The New York Herald Newspaper, July 3, 1855, Page 2

2 BOARD OF ALDERYEN. ‘The Board met last evening—Abierman Barker, pre- skdeot, m the chaw = The minutes of the previous fog were read and approved. PSTITIONS, Of Daniel F. Treman and others, aginst granting li- onsen for a line of stages on Bloominydals road, to terminate at Eigaty sixch street, Referred. Of the yepresentatives of the Fire Department, relative to the granting of disobarged certificates. On motion of alder- man Howard, it was graated. 6f F. A. Davies and ethers, for repeal of ordinance of Mey 14, 183, as af- feeting the dealers 1m second hand household artistes, Reterred. DAYS OF MEETING, Alderman Wis1iAMs0N moved that when this Board adjoerns that ic pe to Tuesday, and thet after the 4to the Bourd meet every night except Saterday, till through with business. dermsa Howarp favored ‘tia, But moved to except Facsday, 34 inst. Carried, - FOURTH OF JULY, Mysjor Gevedtd SQ20%4 tariftd 2 Yisyor ani Cont | 2 men Council to receive 4 inacchiog salute from the lst dtasion st 10 A.M, on the 4th inst.—Accep'ed. THE GIFF OF MONSIBUR ANTOING EvExX. ‘The Major pent fa 4 Communication stating the’ Mone. Anwone Ptex bad presented the city with hie celebrated wwting representing the glory of the United yvatws, &. Etex, woo ia ap emivent Frenchmen, gréaéats the tore as an evidence of his sppreciatiOb for our ineti. sons ow. munigavon Was referred to toe Uom- and Screnees, with s request to make a pone to the giver. Board taen aojourned to Phuraday. POLICK 4PPOINTMENTS—THR MAYOR'S OPINION AS TO THK AUTHOR! ‘OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN TO INTHRIKRE ‘WITH THE POLICE DkPARTMRNT, MAYOR'S Orrice, New York, July 2, 1855, ‘Jo Tax How. Tue BOARD oF ALDERME&N-— GentixmEn—Your Board wed a resolution on the 72th vl’., “that His Honor the Mayor bs, and beie here- by, requested to furnish, jor the ioformation of this Beard st it# pext meeting, to morrow afternoon, the 13th inet., a bat of all ap; its made ia the Police Department since the fret day of Jaauary last, deaig- patag them by wards; together with toe nam-s of all po) cemen whore terms of office have exoired, and were ot re apprint+d, and also the mimes of ull policemen wemeved,’’ which could bave beea replied to immediate- ¥ but for your scjourmmevt until to-day. 1 now bave e bonor to repy. It woulc have been sufficient for me to Dave eaid, in responce to this resolutioa, that the mppoim ments and removals in the Polce Department ave made by the Bosra of Polise Commissioners, and to ‘Yeat bocy the ipquiry should be addressed. But, admit- ting that the power to zive the information asued is in my bands, | rerpeetiully cegiine giving it, inasmach aa tt would appear to recogaibe the right of the Yommoa Govncil to ssk it, ‘Lhe rigut to call upon the eaveral exeeutive deperiments tor information, ia given by the ehertr to the Mayor and the Common Conacii, but no autbority inyiven to e:ther Hoard in ite separate capacity, ex both boards jowtly, to call upon the Mayor for infor- mation respecting the cepartment of which, by State li be je made the sole and exclusive head. The object of ies ¢f ths kind, and, imcesd, the only gronod upon a they can be msintainad, is to procure iuformation for the purpose of legwistion, and to furnish to the Jew masong power data to enaols it to arrive at correct When thes» are ite objects, it shonid itbheld, and would not ve by me, evea wnile fog the autbori'y to require it, In the prevent instance, however, no such motive can be set up ‘the inquiry now made as to the sppointment and re- moval of policemen, cannot te required to aubaerve any Iegislative objects; becauee the Common Council have no F te legislate in the premises. It has no jurisdic- ‘ever the appointing and removing whatever, and oan take no action which williathe ieast effect them, ene wey erthe other; therefore to grant this in‘orma tron evn serve no good purpose, whilst an admission of the right to sek it, which admrts the obligation to give Mt, would be as detrimental to the interests of the de- iment #8 it would be a violation of the charter and a, wnich wisely place the police under a Board of Gommissicners, whe are independent of the Common @ouneil in sli respects The reasons for this regulation are envious, The police of a city ike New Yore shoal be esrentially milityry in its character and diveciptine; hould possess all the elements of a well disci; eorpe, whore chiet duty it is to execute with alacrity end faithfulness the orders issued from headquarters. 38 sbould be conroh i—no one part should be hostile 40 the other. All tpfluences attempting to interfere with the officis] regime, outside of the immediate command, should be rejec ed, as much as would be the atwnpt of ‘the civil antborities in time of war to direct the evola- tions of anarmy. Military command does not divide ite authority, However meny officers there may be, each postesing commanding powers, they are exercised Dy gratation, no two having co-ordinate powers. ‘There fone division of authority—if there were, there would ciency. Unr police force is founded upon this principle. It in military in its uptiorm, ia ite personnel, and im ite discipline—in the mode of issuing lers— @f incivicual responmbility, and the nature Bf its ol duties. In the city’s quiet and pese: @ish po- ‘& sentinel; properly reviewed avé, ted by am officer in t-me of riot or disorder, it veoome an army subject to precisely the same tactics, and com- manded precisely upon the sawe military principles. No euteide power, created for duties of an entirely oppo- site and ciflerent character, should be permitted to tn- terpose itself between the commanding general of thu asmy and ibe army itself. It was s wise provision that ‘te police should be exempt from any iuterference from the legislative branch of the city government—tnat it abould be removed from the partisanism, contests and ipfluences whieb are contiauslly agitating your own and all other Letr deliderative bodies; that ‘there should be one branch of the public service not Mabie to demoralizing party influences, and tossed to and fro upon the wave of potitical strugy! With ths patice no sectional, party or personal {oterenta shouli be apeerporated. It 18 not difficau't to see that in a crty Ine Mew York the mcst stringent government laws whieh the nature of our institations will permit are yat too weak to do the service which may be demanded in ‘the preservation of public order. At any moment the eity may be thrown for reliance upon tha civil military tion. This body may alone become the stay aca easrective of poptler violence. ‘To meet such a calamity no otber force shouki be re- s ficient to suppress at- thority. An armed re- , if the police a properly organized, cinciplined and cymmanded. Itis my aim todoaway with the mecesslty of shedding in the precervation of the peace of the eity— to bring the police to a condition which will enable ft, under al commend, withoutmilitary it ance. wittout tating life, to pot cown whatever force may be for resistance to tbe law. I desire to de left alone in thene designs, believing myself to be the Beat judge of what is required, ana fechng that the legirlative branch of the government should ther strengthen my r, than weaken ft by intro- cing & belief in the department that there iva hisher authority than mine, and a Court of Appeals, to woich te apply ‘against the subjection incident to the prinsiple by which I commend. These are the motives which bring we to the determination to resist at all hazards any interference with the pelice by any other power whatever. }t ie a1 a, by State lews, 0; joners, and by public sentiment ell attempts to rub or Jeanen this authority nba’ will be for the people to decide whether I shall be vupoorted in thus upholding their interenta, by exercie- img a firm, bonest and impsrtial administrat‘on of the Depertment, and whether the improvement at reedy manifest, shell continue and be sastained by the intelligence and virtue of the community. Very reapsct- fally, FERNANDO WOOD, Mayor. BOARD OF COUNCILMEN. The first meeting of thin board for the month of July was hela last night, in their chambers in the City Hall —the President, 1. D. Conover, in the chair. ‘The (iret thing in order was the consideration of peti- tens, all of which were referred to their proper com: mittees. Resolztions were next in order, but none of impor- tance wore presented. Here » long and rambling debate srone, which apoear- ed to be & measure of strength between Councilmen Mather, Pinckney and Conover, the first agaiont the two last, upon a resolution offered by Councimen Mason at the last meeting of the Board, ax follows :-— Whereas, By « resolution which originated im this Board. certain information was reapect'ully solicited of ‘the Commissioners of Police, for the purpose solety of farnishing the Common Council a bams upon waicn to Judge of the necessity for an adoition to tne Police [e- partment, by ascertaining whether the present force was ¢conomicilly employed; aad w said ia: formation was sclisited in language entirely res- pectiul and without conve: the slightest {m- patation apon the Board to ‘tne 4 ition ‘woe made; not asserting in the most remote pT ape ty section, bat on the contrar; od y admitting ignorance o! matter inguired into; aad wiereas, ender the oustrae tien of His Honor the Mayor, in his communication to thie Board accompanying the information solicited, it in not altogether smpossible but that the Board of Com- missioners of Police in the plentitude of their power bave the exclusive right, (by implication, perhaps, ) to 1 ioe the edd oe the nom ph ‘thi ment; wi not anrious to “doubtful powers” and thus embarrass {tell ine mol. tiplicity of matter not within the provision of ita char tered tives; and,whereas, & department of our city government is fog to incur the risks of such rea Hevcived, That the ten to add thirty-two to the police be indefinitely postponed. Resolved, That the Mayor, in raying he recognized no authority in the Common Council to supervins his con. duet in the dissharge of his power to detail policemen, ir deabtlesn correct, no far as it concerns his conception of his own persopal affairs, but that assertion is not war- vied by apy action of this Board, nor is it in unison h the republican ideas of @ republican te, in Show in vested the supreme rupervision of all oficlals, pot excepting the Mayor of the city of New York. Upon taking @ vote npom motion to refer Mr. Mason's mittee of the Whole, the Board refased fer. The debate waa here renewed agaia upon the adoption of the resolution. ‘The previous question being then called for, a vote was taken upon the resolntion, and it was carried, 21 voting im the affirmative, and 12 negati It was then moved to reconsic solutions, which motion was lost. ‘The following communication was then presented from the Ma) or:— . Mayor's Orrice, New York, Jane 14, 1855. To Tur How. THe Board or CouNcILMEN. GeNTLEMEN—1 fy the o nf « ged ds de irecting the rr pay Wm. y- Wise teers ont thousand saven: handred end forty-five a@elare apd Gfty ene cents for the purchase of gertain the vote upon the re. NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, JULY 3, 1855. operty epurcersted therein, and appropriating that | {bat pasred in 1815. 1R.8.,p.176. This sum for that purpore 1 am mmpelleo to this bat ecckiese in question, among e*her property @ Fesotution in qu a species the following :—'<he rie Island, inetadiog al the leases, co! 6 bela by Wm. B Reynohes, fe of the land and uppor'enences, the sum ef $10,009, copy of te leaser ano deeos which are hereunto amaex- originals of woica are to be tracsterrea to t im’? Amoog the papers 1@ a ceed trom Wm B. Reynolds co the oorpz0 ration, Conveying two usres of land om Barren Inland for the pommel sum of $1, »nd an assiznwent of a lease of otber property, 1p wrich the coneiceration is fixed et $10,000. The resolution areve referred 10 tacludes the easebold and the fee in ope mess as the prop«r'y > ve ‘pa ed for $10,000, and i am toeretors to disregard the tion made of this sum dy the seiler, by Wuica enly a covina) portion of tne $10,000 is_apphes to the fee property. Ba’ +ven assuming toat it wm & paroasse wade for the conricerativn of only ene do'lar, it is yor s Purcbare of Jand; and ss darren Islaad 18 in Kioge county, it isa purstase of isnd outside the jartssicucn ot thecity. This prevents to me the first o\j-ctioa. Whetber spy such power bas teen cevoiy.d upoe the gurberisiog f the city, | confess this questios has cauced fads carp qa Ro nttle inveeswaven 8 the ten The Montgomery charter ABDOFA. ne ey tee ano hold land, but it ex prewniy “Kor valae mey be thu: to proverty of the year Rag ot three th nd po Jo the edition just pa. Vsbed of the awa of tne State applicanie to tne city, there is s note t ths clause ef tbe enartar, atuti that tis Kmitat on does not prevent the be diag of which when porcbared wes not of greater avons! valu-, but which afterwards rove bey ond st, showmg that his Noitation was con idered eti'l a forse 1 have not been sole to find avy general act which bap extenced this power of purchare, altpough the 9a tute beoh is dotted with lews autooriiog parucular purchases by tbe city, from time to tamy, fer var.ous public objects. J inter that vnis tim tatioa still stan in, except sett bea bem entargeo by the specail acta au: thorizing partisuler purchases. There +8 no question but that tbe eity now bolus propery of a mach qrater enpns) vaue then the cbarter sutoorizes; and thie being the care, I am brovgot to tne comctuswo that there is an entire wb: ence of power to mare the parcheee inqvestion. Tne rule of law sppticable to manicipsl corporations, 9s lsd dows by ths highest judicial aa ther.ties tp thin State, is this: thet tuey take only toe #pecia) powers granted to them by toeir coart-er or by nt Authority muoet be abowa for taie acte wad eonvey- art or vy tav one woice ed, If the pover to purcdave Jand wera unt mited, whether ip or one of our jocal jarindiction, the ciscretion of the tvo Boarde and ot the Mayor coubl be theon y sefeguaro of tax payers against the mat extensive purcbases, at extravagent price—seafeguad that might not at oli times be sutticteat je comma nity co bot rely eptirely on protection of tax8 saaracier, and bence m charteze and 1a cooaticatwas 1b is common to interpose coecks over tue exer ca) of cargerous powers. Fer the fimt tine since wy accession to office has tie icaportant question been presented to me, whether tho purchase land outade of onr jurindtction; and I aeve €xamioed it with sbe cae which such aq mapas, in view of ite beoomiog a precedent ample Jor otber and more impor aat os-es It a power likely to leea to great abuse, and I w.thaold my assent to the resolution not only d-cause the coarter requires it, but also because I am satisfied tact ua- Jumited power of that character would be bigmy daazer- cus. The amendments to toe charter adopted in 1420, 1849 and 1853, cleary show th a autbority was left in 6ur local legielation. The ments of 1863 provide that all suppiles to be tu ewbracing an expenditure of over $2.0 ahall pe oy coa- tract, for which estimates and bila abau be furnished r dne publication, Al that is not real estat or leasebold property, comprehended in this proposea pur- chase from Mr Reynolds, is personul property—the tools apd implewents of corducting his business ag % coa- tractor tor removalof offal, &c., aod for its maa ifactare into articles ot use, bosta, shovels, carts, &c These are supphes furvisbed to the city without the formalsies required by the charter I cannot suppose taat is was intendeo to fetter the public authorities in this reapest #0 completely, and yet leave open a power to purihase any amount cf Jand anywhere, st any price in the discretion of those whore action heretofore bas made checks aad guards bighly necessary. An amendment to the evarter, acopted in 1849, provides that either the Common Couneil nor any member thereof, shali per- form any executive busiess whatever. This re- striction, I understand. was intended, amoog other things, to prevent the purchase of arti sles or the making of contracts by this branch of the city government, leaving tuch duties to be performed by the hess of epartmente, This resolution in effect dispenses with all executive officers, and spscities the thiags to ve par- chased, the price to be paid, and the pereon from waon purchased; and tbis is not compatible with the theory upon which the leal government was then formed. 1a divicing the executive and legislative departments. Tae resolution in this case appears to me to Le an intraction of this amendment, calculated to defeat the obje:t wich governed the Ivgislatare in establishing it 1 have otuer rounds of objection, to which it 18 unnecessary to al luce. They refer mcre purticularly to matters of de- tail. The principles involved I have deemed of great importance, and upon them alone I have considered it sufficient to stand in the discusainn of tae subject. Had the Common Council followed tbe practica with reference to ferry leeses, Kc., of mating it incumbent upon the suseersor of Mr. Reyaolds in the offal contract to take the property here alluded to ineteed of the city, many of the objections which I ree to this proposition would have been avoided. With distrust in my own hnowledga of law generally, but confident in the soundness of the porition berein assumed, { beg to return the resolation witheut my approval. Very respectfully, FERNANDO WOOD, Mayer. The Board then adjourned till the afternoon of hurx- eay next. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. STATE SCHOOL EXPENDITURES, JULY 2,.—The Superintendent of State Schools, at Al- Dany, setting forth that the sum of $900,000 was re- quired for the State institutions, the apportionment for New York being $171,639, The bills of Sheriff Orser and othera were referred. Several small bills ordered to be paid. THR APPOINTMENT OF THR NEW CLERKS. Alderman Wi111AMson offered a resolution to the effect that the Comptroller be directed to pay the sslary of ‘William H. Canniff, and also the salaries of John Quack- evbuab and John L., Ambler, clerks of Police at Courts, up to July 6, 1865, and regularly moa atter. After some debate, a motion was made to iy the re ‘Thi motion war solution on the table, subsequently made to adj Moncay in Avgust. A warm discussion ensued, which reeulted in a vote of 121011, The motion to postpone was lost. The reso lution was then adopted by a vote ot 12 to 11. THE INCREAME oF SALARIES TO THE JUDGES, ‘The special order of the evening was calied for, and Alderman ELyY moved that tha motion to increase the aslaries of the Judges of the Superior Court, Comman Plean, Recorder and City Jadge be nade a epectal order for the first of September. Lost. On motion ot Alder- mon Kx.vy, the matter was made » special orier for Monday next. The, Board then adjourned to Thursday next, as 4 o'clock. was lost; and the quests The Liquor Law—Important Occision tn the Liquor Case, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Before Hon, Juéges Ingraham and Woodrutl. The Mayor, de., of New York vs. Robert Walker.— Ingraham, First Judge:—This action was brought to re. cover from tke defendant several penalties for,ditferent offences ander the license laws. The complaint contain- ed a charge of selling by retail strong and apiritous liquors, in the city of New York, to be drank on the de- fendant’s premises, in said city, without being loensed accorcing to law. It also contained a charge of selling ttrorg and spiritous hquora in the cisy of Now York, without any license #0 to do, For the first offeace, the pevalty of twenty-tive dollars is claimed, and for the tecond, of ten dollars for each violation of the law. The defendant admitted two sales of liquor, as alleged in the complaint, subsequent te the Ist of May, 1856, aud without any other ev.dence the Justice rendered judg- ment for fifty doliars. Upon this admission, there was not enough to warrant the judgmont that was reniered, ‘The penalty of twenty-five dollars which the Court be- low adjudged the cefendant to be liable for, was fora violation of the statute of the State, and the offence & netsted in selling by retail acroog or spirtous hquors, to be drank upon the premises of the sclier. The other offence charged in the complaint was for a vo lation of the ordinance of the Common Coua:il, which provided = penalty of ten dollars for each oileass, and the offence was described merely as selling stroag and spiritons liquers without any Hoence po to do, The defendant only admitted two sales of Uqaors, as sieged, in the complaint subsequent to the Ist of May, 1855. There was nothing in this toat proved the first offence, for wbica the Card peualty waa to de imposed. As well mi, ht it be held thet » mio charg- ed by indictment with two offences of the same natare, but of different degrees as to punishment, who adm.te no ogg argent haga crea ee beng A guilty greater. To warrant giving juigmen jueh case on the admission of the Gteadann. 1t old be made in such a way as to show which offwace to which the de’ trong ous liq aors, in tae ay of bew York, to be drank on the premises of the T, withoat being licensed nceording to law, in vio latonof the stature of the State. The second offence dis selling strong and spiritaous liquors, in the York, without apy license. in violstion of ee of the Common Coancil of the city. The dmission may be lied 10 one oF the # to be applied to the latter, the admission scribe any offence for which cee is im- pored either by the statute or by the ordinance. Ihe recovery Cen iD 80 event be seaatained for the greater pepaity We might b: ¢ of our power on appeal Teduce the amount of thia judgment to the lesser penal- ty, if that Pay, could be recovered im this action; 1 it would then only be necessary to deside the ques ticn as to the effect of the sections of the act of 1805, now in force, upon the ordinance of the Common Coan- cil imposing the penalty of $10. This would render un- Becessary the cecison of the question how far the ate tutes of 1824 and 1827 are repealed ny the act of 1855; but as no reeovery can be bad for the penalty lmposed by toe ordipance of the Common “ouncti. for the reasons be stated, and as the counsel have argued tais question of repeal aa applicable to the statutes of the Iegislatore cn thig madject, we have deemed it best oot to omit the ae Of it at the present time, The | Oret act om This subject remaining in paré wnrepeale), is course fer the folosiog among oe piatiep re. Divived the sale by rete'l of strong or spiritacus Hquore @rapk en the premixes of the seller w t2018 nee, it was materia ly amended by the act of 1824 ‘The secon section of toe act of 1824, lawaef the State dt aud tithe wo Barcem | of New York, 47 Seas., p %06, probinited the sele of Eg nggeed Miyuer by retail, to be rank om the premiums of the relier without heence, and meade the offense purisbaole at a miscemeenar, in ad‘ition to any peasl- tee premrided by apy previous avsta’e, or by the char- ter of the city; and the firth section prohibited sach sale in quantities above five gahom-, witoout such licenses Lounte buving arisen a6 to the construction of the second section by the act of 1824, the sct wan ammenied in 1925, (48 Seer. Laws, p. 349,) but not mm any way material to the question now under considera’ ‘aad & Dew ect wae im 1827 so amending tb+ ect thet every perron whe.vald by retailin tne city of New York, or cehivered mm pnrsuance of such sale any wine or strong or spiriteus hquors, to de drank im bie or bur house, Ac, witbont .being Dicensed according te lay, should forfeit smd pay the eum of $26 for every offence ‘There were the #tatutes.in force on this sanjest prior to the passage of the act.entitkd ‘An act to prevent in- temperance,” &c , pessed.an the 9th of April, 1895 By this act twe sectiene xore in operation om th» letof May, 18t6. The eecond sectign, #! provided for lizenstog avy elector of the city who oumplied qith the provisioas of thet section, to sel! lignars unter to nee therein imposed, ond tha twenty didh ve eon epacted that po hernse to sell 1 q.0r, ¢Xcept as therein provided. stoule thereattr bo that ail liquor kept in violation 2 Of the act, thould be de Prolic nuisasee Fo fak As this rect 0D Geclared Wome, vent coatzary 10 the statute to bos RUMIBO® WE tim acts Budity we": S22 sourth of July, 1866 beciuee there Yue BA provision of that law in op'ration which prohi. Dited tp avy way the heaping of Ph er Mqaors of any bind, snd onvil there sections went into effest there conW be no liquor kept contrary to those provisions, We sre left, therefore, to decide the simple question whe trey the paseage by the Legisiatare of a law which pro- Didita the granung of any lireases to sell Nquor as wa slowed heretofore, and providing for a new mode of licensing for such purpose, repealed the previous acts of 1826 and 18:7. lt is proper here, to remark. that in the e: inst on of this question, wé have noth- ing to do with the resi¢us of the etatate of 1855, There in DO port of it im force except the two sections above re- ferred te. There is no repeal'ng slause in effect, and if those acta are repealed, it com only be by implication. In the exsmipation of this caee, also, no pont has nen wade by the defendant’s conneel as to the coastitational queations whieb might arise from tha passage of an act Totally probimting the sale of liquors, which virtually is the cave w! }t iicenses for the sale are teken away. Upon this questiOp, therefore, we exprese no op:nioa. There can be vo doubt that ovfore the peasege ot the li- apd the provisions on the auhject of hoenses 6 city, e traficin liquor by the ; that thea» statutes are penal statutes, not to be evlerged except by furcher statut ry provisions, It is concede by the argument of tae coun fel that po objection existed ro the provisious of the ii- ta previous to the ve of the aut of 185 The object of thore acta evidently was two'old, viz: to lay a cuty on the sale of liquor, and to regulate the palo thereof, ond the keeping of ince and taverns... Tae re. peal of license evidently adolsbed all that part of thore statutes whicn was jatended to produce a revenue, Taking away the license terminsted also tha | duty, which by the hoenee system accrued to the cit, enc therefore the whole of thove acts which were a: tended as excise 8 ceased to have upy force or effects A penslty »mpored to prevent the sale of liquor aati! the duty imposed by the statute was paid, would becom» inoperative so svon an the duty iteelf and the Resace, which was the mode prescribed for coll-cting the da'y, was abolished. Layyng ont of view, then, so mush of this etatnte as relates to the excise and the means adopted for enforcing tne collection of the daty, let ua seo what remains, act of 1813 end the act of 1824 contained provisions regulating inns anc taveras, and te enle of liquors thereis. Those regulations prohibited the sale of liquor to be drank 1a the hvuse, &c., by the seller, without a license either to retail strong liquors or to keep an inn or tevern. The act of 1824 also ona tamed a probiintion sgavnst selling Kquor in quantities larger than five galions, without betog licensed acoord- ing to the provisions of Jaw. It ce burdly be said that the whole of the act of 1874 is repealed. In addition to the power of granting licenses to sell spirituous iquors, Abe Aint sastiow conitinad tha paver 19. gris Yisenses to keep an inn or tavern, public orcinery or vitualing house. This latier hoense i¢ not to sell +ptrituous Hiqvor, but to keep the inn or tavern. Ose object of the act, both by ite title and its provisions, was to regulate inns and taverns, &c., by putting the same under the con‘rol of the public authorities, aud by requiring a license io heep tbem. The 9th section of the act probibite » keep*r of such ion or tevern frem fermitting riotous conduct on his premises op Suncay, snd also probibite gaminz, &c, in such places. Op cemplaint of any violation of tness provi- ranted. and deciared 897 Brov.stha or pro- la sions, it authorives the takirg away ofthe Mvecse The Fght to sell siquor by retail im » tavern, depeodr not on a license to retat] liquor, but on a license to keepan ina or tavern; and to acd to thowe restrictions, the L+gisie- ture thought proper to regulate and contol the wale of Vquor by retail, to be drunk om the premises, by con- fring such sale to those who should be thus licensed ‘The provision in the act of 1866 only prob: bite tbe gran‘ ing a license to eel liquor after the lst of Mey—it m no way prohibits 1be grant ng the licenge for an nn or tav mn, ana auch power still remains unatiected by the act of 1855. ‘The act of 1827 wae paseed merely for reliev. ing Coubt ss to the question whetber @ ity could be recovered upder the second section of the ast of 1824. Ry vbip it 18 provided that every person wno shall il dy retail, in the city of New York, or deliver, im pur suapee of ruch avy liqvors to be drank on his premises, witbout be'ng licensed according to law, shail fortert end pay the num of $2b for every offence. the term, “Iicenred according toh we are to under: stend, eny mode referred to eith tbat lew or other tbat subject ‘thie, undoudtedly, the —— mean'n¢, and such was the expression interdea by Judge Woodraff in his opizion in the case of Ihe Mayor vs. Mervin, desided March term, 1455. But it intended in that oese to hmft the metning of the term, ‘licensed according to lew,” to such laws as were then in existence, and there- y other form of license which the to retail spirituous, or a l.cense to keep an inn or tavern, would be sucha license as the act of 1827 rejuired, to exempt the person licensed from the penalties of that st. We tben come to the inquiry whether the provi sions of tke act of 1855, now in force, have the eilect to repesl the provisicns of the previous acte referred to. At the present time, no other provisions sre in foree but the 24 and 2bth sections; and in construing thein we are to look a8 it stuply os on act containing t! two nec: tiows, unconnected with the other provisions whica go into ¢flect om the 4ihof July. ‘There is nothing in these tectione intimating any intention to repeal ths previous acts. The only section which repeals any other statute ia the 24th section. This, at the nt time, bas ne repealing eflect; but it does show, by the time Gxed at whiob the section becomes operative, thet until the ith of July 1856, it was not declared by the Jegislature that any repeal should take place. It can only be by impli eation, then, if at all, that any such repeal can be up- held. A repeal of a statute by implication is not favor- ed— (Dwaine on Statutes, 674; Smith’s Com ; Van Rei felaer va Snyder, 9 Barb. 32.’ See also p. 208 Hayes va. Simonda)—ané statutes are not considered n0 to ve rv peaied unless the repugnancy between the new and for- mer statates be plain and upavoidabie—(2 Kenv’s Com Pp 467.) There can be no auch clesr repagoan:y inferred trom there statutes They ean both subsiat together with- out contracicuon. The taking away the li:-m-e mcertan cares amounts to a prohibition in that respect, but leaves other portions of the statute in effect, and nor cbapged by the new previsions 1 nave already referred to some cams of thin character, and others might oe pointed out, where the sections of the act of 145 now torce do not all interfere with them. It is seid that bew pensltes will be applied on the Fourth of July, under the new act; and, therefore, the present lave ary repesiet, Whetber or not such will be the effect of taose penalties when ip force, we are now to inquire. If they sre mcom istent, provision is t the inconsistent parts of the old statutes, yepral dees not take place until the repeati in operation, it is a gemerst rule in the con- struction of statutes that \t sda new penalties and institu’ ing, do not repeal former penal ceeding oréaimed by former stat words 10 that effect— (Dwi made for 4 repsai o But thas 3t6; 19 J. R., 248)—anless two statutes 19 such as to make it sppareat that they Capnot stand together. And the same view is taken of tuch statutes where the power; er them may well subsist together. If they be such toat both may sised together, they shall have a concurrent efficecy. The gore referred to from 2 J. R., 379—Jones vs. Estis—ia rot in point, That was not in favor of re- pealing » pensity which had before been provided by law; bat against an attempt to apply a» penalty where the statate bad never placed it; aad the Coart held that s pepalty could nol be raised by implication. A question not ditsimilar to the present arose in the case of The People vs Forensey (5 Denio 70), where it was contended that the provisions of the tutes as to licenses for the sale of liquors were repealed ‘to the people the right to vote power to grant licences un- der thope statutes should be exercised or not by the Com- mitmoners of Excise. It waa conwnded that ifia any town the people voted im favor of “‘no license,” then the provisions of the Revised Statutes were virtually repaal- «d. the Court held that im such @ case the statute would not be repealed, but the consequence would be that the power to grant licenses for such towns would be sus- nced or taken away. It is added, ‘‘The provision pro- nditig the sale of liquor, and all the cousequences of violating thore Pyle any Sg have remained vital and unsfiected, in full force and operation, and the conse. quence would have been that every one who sold liquors 1 such town in quantities lees than five ga/loas at one t me would have Veen Kable to a penalty of $26. aed to on sodietment.’’ And again it {s said, if thenew law cra- ated a new offence of a similar character, it is not so taconsiatent with the former enactment as to amount to a repeal of it, and where there {s not a clear intention to substitute one act for another, both must be ma‘ntained. This ag 34 te aleo held in William vs. Potier, 2 «Ke Barb. 8. where it was held that the statate whieh allowed @ reentry upon demieed premises, when the nt conld rot be collected by distress for the reat, ot repraled by the subsequent statute which abol- 1 the right to distraim for rent—uniess the latter tute in manivestly inconsistent with, and repagoant the former, both remain in foree, Courts are boued to upbela toe prior law, if t! delat together.” The seme doctrine may be Hilt, 2 here it in said, reapect to the repealing of stetates by im- that the earhert act remains in force unler: manifestly iaconsistent with and rep: to each other, or unless in the latest act some otice is taken of the former, pleinly indicat’ tention te abrogate it. 9 Cow., 506. See also(o dun vs. Buck, 16 Farl. St, where it was held that two acts relat. ing 10 the same subject, conferring several powers to be exercised for orfferent purpores. might weil subsist toartber, aed the former not be repealed by im plicat on. Soyder, 9 Barb 3 C.R, 32; 15 East., ST R, 800. Ihave rot referred to the fact, that by econd seetion of the act of 1885, a new mode of per mitting sales of liquor is introduced, whieh, although not in the old form of licensing, may be considered a sta | wtatement of fats, tuatory license tospyelector whe complies with the Griene therein * Dtrayrepen by * ; may adopted. The proper mode of construing there statotes is to consider tae provisions of the ast of 1855, now in force, as ted into the prevfoas acts, leaving out the portions which are rendered in- operative thereby. The effect would be to strike oat the provisions fer licenses to sell spirituous liquors 19 quentities over five “gallons, to retail sp} 9 Hquors to de dronk upon the premieea, and tosubatitnte the seoend ection of this act, providing for the sale of Dquor under the limitations thcrein prescribed. Tho otoer provisions of tbe act of 1624 and the whole of the act of 1627 would then remsin unaffected, Another role appheable to the conetrastion of statutes will aii very much in the decision ot this quection. It 1 that the Courts should form the whole goers wad object of of the stetutes, ascertain what the objectand intent the Leglature was in passing the later act, and so to eeonstrne both thet tho intent of the ature shall ‘There can be vo doubt of what the intent wis of the act of 1865. If we look at the portion of the statate pot to be in foree until Jaly, it thet tne object and intent was to restrain or the sale of intoxicating liquors, If, however, weonly kok at the two sections now in operation, * same conclosion will follow, viz.:—Thnat thé le- Phletere IBMDGed | thet no Vcenses should %o Branted to en nor by retail after the 1st of May, excep? in the ividea vy *h¢ se0ont section No sue could te Bes I Mok such AW ast was assed wilh the intent and the purpose of maki: ¢ retail traffic im hquor free and uncontrolled bet: toe let of May and 4th of July, preparatory to the exe- cutirn of a lew which was in‘enced totally to prohimt such trafic. On the contrary, the oaly intent toat oao be inferred from the abolition of the licenses system on the Jet of May, would bulky Ley ap dies that tine nye stinuapce of tre rys as in existence previously, sed the substitation inte place of the paw mie of nell: Spe, an provided for by erection veconi of the new It the sale of liqua: after the Ist of May was not intamted to be prebibited by the acts of 1824 and 1827, the provi- siopn of the serond section, before referred to, woukl be uselesa, and the direction that it should tate elfest on the Ist of Mey would have been an idle provision If, during that period, trom the ist of May to the 4th of Tuly, be Legislature intended to repeal all previous re ateict’ sale of hquore, there would be o> ne. mode by which the sale rit, nical, medicinal ang tted. Ther can be but ons con- 9 of the acts of 1424 and 1897 should remain unrepealed by the act ot 1855. ‘Jhe other penalty soagbt to be recovered, in under the ordinance of tna Mayor, &c , of New York. ‘There is no ordinance against selling ‘liquor passed ty, the Common Council, except that of the 20th Mirch, 16Dd, ‘The cflence charged to have been committad is that of sling s!ropg and spirituous liquor in the city of New York withoot any icense 60 todo This is not probibited by the ordipance referred to. That erdinince torbids any person from selliog by retati aay strong or spiri uous liquor to be drank on the premises of the seer, and from selling any such liquor to bs drank 02 Suscay. Bences, there ie xo penalty given by that or- dipencse which can be the subject of an action aud re- covered therein. The mode of collecting it is pointed out in the ordinance to be by a proveeding before a ma- gistrate on a complaint, and the fine is to be smposed on & conviction by tho magistrate, and infiefaul! of pay- meot the offender is tobe committei tu priaon, it im tteretore unnecessary to enquire whether the ct of 136) in any way aflects the ordinance of the Common Councl. It 1s eutticient for thie case to say, tant there iu po penalty provided by taat orciaanos for which this action can be maintained, As wo one of the oilences there charged In this comp aipt for watch o panaity « sought to be recovered, viv: selling strong and spirit, vous liqoors without a license, 4 no provision either ip the acts of the State or the ordinunce of the Common Council to warrant a recovery. ‘The sales pro- bibited hy the statute are:— 1, Selling in quantities over five gallons without « li cense. Act of 1824, 2 Seliing by retail avy strong er spirituous Hauor te bo dyark on ibe premisesof the seller Act of 1824. 2, Selling by retail sny strong or spirituoas | quora to be crspk cn the selier’s premises. Act of 1827, Whether the ssle wes over or under five gallons, whether it was by reteil or wholesale, whether it waa or not sold to be drank on the premises, does not apprar in the case, vor does the defendant a/mit sofcient to brpg bim within either of the probibrtions, The a1- wisrion does not even come within the provisiops of the ordinsnce of the Common Council. and if it did I have already shown thet under that ordicance 09 penalty 1x recoverable in thia form of action. Our conciusions npon thie case, then, are:— 1. That the probibitory sections of the acta of 1824 and 1827 are not repealed by the second and tweaty ce sections of the act of 1855, previous to the 4th of Jaly, 1855, od That the ordinance of the Commoa Council for the yoore eflectual entorcing of the excise laws, dosn not impose apy penalty that can be recovered in this form Jon, but must be collected uader # criminal pro- eoedina before & mugintrate. 3, That the complaint in this case rete ap different jor which different pewalties are to be cap sed, ars to be collected in different modes of pro- eeecipg. 4, That the admission of the cefendant thut he on tro ocessionn made two sales an alleged ia the com- plaint, is not sufficient to werrant judgment sgsinet him fer the lerger penalty. 5. THat aa such admission may apply to the olfeace ebarged under the ordipance of the Common Corneil upon which no penalty can be recovered by action, the judgment capnot be sustained. Jn this case kr. Tomlin+on was counsel for Walker. 70 THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK HERALD, ‘The decision of the Court of Commoa Pleas of this city and county thie dsy appeanced, in the case of the Cor ‘ation sgainat Robert Walker, requires a few remarks rem me by way of explanation. [hat was an acvoo Drought to test the question whether the old penalty for selhng Hquor witbout license in the etty of New ‘York had beem abrogated or oars df ema d of April 9, 1855, commonly called the Prohibitory law ‘Ihe defendant. upon hie sppeerance in coart, admittet the selbng of liquor as charged in the complaint, which fact was also proved by two. , and neither oo ia argument on the aposal attempted to raise the technical point which has osen Ciscovered by the Court of Common Pleas, and upoa which the judgment has been reversed. The esse wen presented op appeal by arrangement ani consent of counre] on both eider, merely to obtain a distinct adjr- dieation upon this important question, end it was not wv be anticipated that toe Court of Common Pleas woul feel compelled to enter tnto a question which the emiveot counsel for the defendant had not sought to embar: ««s the care by raising or diecussing. The groand upoo which this decision of the Court of Common Pleas is placed was, ip fact, obviated on the trial, inasmuch as tue tecond count of the compliint founzed upon the recsnt the ndoned by the Cor rned counsel for the HOD, anxiou defend teehnical grounds as the Court o° Common Pleas was to decide it cum grano salis to the de- id dave been his gaty te iacorporste objection im the notice of appeal, the ‘would bave set forth tbe facts upon which ion could have been intelligibly made. As it take the liberty of saying, that the reversal of ment for the resson aanigned wae an extra by the court to wnich this sppeal was taken, inquiries are restricted to notice of appe:) lam, however, glad to be reasnred, by inion given in thia case, thet tho whieh it was desired to tbit war hese Ad in fey re p to the law of the and. Most reepectf: our Odedient servant, 7 Wat, B, MED PCI Justice Third Distrist Coart. The Kecape of Lewis Baker. STATEMENT OF CAPT. CHIPMAN, OF THé BRIG 154 BELLA JEWATT, IN REFERENCE TO LEWIS BAKES, CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF WM. POOLE. About the second day of March, I think, a stranger come on board the brig, then lying at Jersey City, ani said he bad a friend in feeble health, who wanted to go to the Canary Islande and back with me. I asked him what kind of @ man he was; he said he was a poor ls- Doring men, and had been to sea some. I wld him | would meet him next day at Paterson's shipping office: New York, and give bim an answer. We met accord- ingly, and be agreed that his friend shoaki sign the sbipping pepers, and assist on board what he conld, snd pay fifty dollars for h's passage out and baek to New York, On the 7th a man came on board, gave his mame as Smith, having signed the shipping articles; appeared to be im feeble health; eat bat very little; remained on board vntli Friday, when be sssisted to haal the brig into the stream, and to get ber under: We ran down to Sandy Hook, ‘there came to an snohor, ani re- mained there two days—tillthe 1 While the brig lay at the wharf, I wae very busy im getti ees, ond was much on board, except aight; but my mate was constantly on 4 Smitn’s conduct was such erie at hog oe I ring the w! jage, an exc! test ‘ormion in war mica x howe ot the whole crew, so for oe | can tearm, he was not, in all renpacts, the tes] character be represented hirnself to be. | bad mever beara of the Poole and Baker aflair before we left, aod if Thad I should not have mistrusted “mith as having hed apything to do with it; and I never have searned that anther ‘of my officers or crew haé heard anything of it. ‘Ihe brig went out over the bar at noon, oa the Lith. and wan up to the Azores on the 25th—beiag fourteen days. We went to the southward of the route fer merchamt vessele—and then met a head wind, which held us sixteen oye and during that time drove ve back sixty miles; it yn coming round, we mule the irom thenee in tive days to the Canary Ivlaods fea gone to the northward of the Azores, as the win} wan, we should have made the passsge in mineteen days, T presume, The brig was beavily laden with « full cargo. ‘On our arrival at Palmas, the Grapeshot boarted ur, wired of me if we bad « man by tre aame of board. I toki them we had not. The: If Smith, board; sod fold that he man on board; ) ty, I at once acquiesced in ‘bis man out of my vearel ‘whole voyage, Baker conducted himse'f in tirely acceptable to me, my officers, and 4 1 should as soon have est aay other ‘on board of being guilty of a crime. rn to this port, I nave catled upon Jalge xtent of my koowledge t, OH thank the New Yore Humato, and other news papers in the United States, who oars given circuistion to rumors and sayings, ar or indi uy acerert = I, to have Roodners thie pe Boer Wal 1. Ont Of Buekeport, Maine. | oy The Case ef Lyman Cole, the Alleged Forges. | A Brop im the Bucket—Letter from Robert MPReMD COURE—— CmaMamne. (From the Now York Tribune, J Before Hem. Judge Morris SinaThe Tribune of the 1 th of tay lost conthing « re- J0Ly 2.—Im the Maller of the Applica:im to Adi: Ly | port of the preeswdings of the annual of the man Oole to Bail.—Tete applicstion coming oa to be Sea oh of the New Xenk end Rew Haves, heard, and proof having been made 0! the notices of the pany. 1s sppaara “bat the President stated that the coupany bad avstarced a total cash motion to admit Lyman Cole to bail, upon the District | the rar # operations set forth in Sie NE, | Attorney of the county ef New York, and after hearing | *#C7l0vd 10 mo I ] bad strengtD to ¢o #0, 1 suoul'ex. Ricbard Busteod, of counsel for Coie, in sapport of tne | mre the deveila of these statements 900 show you, as ho a the District A J I believe, that none of them are foumied in motion, ani Is ttorney not appearing to op | that tbe eonclurion is erroneous and untrue, pore, and upon consideration of the whole case, sad ee of con captiql has been tne consequense of aay ast after mature celiberation, ordered that the said Lyman | °! mine. Cole be admitted to bail, ae follows, viz :—Upon tne in. a Tameniy able at neanens to polst ant ans Gictment for forgery in the third degres, filed in the | whols alleges Court of General Sessions, on the l4ta of Novem. ber, 1864, (an alleged forgery of a check of John thomp | B+ &G. Lf, is cherged by the tressureron tl ron.) in tbe sum of $500; on the indictment fur forgery | #mber. 1483, for 3,200 shares Harlem pref , fled inthe said court oa the tain | $140,200, for wich sum th or Novemoer, 1854, (an alleged and for which they the ery & Gwynne,) in the sum of $: company due Ist Uctorer, 3853, on which payment had SSaaibess ee cilia onee been originally made tor tbe stock, No otter pdietines| ing was wade for these bonds, avd on the lat of Ostover ant filed im the said court on the 2ist day of April, 1355, in the sum of $2,000; and it is further ordered that the L4s- Sica ore tceee ne bo! Ad ma gy Lag ig hg trict Attorney be noti@ed that pailin eaid amounta u, ‘aid inaistaeais will be offered for said Cole om | SbOvt 110,00, und the remainder by exchanging with the holcers, other bonis of the company belonging to the : Heve that 4 5 ¥ ¢ fe ry of a ches and upon the Protenaos Tpvrsdsy morning, tbe bth day of Ji inst., at 10 ‘elocs AM, 19. the chombers of the ion Court, | Brm. After she leet bond was paid, defere the said Robert H. Morris, Fsq , or some other of | S™menDt of the val ja od be Jcdges of the said Supreme Court, and that sash no- | P* > Peet 9 sh or its equivalent, rice 20 the Disizicg Atiorney shall also contain the mame alone contained tae atognd | and 6 and Ocenpa'los of the ssid proposed bart. ‘ Bd should aleo show tag parti sien, J —On the 28th of June last, Lyman Cole was mr hye wea} 2d dettlomen PAP ced std bt betore me upon a wnt of habeas corpus, for the Ig of being edmnitted to bail, Oa that day the- ounre) of the prirontr (Mr. Busteed) proved by aftita- ally ae I state them, It Ollows, thea, trearurer’s denit ebould not b: -@lither thet th — nt fu combining the two, .#t made, or that the Presi that notice had been served om the District Attoracy ry 0oke, and making re-en: Fe intention temove on tbatday. The Distcict at- | *7°* foF the purpose of oor~ aaiine "er oes May {bi orpey not appearing, I bad an order entered aijoaroiag he proceedynge until the 30th June, aud directing that the District attorney sbould be potitied of the adjoura- © the account of for the atock 81°", asa 8G Lk. w th’ fall saymeat states to ree --%200, whereby the figures wi he would."* tin a balance agsinat them of $89,200, aaa eat: ais conebal appeared and pro: | Toe ttber Neme weve correct’ which wwnct efmitehe T yer wit 8 counsel appeares ro. | ae Other # were correct, : phare hy proof of the service on the District peer Of { mabe no ccmment op these errors, bat presume them to the notice sg I bad dirested, bat the District «1 have been unipteotional. Thoogh I oid not intend to. 614 not appear, The oiticer made a retyen {hat no hi trouble you an to the other charges, I bey to say, as to: the pritoner in custody on three geval indictmeats, 1 | tbe a!lega'ion thas $10,1t6 were psid to me for apscitic nt a menor ger te thé wiatrlot Attorney's office and ob- (eal py and not sppled as sntenced, that if is is in 08 roped a Be iree against the prisoner, wish | 0rd to anert that these sums were directly or indi- oat embavite; abowtng the: groaned rectly applies to my own use, that after a most careful so epee aie ld, and whe District Attaeney’s | fel examination, | co not rememer m single care of the, hed Pie eb bases ape 1a Ubtob ban 30,8 | kind, nor that soy person evar applied to me directly, of winner of she tertimony on two trisls, while oe08 | through any nce ine. for the pay nent of amy intende™ bad 1 the Court of Sessions, and which 1 wilt presently apprepristive not patd over. slinge'to, | The fects Refers sie, upon — Sppitcetion to Tf it i# mest that there are no vouchers to show the Jet the prisoner to bail, are the following:—The prisover | ante, though the swount strikes, me ay greater wan arrested in October, 1364, and has been in close con- | Py2™yut, mouse, fhe smonnt Mea ee aveente ie alk pear by Hp title Hest Sei eproet ene’ | the PaibtaetAgeTheanaationiene medeaddaStanets ie wae an indictment for forgery in the thi! e* foun: u apaust emer Bishop, thera eal od Anirow Findley, Voucher could he required. I believe, however, that thy, Lymsn Cole (the prisoner) and Wiliam Kiasane, Upoo ‘ & War mmoietment tee three) prisonera pleaced not guilty. | MVE", Ae drew them necessary. | T am also charred Gn Mareb 16, 1856, the defendant, Willem Kissans, wis | NOs Gemanen | an confident bat I ithe put om bis trial on that indictment, the defendants Nav- | Ine treasnrer vouthes for every dratt upon mene at aed ing claimed a separate trial. On thet trial, Jamss Bisa- | fora montis poly with ube knowledge He appeared oe op, alivs Anorew FindJay, was examined a3 a witness | 10) Sire -tors nw counsel fee cf & sonfdention al Kiisone was coavicted, aad ‘has deen sentenced to t06 | ter to centieman of atanding and influence. which can be Siate prison. In May term, 1855, of the Court of Se%- | shown | believe, If, Decessary, by otters than myself. Hone, the prisoner, Lyman Cole, was put on his trial. | S04 "szvept also the sum of 6600, drawn for lost Eisbop, shan Fiedlay, charged ay an accomplice in the | Ploeniey and ives, waiting payment when I lett my « indictment, was vaed ao a witness on the trial | Ofc and I presume not par Over 7 ‘The jury did wot agree. Io the June term of the Court | TT.00 ceil punish thie atatement, which Thave ©f Seasions the prwoner Cole wae again pit on his trial | p40neq” under rent ciMiculty—withoa. documeats The jury was empannelivd atter theexercive of challeng> | PoPoron your report alone— in the greatest debility of snd rejeotion by the triers of some fifteen or twenty of | B03, hoa ins ‘broken spirit, but with clear the jurors After the jary was empann: lied, tnd against | 115.” OBERT SCHUYLER} the exprers wisbes of toe counsél of the prisoner, and of ‘ ; the prisoner himself, the proseoution withtrew a juror, 0 the tris] wept off Upon these facte—the principal, if not the only, testimony sgainat toe prisoner being Operations of the Army Against the Indlans | that of an approver, charged in one and the sam? ia ican Oictimenta as the prisoner—and after the withdrawal of [Ontrer Deane ee, Maric, ae aS: @ juror by the presesution after the challenge by the Eteke up the pen to inform you of the un inte Prisoner to the jarors, it i# mot even probable that ® | snecesses of Golonels Fauntleroy and St. Vrain over the cenvietion could take place on » trial—even it it should | hostile Utah and Apaebe Indiane, with their respective bo ceemed proper to perait it—on wot iadictment. I ‘will therefore order the prisoner to bail, in that case, in om of $5(0. Ido it for the purpose of raining the important Jegal questions involved in that indictment. commands. For ye these land pirates have been a terror to the jnzabitante of this Territory—j and masracremg tbe motfensive people, and this almost perfect impunity. Sp lore te eet together with the said | Now itis obapged. It was reserved for Col. F. to put | y, d a Ie in tee degree, of ditferent dratt from eae seiner thie be Tay ech wesise vane t3 rtd which the other indictment wae found. To indictment Bishop, alias Findlay, the approving had guilty, and the prisoner and Kiv- pleaded not guilty. There 1# nothing in case, eo far as it in before me, to show—*xcept by f1 ence from the proceedings iu the other case—that Find: | ty Wey in to de used as a witness for ths By bste tir I oust therefore hold the prisoner to bail, in $2,000, on thie indictment. The third indictment is one against ope, as also to the New Mexico Volunteers tCotonel St, Vrai. Nor should it be tevery facility to make a successful cam; ign was afforoed by General Gerlond, the partment. Tativg into consideration the whisb the troops Jabored under in having to march severe] bundreo miles in the severest weather, into o country almost perpetually covered with snow, almost untroden hy the white man, to meets hostile ememy on the prisoner, and some thirteen or fourteen otuers, | therown +tamp'ng ground, already prepored for their ad- charged with obtaining moneys uncer falee pretences. | vent, it pareati'eay favorably with any expedition of From the statement of coansel, and the proceedings, it | gnoient, a it far exceecs in success any other, or alto- seoma that this is an mdietment ia respect to goods pur- yoree to have been sent oa the steamboat Mar- ha. Washington, which was burned on the Missimivgl river, It ala> appears that the priso wr has heen tried io Ohio, end in Arkansas, on a charge of felony, arising out of the same transactions; thatthe trial in Ohio wes gether, bnown in this Territory since it bas been in the porsersion of the United States; and now to give you a synopris of affairs 4s briefly as possible. I will atate:— Op the 20th of April, by order of Col. Fauntleroy, commending, Livut. Col. C. St. Vrain lett Fort Massa- cburetts in command of two ccmpanies of volunteers ¢ hefore Juoge McLean, of the United Btater | sno F Company U.S. A. 1st dragoons, with instractiona the trial in Arkansas before ® | t march tbrovgh the more de Curiato Pass, Wet tate courts, and that on both trials | yountaip Valley, up the Arkansas river, aud meet Col. F was acquitted. Oa the argament before | Feuptierry at the Pupcha Pass; but he, having struck 8 tra’l of Apaches at the crossing of the Huerfano, fol- Jowed it, apd op the 25th, came up wita the ene the Purgatory, ia the Raton Mountains, captured camp, With sll ite ¢qu pege, baggage, &c., nilled seven Indsaps, captoréd sia, aud wounded seven. On the 23d of April, Col, Faupticroy left Fort Massachusetts with two companies of Voluuteers, D Co. Second Artillery, apd D Co, First Dragoons, and proseoded to the head of the St. Louis Veley, where tbe command strack a large trait of the Utsbs on the evening of the 27th. On rorning of the 28tb, the command followed the trail for twenty-four m'lea through the mountalos to the left of the Punch Pass. ana halted. pies and guides being sent out to recopportre, returned at 9 o’elock at aight. At 10 o'clock. the command was in the saddle and dictment, but on reflection that seems doubtful. do not express axy opipionon that subject now. The charge inthis mdictmeat is for obtaining moeey on whet the prisoners seid was pork, eh’ on the Martha Washington—the allegation on the part of the necution bevng that no such commodity was wed find that some of the detendents uamed in this indict- wornt have already bren admitted to bail in eums vary- ipg from $2,0¢0 10 $2,500, but principal'y ia the sura of $2,000, and I therefore fix the amount of bail ef the pricover Cole on this indictment at . The oes gate of bail on the three indictments will be 84,! The District Attorney, sithough notified, not haviag appeared on this spplication, I think it proper that be should be apprsed of the person and security offered for , - 4 bolt i willbe the val ithe cunu'Thswe mentoaes | SP i0qiSa,gurmey come, The mounted wuss onder on the bth instant, at chambers, at 10 A.M., and f order | tablisbed over the borses and ‘animals and the that notice be given to the District Attorney that hail | cor for an attack. At abont daybreak, will be given on that day, and such notice is to atete the names and residences of the proposed bail. Order accordingly. Supertor Court—Spectal Term, Before Hom. Judge ‘losson, Jory 2.—Lewis B. Coble and als. vs. Henry Schoon maker,—Motion for judgment on frivolous answer de- nied, with 85 costs. Frith vs. Reynolds.—Motion to continne injunstionis denied witbout costs, and without prejudice to any other application which the plainti’ may be advised to make, vided be make such pm application # thin ten deys rom this date, asd the action in the meantime is to be retained. Papers to be filed on both sides. Before Hon. Judge Hoffman. John A, Gray vs. The American Society for Ameliorat. ing the Condition of the Jews.—Order set aside, with $6 costa to cefendant Suson Green, Administratriz, and al. vs. Hannah Lam- bert.—Motion dismiexed. James Lee and al vs. The Gold Hill Mining Company. —Ipjunction dismissed without costa. Before Hon. Juége Bosworth, enemy routed. Forty'of the enemy were killed, six tured and ely lstge number weaslen, aad ‘The Yad one slightly and one mortally posses, Fes Lv og! men hace detailed to drive off 8 wry amount of camp equipage, plun- der, &c., was fourd Te thelr camp, codeintiag io partet aix rifles, four pistols, two drs; saddles, five five dollar ae pieces, 200’ buffalo robes, 175 Indian seddien, | a pile of lerats, ‘some powder and lead, dried meat Dianeete, trinheta, dresses, body dresses, sever: abi and spears, bead work, 46 bows and quivers witn arrows, 35 horses and 12 sheep were taken, and also a of goata. ht took place at daybreak on the 20th of Apri, ‘Arkanaes river, about twenty miles north the Puncha Pans, Cn the sfternoom of the Ist May, the command came vpon s party of some thirty five of toe en-my in the Chow-ateb volley, tured their camp of six bear ord with all its equipege, viz. horses, thirty Jonathan Gilbert vs, Silas Lownsberry.—I have a | fa)0 robes, several miclcs, epears, » dragoon sabre, &. strong conviction that the defendant is entitled to costs, | In the running fight, two of the enemy were eek en but on consultation, my brethren are so much impressei oe eae pitdbagen oem enn nile hats to the contrary, that I shull order that it be made part ‘ a Te the Banna killing t of the jodpment that the plaintiff recover bis costa. Jessé B, Deno v4. Michael Donahw: and al.—Adjustmeat : ledge Lier said. in substance of costs Judgment roll and execution ret aside on de- * You are fendants’ stipulating to brieg no action by reason of a Re poues rae Ba Sy ty tage levy of the execution, without prejudice to the rights lg et A pags of Boggins to employ a regulariy substituted attorney, or the defendenty’ at to perfect jadgment aad ale any costa for which the cefendants are justly able. Caleb D. Gildersieeve vs. Wm. McAuliffe and als —Mo- tion denied, but defendants may bave coxts re-edjanted If he desires it, cots may be taxed against each defen- dent sgainat whom a reveral judzment ia perfected, If a plaintiff attempts to collect too much the remedy is mo’ ion. "The mas Turner vs. Frederic Wirrhel and al.—Leave en to semignee to bring an actioa on the judgmrn’, id if bron with ten days, execution to stend «+ security, uxleas approved security i+ given to pay euch tom ss may be recovered to the extent of one half the g racbusetta, om the 9th of May, in good health Ip this whole campaign but one horse was lost. This, an T started out with seying, will favorably compare LA ‘that all the officers did their duty would o like gilding fine gold. To the United states troops too much |. St. Venin starts for Fo setts, ibers to be joined by coh Fauntleroy, who i de- dent, He will start in a few dsys, and will, no dowbt, conclude the war by wiping out these human fends who spirits. with all the campaigns previously in thin To it be given, a also to the vol rt Maasachu- taired in Taos by a court martial, of which is Prewi- have heretotore been such « scourge to this territory. amount of the coaleums * ring eon Fa pn er bow dlrs — ecsy* | ‘Tae Guor or Srrawsennres.—We hed been in places were strawberries were pl ntifal before—we im- agined we Dave caten knew what they were. tee without norant indeed. Jf you want te see them in their per- feet prefasion,—if you cesire themas largeas plecapsber, and an rich ap the heart of on 4 Theatres and Exhibitions. Broapway TakaTRR—The drama of ‘Ireland aed America, or Life in Le a Williams in eee an Jemmy Finnigan, . Williame an er hf Williams in America as py hd the song of “Trost to Lack,” and Mrs. Williams as wi ie, COMO Peggy Anderson. The comedy of ‘Paddy Carey’? will | Here they are soki at a follow, and ‘Our Gal” will conclude the aruseuenta, ra J ctor peel, se os Rowsny Tmarne.—Tbe magnificent 4 called = sdb Boogatl ange" pec opin | Eanes eda” sat fo Deantifal, and the leading eharacter by Mr. Johuaton | richest and freshert are sold in our o Saturday last strawberry, wagons io well played. The nautical dracaa called “ Americans ic | 497} They nin ‘Tripoli,’’ will copelade the entertainmentn, bpd te se ane pom Harrison opera trou, are completely success! very opera they oe Tl Hoses tee the seam to rie with « who will e mos! pear to- pight ip the comic opera of “A Queen of aban” Mine ise. will imtroduce her celebrated song of “The 7’ rk Bunron’s THRaTRe.—This theatre ix tronis ond deservedly so, as the company Prabem A rot ot ths most eminent comedians. The comedy of ‘ The Driver,”’ with Eddy as Ivan Danilot, and Moore as Couat Kothkoff, will commence the amasements; atter which, California "—Chanfrau, Mise Al More tn Ibertine, Wi: filled with as many as you can eet, and ps and De Walde: the leading parte. All will'close plenty more ip the middle of the tablé—not once a day; with the faree of ‘No, No.” eres gg af night. PP ac ow ae Woov's MissTm1is,—This band has the city to itself, | Dientiful before. We repeat it, wherever you go and the house is crowded nightly. A fine bill for thus | Suet el#e, come to Paterson if you would live om straw- evening. J. Guardian. Bucxrey's Sxrevanens are playing in several to thir State, with great snocess, They appear in &: Crass Day at Causriper Counzan.—Yesterday on the 4th, and in Rochester on the 11th and 12th. the members of the graduating class, (which numbers Fowr Fornest.—This gentioman seems determine’ | "Pwarcs of eighty,) assembled in front of Holworthy to mane the city of his virth hie futare permanent ren- | Hall, and, preceded by a band of music, marched $9 ome cence, Yesterday, we learn, he purchased the eplendid | of the lecture rooms, where » dativersd brown store mansion at the corner of Broad and Master | the Class Chaplain, William Mo atreets, which ia fifty feet front by two hundred deep, with double back enn and s side yard of fifty feet, for the sam of $23,000. The house was recently fnish- €¢, and has mever been occupied. Mr Forrest intend, wo learn, to move into it immediately —Philadelphia Ledger. ‘The French company at Wallack’s will shorti, ® drama called the «Filles de Marbre.’’ vee ee Kate Saxon is playing at Ottawa City, Canada vent. Mr, E. A, Marshall aod Mr. Thomas Barry will sail for Europe im the steamer on Wednesday. Mien Jalia Gould, late of Wallack’s theatre, was re- cently married in California. Mr, Davidge plays in Montreal next week. pe in the business of the day. The bu! xe to inconvenience. The oration which was by James B. Clark, of Jechson, Mise'ssippl, Inctnded an inquiry into the nature of “succ+ss,” as pertinent to the case of yourg men about to enter upon the active daties of life. 2-4 ge = followed lormer, of Buffalo, after wes the coupon tion of Mr James Ree’, of thia college being the subject, Dancing on the green & prom/nent part of the forther img: The whole Hon aed o Boston Traveller, June 23, » Cirectors alwaye hat a general knowledge of these pay” a. in New Mexico. TT " 5] | \. ; 4 {