The New York Herald Newspaper, June 25, 1855, Page 2

NEW YORK HERALD, MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1855. ee ee eae etn ener mane A ete enee eS ne eee ey EG A SY ME SET a pepreemmeenmem NVERESTING HISTORY OF CASTLE GARDEN | sf S0%.osyy rns "tu tage icing rm tne | tne pesly as impor for aning thm per 807 THE SCHUYLER FRAUDS: bat s AND THE BATTERY. pod for fot Resonant, ro to here ne right of wharf- 4 Thesct of April 18, 1855, directed Superior Court—General Term. Jeadge Hoffman’s Optaion in Fail, SUPERIOR COURT— SPRCI AL TERM. J. Phillips Phaniz, on vehaif of himself and others, against The Commissioners of Emi igration, Henry A. @onklin, and the Mayor, Aldermen, de, of New Fork —Mesars. Cutting and Perry for plaintiff; the Attorney General and Mr. Devlin for the Commis- aloners of Emigration; Mr. Anderson for Henry R Genklin; Mr. R. J, Dillon for the Mayor, &e., of New York. ‘The care is to be consizered in two aspects: First, in relation to particular statutes and conveyances under which the plaintiff insists that he siteated with him, possess an owners of property, and those similarly absolute right, as to have the intended use of @astle Garden prohibited. Second, in relation to the general law governing the Court in interferiag with par- thes whose acts amount to muisances, or tend to such comsequences, endangering property, health or comfort, ag are equivale: nt to nuirances. I. As to the particular rights of the plaintiffs as own- era of property in the vicinity 17 fe land upom which Castle Garden stands, as well astiw Battery as it was at any period defined, did not pess to the Corporation of New York under the Mout- gomery charter by the grant of the four hundred feet anto the river. Phe lines of that grant expressly exslade to the people of the State, withi ol eo Stat im as wella all the lands within su ‘the corporation, except the Ja section. The exception was th ing Green, and runt There was also a reservation of Fort and, full boundaries, and extent ‘of the 1¢th of March, 1790, im the sezoad ve to the corporation all the lands oxing the limite bed, ch limits claimed by reserved in the first d fronting the Bowl- of the lots fronting on ng 89 the Pearl street, which it is here sufficient to indicate aa the Government House Grounds. The recital shows that the yatention was to convey Fort George, and the Battery ad- jacent thereto, The corporation was to hold the pre- mises “for the pur 0 of erveting public buildings lo and works of defence thereon, but without any power @lapoxe of the same for any other use or purpose what- seever and without any power of selling any part there- 3] In 1701, a map was made by J. Goerck, City Surveyor, wwhseh shows th and as it noticed that the exceptiu: of a bastion near line of the Battery aa it continued until after 1821. general course was nearly straight, with n existed, It will be the northerly end, hich projected irregularly to the westward of the line, Te will also be woticed thay the whole of Castle Garden, and of the bridge leading to it, are outside, or to the westward of this line. map, in connection with the outline is is shown upon the same of a survey made by es, Surveyor in 1807, and traced upon it 3. Th the United and :— First, rant by the corporation to the government of States, of the 17th of Novemper, 1807, com- , an oblong described two parcels of bad g metes and hounds of 310 feet, and 300 on its wester- ly and easterly sides morther! ‘the acdi and 200 feet and 125 feet on its southerly sides, The map of Goerck, with exhibits this parce! distinctly. ‘A careful examination of the map shows thet a por- tion of this oblong was outside, that is, te the west ward of the limite of the grant in the statute of 1791. yond the Bastion. But another portion of such ob- ‘was within the statutory grant, for it comprised the tion, as it is shown on the map of Goerck, lines are not run particularly, there can be no doubt 4s the Bastion passed under the statute. Tae first i BEE Although portion, then, of this transfer to the United States com Brised one parcel of land clearl: tidy, and, another parcel, the har. dimensions of the whole ren, stated at 49,000 supeficial Bae wench Is not traced, at about belonging to the cor. tith to which is not arcel may be feet; the parsel the + 30,000, But the next clause of the conveyance of 1807 grants al the righ’ ‘that os = of ground. The length into tl ite. title and interest of the corporation *‘to all it, vacant ground, and soil under water, to and gained out of the Hadson river, of feet, lying on a course seuth sixty-four degrees west,” adj ing the other he river is left inde- ‘The habendum of this conveyance is, that the pre. anises are to be held for the uses and parposes d ‘Those purposes are expressed in the recital, i, eonstructing and erecting of fortifi fence of the port and ha:bor of New tion expressed in the conveyance is, “For ications fur the de- York.”” The condi- that if at any time hereafter, the premises should cease to be used for the purposes of fortifications, or for any other purposes in Which the public may be immediately interosted, thea fhe premises should revert to and reinvested in the Mayor, Aldermen, &,, and they should and might enter wpon the same as of their formrr e 4, The attention of the counsel statement in the Treatise upon the gation of New York, that commis as called to the ate of the Corpo- sioners of the State head ceded the land under water to the United States and some searches were made to trai imoffectually. ce this cession, but It was observed that as the corporation did mot ap- pear to have a particle o: title to the land under water, geeondly described in their conveyance, it was not to be dmagined, that the United States would have been con- tent with thi The following #' the title very satistactorily:— By an act of Lieutenant-Governor, Chancellor an Commissioners to declare ture to the cession of lands o: s re quit claim of an assumed interest. ‘tes, however, explain the history of the 20th of March, 1807, the Governor, a others, were ap the assent of the a Staten and Long Island to the jurisdiction of the United States, for pur- pores of defence. (Sess. laws, 1807, ‘an act of the 18th of March, 18 ch. 51 ) 08, the commission- By era appointed under the former act had their powers satendea ‘to lands in the city and o ‘and to lands covered with wat jounty of New York, in said city and county of }ew York, and to lands covered with water in said eity and county, provided that the cessions to be msde ‘of puch lands should be necessary for the defence and wafety of the city of New York, (Sees. laws, 1808, ch. 61.) By the 4th section of this act, such commission ers were empowered to grant to the United States, for the purpose of providing for the defence of the city, the use of any of the lands and waters belonging to the Wrople of the State, fn the ald city and county of New ‘ork, which lands shall be gran\ dition of their reverting to the psop care they are not applied to the slsoan et for the extending of tt ri on the express con- 12 of this State in Purposes aforesaid. idge street to the Statutes of 1830, (vol. 1, oh. 168.) p. 68,) that a deed of cession was made by these commis- sioners, dated the 6th of July, 1808, of the parcel of ground at the foot of Hubert street, and of a portion of the pre- mises now in question. The deed of cession is stated to be in the Secretary of Etate’s office, The boundaries of this cession ‘The point of beginning is the samo a3 from the ‘corporstion. “The easterly line is the same is the course of the northerly line; ‘the river is five hundred instead of ‘the |e are very perticalar. the re-lease 580 but the depth into two hundred fe-!; th om the westerly side is the Ron ee on the noutherly the depth is 426 feet, instead of 1 ‘We thus see, that from the same base line at the east- ward, the line of the cession by the State ran 50) feet into the river—that of t! latter line ran to a point upon the third from its commencement. The cession by the State contained e corporation 200 feet. The bridge, about one- a provision that the United States were to retain the use and jurisdiction 20 Jong a8 the two tracts shenld be respectively used and applied to the purposes of defence and safety to the city and port of New York, and no longer rT. ‘An obscurity exista as to the ground of the claim of the corporation to run 200 feet i Btate did not concur in it. Bat supposing the claim well fou: the Unit into the river. The nded, we have then States holding "the proverty under a ces. sion of the use and jurisdiction, not the fee, from the State, for the westwardly three hundred feet, and under a transfer from the city for the residue, with » clause of reverter upon its disuse. 5. In this situation the act of the 2ith of Maroh ‘was passed. The Battery into the river pee Jead, and land under water, in fron ration was authorized extend that, ‘part of the city usually | called six all the title of the people of the State, in and to the hundreed fest, ¢ of and adjoining to the ‘said Battery for that distance, was vested in the Mayor and Commonalty, ‘‘to remai extending such Battery for public, walk, pu in’ for the purpose of for erect buildings and works of defence thereon; but vat an} ywer to dis; of the same for any tose whatsoever, and without any pow it, art of it.’’ Under this act, the rever- pam db Tight of the State to the land meat wit 0a which the castle stands, and to moat of that over which ‘the bridge ran, thus passed to the corporation upon the ted and of, ‘thus arrive at the consideration of the of March 30, 1822. The Presideat and to reconvey to tion the tract of land granted by them. reel first described in the convey- and restored that body te the rights it possessed in 1807, The express condition Sis oa mylar ‘ef 1821, before noticed. The effect hi the possession, , ‘the bridge, trom that it and profit, tion the 18, 1813, with , of the im their deeds examined. iP te a ines f 11 abont the wit Scale its) ta lg es used, and leased it, with the have reinvested the title but for the act of that act of 1821, ‘to substitate the corporation for the Stats, ees purchased the materials of Castle from the United States, = a of the was deli ‘to it by General 16th of time to the present, act of May 25, 1812, the sale in government house unda, fone and to Jon. r ef il : i 3F part or their eovenant extenied to the: as it then existed, and.no farther. Goersk’ of 1/01 defined the limits, pursuing the boundaries ‘The covenant did not cover an inch of the ground now in question. The yer then . Cas define?. was much to the eastward of that age on either side thereof.’” ‘The , therefore, are Castle Garden proper, and the right of way over the ‘There is a covenant ip the usual form, aot to assign or sublet the premises without the assent of the corpora- tion. An assent was given by the Comptroller, on behalf of on the 27th of March, 1865, sanc- + by Allen to Conklin. The = uch assent is conferred by the * dof title4). The Comptroller has refused bis consent to the assignment hs? Conklin te the on cg Tg of Emigration, made by on the 5th of May, It is foniated that the want of such assent renders that assignment wholly void. It is re that by consenting to one assignment the covenant is disc! Damper’s case (4 Coke 119, Smith’s leading cases 16). Brummel vs. McPherson i Vesey 173); amd Dakin ve. Williams (17 Wendell 447), have been cived. Whether, as the last cage partly intimates, there ia not 2 distiaction be. tween’ itions and covenants in this particular [ need not consider. Iam of opinion that it is for the corpora. tion alone to take advantage, by re-¢: or otherwise, of any breach of the covenant. No elee can do so And one among several reasons is, thi rent after the right vs. Davis Cow; ) 5 el 1n088i0} Tconeluse this branch of the case with the following propositions, which appear to me to be established by the preceding review of the statutes and documents, upon the runject. 'l. That the tiff and other owners of the lots pur. chased in 1815 have zo right, by virtue of the covenants inthe deede from the corporat Or otherwise, as ownera of such lots, to interfere with eny use which the corporation may make or permit, of the premises con- tained inthe lease to Allen, and in question in this case. 9, ‘That the corporation of the city of New York are entitled to the building called lo Garden, and the materials of the bridge, by virtue of thelr grechere from the United States, in 1823; and are entitled to, and hold, the fee of the soil under such building and bridge, by virtue of the act of 1821. 8. That the United States did not acquire the fee of these premises by the cession from the State in 1908, but and jurisdictionover the same; that thie bject to such right in the United States, passed to the corporation by the act of 1821; that the net of Con- gress and surrender of povsession discharged and extin- ies this right of the United States, and enured to e benefit of the corporation as gramtee of the State; and thus the corporation hold the property under the act of 1821, and according to the conditions, and upom the terms, pre<cribed by such act. 4. That apart from the question ef nuisance, no one but the people of the State has any right to interfere with any use whatever which the Corporation may think pre- per to make of these premises; that persons in the po- sition of this plaintiff may indeed unite in a complaint, _ or sct as relators with the Attorney General, to prevent a perversion of the property; but the people, through that officer, must be pai ‘to the action It is needless to refer to any other case than that of the Broadway Railroad 11 Legal Observer, 359), to support this proposition. ‘he condition attached to the grant by the State, and the purposes for which the land waa be:towed, wore all of a public nature—concerning all the inhabitants of the city at large. 6. That the want ef the assent of the Comptroller to the assignment by Conklin, if legally necessary, and not dispensed with by reception of rent, is an objection only to be taken advantage of by the corporation itself, IL. I proceed to the consi tion of the second branch of the caure. 1st. There can be no question that if the occupation of Castle Garden as an emigrant depot would amount to a nuisance, neither the Corporation of New York, nor the State, nor the two united, could so loy it. Am injunction would then be granted. In tion to the eases cited, 1 refer to the Attorney General vs. John: stone (2 Wilson’s Rep., 95, 2 Starkle, 611). and to the Attorney General va Parmentier (vol. 6, Bxohq, Rep., Phil, ecition):—‘‘ The Crown has nota right either it- self to use the title to the soil between high and low water as a nuisance, or to place upon that soil what will bea nuisance to the Crown’s subjects. If the Crown has not such a right it could not transfer it to the city of London.” An injunction was retained until the re- suit of am indictment which was pending. 2d. But few points are better settled than this:—That 8 Court of Chancery will net interfere by fajunctio less the thing sought to be prohibited is in itself buisance, and irreparable mischief will easue unless t! rohibition is granted before a trial atlaw. Ifthe ing to be enjoined is not noxious of itself, but some- thing which may, according to circumstances, prove to be #0, the court will refuse to iaterfere natil th has been tried at law. jury to be dreaded is great that no @ matte: Bat if the magnitude of t and the risk so immi vadent man could think of incurring it, the not refuse to interfere on the ground that injary from n, Brougham, (Cooper's Rep.Te a naan 318) adopt rougbam, rs Rep.Temp. Brougham 318,) adopt- td by Chatcalior Walworsh (0 Paige, $63) and sustained and applied in the following cases:—Rowe vs. The Granite Bridge Company, (21 Pick. 344,) Vaughan va. Law, (1 Humphrey, 123,) Kirkman ve. Houck, (11 Humphrey, 406,) City of Georgetowa ve. Alexandria Canal Com; 27, (12 Peters, 92,) White Eng, L. . Rep., 149.) See, also, the in The Attorn The rr neral vs. see erection was am expected injury to property merely. ‘The cases which relate to an expested injury to health and comfort Fequire to be more particularly referred to, as more applicable to the present question. principal of such cases are the following :—Anon, ‘3 Atk., 750,) Catlin vs. Valentine, (9 Paige, 576,) The jurnt {sland Whale Fishing Company va. Trotier, (5 Wilson & Shaw, 649,) Swinton vs, Pedrie, (15 Shaw & Dunlap, 775, McLean & Robinson’s Parl. Rep., 1,018,) ‘The Mayor of London va, sare ‘5 Vesey, 120,) fhe At. torney General va. Cleaver, (18 Vesey, f) ‘Attorney General and others ys. Blount, (4 Hawke, 384. ‘We find most of these cases to be those of ing houses. Now such an erection is indictable a: nuisance at common law, (Rex vs. Cross, 2Carr hie a4 483, and see Rex vs. Watts, Ibid 486.) The Sco! cases, Catlin vs. Valentine, and several others in o courts, are open to the comment that prima fa:ic tl trade or building to be inhibited was indistable asa nuissnce, and the court would not permit an experiment to be made to ascertain whether untried, though spe ay Wigs means, might not remove or diminish e evil. ‘The Scottish case cf Swinton vs. Pedie deserves par. ticular notice. The bill of suspension and interdict was to restrain the erection of a of shambles ani hich, it was |, would prove a uisance to the bans og of the pi and would pol Tute ® mili head which passed neighborhood. Tne interdict granted by the Lord Ordinary, to whom it was = ‘was absolute; restraining the erection of the nildings as well as the intended use of them as sham- bles, This was ex te. Ona hearing he recalled the interdict so far as it prohibited the erection of the build- ings, but no further. When the record was closed, (proofs being tsken,) an- other Lord.Ordinary made the interdict permanent as it was modified. On appeal from this decision, the plans by which the party expected to remedy the evil were ordered to be sub- mitted. This was done at length, and, upon considering them, the Scottish Appeal Court adhered to the interdict. ‘Then in the House of Lords it was recognized that the effect of the interiicts, as they stood, allowed th Ps to go on with the building. The result wae, that terdict was sustained, but witha qualification or decla- ration Which would enable the party to apply to the Court thereafter for an opportunity to try the expari- ment whether the means he had devised were effectual to remove the nuisance. The Court was not by the de. bpd be prevented from recalling the interdict if 0 ad- vired. The foundation of the decision throughout was, that a slaughter house in a city was, by the law of Scotland as of , & common nuisance, In Rex va, Ward, (1 Burrows, 333,) the indictment was for erecting and continuing works for maklug acid spirit of sulphur, oil of vitriol, and oil of aquafortis; that in be Loar blag wg eee noisome, offen- ve and stinking smoke, whereby the air was impregn: ed with nolsome and of "smell com nuisance of all the Ki the Judge’s report it appear only intolerable and offensive, but also noxious and hurt- fal, and made many persons sick. A conviction was sustained. The word noisome was held 4: ymous with noxious, and that included insalubrity and ua- wholesomeneas. I think, then, that the rule declared by Lord Hardwicke in the case cited from 8 Atkyns is to this day the gene. ral rule of the court upon this subject. Bills to restrain nuisances must be for such as are known nui- sances in the law. Unless they are such, the Court will not interfere without a verdict, except in very marked and imperative cases of imminent and irretrievabie danger. Otherwise the parties will be left to indictment, or abatement; or occ: ly an issue will be directed. Itis impossible to say that the law has ounced an emigrant depot in a city to bes pudlic nuisance. lts charact must be established by the nature of the Giseas+s of ite inmates—their frequency and-extent—the number of pertons received—the to health flow: from their presence—the location of the edifice ast large or sosnty Foe in its vicinity—the precau- tions which may be used, and may be depsnded apon; apd many other circumstances pecaliar to cach indi vidual case. e 3d. It becomes therefore necessary for me t examine the circumstances ap; upon tie affida- vite and documents presented. ‘The State has considered the regu'ation of emigration into its limite as of such importance ss to callfor the bY it of a particular Board to supsrintend it. ‘The act of May, 1847 (ch. 195) created the Commission- ers of such @ Board, aad provided o faad by appropriating the tax of $1 60 for every emigrant for whom a bond was not given, to meet the expenses ia curred for the support of hae Nag tomeg 3 them. Ia 1818 their authority was enlarged by the Lagislatars ia the nears 11 of that year, asd again by the act of It is piaim that the prominent object of the Logiats- ture in such am ization was to relieve the cities from the burthen of supporting the multitudes of the in- digent and sick among the emigrants; to afford them Ineans of support or restoration heaith, aati the of tunity of sustaining themselves was offered; of shel ing the unwary from the infamous frauds which were constantly practised upon them; and of guerdiog agsioat the propagation of dangerous diseases with which they might be ailicted whom they reached these shores, the eit igs the ot tod te some one in for ie patenger, and ee covet cen provided that they shall have authority to arehese, lease, and coeuny ot Now York na tany bo neseenty for the eonomao- ma) tex panne for the purposes of land- ‘The principal difference between the powers thos con- ferred, and those granted in the act of 1848, is that the consent of the corporation is not sow ‘made necessary ‘These provisions clearly indicate the sense of the Le gislature and of the Commissioners of ‘tioa, oa ‘whose application they were obtained, that selection of particular places for the purpose of landing emi- vane was of importance to cary out the objects in view. 1 bave carefully examined the sffidavite now before me, and | consider that they establish beyond any rea- sonable doubt thece points — 1, That the selection of Castle Garden enables the ly the emigrants position. That it is of great aivan tage in facilitating their dispersion throughout the country; and of giving them the benefit of the counsel and sid of the ra) cocteties specially formed te watch 0 over their comfort. 2. That the employment of Castle Garden for the pur of a re-examipat'on is of manifess advantage, in ite tendency to secure the health aud com/ert of the emi. grante themselves, The judgment and experience of the Commissioners, confirmed by the affidavit of Dr. Harris, formerly deputy health officer, Dr. Osbora, and other byricians, of Captain Crabtree, and of Cyrus Curtis, Termerly a'Commiesioner of Emigration, establish thie. 3. The bringing er all the nts whose seen Dave ge area: at bearing Revere Jace, such ag premises im ques' is iy Dore linely to avert the tion Of dleonsea im the city at large than the present system. The effects of lancing the passengers at different pointe—of immediate- them into filthy boarding houses—are stated vite of several of the experienced inns rs, and Lear every appearance of good sense and truth. 4. The qusstion: of the deterioration of the value of jepends chiefly on the settlement of the ques- Abgide? use of next diecussed, as to the effect of See proposed the Garden upon the health of the neighboring inhabi- tents. As faras any distinction exists, it is sufficient to may, that a stronger case must be made for ia. junction than in cases of threatened injuries to hsalth, When a nuisance is established and abated by the ver- dict of ajury, the injury to property will be removed. 5. In relation to the decision in Brown vs. the Mayor, &e., (3 Barbour, 8. C., Rep. 254,) I may say that aoase ‘was there made by the plaintiff, and not succorsfully re- pelled by the defendants, widely different from the pre- sent. 6, The remaining and leading question is as to the extent and jmminence of the danger from contagious or to the inhabitants ia the immediate a by the plaintiff. f the Garden from the nearest habits tien Is about five hundred feet. The intermediate spac is open ground, with a free ventilation. I must conG.ls inthe iatementa of the Commissioners, that they mea. to prevent the emigrants from intruding on the Battery grounds, andI sce no difficulty in their accomplishing thia purpose. Disregarding the long Ket of deponents on each site, whose want of information upon this subject robs their opinion of weight, I have given my ipal attention to the affidavits of the medi gentiem: If rustic rule of declsion, numero. mon pondere, was applied, 1 find an overwhelming number oa the part of the defendants. It is of course beyond my power to estimate the relative weight of character and qualification. But several of the physicians on the part of the defendants are now, or have been, in official situations which entitle their opinions to iufluence, ia- dependent of comparative professional eminencs. Among these are Dr. Herris, peeved Deputy Health Officer, whose affidavit merits particular notice; Dr. Sterling, Physician at the Marine Hospital from 1848 to 1853, an: beter Physician of the Commissioners since that ime; Dr. well, Health Oficer far four years, and now Resident cian of city and Agent of the Beard of Health; Dr. Miller, the present Health Commissioner, and formerly member of the Common Council and om the Committte of Public Heatth; Dr. Fay, Deputy Health Officer for three years prier to the summer of 1854; Dr. Cox, Visiting Physician to the Hospital of the Commis. sioners; Ur. Thompson, Health Officer of the Port of New York; Dr. Roth. in the employ of the Commission- at Quarantine; Dr. Martindale, Deputy Health Officer of the Port; and Dr. Vaché, Physician in Chief of the bree Hospital, and for five years Resident Physician of r) o inions of so large a number of responsible ofli- experienced physicians are in my judgment de- I attribute more than mere personal importance tothe oaths of those who have bsen set apart by the public to watch over the health of the city; whose ex- perience and constant familiarity with the habits aud diseases of emigrants mark them as qualifiea to speak with authority; and whose preju or even hasty judment involves, not merely the impeachment of their fairness and intelligence, bat the violation of s solemn duty consigned to them by the public. All these, with entire unanimity, sta’ t the aparehen- sions of the spread of contagion fro: h a use of Castle Garden 8: is pro |, are groundless. 7. Another consideration is, that the Common Council of the city, et rarer ager or ncn eae, every nui e ox proves evils and dangers anticipated by the plaintife are in any degree realized, they may be imi lyzemoved. The powers of our Corporation are as extensive as those of uch is the sale provaling there, Boston, 12 such is the ru! a ere. er Vs. 2 Pick., 184; VanWarner vs. the afayor of Albany, 16 Wendell, ey De! the act of 1850, (ch. 275,) the Mayor and Common cil are coustituted the Board of Health; and by section 2 of article 1, title 3, they have fall au- thority to abate all nuisances within the city. T have given to this motion the care and study its im- portance and interest demand, and the result is a convic- tion that to arrest the plan of the Commissioners, full as it is of so many undeniable hercatcine ne the evi- dence now before me, would be a rash and unwarranta- ble exercise of Uwaacy salutary only when wielded with caution, but # formidable and mischievor mngine of wrong when exerted except upon the mandate of imgert- ons neceseity. ‘The motion for the injunction must be denied, and the temporary order discharged, without costs to either party. Ohio and M Ratilroad—Another Meeting of the Board. (From the St, Louis Intelligencer, June 20.) On last Monday there was another meeting of the di rectors of the Ohio end Mississippi Rallrond—the first that has occurred since the 5th inst., om which day were executed the note to Page & Bacon, and the deed of trast, that have since attracted so much public at: tention. At the meeting on Monday were present two directors from Illinois, Judge Breese and A. Kitchell, Esq, and Sam Gaty, of this city—three members who were not present at the meeting on the 5th. The transactions of the on the 5th inst, were of course a subject of consideration; and after full inquiry, and review of the proceedings of the bth inst. and all or of Albany; and the successive steps that have since occ: a resolu- tion was offered, ratifying the note to Page & Bacon, the deed of trust to secura its payment, an ion the possess! taken of the road, by the trastee, for Page & Bacon's be- nefit, in default of the payment of the nove. This reso- lution was paesed unanimously—Ayes. Messrs, Garrison, Vice-President ; Kitchell, Belcher, Breese, Gaty an. Alexander. Nays—none. th The following is a copy of the preamble and resolu- jon Whereas, This board, on the 5th June, authorized and cnected D.'R. Garrison, vice-president of this company, to execute to Mesers. Page & Bacon the promissory note of this company for the sum of $1,158,484 61, being the balance then due fiom this company to the sai Poge & Bacon; and also to execute and deliver to J H. Alexander a deed of trust See the lands, road, fi chiwes, cars, machinery, and other property of this com- pany, in trust to secure the payment of said note, and in default of payment of said note, acsordiag to its terms, tenor and effect, to enter upon and take posses- ston of the road, &c., a8 in said resotutioa is more parti- cularly explained. And whereas, default having been made in t! yment of sald note, the sail trustee, ia yarsusnce of the authority conferred by the said deed, taken possession of the said road for the usos there- expressed; theretore, Resolved, t the said note, deod, and possession thereunder, be and are hereby rati@ed oy thin board, and that the several officers and ty? hitherto in the em- yy of, and accountable to, this company, be required account to the trustee, according to the pro otradge Dreere woved the follo it, which ua eee 100" fo) amendment, whic taken tons was acce) before the vote was Juége a amendment ac: by the mover. It being ex} ‘understood that several outstanding bb claims of said officers, agents and others who have en in the employment and accountable to said compa. ny, a6 also those just claims for labor and materials a outstanding ana unpaid, are to be fully paid and satis. fied as speedily as poratble. It will be seen that six of the ten directors of the 0. & M. Road were oat on Monday. Those abseat wero Mesers, W. H. Aspinwall, of New York, (who approves the action of the board,) Chas. P. itean, of this etty, (who is said to do the same,) and Col, O’#allon and Henry D. Bacon. Thus there will be found not only a majority of tae board officially approving the action of the bth inst, but « fer ‘fre ter unanimity in s) approving, than is often found in such s number of directors in deciding a matter of such vast importance. And this result ja # beauifal commen’ wR RT pe and infamous libel uttered by & portion of the St. Louls D. Bacon, one of the noblest and most useful citizens that has ever lived in St. Louis. If loud- mouthed slander, and pointed libel, and di:gracefal de- famation, could have broken down and bullied him oat of the just of years of toil and myotal suf- fering, such as would have crashed the pigmies that ut ter vain reproaches against him, Mr. Bacon would now be @ ruined und hopeless man, ‘But thauks to his own proud and deflant spirit, to hie i and to his nerve, and to the devotion of faithfal who clung to him all the more , because he wae peal res: seouted and maligned, Mr. Bacon is triumphant cure. His success in the Ohio and Missiesippi Railroad will retrieve the fortunes of hia howse, and restore him to a high and position in the business of the West; while the road itself will remain, throagh all time,’ a noble to his and eater prine— for which the jle of the State of Illinois, no less than of the city of St. Louis, will hold him in gratsfal remem- brance and lasting honor. ‘Tarf. Ones Course—TRoTrinG—Jane 20.—Match $500 aside, mile heats, best three in five to harness. 1, We a br, colt Honest Quaker. ‘Wa. Baundera’s skate A ‘very heavy. mare for foal deiVIg a5 9:86--8:06%. Before Chief Justice Oakley and Hon. Judges Campbell, Boeworth, Hoffman and Slosson. IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE COURT AS TO THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY. June 23,—The Mechanics’ Bank vs. The New York and represent genuine the charter wea and in the ba: ers, is conceded, and it ia also conceded sued for an unlawful on joing 80 would cause the stock to ex- ceed the nae peor pg eeoaee concede that th ot bound to admit them as partners, to change ute ion as to capital, or thc par value of Ly in the view which I have taken of this ease, I shall assume that this ion isthe sound one; but they claim that for this refusal the defendants have become liable to make to them pecuniary compen- tation for their loes, precisely as they would have beea ob’ to do had the stock been genuine. Coreg aC Manhattan —— 2 Hill, 220; Commercial Ky Bufiaio, va. Korizight, 22 Wend., 348.) The theory of the action is, that the defendants are ad by the act of Schuyler, aing this certificate, theugh it was an abuse of bis por and a pure fraud on his part, and that the plaintiffs are entitled, as holders thereof « by virtue of its terme, to be admitted as sharenolders, or if that be impracticable, as creating an excess of cap- ital, that they are entitled to pecuniary indemnity from the defendants, from being deprived of a right which the certificate on its face confers tfpon them. | It is not in form an action to recover damages against the com- pany, on the ground that their tin the courte of bie business as such, had committed a fraud by which the plaintiffs have been injured, and for the commission of which fraud the defendants ought to re- spond, but it reata on the assumption that the compa- ny is, under the circumstances, bound in Jaw by the act, as though {t had been their own, notwithstanding it wasan actin abuseof the powers of the agent, and itself could not rightfally have pegenr rr presented by the action is, wh jone, an uestion ac whe- ther the defendants eabe bound in favor of a party dealing bona fide with their transfer agent, (which the plains coniensodty were,) by an act of his which they themselve could not rightfully have performed, nor rightfully bave deputed to him the power to periorm, but which he has in fact performed while acting in the discharge of his office as transfer agent, for the perfor- mance of which he had general powers, and within the apparent limita of his duties, To make outa right of recovery in this action, on the cause as made by tho plaintifis, it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to estab ish the affirmative of this proposition, It is a question the rolution of which depends, after all, on the correct ap- plication of = f¢ ple’ and familiar principles, and were it not for the adventitious importance attached to it from the stupendous magnitude of the [ey fraud, inconsidera vie of which the case at bar forms but an , it would not, ia my appreh be considered by the profession as a questio ex extraordinary difficulty. That the company itself could pot, without the sanction of the islature, have under the circumstances right- fully issued this certificate, tresting it as the representative of stock; that is, could not havo iasued it without an abuse of their lawful powora under their charter, may be conceded, but it is neverth: leas true that ey, had the power in fact to do the act, as one coming Within range of their corporative powers, though in the particular instance it may be unlewfal in tteelf as contravening the intent of thecharter. Itis ite eapactty in fact te dothe act, under the powers con- ferred upon it by the charter, which, in relation to third rartier, becomes of essential importance in detarmining ¢ obligation of the corporation. Let it be supposed tbat this company had never employed a transfer agent at all, but that all its certificates were issued by the direct action of the board iteelf, and that the one iu question bad been issued under a resolution of the board and with the ite seal affixed, though the act, in 80 far as St could operate to create new stock, or give to be Latest Teor Ci ab a Cate zai might Lt clear abuse of the corporate powers of company, a void, oan it be doubted that, in favor of a bona fide hoid- er of the scrip, the value or credit of it, the would be binding on the corporation, and entitle the holder at ni to an indemnity at their hands? The act, though nota fraud on the charter, would not be ® nullity, nor necessarily void. It woule ponte pon. Spree which the fo yes be esi rom den} as against, an innocent party ad dealt on the faith ott, Ttie true, that in cer- cases, & corporation ie not extop) denying an act upon wpich a claim sgainst it was founied pS gate illegal, tie ze has no aj . cation to acase like image vs. i p. 8, Selden, 328.) It appiie otethte corporation has done an act in clear excess, or in violation of its charter or legal fg and that in a transaction in which the party with whom it has dealt hes notice or knowledge of the iMlegality of the act. If this be true, I do not Petotive in what re pect the act differs by being done yy the agent of the corporation, it coneeded that such agent had fall powers in that part cular business, and that the act was done while idly within the Nimits, and in the performance of his legitimate duties. As transfer bod ‘the powers of Schuyler were as large, Keeping of the books and the issuing of city of New York, as were thoss oi the Board of Directors itself. The whole duty was does this conflict ent exceeds or abuses his powers the principal hae e right to repudiate bis acts and hold him responsibig for the consequences ofhis conduct, since that is a right which exists between himself and his servant only, sud fost which in no way affects the rights of s1 rs as agalt either. As transfer clerk, Schuyler stood in the iticn ent, that is of an agent entrasted with th es of that de: mt under the rules prescribed by the by-laws and regulations of the Board of Directors, He was held out in this capacity to the world, and in the business of transfer of the stock of the company, the public dealt with him and him only. Within the limits of that employment the public had the right to regard all acts done Ana) as rightfally done, 80 long a8 had no reason to sus} to the contrary. While acting within these limits, and in his character of transfer agent, and in the performance of that very bu- siness, his acts were binding on the compsny, without showing their ascent or participation. (Parsons on Contrada, . 41-62; ‘Ag. sec. 452; 15 East. R. p.42 There would be no safety otherwise in dealing wit! corporations, or private individuals acting by the agency of others, This rule applies as well to acts done in fraud of the rights of the Prineips), ‘83 to those right- fully done, otherwiee there would no benefit in the rule itself, It is a rule founded in the common sense of right in mankind, and adopted as fundamental because in itself right and necessary for the protection of the in- noecent, It ie wrus, the party who claims the benefit of it must himself be not only in fact. but in contempla- tion of law, free from any participation in the fraud of the agent; that is, he mast neither be a party directl; participant in the fraud, nor dave actual notice of it, nor ut upon inquiry by the suspicious characier of the Transaction, But ‘these conditions being found his security is perfect. There is no pretence t the jlaintiffa here had actual knowledge of the frauda- tent conduct of Schuyler, nor was there anything in the transaction to put them on inquiry. It was the ordinary transaction of a loan upon stock security with the usual it and power, to effect a trans- fer, and in no res} different either in the character of the or of the tranraction itself from probably a hundred similar ones transacted in tho street in the same stock and on that very day. Bat it is said the plaintiffs should have Cg y the title to the stock before they advanced movey—that they should have ascertained, by a resort to the books or by in at the office, whether the statement in the certificate was true, and whether this certificate had been issued upon a surrender of « former certificate Tepresel actual stock in compliance with the - Jations and by-laws of the Board, and it is con that Fa Rod invited to this investigation by the cer- tificate itself, and that they had the means of bee igen f themselves of the truth of the case, and are therefore no im the position of parties entitled to the benefit of thi role in question, It is a sufficient answer to this a tion to sa; eer atin tee a Beek Term Hishes that ‘‘the plaintiffs made the in good faith, and bad no reason when they received the certificate to suppose it was not gent ;? but it may bs added that regulations in to the transfer of the shares upon the books of the made by the Board, under th suthority of the charter, are provisions intended for the necurity and benefit of the Oompany itsalf in the pay- ment of its dividends, aad determining who are intitled to vote at the election of its officers, and for the purpose of ascertaining the Imble for assesaments im- d on the shares. ‘tile 10 the stock as betwen + seller amd ‘ ‘Ret afboted by these - ions, snd the las a right to assume that the certiffeate actual stock, and hi Compen: it is has done its dut; ecoing thin the ea Qertifioate has been duly‘surren’ before the “issuing of the new. tacky, 1 Parsons’ Select Kq. Casts, 247; Bank of Utica ae alley, Cowen, 770; Bank of Buffalo ts, Kertright, 2 fend. p+ 862.) no stockholder ‘has avy legal right to an tion books, and mizht properly denied the privile asked for. Neither would the books be higher of title than the certificate fer to inaue errtificates upon a transfer made by a ir of This admission is all that is uestion—the qualification im being only the construction given by the defendants peers Coe A to : Fl 8 a io 5 s not as that t individually, for which he alone would ba The fact that the act ie one which de- Or at bis express ‘to the party desling with Lim, makes no difference im tae application of the principle, which has its foundations in the very necessities of justice as between men. (Story on Agency, sec. 452; Futer tex Bank, 17 ., 507.) It is trae that tl Schuyler wes one never contemplated in bis appo! nor wae he appointed to do what his princi; rightfully 40; but that makes no difference in the appli- cation of the patie He was employed to do lawfal and proper acts, as all agents are in contemplation of law, and {t was in the execution of the powers of that law- ful e yment, and in doing an act which upon its face in itself was lawful and within the express limits of his powers, and an act of the very description of those which he was appointed to do, that he committed the fraud. To allow the P seard to escxpe responsibility boy al tomy spc of this kind, would be effectaally to ehield him in every instance of an abuse of power on the part of his agent. case is to alike that class of cases in which a corporation uni a what itia prohibited from doing by law or by its cl and has therefore no legal capacity todo, or to thi of cases in which an sgent, though acting at the time in the master’s employment, undertakes to do an act wholly unconnected with that employ it or the basl- pess of his agent, and for which he alone (s responsible ; but 4 stances of ae sale of wep ab an agent, lawfully appoin & principal authorized so toappoint, and in the ‘exirclae etnie very lawful au- thority, and in the very terms and within the very limite of his powers and according to the custom of his office. FN pg vs. Richmond turapike Company, 2 Coms., 79.) aucune Paton) een ia which it'would be mor jcult for ty wi agent to dis- cover fraud, orin which they would be less put upoo inquiry by anything ealculated to excite suspicion, To allow the principal to escape Texponaibility on the ground that the sgent had, by committing such a frau ceed. ed the powers of his appointment, or done what he was never appointed to do, would be effectually to shield him in every instance of an abuse of power oa the part of his agent. I consider the actionas abhi! q certifi- cate,and that that instrument creates a bin obligation on defendants, which they are precluded from deny- ing. as sgainst these cohen) to be their act—the same having beeh created by their lawfully constituted agent, within the scope of his legitimate powers, and in the very exercise of them, though in abuse of them; and that though the defendants may not be able, by reason of the hmitations imposed by their charter upoa the amount of their capital andnumber of their shares, to admit the plaintiffs to the rights of stockholders, by (ting a transfer of this stock upon their books, y Tre not, on that account, at liberty to repudiate the act as the act of the tion, but must make eompensation to the innocent holders of the certificates equally as an individual who has undertaken to do an act which he anes himself unable 2 puform, ‘and whore default in performance hes caused an inquiry to another would be bound to do. The rale of pied in such a case is the damage actually sustained by the fraudulent act, which in this instance would be the amount loaned on the credit of the certifisate; and as that largely exceeds even the par value of the stock the rule adopted by the special term cannot be objected S Ge judgment the special term should be affirm ABSTRACT OF OPINION OF JUDGE HOFFMAN. Judge Hoffman delivered a very long opinion, of which the foliowing is an abstract:— The resulta which I have arrived at, and ha’ vored in this opinion to sustain, may be emboili following Propositions ists 1, It is impossible for me to conceive any ad upon which -. { pe premenicl can be fixed upon fie compan; which wil Cage upon or arise out of the certia- cate issued to Kyle, and deposited with the plaintiffs. That weiseeee ee Sage contract one by the com- ny, throu, agent, or a represent of an agen’ Bev es, stated were ‘ean or fgmarenty yl company that Schuyler’s re tat in it were true, and Se agsronien te fulfilthem. Interpret it in byt te ‘tever, it has the element of a contract— a declaration that Kyle was entitled to an interest in’ the stock, and an engagement to permits transfer aad admission, upon compliance with certain terms. In m: juogment, then, this action is founded upon the certifi- cate, and such certificate comprises acomtract. The action, therefore, resta on contract. There is not in the complaint anything at variance with this view. 2 That this contract contains three material particu- lars. First—That Kyle was entitled to eighty five stares ef the stock of the cempany. Second—That the capital stock was three millions of dollars. Third—That the nominal amount of each share was one handred dollars, Fourth—And that uj the production of that certifi. cute @ transfer shi be permitted to the holder upon the books of the company. That such a contract would ‘be literally, fully and legally performed ae compa allowing a transfer to the pleintfls on the booksad- mitting them to the rights of voting and all the other privile; of cor; ‘tors under the charter—ani by re- Cognit the that the interest ani share of the wi we this was the import, and this the extent of the o! * tion fixed upon the company, in favor of the plaiatiits, by the possession of the certifcate in question; and that irrespective of any hibition, ex; or im ia the charter or any statute, the stockholders eae entered into such an en; it ard bound themselves gagement by it. That bad the detendants fulfilled such contract, and admitted oe mtg ‘ transfer on the books as demanded, it would have been the duty of the directors to have arcertained the shares of genuine stock and its holders, and to have adjusted the proportion of the in- terests of the latter in the stock of the company, ; abating fromeach shares rate or per centage Which would amount to the sum of eight asand five hun. dred dollars; and which, if this were the only case, would be about twenty-eight cents and a fraction upom eash share. That if the directors refused or lected this, the plaintiffs could have filed a compiaint (and as the facta exist on behalf of themselves and all ot! simt- larly situated) to ‘gure it. If the pro of the spurious stock to ‘millions admitted it; {f, for exam ple, there was one million five hundred thousand dollars of such stock, as stated in the snawer, a surrender of one- halfof the of eash genuine helder, and taking new certificater half, wo effect the object. Bat if this method should not be practicable, or be insonve- nient, then an abatement of the n: of each sbare by a rate or per cent sufficient to cover the amount of the spurious a1 would be practical and effectual, That there is not sufficient ground to sup- pose that a discrimination of the stock cannot be made 50 an to on this method of doing justice to all. ‘That in relation to the effect and operation of the char- ter, it is not to be conceded that increase of the number of shareholders for the purpose of voting or rtacipating in the corporate privileges could work « forfeiture or be an utterly illegal act towards the State and that if these holders of certificdtes were adm'ttea uy basis as to the amount of their interest, which sbould leave the aj tal precisely the same, the rule of \publie policy which dictates limitation of capital ‘would pot be invaded, and the act would not be unlaw- ful. And lastly, that this was question for the State of Connecticut, or the courts of that State, to determine, and for themalone. That it could not form a jw ground for determining the question between these claimants and the hoiders of unquestioned stock. 8. That Robert Schuyler had received from th: stockholders such bled him to bind ¢! ph steed the stipu- lations contsined in this certificate, although falsely and fraudulently issued by him, provided the claim upon sh certificate is asserted by a bona jide holder. iat there is no evidence to show that Kyle ‘was aware of the fraud attending the issue of the stock, orthat he had not stock to it im the books. That although as between himself ind the compa: the possession of the certifieate before it was pled; Gre no right to Kyle, ze after the pledge to the plain is he bad an equitable lien upon it to secura him against he secon on his note, and would t to it, had he paid such note, And certificate was of no avail in th hands of Kyle, the rights of the fig t ander it, bona fide holders, would not Peed A! . thing which would have rendered it inefféctual t banda of Kyle. sie ‘That the bye? forse and wy of the ot posed w company was such as before tna po offer. ‘That without a demand and refasal to of action would vest the transfer been allowed, ani ABSTRACT OF JUDGE BOSWORTH’S OPINION. Judge Bosworth then rendered a very elaborate opin- fon, and concluded by saying: — In this case the action is based on the assumption, 50 oe ate is coneera- that the ~~ the scope of the dofendant’s authorit illegal and void. Neither is i applied to that clase of cases in which the contract sues # corporation, and the contract, the negotiable im ite character, ie upon its face one which 16 corporation is incompetent to make. e former character the contracting of the latter, every party 1ato whose may come fa judgment o of law, bas notice that it is ille- gal and invalid. presen' there is Seiks face of the certificate or in the cireamatanses wader which the pleintiffs took it, to induce a ei deen unfaithful to his fondant, performed the rigt gin taf her? fsndant, (ori of 31 duty. ‘One taning o ban tens in the — of business, which bad been fraudulently is- ened by @ ci a, uct an honest corporate act, as the pore the issuing of the certificate such anact, Usn there ve any doubt. theright helder of such a vill to recover upon it, if the bank re- fused to redeem it? Is there any more doubt of the right of the plaintiffs to recover in this case? I think the judgment should be affirmed on the grounds — Firet—That im iesung the certificate, Schuyler wae acting within the scope of his powers at ‘transfer agent, and the issuing of it was, in judgment of law, the act o! the corporation Second—That by, entrusting to him that department of duziness, and holding him out to the world as the officer by whom the com pany would transact it, it represented bis officis! acts to be entitled to credit, and became re- sponsible for his fidelity in that employment. Thirc—That any person to whom Bertigeates of stock issued by such officer in the usual form, and authenti cated by him in the | manner, are offered for sale, is, through the: by the company that the them to be, and is as much ‘authorizes’ to euebare, rel; on the trath of at repzesentetion, as the merchant is to sell upon the pri hag of a third person, that the vendee is wor- ore ‘ourth—That a purchaser in good faith for value, and inthe ordinary course of Dusiness, of such certifcate, ou; roves to have been frandulently issued, is ent to woover his ¢ai = — to permit a transfer 1 purchaser ap; d that camnot’be charged sith Baving been Regligent, er ‘itn a want of due caution, in having trasted to the certia- cate of the proper officer, without further ing ther nothing i1 circumstances under w! stock was offered to him, \ company had de; the holder had ery improper practice in obtaining it. ief Justice Oakley delivered an oral decision agree- ing with the three preceding opinions in confirming the judgment of the Court below. Bi Campbell gave a written decision dissenting from ether four Judges. Obituarys Micaaz, Joun O’Meara died in Brooklyn, on the 24 ef June, of disease of the heart. He was about fifty. six years of age and had for a long time past been en- gaged im the business of a commorcial advertising agent. in New York and the neighboring cities. Mr. O'Meara was a native of the county of Tipperary, Ireland, and came to this country from Dublin in 1832, He engaged in business then but was not very successful. He wae previously marr.ed to Mary Anne Louisa Russell, daugh- ter of Mr. Jobn Russell, of Russell Place, Dublin, who wasa worthy man and & good patriot. This lady, the widow, is now in rather straitened circumstances, and we understand it is the intention of very many of our peaness* Irieh citiz+ns—acquaintances of her husband, er father, and heraclf—to send her home to her mative country to spend the remainder of her days there. DEATH OF TBE VENERABLE JUDGE WILDE. ‘We take the following notise from the Boston Tran- eript, of the 23d ins! fe are called upon this evening to report the death of one of the oldest, purest and most respected of the citi- aa Massachusetts. The venerable Samuel Sumner Walde, LL D., died at his resivence in this city yesterday, ip the 86th year of bis age, He died full of years and honors, leaving behind a spotless character aud an ex- ample Worthy of the emulation of all. We have neither apace or time to write anything more than a brief sketch of the long and ureful career of this upright judge and most exemplary citizen. His brethren of the pro- fession evinced their high appreciation of his talents and picky a est at we ane — fon irate he retired rom that judicial e| jorned earning ie Siilsew tis ndtv Kis deals, ana attont im aii oui wi y their regard for Bi wi ce ‘was born in Teunton, Feb. nemed, he was twice choven one of the elestors of Presi- dent and Vice-President of the United States. In 1814, he was a member of the Executive Council. In June, 1815, he was ited by Governor Caleb Strong, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachu- setts, in which station he remained until 1851. At the Lege of Maine from Massachusetts in 1820, Judge Wi removed from Hallowell to Newburyport, where he resided til] 1831, when he removed to Boston, where he has since remained. He was a Judge of the Supreme Court for a longer period than any other member of the Massachusetts Judiciary. Bowdoin, Tahoe the seesectng slatemnent, i¢ will be setn thet the a ent wi oeoen sof the Hoceased extanded ‘ack to the From the Official career of the riod whem Maine was a all the ob: may, with , fay, the leve of men of all political and rejigious opinion, He uni mon franknei with great simplicity and his name was the very synonym for in' . He was an active federalist in early life, and we “Father of his country” no {pjustice when we say that Judge ‘Wilde was a politician of the ‘Washington school.’’ The deceased was surviy last iving member of the celebrated “Hartford Convention.” He was one Massa. chusetts dejegates to that body, which our political annals. Now that no looger cognizant of humen censure or spplanse, bay, we Dot bape for an impartial history of the Convention ? Bb ide rae ated. by marrage to prior to the Revolution. patriot afea before the conflict with the mother country, ut he gave his only slave her freedom, to show his love for liberty. fupreme Court in this co A son of the deceased is now clerk of the ‘The brilliant and talent- ed wife of the Hon. Caleb ing was the third daughter of Judge Wilde. His only surviving daughter is the wife of Robert Farley, Eeq , of this city. Mzs Wilde died in June, 1826, The deceased was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and other associations. His fane- Tal will take place to-morrow (Sunday) morning, at 9 o'clock, at the King’s chapel. On the open’ the Common Pleas Court this morn- ing, Willism J. Hubbard, Esq., announced the death of ex-Judge Wilde in some appropriate remirke, to which Ohief Justice Mellen responded in a feeling tribute to the character of the deceased, and in respect to his memory adjourned the court till 9 o’clock M« morning. In the Municipal Court a similar adjournment was made, on motion of County Attorney who sq ‘the ssme with a brief speech, which was eloquently re- pies, to by Juége Hoar. The Supreme Court was aot in sessfon. ‘A meeting of the Saffolk Bar was held at 134 0’closk © this afternoon, in the Law Library room st Court House. Though assembled at a very short notice, the meeting was quite full, but an adjournment was made till 834 o’elcok Monday morning for formal proceedings, Mr. EF. Barvarp, one of the clerks in the General’s office, died at Fort Leavenworth on the 1( mt of congestion of the brain, after an illness of only aweek, The Barning of Sara, La.—Loss Half e ounce’ by tel that the town of Bayou tara, La, bad been destroyed The Orleans Delta, of Juue 17, gives the Jars On Friday night, at ten o’clock, s fire broke out in- Beyou vabich had the most Sp yrepd juences, as own ag nearly burot Shoat $800,000 worth of at least, ia the rough ‘We are Risher, of the steamer Amanda, w! lows :—The fre inated ® Ta) 106 | a Mg brief space Of time th able, and swept in the banks of the bayou. ‘We cannot the exact details of the losses, but the ental pany a) st the following peers: \