of conviction for vagrancy the record of convictien shall be led with the Clerk of the Sessions. The recor in this case i¢ fubstantially that prescribed by this state, (Sess. Laws 1853, p. 363, ¢.) It is urged that this statute does a apply to the chapter ef Revised Statutes relative to dis- orderly persons, and therefore the record of conviction should, in such cases, still be filed with the County Clerk, This is so in regard to all offences which come under this description. But there is another statate which has been often overiouked, but case from any difticulty upon this point. relative to the powers of the Common Council, &c., pass- ed January, 1823, (Sess. Laws 1833, chap. 11, p. %) habitual drundards, common prostitutes, and others, are declared to be deemed vagrants, and if the magis- trate, on complaint vefore hitn. is sutistied by competent testimony that such t within tho d scription therein « to make up and sign a record of conviction, which shall be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Sessions, and tall by warrant commit such vagrant—if the offender be an improper person to go to the almsnonse-—-to the penitentiary, for any time Lot exceeding six months. ‘The proceedings in this case are, therefore, regular and in accordance with the provisions of the last recited statute, without reference tothe act of 185% And as by this act the offence charged is dec.ared to be that of vegreocy, the provisions of the ac: of 1853 are plicable to this class of eases, and the prescr.t of the record of convict om by that act is proper and sufficient for al! offences ewhraced in the twelfth section | of the act of 1 The record of conviction aad the commitment are, therefore, regular and is compliance with ihe statute, If the allegations contained in the petition are true, injustice may have been done to the prisoner. It i+ there alleged that she was promibited from producing witne wo bebalf, aod from exomining wi against oer, and is Inpocent of the charge ale against her; but or innecence of the prisor F cannot be inquired n habeas corpus afin conviction. If there is au! that there should be one no one | doubt — by the Sepreme Court on vertiorart. 1b no power in this proceeving to review the correctoaas of e decision of the J and the writ trate arged. he prisoner must bo DyarHK OF THE Skven OurnpRen iy St. RATKD STATEMENT.—The paragraph ‘Tae Lour—An Exa | published in most of the sty papers yesterday, on the | authority of a statement made to the City Register, by the agent of the German Emigrant Society, is since learned to have been considerably beyond the truth, The Germar emigrant family referred to in the paragraph tacked with a disease, similar im ita symptom: ¢flect to cholera, and which was acquired on #4 ard, or in passing through New Orkeans, where cholera is to some extent prevailing. The man and wife only died on Mondey, and the physician attending them, in the certificate which he seat by Mr, Richard to the Re- gister, for their burial at the expense of the city, intemd- e| to convey the informaton that they left seven chil- dren. The certificate, however, wae recorded so clumsi ly, it conveyed the meaning that it way the seven chil- ren, and not the parents, who died within ap hour of each oiber, Mr. Riehard having ma: yeitian yesterday, heard the error Yhe children «iis not, how. oy Two of them are repo tome o*bers were $0 pita): \ that they died yorterda, | were sent to ry 18 Louis Reputiican, Jan The duane Jury have extended their examination in ere ick icatin-tn the upper than ia js more sickness e Uf Le 2 in the lower 1, by. eee of the Ddetween deck air in the latter becoming heated and unwholesome, and escaping into the upper between deck. Uniform experience, attested by the resord of history, carefully made under my supervision, of every voyage of all passenger ships arriving at this port, testifies to the contrary. Ship masters invariably represent the upper deck to be a more healthy cabin than either the lower or the orlop decks; and when it is considered that my personal attention has been directed to this inquiry for a period of nearly two years, the probability is much stronger that all masters should have thas person- ally represented before me, than that in the period of an eighty days’ session all masters cor have thus per- vonally agreed before the Grand Jury. ‘The officers employed by the United States to examine each passenger ship on its arrival agree that the houses on the upper deck are the most healthy for passengers, and. that the decks become more unbealthy as they descend. A little reflection will account for these facts. Both the lower and orlop decks are below the water mark, and consequently derive their supply of air through the upper deck, But when the upper deck is oceupied by passengers, its air is less pure than the atmosphere above; therefore ‘ts supply to the deck beneath is proportionately impure, and sq also of the supply to the lowest deck It is well established that the passengers whose berths are by the batches on each deck are the most liable to disease; not because they are nearest the ventilator through which the good air de- scends to them, but that they are nearest to the ventila- tor through which the bad air ascends from them. In- deed, the Grand Jury, when, in the same pazagraph, preseribitg for another evil, that passengers shall be permitted to ‘occupy the upper hold of veseels,”” seem to have entirely forgotten the ‘sickness and death” which they have just said are to be found there in tbe largest proportions. ‘The presentment farther says:— “The system of cleansing the ships in the emigrant departments, by means of the ship’s crew, rather than by dependence on the emigrants themaelves for the labor, seems well worthy of some puulis regulation in that re- spect. It is said, in support of this suggestion, that for some weeks on the passage the passengers are unable from searickness to attend to the most ordinary duties of cleanliness, and that at other t.mes they negleet their performance. Another consideration was to be the great competition for this class of past ra, the effect of which is to reduce the price of passage money, and then to invite those whose habits and character are of the lowest description, and who spread a moral as well as physical taint among those with whom they are sociated. The remedy for this evil seems to be in ev- forcing the pregrianoe of a larger space than la now allowed 30 passenger, and periwitting them only to occupy the upper hold of vessels.”” It is difficult to ascertain the meaning of the Grand Jury, from the language which they here employ. If it means that ‘the system of cicansing the ships in the emigrant departments by means of the ship’s crew,”?(the existence of which system is thus alleged, ) should be re- placed by dependence ‘on the emigrants thomselyes for the labor,’’ the next sentence contain: infactory rea~ sons why the suggestion shoukd not be adopted. But if, as is most probably the case, :tis meant that ths de- pendénce on the emigrants for a ship-cleaning process sbould be relinquished for @ system devolviog the labor on the abip’s crew, simply, a knowlecge of the existing TeMN GPO. Lapeiaathe ups Grand Jury the expense of suggesting bow wortby scems to tuem "‘soove public re- galation im that respect.” An act of Congrens to provide for the ventilation of passenger vessels, ani for other purpeses, approved May 17, 1848, at section 8, pro- vioes:— “And be it further enacted, That the captain of any such vessel Ko employed is terey authorized to main- tain good discipline and sucu havits of cle among such paskengers as will tend to the pro: and promotion of health; and to that end he a! tuch regalation may adept (or thie pa posted up betere sailing, un board such vessel, accessitle to such passengers, and shall kee] fo posted up durtmg the voyage; and itis hereby made the duty of said captain to cause the apartment oocu- pied by such passengers to be kept at all times in ackoan, healtby state, and the owners of every suca vessel 0 ewpiloyed ure required to construct the decks aod all ch apartment, to that it cao be thoroughly cleansed; and they shall al-o provide a safe, eoavenient privy or water-closet for the exclusive use of every ane Dundred such passengere, And when tne weather is such that said passengers cannot be roustered on dock with their bedding, it shail be the duty of the captaia of every such vessel to cause the deck, occuped by such pa-rengers, to be cleaned with cblorile of hme, or somo other equally efficient dis efeeting agent, and also at sach otber times as said captain may deem necessary.” These duties are constantly exacted, and every neglect of them is ponetually reported and puaished. if’ without excuse, Official records show that passenger vessels, artiving here within the last six rcon:hs, have by :bis public regulation preserved on their voyage an unarund clean!iness, and have had an unusual exemption from mortality. But the Grand Jury propose the appropriation ofa larger «pace thas is now sliowod to each passenger,” as a remedy for the evil they ave imagined. ‘The Secretary of the Treasury has officially instracted us that the law allows of passengers veing brought in in number to be ascertained by « certain super- ficial measurement of their orlop decks, if tney have any, and of their lower decks; and has ordered that the rhip’s complement, having been fixed by this rule, the passen- gern may be permitted to cecupy any of the wbip’s decks. 4 he applicat Hon of these inatructions bas Teduce2, by at least one-half, the passenger capacity of all three dee! vensela; and the ger observance of them has great! conduced to the remarkable health now enjoyed by ¢: grants on their passage hither. ‘The presentment further says ‘A complaint was preferred against several individuals all.ged to have been concerned in fitting out @ slaver from this port. The Grand Jui * sree by the D's- trict Attorney te prerent an mt those cases, but the evidence relied on did not seem of a character to justify the holding of these persons without corrobora ting evidence of a character different from that which It would seem, however, batter to prevant the recurrence of such an evil, if possible, than to de- pend upon those that have made the voyage, or in- formers. It should be the cen Ae! the Surveyor of the Port, be having the power, with the assistance he oan command, to bold a strict surveillance over such vessels their owners as may be suspected of des.gns of this re, “It is to be supposed from the character of the vessel and the nature of the cargo adopted to this nefarious business, no vessel can, if proper discernment be used, clear from this port on any auch enterprise.’’ The Grand Jury announce that ‘it should be tne duty of the Surveyor of the Port, he having the power, with the assistance he can command, to hold a «trict surveillance over such vessels and their owners as may be suspected of designs of this nature? The troable of an application at the Custom House would not only have relieved the desire that the Surveyor should be obligated by such a duty, with the information that be actually is, but would alxo re informed She Grand Jury of its ther an application now would be d, depends, I confess, on the propriety of committing counsels, for the efficacy of which discre i tothe care of gentlemen w.io have proved ne, Again, tho Grand Jury suppose y dixcerament can perceive, in the character sel and the nature of her cargo, the wicked vir owner or, in other words, they fool:slily suppose that slave dealers habitually expose to the pub: he gaze such evidences that a proper deveroment can de- tect their guilt. Cau these gentlemen have bees igncrant that vessels of the character of those best adapt«d w this infamous trafic are generally employed in ligitimate commerce? Have they not known that the manifesta with which they clear and the cargoes with which they are loaded are, in themselves, anobjectionable cargoos and maniiestsY and tbat itis therefore impouitle, by these alone, to prove @ criminal intent? that facts, as strictly guarded ax the culprit gawrds his own safety, and as recurely hept as he hee os we his .otent, are the proofs wh'ch are sought, and the discovery of which is ia dispensable for conviction’ If ignorant of these facts, iti quite tiwe that they learsed them—quite time that they were made aware of the difference th: an intent to engage in tho el agement 'n it; and of the vast cifference there is in and character of the proof appertaining to wo! the recent ip New Era, on Deal Beach, the Grand lied upon to examine the condition of the means of relief furnished by the general government in that vicinity. And it appeared that, in regard to the life boats stationed there, they are not well adapted to the purpose for which they are intended. They are con structed of fron, and from lying fn their house become rusty, and being dragged on the beach very soon get holes in their bottom. It was also stated that they are not in form, from their length and flatness, well adapted to the surf. Those who were experienced in their ave— and we concur in their recommendations—suggsted the ennstruction of boats of wood in the torm of a whale boat, or, ae one stated, in the form of a half hoop, in or der to rice the surf. With such boats, thay were of opi- nion that the passengers of the New Rra could have been rescued on the sams cay of her disaster. It was also d, with reference to the same casualty, that the tached to the balls which are @red over the ship to carry them 4 line, are too slender, and that they, in most instances, broke before reaching vessel. No compensation {8 now allowed with a view to encourage the fishermen and others on that sbore in the rescue of wrecked pasrengers, and we recommend that provision be made for a suitable reward in case of every person saved from a wreck, We would take this occasion to state that, in our opinion, the bighest encomium ie due ‘o Mr. Van Ransselaer, of Civcinnati, a cabin passenger ‘on board the New Era, for his untiring exertions the following morning after the disaster, to rave all that were left alive.”* The Grand Jurore, probably, were no* aware that the i g Hi ee i i Bt i | ! Ff i i : { E E ; wi at f racy of req' expected, ithout these, it commands nei confi- dence nor respect. It is for the public to decide what respect is due to that one, the ia which are borrowed, and the errors in which only CIN COCHRANE, 8 ke, urveyor, &, Custom House, New York, } Surveyor’s Office, Jan 22, 1865. The Pope Mot in a Fix—Or Dr. Camming and the London Times Answered. TO THE EDITOR OF TEE HERALD. 1 have just read in your paper a letter on the Immacu- late Conception, written by the Rev. Dr. Cumming, the author of several popular religious works, aud addressed by him to the editor of the London Times, With your Permission, I should like to offer a few remarks in reply it. The tone of the letter is so arrogant, unfair, and illideral, as almost to deprive it of consideration in the eyes of sensible men. But as it presumes to misstate facts, and to base upon this misstatement its sweeping conclusions, it is but just that some correction, however imperfect and hastily made, should appear‘in contradic- tion, One grand fallacy pervades the whole article. The writer says:— Either the Vatican must repeal an article of its creed, enforced a1 bacribed for 300 years, ‘out of which, it adds, none can be saved,’’ or it must admit that in decreeing the immaculate conception infallibility has deen outwitted by the Jesuits and precipitated into» fatal blunder. The meaning of which is, that because, according to hie showing, certain fathers of the church have ex- pressed an opinion on the immaculate conception diile- rent frora what is now made an article of faith; therefore either they must be accused of heresy, and sent to per: dition, or the church abandon its claim to infallivility. But supposing his statements of facts correct, neither consequence would fellow. Learned fathers or doctors ef the church, before a definition of faith is given, may express themselves incautiously, or even erroneously, on any particular matter, without incurring either the charge of heresy or the danger of perdition. Tey have done only what they were allowed to do until the matter was determined by authority. Such liberty has always ‘deen conceded in the church without heretofore bemg supposed to impugn either the geweral soundness of the faith of such divines, or the infallibility of the church herself. Before the first council of Nice, A. D. 825, no Jess than a dozen of the great teachers of the church, including the names of St Ignatics, St. Justia, Tatian, St. Hippolytus, Novatian, St. Clement, Tertullian, St. Irenwus, Athe- nagorat, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Origen and Lactan- tius, all expressed themselves in an unauthorized way in regard to the supreme divinity of our Lord, and yet noone now-a-days, in or out of the church, pretends to stigmatise them with the charge of heresy, or in conse- quence of the particular statement made by them in this matter, to question the ortbodory or consistency of the chureb’s teaching. It is precisely the same thing which, if Dr. Cumming’s alleged facts be true, bas taken piace in reference to the doctrine of the immaculate conception, nothing more and nothing lesr. But let us Jook at the Doctor’s authorities. ‘Melchior Canus,’”’ says be, “a bishop of great learning, declaroi that all the holy fathers believed the Virgin Mary to be conceived in ori- ginal ein.’ Well, suppose Melchior Canus said thi He is no authority in the church. As a Domin' » he held naturally at the time with bis order, and their opi- aion was at variance with what the whole church now Delieven, and the whole Dominican order among the rest, notwithstanding the Doctor’s assertion to the con- trary, He was, indeed, a man of talents, but a very rash and Injudicous man, who said and did many strange thiegs, among which was bis denunziation of the Order of Jesus as the precursors of antichrist, 1s it air to quote such an one ax a Catholic authority—one ‘whore testimony cannot be impeached’’’ Next we bave St. Irenweus quoted as saying that eur Locd re pelied ‘the untimely hurrying”’ of Mary at Cona of Gal- lilee. But this same Irenwas declares that so perfect was the obedience of Mary that it was “the cause of salvation to the whole human race,” And again—‘As Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to obey God, that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the Virgin Eve; and as the human race was bound to death through a virgia, tt is saved through a virgin, the reales being equally balanced, virginal d sobedience by virginal obedience.” In another place he contrasts the dcve-like syzoplicity of Mary with the art of the devil. What does the statement about ‘the untit hurtyiag’’ amount to in view of such passages as these? Tertuliian in next introduced, saying that our Lord was “indignant” that those «o nearly related to him as Mary should seek “to call him away from his solemn work.’ Be it 90. Tertull has defensible than th: denying jer virgivity among other things, al} it is enough to reply, in the language of St. Jerome — “ Tertulleanum hominem ecclesia non friesse’’—‘ Ter- tullian was no ebild of the church.’’ “But Origen,” the Doctor, ‘was very decided.” Hew decides he was we may learn from the fact that he interpreted the Greek word, translated in the Douay version ‘‘ full of grace,”’ as ‘‘ conceived in grace,” saying that he never found the word used in any other sense in the sacred scriptures, Epiphaniue comes next, as saying that ‘the birth of Mary was in the ordinary course of nature, not in any way different from ordinary mortals.” But, as the ques- tion is here regarding the tmmaculate conceptiva of Mary, it might be admitted that her birth wac in the ordinary way. Certain it is that Epiphanius, who was prained by St. Aoguatine as among the great man of the ly for his “ soundness reover, wrote one or more Maria Virgiois’’—never anything in disparagement of her bigh preroga- ve. Basil the Great, we are told, thought “ Mary wavered at the time of the passion;’’ but still Basil the Great, in the Liturgy he composed for bis flock, uses this lang wi of Mary —‘The must noly, immaculate, blessed above ail, most glerious lady, the Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary.”” ‘The illustrious Chrysostom’? follows in a comment upon ‘the excessive ambiticn,”’ ‘foolish arrogance ’’ &o., of Mary at the marriage feast of Cana Well, it may be #0; but, what is more woete tothe matter in hand, the Liturgy of the illustrious Chrysostom has these words:— “It in imdeed meet to call thee blessed, who art the Mother of God, most highly blessed forever, beyond exception, move honorable thao the cherabim, and more glorious than the seraphim, who, by an immaculate con- ception, didst bear God ihe Word: We magnify thee, Mother of God,”” And now comes the great Doctor St. Augustine, who writes of Mary that ‘‘she was more blessed by receivin, the faith of Chriet than by conceiving the flesh o} Christ.” But ie this the same as saying that “she was conceived im sin,’’ as Dr. Cummiag thinks? The lan- of our Lord is even stronger than this—that Mary 8 more blessed for her obedience than for her mater- vity. ‘t does not touch the point. When St. Au- gustine does appronch the subject, as in his controversy with Pelagios with respect to original sin, he says:— ‘Let the Virgin Mary be excepted, with respect to waom, when sin is spoken of, I will have no question raised, fer the honor that is cue‘our Lord,” Finally, St, Bernard brings up the rear, ‘as perbaps | the moxt determined opponent of the immaculate coa- ception that we can appeal to.’’ Poor St. Bernard, could de only have foreseen how his words would be tortured, tlong in the face of the churen be loved, and used in disparagement of the V rgin Mother to whom he was so loyal in bis allegiance, it # quite certain that he nover would have them. The quotation from his works ‘n by Dr. Cumming is doubtless correct, and as cer ly not in harmony with the late decree of the Sa- preme /ontiff. But still, let ua do jurtice to thie great int and doctor of the church. Nos to repeat what ‘often said in vindication or explanation of his opinion on this subject, one thing is abundavtly clear, that however etre ly he expressed huvself to tue canons of the chureb of Lyons, in order to discountenance their upauthorized festival in honor of the immaculate con- ception, still, on the main question he felt that he t be wrong, and in this event, as a dutiful son of the ebureb was prepared to correct his error. At the close af the very epistie from which these extracts on the immaculate conception are drawn, he says:—‘‘For the authority and examination of the Roman cburch in rticular, I reserve this entire subject. as 1 do all other like matters, pre) by her judgment to correc: what! have written, if in anything i shail be better informed.” “Romane priesertim eccles # auctoritati atque examini, totum sicut et cetera, que hujusmodi sunt, univerra re- fervo, (psiur, si quid alter sapio, paratus Judicio emen- dare.’ In this noble sentence, so worthy of himself and of his great fame in the church, ‘‘being he peaketh,’’ ing t i the hearts of bi cusers, exclaim once he may have doubted, Credo! credo! Having thus disposed of the authorities relied on by Dr. Cumming for his wanton attack upon the faith of the Catholic church, snd proved, as I truant, that oven could he make the aan hat he desires they should it would not justify the conclusion he haa drawn, w leave the subject with the single remark, that if he has n more remarkable with which ‘‘to startle the Rom'sh church,” that ‘sleepy headed church,” to re: gp through ano‘her without ‘ diseo: hteen hundred years’ her er. Be assured, Mr Editor, ‘the death-knell of the fg?’ pot ‘noon to resound throw gneut Caristen- Your obedic ran oMP New Yorn Monday 2, 1855. VoL. X Bishop Horatio Potter on the li the American Press. TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD. | ‘The Henan of Monday contained an extract taken the Montreal Transcript of an address delivered by | Right Rev. Horatio Potter, Provisional Bishop of 2 York, st the annual meeting of the Chursh Societ; which the following language occurs:— puont American Social, Much bas been said a pots (| to the war. died Sbakspeare, and on, They would tnd that they were heart and soul with land in the struggle, daily offered up their pray for her success. It will scarcely be believed that these are the del rately uttered sentiments of an intelligent Bishop, whose theological and scholastic attainme have elevated him to the Episcopate, and tothe dignit, a successor toa Hobart anda Wainwright. The Bisho| not content with simply saying that the press is nc reflex of the public mind, but adds, as though to, ter em) to his statement, ‘‘ that to underst the public perdi of the Cont Se must go to educated men, (does he intend t by antil to lege that our rs are not such?) to the of chureh, and to those who study Shakspeare, Milton | Hooker.” Tt would be difficult to find on record a more arrog assumpticn than is here put forth by the Provisic Bishop ts Ere ; nny the commnent? eee man, who is old enough to wear a heard, ¢ the ides of finding in the “clergy of the cody any church, iture of ‘public sentimen| Contrast with the above the following sensible exti from Harper's Magazine for the present month:— “The American mind now speaks through the p It speaks its own will in its own o. It is hed every day, on all subjects, and on occasions, | hence it has not to embody its utterance, as forme! in the thoughts and eloquence of leading men, The mestic statesman has been partial; 5 people bave advanced to cocupy his ground, Once was the interpreter of their thoughts and not seld the originator of them; once they waited for his ance, and leaned on his arm; but nows change come; and through the direct medium of the daily ne! paper they are freely and forcibly expressed.’? In reading these twoextracts, we cannot avoid the c| viction that the parrow views of the first quoted ce only have one whose reading was li to Sbakapeare, Milton and Hooker. NL QI New York, Jan. 22, 1855. Grist and Mario in Boston. Grisi, Mario and Coutts have been in Boston du: the past eight days, and have, of course, attracte! large sbare of public attention, By the newspape would scem, however, that the opera bas not yet honored witb a full bouse:— {From the Boston Journal, Jan. 20.) Last evening tre third operatic performance of Grisi and Mario troupe took place at the Boston theat on which occasion ‘La Favorita’’ was represented be! a large and enthusiastic audience. We consider this most triumphant and successful performance of the t! nights. Mario was in excellent voise, and rendered rt in a style of consummate perfection througho cavatina in the last act was given in a most exp sive and touching manner, which excited a hearty sponse; every note told, and reached the very botton every musical heart present, The effect was aly th ing. Grisi seemed io tbe best humor; her act! , really superb, and in fact far beyond anything whic! dongs to lyric performance we have ever w.tnessed either this country or Europe. Susini gave uaa sp men of his bass qualities, :uch as we seldom hear. fact, we can safely say that four greater artista have ver before appegred at the same time upon the Bo: stage. Mlle Soto made ber appearance, and dan ry gracefully; she and ker recept} was very enthusiastic, The ballet music was perform shockingly. We have never witnessed am jucces: failure, which must be attributed to the carelesanes: the conductor. Monday evening ‘‘Norma”’ will be represented, wh| ve trust will cali together a larger audience than on revious occasion of the season. In this there is but Norma, and that is Grist. {From the Evening Gazette.], After several months of constant promise and coqu tish playing with public cur osity, Grisi and Mario by appeared in the Boston theatre, receiving & most dial welcome, notwithstanding their 1g relucta to meet the keenly spammy operatic world of tl city and vicipage. ‘Ibey brought, however, the e acceptable Badiali as their sure ietrodaction to pul favor, and bis unbounded popularity allayed those t ings of jealousy which New York’s seemingly ée mined monopoly had exerted with nota few. To that no disappointment awaited the large, brilliant, remarkably intelligent assemblage of Monday even ‘would be incorrect. The same paper rays that ‘Lucresia Borgia’ wae gi on Wednesday. Mario was hoarse and Donnovan! i, but Grisi was ia good voice. For ‘*La Favorita,’? Friday, the house was not so good, and Mario was «! hoarse. The orchestra and chorus were not altogetll satisfactory. On Saturday, the ‘Barbiere.’’ The Gazette says “Pnere was @ fair audience present this afternoon. principal singers and choras were in the vein for a g performance of Ressini’s hight and sparkling opera, [From the A new star from the hi D upoa “Yonng Boston’” quite a fiat among soapy tender and susceptible gents who ‘Jooking adout.’’? We did vot wonder that a bund: lorgnestes were eagerly aimed at her, fara fresher more gloriously beautiful girl has not come out mary a year. Ttissadto octe the chazge which h Jered pl we in — who were belles, when oupe tirst gave us the genuine Italian 0} -bat th have had other music since ti bot the “our for has become familiar to their ears. They are t] matrons now. But their places are bei L, younger sisters bave come on to the ta while n Dp names gee like rare exe . oe you of Boston ori as, we believe, gained all suilr: excellence. a fine gure, as the belle at the par . Each night hj witnessed her heautifally moulded head tastef d in « different style, ‘08 itis diffleult to decide whi coiffure is most becoming. Her face is of that peculil classic mould bigs anyones to adapt itself to eve! im which the ‘rusttal 1d of fashion has brought o: Perhaps a luxuriant growth of dark hair, which is su freee cyt so many changes, ccopioiaion to render h autiful, in whatever guise man offered s woger that her ped genie Ud a cloak er crape sent ov aiteeres. neers & the six sigoe. Nous were . a Se an gtitt tI cynosnre of every eye. e pays for purge box. On Wednesday pend poy LT indifference of what was goiug on, by reading a boo! which she laid down only when Mario was on the # [From the Daily Times, 20th.) At the Boston, the it attraction of the week hi Mario Teen Opere, The sane hertmghea jario, im Ita! ra. e same short-sighted q which has always cl the =) a troupe, ever since he has acted in that ca 1, shor its effects here, as well as ele>here. be 4 in city, together with that class of people, (and it isa one,) who very sel Tefer to the common theatric] advertisements of the day, but who can best afford and do, atte ionable opera, would mever ha s known that such an event was to take place, as début in our midst of the two most celebrated ‘per and ertists of the aze, had it not been for tices in the editorial columns of the Ld such was te be the case. Whatever success Ein t ger 4 meot with in this city, he must attribute to good wii! of editors and reporters, not to his own sagacit and tact asanagent. These remarks, it must be unde] stood, de not apply to Mr. Barry, of the Boston theat: as during the rtay of the opera troupe here he has reli quished to them the entire control of the establishmen| ond allits appointments, so that he has be aagt do with th bp than any private the openi: it jonday night, iostead of that erowd house whic! expected by those who were ad of the occasion, it was, as we have said before, oa! about two-thirds full, wh on Wed ‘event ‘when it bad been annonnced, through the 1 orit} cisms, in a manner that would attract the attention every oni 8 to take place, and taken as a whole, was a fine performance, thor there was nothing about it which would have created farticular sensation, asite from the appearagee of tli two great stars in the musical constellation, ama the nd velty of a new company. It was sung no better, in o ss bas ba pn — company known as the ry roupe. Grisi is evidently, in a measu: an slight reedy or wiry tone hes taken the plies of tho clear and delicate notes which those who have beard in former years #ay she was wont to 1 the: is something about it which, supported by her exeeilen manner of delivery, and ber fine powers of acting, rex der it pleasing and satisfact There is an evenne: about both ber singing ig whieh shows the tri artist; and if she ever Coes strive for « point, it isd in so natural a manner that the spectator cannot see effort, though be must the effect, Of Mario, ft meed onl ve sald, to cover the whole ground, that he is, withou exception, the finest tenor ever in this country. ‘The Mail gives ® list of some of the suditors, an saya The above specimens may serve to show how the #1! lian Opera is supported in Boston, account of th state ot the money market, we must infer that beggit and stealing are very much on the increas. Many d those who all at once know so much abeut Italian music, have been much more likely to bave been aq Dae with the police court and of ato 5 soon as we can forget Miss Coutts we «ball able to write without vomiting. They have a new story about Miss Coutts, in Bosto which is that she has furnished twenty thousand pound sterling of the capital tocarry om the opera, that real nawe is Miss Gyles, and that she wears a mask. that she is paid a salaty'by Grisi and Mario, and is intimate terms with both of them. A Remarkavie Famiiy.—There is a gentle pd ed 44 years, who ia the you family of ten children, all of The older is 65 years old, and thelr united amount to 553 years, Court or Arrgats.—The Court of journed on the 18th inst. after having heard meni im over fifty causes during the term, A ve bbe wit woold ‘ber 6° cannes b . eo useless, ax the w