The New York Herald Newspaper, August 4, 1855, Page 2

———— cr ee 2 THE SCHUYLER FRAUDS. Sepurier ortetencral Term, & and _ May, 1855. =e Present—@ariey, ©. J.) CampbeB, Beeworth, Hotimen and Sleason, J. J. Meesre. Lord and Van Winkle for plaintiffs. Meesers. W. C. Noyes nad Geo. Wood for defendant, Worrwan, Justice-The President, Direeiors wend Company ef the Mechanics Bank, in the city of Moo York, against the Nao York and Neo Haven Railroad Company.—-It ia unnecessary for me to state the facts of this case for the purpose of ex- ing ihe views I have taken. They are safli- silently detailed in the opinions of Jestices Bosworth ead Slosson. 1 doom it only waterial to transcribe the certificate delivered by Kyle to the plaintiffs at dhe time of the loan, which was as follows:— New York and New Hevea Railroad Company, No. 4,874, Capital $5,000,000; New Yerk Office, ehsrez $100 ‘Be it known, that Alexander Kyle, of New York, is en- tadlod te vighty-iive (85) shares of the capital stork of ee New York and New Haven Company, trans- on the books of the company, ad its eflice ic the ‘of New York, by the said Alexander Kyle, or his mey, om the vaxrender of this certificate. BROKERS SCHUYLER, Mew Youu, April 20, 1854. Transfer Agent. ‘The uscal powor of attormey to transfer atock, weade in favor of F. W. Edmonds, cashier of the plsintits, accompanied this certificate. The plaia- fitfs applied, before the commenormeat of this as- tion, to have the stock transferred, which was re- @Wired, apon the ground stated in the answer, Taia spplication, a3 appears irom & comparison of rtate- woents in the ansrer, (folio 42 t& 49,) must have fecon made after the 5th of July, 1804. Juadgraent Rae been rendered for the sum ascertained to bsve been the market value of the sock, at ninety-‘our and @ traction per capt. aH company ay b9 hele at ali responsible for mtoek thus fran sasae3, it must ba in on8 of the following modes:—-Piret- By considering thes there was 6 Contr: cer whica it was bonad to ho certificate to be memi wa transfer on the books; con- ad esonted value in the property niveloat etther to tue advance of 4, o7 to its par value, if the ad- ch value. Suooad—If thie was 8 the vbligation of the company refused t2 fail it, then d either by decrwe- i the cu et, or by awarding sal, bat for vhis refasal alone. g that slenough the company legsliy incompetent to crease a, ye® it is bound to makes good the ropre: A voptained ia the csrtificate thas fe stock expresied in is Was part of the true capi taj; avd then the market value of such genuiue stook affirds the just general rule of damages in fie cnee. Mt is stated io the answor that the amount of avard to them of the ompany the plaintitt under it, aud thoy Whos the plaintiffs mo ing performance the freudalent isene is one miltion five bnadredt Mouesnd dollera. If tuis sum, or say som near it should pass into judgments, with executions over te propsrty, and # race of competition among the qweditora W realize their demands, utter and irre- takevable Icasto all the siockholdars must ecsae, Mf these ¢laimantsare admitted upon tho basis of a commnnity of interest, something may be saved fron the rains. Such comeidesa'ions, if insxdmissi- bie, and I trast not admitted, to infiaenve a judicial decision, must prevail so teach a mora thea usta! esation im staling the principles which have led Judge to hia result. " J. There ia no possible groond, in my opiaton, wpon which a liabUlty of any kind can be fixed upon toe cepany, which meat not Sapien upen or arias oat of the certificate iseued to Kyia, and deposited wih the pleintifty. That certificate may b> treated asa contractof the company stselt, auchenticated hte oflivar; or, as the representation of au asoat, eiently authorized in the particular matter, that tue facts stated in 15 ore trac, and ar implied pro- ies that the engagement contained in it shall be fwiilled; or & guiranty by the company that ohuyier’a reprasentatious ure corsect, aad an undertaking to perform what ia stipalated io it. pe Hy the certificate in any masner waich legal m can devise, ard it will ba found tna: the esstatial elements of a contract pertain to it 2 What is that contract? It contatns four ma- tesial particulars: 1s‘, Ths Kyle wis entitled to eighty-five shares of the cayital stock of the company; 2d, That such capital stock wee Viros millscn of dollare; 3d, That the were ons bandred each; and 4th, That upos production of the certiticate, the company would sliow a transfer ané regristration of ths ehares to Kyle or bie axigus. Amome then, for the present, 4 the original stockbolders bad profsmedly eatered into this oon- fract : the joestions are, could they legally nysks it, and can they legally sstisfy it, aud in woat manner? ‘Paces queeson 8 are to be considered as between tie e@ompany and tho holder of the certificates them- selves, irrespective of the charter and the Siate mad next au aifected by the provisions cf the former and the policy of the iatter. Wiest, the admission of the platutiffs as 5 holders of the company, representing eight; 3 additional shares, so far ss to confer a rigit of voting and to participate in ail corporate pri- wilegea, seems clearly to be a matter of mer mpact and srrangemont, if it ie not express} Ee hited. [1s simply the inctoase of the re of a partnership for the pnrposs: of manage’ Beeond, the increase of the capital stcok of a cor poration, if such capital is not fixed by the charter, wad no other statutory prohibition {a ia force, would not be illegal. The joint stock companies of Naz- Tend, oxganized under wv acta of Parlianieus, ave onder no such limitation, and iucreass their indefinitely. (Wordsworth law of j» week comp., p.37.) Third, the third parti er veprerentation in the csrtiticate, viz: thet the ea are one buadred dollars each, is of niore reance. It is undonisble that in this the atock- lera do no wore than state that the nominal vaboe of each share when full is $100. They dv resent that this T the actual value. Phe rule of damsges in ordinary cscs, aud — in the present ins'ance, proves this. Ths market value of the stock at tne time of s demand fey a transfer, or at acy time priors to tbe com- mencement of the suit, governs the am unt of the brandy th (Commercial Bauk of Baffalo vs. Kors- rote: , Wendeli 348.) Had the market valine boea tweily per cent instead of nincty-four in the pre- sent igstance, thas would have been all the plaia- tiffs could bave obtained upom their owa theory. Bat the agreemeut ov belialf of the bolder of the pate stock may then de presenid in thie, ita eat form. Ladopt as probably nearest tho : 4 Hs eo}, statement of the answer as to the amonnt wf the spurions issue, yiz.: $1,500,000, Tue com- oa es ogee in thie certificate that the Spal is three millions, and the shares #100 eeeb. The shores then are thirty thousand; snd heace it is represented that the eighty-ive gkesres in qnestion are ®& componsut part of bas jousand ehares, not of forty-tive thousand. M, then, fitteen thousand of uodoubted wheres ware diepiseed, and these sulstituted, absolute justice wenld be done, and tie contract, in its bags ‘nti f agate, tude of construction, be entirely falillied. the holders of ths thirty thousand ahares abate the nominal vaine of what they hold one-half, and the spurious shareholders are admisted at ths fall vulva, how could it be possible to say that every portion of the engagement of the company was not po> formed? Assume the agreement to bo, frat the Bolder shall nave his share of stock #: $100, 20 that his dividend upon and interest in the property ehall be upom that amount, these holders tica vepresent in the compasy 15,000 share», or 21,500,000; and by treating the otnur abares as re- duced to fits; dolar, the same sum ia produced wpon thirty thousand shares. And thas there would be as Meter shares at See ca ant ‘fiaisty thourand at dollars each, kee the enpital at th A a ink Tilions. Suppose in this case, the ved & trane‘er of these shores, and, by atatemeats in » tis shown, that a grea’ spurions #tosk is beld by patties rogis- the books and posrcssed Of certificaves. the righte ot these parties to bs adjusted? Most tavornble view for them these holders get gu equal anount of the unqueioned Teonsider the casce of J. BR. Hasinger (2 Ach ’s Rep., 287, April, 18:0) acd the Sine ef Kentucky case, ae involving the decision thot if the limitation of the capital does rot prewat an imsuperable difficulty, the relief to b> gives woon wash certideates would be tht indissted, aad company wonld not be bw to give an . It is to be noticed that in Hasinzer’s case, ly sedmitting the holders cf spurious stock to a oa. monity with all others, although the anthorized copinal was not exceeded, yet sae ganuine stock er# would have sudfered ibe 6amé diminution in the valine of their shsros as ff it had been exceeded. ‘The company received nothing of the money ra‘sed, ‘Their property and protite would have bean divided upon @ body of fourteen thousand sharsg instead of ten thousaad, The \alus of each share waa Jeasened in proportion, aud it was as much a robbery by a criminal act es if tho issue bai produced an excess of the capital fixed in the charter, The case of the Bank of Kentucky, e often referred to, my, aps, he subject to the remarks of counse!; that was the came ae if Schnyler was hors snad far the fraadolent iesue. Nevertheless, the question of the liability of the bak to the holders of the spuri. ‘ews isme, was made p prominent point in the argo. mont, and was distinstly and carefally examines eu passed upon by the court. Tho result wae au i i PEEP 588 I & i NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1835. Legislatore has corporation, a ‘akect E be a violation of the Coens pg and @ ground of forfeit- ure. Jn granticg corporate pcivileges, the regulation of the capita! is governed by two cona! ions: the necessity of raising a1 amount suffcieat to actom- plisa the public object, and the forbiddiog a larger accumulation of.money or property in the haads of one body than is essential for that purpose. For a compary then ¢o transcend ths fixed amonnt, is to wmurp aright to increase the great elemgn’ of cor pores wer, contrary to a faadamenial policy of State. But it is not seen how shis line of rea- goning applies with the like, or with ac7 force, to the increasa by ® Sompany of the number of its shares in any manner which leaves the capiial pre- cisely as it wae before. If the charter of a company had fixed a capita!, but was silent as to the numbor or par value of the shares, the oompany (or its sgente, if enirusted with the power,) might adj re-acjast such number or value. If a, where the charter, as in this case, directs that shall be » defined number of shares of $100 each, the omociaten agree to increass the shares by reducigg the par value of what they hold bya ‘iven per centage, would that be @ violation of ‘the Sune auch ag to work # forfeiture, or woa'd it bs a matter only affecting the individual members as to their pecuniary interests im the stock? We ficd thas wider the present charter there might have been thirty thousand members of the compasy. It is not cyt to see what groat rua of pubic policy isia- veded it this number was voluntarily inercased to forty-five thonsand, the tinted capital remaining the same. The efiect in the case suggested would be that each stockholder ould redave hig share, for which he hes paid $100 to $50, and receive his part of fntnre profita upon the latter sum. Bos it is here necessary to cxamiae with cares de- claion of the Supreme Court of Massachasetta' pro” neonced by im late distinguished Chief Justica, boar” ing opon tuis point. cane ia that of the Salem Mill Daze ve. Eopes (6 Pickering 32), reaftirmed in 9 Pickering 187, and contirmed in another case in 10 Pickering 147. {tmust ve ucticed teat the first case ayOse DpIL at action against @ subscriber for payment, oi a call, which was resiated on the ground tha his satkcription was conditional, aad tia; guch coadi- tion had not baen fnitilled. Tbe charter was, that the caplte! should be $500,000, and the shares $5,000 of $1¢0each. The directors had atcemp‘ed w go on with ine business of the company, when only 2,087 sheres hod heen enbssribed. Tne Conrt bold the defend»et not responsible for the call. Now it eppears to me ivaccurate to gay that these cases prove that a reduction of the number of shires ia the charter it @ violation of that char- corect to say that tiey prove it to bra t x nonfulfiiment of contract the terms of which sre fonnd im the charter. If so, the condition of the contract may bo waived, mouifed, or ingiated noon as the will of the sabscriber, wita the assent pf the company. Aud hence, weare, in each particular cage, to ascertain wucther such way ‘8 condition of the contract, Whether, if it waa, it has been waived. In thi? tof view the quas- tion was regarded by the court in the caseof the |.ax ington and West Cambridge Company vs. Commbeca, (13 Mescaif, 513,) and in the Keunebac R tiuroad Compeny, (34 Maine Rep. 360.) In the last case the comt eay that * the contract nave bad reference to any certain nam or certain amouut of capity, as fixed by tec ae, and there iz vo lapgnage ased in the r scribing ihe number of the sueres or fi on the capital.’ it may be adzattted ¢ of sharea, son of of »the number of shares by a red the value of those already issued, by alfse'iny the smow of tho profits of the hotd- ors, as well as the stusl sam represented, siands apon 2 aimils. shares, which tends to in © his liabuiityor ea: danger his advance. But"tue question still, in eash instance, ie one of contract and anthorization, aud @ question between him aud third persone, not the Siste. Upon the question of forfeiture of the charter, | hare examined the following cases, and the reanit in my indgment is thas it int least doubifai whether the tribunals of Coanecticut would deter. mine thia charter to bs forioited oy the adoption of thir atock as part of the stock of the compasy by reducing the value of the genulue sneres in ths man ner poioted out. (Kellegg vs. the Uaion Conpr uy, 12 Conn. “ep. 7; the State vs. tae Essex Bank, 8 Verm Rep. 489; P anters’ Bank va. tae Back of Alexandria, 10 Gill and Jonne 346; At- tommey General vs. the Poteraburg Rallroad Com- pany, 6 Sredell 456; the People va. tho Oakiand County Bank, 1 Dongiass 282; State of Miesissip oi vs. the Comwmercial Bank of Manchester, 6 Smedes & Marshall, od other cases cited tn Angel! & Ames, 860. 77 I cannot, t! fore, concinde that the incveas3 of the number of votes would be a violation of the charter. I consider that the redaction of the nominal value of tie old sbares, aad admitting the pew ones, leaving the aggregate of capital identically the same, could not work « forfeiture, and that if either or both of these could have that effect. tt is @ yusstion for the courts or Stave of Connecticnt alone to deteruiine. The let- ter can repeal ihe charter, or could any the ast of company adopting the stock. The formeraioce adjadce,& forfeiture. If this court s2ould de- cide the case upom snch & ground, it would bs an intrusion upon the province of the only com- peten’ power. (See Hamilion va. Annapolis, R. R. i land ch., Dec. 107.) My conclusion is that mg ag a rednction of | dhe majority of the stockaolders could beve legally saxuctioned the issue of vbis atwk, so as to entils the holders to he admitted as members in ths man- ner before biefiy noticed and bereafver more par- tienlarly stated. ‘Toe ergement which is presented @n] goceded to f ipen is, that the company somopnct. I, could say, and had The stock is fall and the bolder We have no stock to give you incurring » forfeiture.” is the prohibition or legal disability which prevents the compsny trom saying, “We can fotfil the agroe- ment wooriug to its true Import,” and offsring to do. | present & very sitip'e case, which involves the question, aud I think the avswer. Suppose a Dg a capital at $10,000, of 100shares at suppose they were held by ten pardoas, iuahould there be ten aslares fran- dalenily isened, why could uot the stockholders surrender each one share aud perform the ? Phey would retsia nine shares $ wey this would be idogal, {am prehend. It tasy could volunta rily do this, the question is, have they not a right to way, this ia all we were bouad to do,and to's, Bat the question is, where when you demand more, we ask may be adjudged to you ae the extant snd iiutit of your right My Samnpheil admits that if he could agree that a Was On ® Contract which the cor pan) perform, his difficuiciea would be removed. He contends that the action is not brought unoa the certificate, nor hence npon any coutract. My brother Slosson sdlmite that the sa't is yirtzally ap- on the certificate which created an obligation tpoa the company. [His difficulty appears to be that it cannot he performed iv the manuer I have attempt ed to prove it can be. 3. The next inquiry is, bad stockholders conferred & power upon Io! Scungler apparently suffi sient to authorize him to do what they could have don: themselves’ 1. Tne first section of the charter oon- etituted Josiah F. Sneftield and others, with such Peracns a3 shail aasociate with them for that pur- a body poiitic and corporate, by the nama of New York and New Haven Railroad Company. The eedond section provided that the shares shau'd be personal property, and suowid be traasferred in auch manner and at such pleases as the by-lawa of the compary should direst. Under tie fourth section, the immediate goveramout and di- rection af the effaly of the company was vested ina board of nit® directors, to be coven by the stockholders. By the eeveuth, the directors were empowersd to make «uch by-laws sad rezula- tions aa they should bo gr toaciing the diss > nition and management tie stock, property aad efects of tho , not cont to the char. ter, &e., the transfor shares, the duties and con. duct of their officers and servants, and all matters Whatever which ap; to the concerns of the company. In the exorcise of the powars conferred by the charter, a resolution was adopted by the stockholders to the following affect: TAANEF eR AND CeRTIFICATes OF transfer offices shall be in ti ter agencies r New Verk cnt hoster byte rectors; and all trencierk ¢ made in on with and by wom lnntrument (which eed eo time be wade, ordere ou rules and regotstions, ssigptont sad traaslor see!) an mag from time to \ appointed by the Noard of Directors, Cortitionter tock shall be im wach form, and lomved under suck A reeale\ions am the Board of Directors may from time to (me appoint and direct, The directors did adopt the forms of trans bee of powers to transfer, and of certificatss there cord not | hn: the city of New York, with the koepiag of 4 Se city » Charged ping a8 of books, and the issuing cardfica: aud ac 602- stock at that ownerabip of —e ok also admits, (fol. 41,) taet the sigaature to the oar tifisate is in r writing of Robart Sshayler ~~ that it conforme to the fiotemdanta’ cortitiontes of stock, sch as are admitted to be and goch genuine, as thoy had been in the habit of using. Robart Bchuyler, then, wes, = my cpinion, yeated with all be Gach) rong to the issu eee a, stock which the company possessed. That power Was exercived by a fraudulent teaue in thS present case, but it was in exercise of an apparently un power. And the case then ig one of an abuse uf ® ganeral agency in @ particular business. The certificate is a written declaration tha! the party in whoss favor it is gtven, is entitled to the shares ¢xpreased in it, and an admission that be in a member of the company, aud has « rigat to ite privileges, aud a participation ia its property. Robert Scheyler had a power delegat to Bim ple camped tim, as fon mnocent at Dernons, to v this o} on upon the company. Suppose stockholders bad formal! resolved that pe carti- ficates should be issued for the use of the company to the amount of $10,000, and left the certificates signed wy them with Schuyler, under such inetru:- tions. be had filled them up with $100,000, the e yy would have been responsith‘e. Tae powers they have actually devolved upon him are equally sufficient to bind thex. T do not propose to enter npon ths extensive ja- quiry, aa to the anthority and obligations of principal aud ogent. Itappears to me that tne adop:- ed by tre Supreme Court in the North River Bank vs. Aymar (3 Hill 270) covers this case, ‘Where ever the very act of the agent is anthorized by the ter2as of the power—that is, whemsver by compar- ing the act done by the agant with the words of the power, the act iz in iteelf warranted by the term: used, e00b act is binding’on the comatituont aa to all persons dealing ingocd faith with thesgent. Such pertons are not bound to inquire into facis a/iunde. ‘She apparent authority isthe real aathortty.” I coneiésr that there is mo substantial distin tween the cases of promisory notes as to which thie language was aed, and certificates cf stock in cor- porations. This point i more particularly ex asmined under the nexi head of my opinion. 4. A point was made-and strongly pressed by the defendants’ counsel that the certiticats wa? ah- solutely void in the hands cf Kyle, and that no ore ecaine by a transfor uider him could be ia a better sitaptt In relation to Kyle’e position #6 to this cortilicate we bave no right to assume, uncer the evidence, thet Kyle had not this amount of steck standing in his name on the books of the company. It ignot found that Kyle knew that the certificate was frandolently iasued and did not re- present genuine stock, as is avowed in the aaswer, )folio 37). AM that ia found bearing upon thia int ig, thet Achuyler delivered the certidcate to yle, to porrigy mos upon for his (Schuyler’a) ase; that it not igmed for any lawfal parpose, bet was a frend on the a of Schuyler to seve money for bis own private purposes, (loi. 67.) Now, Kyle borrowed the money ane card his nove, paying the procecds to Sobnyler. Had he taken up the note himself he would have stood, pee the facts of the present cast, in as good s situation as the plain- tiffs stand. It would have been necessary to hava raised 2 reason prmeyeee at least that be Enew of the fraud. Hence it cannot be correctly said that the certificate wes uterly void ta the dsof Kyle. He hed » lien upon it aa security for his cwn note, discounted for Schuyler's nse. He #oald ad a fall right to ithad he paid ® r lt was, indeed, before auch payment, vodable ss against the comgany, bseause without consideration; and any detencs avsilevie as to uyler would have served asto Kyle. The pro- Fosition cannot be carried further than thie, But guppcee it was utterly void in Kyle's hands, we have then mother and an important question to meet: Would it not atill be availavle in the bands of ® bona fide holder? If it wasa negotiabie instrument, it would be so beyond a doubt. ‘The opinion of the Saprene Court in the North R'ver Bouk vs. Aymar, (3 Hill 269,) settles out viv) ating the mit of oar charter; perhaps | that point. ‘The paper being iesned without consi- aeration was indeed void as between the original psrties, but there being # power to isme valid in form, it cannot be impeached in the hands of a bona fide holder.” Ja the case of Fatmsa va. Lebach, (1 Daer 354) thie court adop‘ed the propo- sition that certificates of stock in the hauda of @ bona fide holder go far partook of the character of negotiable paper as that no equities between the previous parties could defeat his right. The care of Kortright vs. the Commercial Bank of Baffalo, (22 Wendell 360) settled among other things the same principle; the delivery by an agent, theugh against hie instructions, of the certificate and poe though in blauk, gave a right tu the innocent older. A special action of seaimps!’ will lie on bebalf of the bolder of a certificate azainat a oor- poration, for refusing t> permit a transfer. (Kort- right va. Com. Bank of Buffalo, 22 Wendell, 348; Morgan vs. the Bank of North America, 8 Serg. & Rawie, 87; Malter va. Shepley, 10 Jobu. Rep., 485; Catchpole vs. the Ambersgate R. R. Co., 16 L. & ree Rep., 163.) The last case arose on demnrrer. The declaration stated ax a ground of action, that the plaintiff was prevented trom appearing to be a member on the books of the company, aud the se- cond count alleged special damages. [a the case of Bennet va. the Bavk of Commerce, 1 cited saveral authorities to show that a bill in equity will lie for the epecific performance of a contrs.t to deliver certificates of stock, and how fully the noasession of certificates or actip invests the holder with an eqvit- able interest in, and right to the stock represeated in them. To these cases may be added Type va. Swapy, § Eng. L. & Eq. Rep., 154; Bagshaw va. the Dastein lsilrvad Co, 7 Hace, 1i4; Danapt ve, Ale brecht, 12 Simons, 189; Stoman va. the Bank of England, 14 Simons’ Rep., 475. It appears to me that through this line of autiori- ties, ard masy which might be added, we fiad the predominant ee of commerce tending to confer upon these evidences of debt or interest, the charac- { ter and ttributes of negotiable paper, whenever the rights of honest purchasers are oro 7 tin question. But within a fow honrs I have mot th an authority | which seems to me anfficiont to dispense with fur- ther reasouing from myself. In the case of Fisher vs. the Morris Canal and Bankiag Co., (November, 1854, Court of Appeals cf New Jersey, Com. Law Register, May, 1855, p. 423,) the question was, whether a bona fide holaér of railroad bonds under seal, baving no notice of a difest of title in the eeller, would not have a perfect title to them, free from all equities between the seller aud the com- pany. The master who heard the case (the Chan- cellor being iaterested,) reported in his favor, aad also upon certain objections a4 to the illegality and frandalent {asue of the bonds, the particulars of which do not appear, but in which conclusions the court coincided. The Court of Appeals unanimously affiimed the decision of the mas- ter. Justice Wimer adverted to the sstiled rule as to promivsory notes, Ac., aud observes that by anslogy to this clags of cases, ths exigencies of buaiuess ave, from time to tims, insrodaced other securities into the same category. He notices the enseg eat bar bills (4 B. and Ald. 1) of bonds of the King of Prussia, (3 B. aud Cr. 15) and of instruments issaed by the government of Naples. (7 Bing. 284.) He saya that * as bet woen third par- lies, we suppose the common usage to trasaler them by deilveriag without enquizy as to the title of the transferee (quere transferor) would justify us in holding these Securities to differ from common obligations, in being so far matte that the bone fide poasoascr shall be held to have a good title, The obviozs interest of such companies is that the bonds shonld be saleab‘e, free from all questions of equity. To declare tn¢m subject t> the equities existing in the onse of ord bonds, upon every transfer of them, would be to striko a biow at the credit of tie great mass cf there securities now in the market, the conseqnences of whioh it would be imposalble to predict.” 1 cannot perceive a valid distinction between the cave of bonds and railroad osrtifi. cates of stock in the application of the priagi- ples declared in this jucpment; and the distin. guished counsel of the detendasts whose profes tional learning waa imbibed at the feet of tse emi- nent jurists of Now Jersey, may fiad an answer toe portion of bis ar, nt in the jadgment of a triba- nal of a State whose courta have long been marked, 8 well for their conservatiam as to the doctrinos of the common la yaa for their loarniag and ability, { shall close this branch of the case by referring to some of the leading authorities, oases cites on toe argument. A very large number of the aut roritisa of the defendants rest upon & principle very distinct from that which must govern the present. They are cases in which an asserted right to property of n corporation, or a demand upon i}, omli only be sustained by tracing @ title through charters or atatuter, which led to the disclomre of th» wanto! power or other illegality. Tais comparison shewed the invalidity of tne act, or proved the absence of wuthority, and this comparison the party deating with the company waa bound to make. ae leading case of the Bank of Bengal vs. the Huss India Com: pany (2 Knapye Pr. O.C., reports 245) depends npom @ similer role. The aathorization given to stock. It Ja stated in the complaint that Robert | Mr. Oxborough Nae nm in w wsries of instruc. Schuy er was the transfer agent 9] the gompany, in tions and degamente issuing from tbe Ajcocu‘ant- General, the to warrant t the motes as genzine, and these te holder ef those which were forged was bound to examine, Jt amounts wea to the ese of one acting under a ial written wer, when anctrer cannot ely dead with im without imepecting the extent of tha’ power. ‘Te elazs of cases, of which Davie va. the Bank of Fogland, Lowery ve. the Commoercia! Bank of Bal- timore (4 Mercheate’ Magazine, 351), and Pollock ys. the National Bank (5 Belden, 274),are exem- pies, involve this principle. A Dsuk fa responsible where, by the negligence or fraud of its agents, atock is transferred, a» well to the innoceat twansferee, as to the original owner of the stock. In the caee of Pollock, in the Ovurt of Al , it appears, from the opinion of Justice Wells, that s had been in favor of the Bank of Amz f the shares fraud heres acc of the bill. Here then ia the princip'e of ees ility to bona fide holders, and the euance of reaponalbility to former owners, in relation to the same stock, distinctly sustained. The method of carrying on! this principle in » new gud complicated case like the present is left open, to ba governed Py tho coutracty of the parties in ther true and le meaning, and by the rales which jastics and iy may prescribe. the, result of this series of propos'tious, and this line of reasoning is this; thas the com; wos bound to admis the plains as stock! ers, to the registration of the cigaty-five shares— that they would bave then become entitled to the privileges of pet etey ey would havo had an inierest in 0 company, to the amount of ight thousand five hundred doliars, aod to dividends upon that amouat: and tha’ the no- mital value of the shares of the genuine stook should ‘be reduced by a rate or per centage sofiicient to meet this mm, This was the import, the extant andthe character of tha obligation fixed upon the cemmneey, by the certificate tranaferred to the pluin- tiff, and of the contract embodied in it. Had the defendant fulfilled such contract, and admitted the piaintifis toa transfer on the books, as demandsd, it would have beon the duty of the direstora to hava ascertaed the shares of genuwe stock and its holders, aud te have adjnated the proportions of the interests of the latter in the stock of the com pany, by abating from cach abare 6 rate or per cenfage which would amount to the sum of eign: thousand five hundced dol'ars, and which, if this were the only case, would b2 about twenty-eight cents and a fraction vpon each share. If the dt rectors retuse? or negiected this, the plaintiffs could have filed 2 complains fand a3, the facts exist, on behal’ of themesives. and all others similtzly situated,) fo compel it. If the proportion of the spurious stock to three millions sdmitied ls— if, for example, there was ore million five hundred thousand dollars of such stock a3 stated in the at- swer, 8 surrender of one-balf of the shares of exch genuine holder and taking new certificates for halt would effect the object. But if this method should not be practicable, or be inconvenient, then an abatement of the nomipal value of each share by 2 xate or per centage, sufiivient to cover the amount of the spurious stock, would b2 practical and ef- te . It is true tat the remit of thees views pre- sente this anomely, that the holders o! genuine stock ere in a worse position than the claimants upon that whichis spurious, But the answer is this: They have involved themacives in responsi- bilities which must be redeemed; aud justice will ho creemas by the leas’ costly of she sacrifices which fit are compelled to offer. Ft ficult‘es have bsen sug d in carrying out the principle J have advocated. The chief of them te that attending the disorimination of the stock. The minute examination which this master rece‘ved be- fore me in the case of the Bank of Commerce bas led me to tho conclusion that this difficalty is far from being ineuperable. All the other objections springing from the arrangement of voting aad & ebare in management ne:m tome chimerical, and practical commo se and ordinary rales of law ‘would dissipate t) momen: they arose. Tae adjustment of the x interest in the stock or property, is a matter simplest arithmetic when the discrimination is msde. ‘here may, per- haps, be some tronble in calling in ‘all the holders , without legislative sid. Bat, in my humble opia- iow, obstacles like these should be compelled to yield to the adminiztration of a great principle of justice, which will, as far as the commands of law per- mit, reconcile this conilict of equally honest suffsrers. The rule I have stated ia, ] am sure, sanctioned by a comprehensive spirit of oes equity; and ss not, ae I believe, condemned by imperative law, nor subject to insuperable difiiculties in pl lying it. 6. The las: point to be considered (es, wha’ is the conecquence of the refusal to permit the transfer. and what is tho measure of damage? Ia the view which I bave taken of the responsibility of toe company, the right to any damages depends exciu sively vpon the refaeal to perform the c tract that is to permit the transfer. I consider that, without the allegation, (which is in thle complaint), of de- mand ard refusal to transfer, there would be no ground cf action whatever. This proposition is of material impor‘ance, and this proposition is & tan dsmental ground of my judgment. The defend- ents were bouad to admit these holders of certifi- cates as members. Had they done so, and in the matner ss to amount before stated, they would have fulfilled « imaginable obligstion resting upon them. For this refusal they are to make c2) pensation, avd for nothing else. The market wine of the stock of a company at the time of s demand of transier forms the general rule ot measnring the damages upon arefusal. (Kortright vs. Commer- cial Bank, 22 Wendell, 348.) That marke$ value has been found to be 94 per cent. This was the value at the date of the certificates in April; (fol. 14 in case;) and it is somewhat siagular that the value should have been the same after the Sth of July, when the transfer books were closed by the resolution ef that day. The counsel, however, it is underswod, agreed to take this as the rate. Among the points of the defendant ts this: that the answe~ end facts found show good reason for the directors cloring the books,atd not permittiog au: transfer; snd that the books were actually c! jon f ard the refasel to transter was put npon this grocnd as well as upon the invalidity of tho certificate, If this proposition is tenable, tie result is that the only proper relief in this case would ba to give t plaintiffs a judgment compelling # transfer, and clarivg his wntercat in the proparty as above stated. It ceems reasonadle that, in a case ao novel and em- beth Meigs pce tad to act ae % ja cision without ne ‘ly preventin; their cestuis que (rust from enone the ee formance of the contruct in the manner really binding upon them. Ba’ at the poral the dis- cussion of this point was passed over by the de- fendsnts’ counsel, though not waived, and perhaps partly in consequence of a suggestion of one of the Jadges. It was but glanced at by the p'aiotiffs’ coutsel. J shall consider that the point is open for stgument if it arises in other cases. Upon the facia as proven in this case, I find myself compelled to fay that the market value of good stock at the time of the demand was 4 per cent; and a3 the princi- 128 of this opinion show that the plaiutifis would we been admitted upon the basis of one huadred dollars hare, [see uo alternative but to adop’ the Tate as the measure of damages. It will (4 ob: setyed that the view which I have taken does not accord with the main propositions of either Pat: The piaintifis are not comtent witha rale of desi- sion. will admit them as mere participants io the rty. They seek a jadgment as creditors, with ita attendant process of execution. The de- fendants _ well suppose that in overthrowin; the position I kave assumed they make no alighi sdvance in defeating the claim of the plaintiffs on aby and every ground. But the question is raised yy the points of each party; and i consider the Court to be at Itberty to say that if it were not for the demand and refosal to transfer the stock, the jaintiffs must have been content to take the relief have su, peated, or none, and to show thatthe of tht defendants is not tenable. Upon these grounds } am of opinion that the jadgment at Spe- cial Term should be affirmed. Hoanimue =Avrray i Vingisia.—~Fatr @ Kruiep py nis S0n.-—We learn that @ horrivie case occurred in Dinwiddie on Saturday last. The cir- cumstances appear to be the followiog:—-A Mr. Tucker Jones, residing about six or eight miies from Dinwiddie oourt house, had sent his negro boy to Petersburg on the day before with a load of oats, and the boy not having returned, the old man became very a0ary, and reproached his son, Boaja- min Jones, an the cause of the negro’s delay, re- markin; that hed he accompanied him with the e had heen directed, the boy would bave been back. Theson made some insolont remarka in reply, which so provoked the father that he ssized @ gun and pointed it towards him. As be was about firing it, the mother turged the wan with ber arm erd the load was discharged through aa aéjoining window. As she was rushing ont of the honse to call in help, she heard a noise behind her, and on looking back, perceived her husvaud stretched lifeless on the floor, felled by the hands or bis son. Theee were the facts eli yesterday from the mother’s testimony at Jones’ examining trial. He was admitted to ball and ie now at large. — Peta svurg (Va.) Democrat, July 31, . vitae Tue Corrox Cror.—The cotton crop is looked forward to this season with much confidence, as likely to be a very good one, and this is about the time when we may expect carly specimens of it to be arriving. This very day one bg Sg0, the steam ship Perseverance arrived with the first of last season's crop——Neo Orlaans Picayune, July 25. |. Whese were ineuffictent | Criminal Law—Poltcs Magistrates and thes BDades. 70 TRE EDITO: THR WEAALD. ‘The imepertance as regards the public interest of the appointment of a police magistrate is scarcely sufficiently apprecisted; and thus bat little pains are takem by the elective power in the selection of those who are destined to become the public servents io that capacity. If any office connected with the administration of juetico demands moro than another at the hands of those appointed, probity, intelligence, ceal, disin- terestedness, amanity of temper, and a reasonable knowledge of the law, it is that of a polics magia- trate; and when we come to consider the variety and importance of the acts to be performed by this ministerial officer, and how closely those gots touch on, and should be guided by, the same views and motives which @irect # judicisl discretion, we he- come impreestd with the magnitude of the duties devolving on the appointee, and the pre-erninent necessity, in this case, at all events, of electing ‘the right man to the right place.” Tt isnot tco mush to agsume, from s long and carefal view of the working of our crimina! system, that # large portion of those cases which occupy the time of our criminal courts, and result in the ac- quittal ef the accused, ought never to have passed the threshold of the police office where they had their firs’ initiation. The public tims aud money would be thus economized, the important duties of oar criminal jadges left to expand themselres upon the legitima‘e objects of their care, and the reputa- tion of the individuals accsnsed untainted by tho psinful progrees of # trial to which they sould never have been subjected, and from which, how- ever innocent, they do not escape without a atain— the legal axiom that an honorable acquittal com- pletely reinatates the integrity of the scoused in eee ‘ opinion, partaking anhappily more of » isgal ction than of a practical realisy. Our statate providing for the accused the benelit ot an examination—n inestimable privilege when Properly excreised -- compictely goards egainet the inconvenience of submitting an innocent party charged with au offences to tae or- deal of a tial. Tnis beneficent iaw not only se- cures to the accused tue beneilt of the crors-ox- mination and confrontation by the wimesses pro- Qed against him, but also the privilege of ex- smining witnesses ou bia behalt, it has, ie fact, all the elements of @ trial save that the magisirs': cannot award the punishment, if convinced that an offence bes been commitied, but mast sond the &) eged offender for t.ial 10 the proper tribunai. As the meg’strate, by lew, is only to commis the party charged with sv offence for trial if he is ea- fied that there is probable cause to supose such party has commitied it, it leaves hin the exercige of a lerge dis zatiomary. power, which, if used with & proper knowledge of his duties, and a tall and cousclenticus impression of their seriousiezs, can soidor fail to kad to a result which, if adveras to the priscuer, will ba folly justified bya petty jury. b am of that class of persons wh) do not Nmit the pewers of the magistrate as confaed by this atatute simply to the comsideration whether the witnesses for the prosecution make out a prima facie case of probable cause against the prisoaer. Tho law, in my Opinion, undoubtedly intended that the ma- gistrate shoulda weigh and scrutinize the evidence presented to him on both sides, and after applying to it the teste of law applicable to the case, if he ig satiefied that there iano probable cause to sus- pect the prisoner to be guilty, and that the same evince presented to a Jury on indicimeat would result in his acquittal, undoubtedly he would best discharge his legal, and it is hoped his mort agreeable daty, in dismissing the case, and not loading the party accused with the disgrace and the onerous exporss ofa trial. I know that a different rule of conduct regulates in general megisterial deoisiwns, and that t2099 offi- cere, in the general discharge of their duty, ook only to the evidence adduced on the part of the pro- section, so far es it tends to establish the guilt of the accused; considering thst the facts addaced by porone-examination, and the evidencs produced by the prisoner, tending to destroy ths presump- tion of guilt, og proper to sunmit to a jary a8 ths omy tribanal calculated by lene upon it. Nor is this evil remedied by the rven‘ion of a Grand Jury, whe are actuated by the same views, and find bills of indictmant on the very slightest testimony, trusting that a petty jury will amend their errors. There are % yory jarge clasa of most important cases, in which the legal knowledge of the magistrate, and his accumen. as ar investigator of the facta, go as to apply the roles of law to them, are imperatively required. [ need only alinde to the statute of fais pretences. The wide acope given by legal decisions w accusations of this kind, and their frequency, render the atrict- eat care mecessary. This stat has Jong bees re- cogtised ss onc of the most inetrumente of sbuse to which a raion of the honest intent of the Jaw bas given birth. It haa long hean notorious in our city that unconscientious perscus, when they sre disappointed in the folfilment of the contracts tmade with them by others, who, {rom misfertane, mistaken calculation or abused confidence, are un- able to fultil them, resort to the police office as & more simple and coarcive form of process to collec! their debts, than that afforded by the ordiasry and more legitimate course of iaw. they: thn has friends, or his family connectio: possess any pecuniary resources, and aboy all, if from bie or position in apatural abrinking delicacy is feit st the ordeal and exposure of a public trial, however wa- merited, the device is often succesafal, and the amount of the debt claimed, or the greater part of it, secured. It, on the contrary, the unfortunate a3cused, in addition to his other evils, has no wea!- thy triends or connections, he is b-ought into court. The reckless prosecutor, actuated by malica and perverse morality, and operated on by the fears of faivre subjecting him to an action for malicione prosecution, awears with a bold and hardened front toe case within the statuts, and an ionozent man is thus too often subjected to tne punishment dus alore to the guilty. Tt is to be lamented that m frequently jive the drift of such prosecntiona— that with the best and purest intentions they lend themselves unwittingly to the iniquity, which if they perceived they would be the firs: to frowa down, and that facilities sre given for the settle- mext of such cases by stopping them at the precise ‘ates do not more point where the Band cand of the prove -ntor sub- terves the only intention contemplated by tha com- pleint. The law ia thos abused, the magistrate doped, snd the iniquitous complainant rewarded. Dormg my experience ass police magistrate, I always scrutinized there cases with pecuiiar care, #n attention which my previous "profersional ex- perience, indicatingito me strongly the motives in which such prosecutions were gonerslly founded, exacted at hacds. While presiding s! the Jefferson market Police Court | rarely found it necessary, cut of the numerous cages preseated to Ine, to send the complaints before the Grand Jury. The instigating motives which governed nearly the whole class of there cases, I invariably found to be the desire of collecting the deb:, aid:d by a great facility of copscience ands pretence falser than oe oh oye nie Matra of the dignity and integrity of public jastice never seemed to mingle with these considerations. ae It way well seem strange that among the riniti- tudinous Jawa and amendments to jaws enacted at every eession of oar Legisiature, none has been in- troduced to correct the well recognized evils flow! from the abuse of this statnte, by putting the a!- leged false pretence, at all events, on sane footing sa the revival of a debt barred by the sta- tate of limitations, by requiring proof of the pre- ten.e as of the promise Ro par to be in writing. ‘This simple sinendment would put itout of the power of perjary or of misrepresentation to convict an inno- cent individual. Certes, the libarty and repntation of the citizens, when attacked in # criminel coart, is ped a avteetin as his aa gd a claim whicl aw presumes ¢ lapae 0 ume. If this amendment was od wo the eta tute, our criminal courts would have but littls of there cases of fulae pretences. Several of our most astute District Attorneys have deplored the evils of this law unavailingly. When | discharged the fnactions of police mazis trate, I very often found these cases presented so shortly previous to the closing of the office, that the issuing of 2 warrant would ensure the incarce- ration of tho gccused without bail on heariug, the epiire might. To efiect this was the object of the parties presenting the complawt, who placed great confidences in the salntary result to be derived from the fear and reflections of the prisoner in bis solitary celh daring the long blank hours of the nigbt, as tending towards a settlement. I however invariably gave directions to the ofIcer holding the warrant to execute it only at such time as ti p.isoner could be forthwith brought before niegistrate, and examined or bailed, and I always haa occasion to felicitate myself that the exerciss of this caution had saved an innocent person from suffering and inconvenience. Another of cases by which a large amount of unnecessary svfferiog is inflicted on the poor and ignorant, is thet of aasaulta and batteries. A large rtion of the time of our crim'nal courts is useless fy oceapled with those cases. Tao.great majority of them sre utterly unworthy of the attention bo- stowed upon them, aod sre so found when present ed to our courte— 8 amall fine or an immediate dis charge being the ordinary resuit. Nevertheless ths individoals ‘mplicated, and who generally belong to thet clase whoee time is their sole capital for the inded to be subjected to the opera laws, as to pee our public instiintions filled to repletion with a class of offeaders the laws of morality who wero uever ‘ed to be the zociplente etiber. of; the’ henelite of 6t: she discipline of those institutions. The of daties now imposed by the preht- variety bitory liquor Jaw on the present incambexts of the police bench renders their duties exeeetnaiy eLerous, aud sug; that a provision of foree oi one ma: to each city court must speedily be made. It would bz here ou’ of place tad suosher’ tn the Goes teisoen tae 16 3 - vered theroon. The bearing! of its intended yo Mey on the happines and interests of so ciety is obvious, but whether that policy can’ be promoted by such means, or waether i is jadiciona for Jogisletion thus to war with one of. the great recogrized peeeions of the humen mind, when all the beneficial objects to be derived from it can be attaired by a simple municipal regulatis imposing a sufficicut license charge, cud tnexorably exacting the yenaity of tts abssnce--is a question which J think the pievent working of tne law hag sofficiently answered. The presen’ law operates urequally, by allowing the fortunate classes of so- ciety the means of indulgenca in their own houses, de by circumstaues to thelr poorer bi which thas tende to foster the growing antagonism between the two classes. Jtis snfliciext for tae par- pores of this article to vay that the iaw, by cr a large and new class of pudiic offenesa, haa made additionel vequisitions on the know)zdge, sagacity and ¢fligiency of the magistrate, who is catled upoa by the law to pars on the many Important sad com- plicated questions which it presents, The absuid Jaw ageinst sedoctie:—esbsurd, be- cavze it is impracticable, aud ela» for the reason that it is impossible for che law to award the pen- alty on, ro aa to discover the guuty and seducing patty~ is one also requiring the utinort vigilance on the Part of the magistrate, leat his homaaity and hia better foe'ings should lead him, uadssigu to aid an axtfo) wanton to securiag 2 husband by the meacs of ber vicions indiscretion. It ie well recog: nized that nearly a!! these complaiuts ars made by depraved and vicious women, to eadeavor to pro- cure a hueband in tne man they bave previously led eriray. ik law of the many important aid compligated questions dai'y presented to a magistrate, it may be usefully enggested that the office of a police ma- gistrate, at n'l events in large cities, shouid be con- Sided to the bands aloae of legal praciitioners. It is idle to object that this would be lin‘ting the choice, or conferring a peculiar advauiage om & class. These exe always arguments used by politicians, not to eplighten, bus to vlind the pablic. it the peo- ple have a veated interest in the due oad prope ad- wainistration of justice, it ts worto their while to confide it to the most capabie hands. If aman de- siren t> suit bimself with any ons srticls of pleasure, convenience, or cf use, he applies far it to the ro. mort calculated, by his previous pursaiis and te in tho game employment, to afford ic. Can it be said that magistrates 101m the only exveption to a gene- ral rule, and that tne mere factor the iaduction in- to cftice can instantiy coafer on the person all the requisitg legal qualifications to perform its duties, however otbetw se worthy end reanectzble he may be? that 2 man whose previous een, in life have deen altogether opposite, can be fitted, at a mo- ment’s werning, w decide on critical qosations of Jaw, in which net only sho public interests, but the {immediate reputation a2d welfare oi indiidoale and of whole families sre coucerned—to tel) where moral frand ends and where pablic crim: begina, and 10 prepare, in the great laboratory of primary arrest, and examination, the machixery by whi publicjas- tice is to be eventually enforced or vindicated im our crimina! courts/-—the mere supposition is au abeurd- ity. Nor can it with juetice be said that this pe conferring an invidious privilege on an already too favyoréd class. As a profession, tho jaw has seldom crowned ite votaties with fortose, while ‘here is no otber calling or profeasion in car coun- try which makes equal exactions, both of head and of heart, upoa its devowos. Ags a body. it must be admitted to be both an honorable and a learned one—the only conservative order im our republic which, amid the clash of contanding po- Teles! parties, ready to rend the State for their awa peculiar advantages, has always bo'dly and waal- erably stood by the altar of pu tic order, law, and the conetituti:n. Our crimins] law of evidence presenta sn smomaly derived from the barbarism of ancisné precedent, which ought to be amended. It is that of closing the lips of the accused, while the prosecutor, az equal party in interest, ia allowed to gire his testi- mony. How wapy inoocent mon beve suffered by the working of this rule, where there have bean no witnesses to a transaction, the whole circumetarees of which sre known alone to the prosecutor and the defendant? The first tella bis story, the law kesps the lips of the Jast sealed. This should bo changed. rag pees at his own election soleiy, onght to be sliowed to take the witness’ stand a 14 relate his own versicn of the transaction, subject, of course, to the same rules of cross-examinstion a¢ any other witners. The Court and jury would tien be enabled to understand snd to arzive at @ jost conclusion ae to the statemert of facta presented by both parties. If in the Heh Reston Pati Thave cailed public attention to & single idea that may hereafter pro- mote, in the slightest degree, the geacral interest, 1 whl have receavea more tian my reward. Danrsu W. Crarz, Police Justies, The Steamboat Collision on the Ohte River— Loss of Life, [From the Cinctunati Inquirer, August 1.) It is our painful province to record one of the mest feartn) catestropbes that han occarre} upos the Ohio river for som time past, the particulars of which, ae we have learned them, are at foilowe:— On Monday evening, ata little after § o'closk, as the steamer Telegraph No. 3 was coming up under full haad- fniiama side of the river, when oppoute Sugar creek, about (bree miles abore Warsaw, Kentucky, she earme into collision with the steamer Kentueay Home, commanded by go Keed, bound from Pittal is iking the latter with her bow about with such force that the ths] n@ then it takes e rack s helpless were litte hivered, and in lens to chronicle the fearful disas r, wreck, Fortunately the passenger on tht few to number; but the consterns’ Cescribable, ‘The unfortunate sunk so rapid thet but little time was givem to contemplate the i> ful fate which scemed almost inevitable, amd the doomed dont enrged heavily down, leaving those wzo were but & moment before buoyant win life aed ybope, straggling vponl ihe dar. waters, In en incredible short time, however, the beats of the Telegraph were lowered, and in almo+t a miraculous menner all the passengers were reecued, eusoug them a mother with four of her children, she herself with the desperation of despair to’ some of the . hed iteelf from the wree%, while her off: # by clasping her nesk, arma loihing. When taken inio the ho«t oll were exhausted, and “another minute would have eufficed to have loosened their death gratp, aed overwhelmed them in eternity. It is certain that but four who were sbosrd ef the Doat were Jost--three deck Lands (who rere at the time of the collirion iu sorting freight) and a fire- man. About $1,000 in money, left im the drawor of the clerk’s offics, ws also lost. The Telegraph wae reanded to immediately after she got clear of the wreck, and in all probability {tis owing to Lg) serra exertion: of her officers that the lose of life war se: much more fearful. Divers ramore ere afloat aa to the csuse of the coili- sion. Hoth parties, we understand, blame each ether, As, however, the melancholy affair wil dourtiens be fa. Pa, hae we abstain from meationing the ramers we have heard. Jt seems certain, however, that the whistle of the aed was blown twice, and that, also, the whietle of the Rentucky Home waa blown, the wind, it was not heard aboard of the About an hour after the catastrophe a meet pasrengers of the Telegraph was held on board of vessel, ab which & vote of thanks was awarded to the nd crew for their pt action ip saving the lives of those belonging to the sunken boat, and, at the same time, $45 in money waa aubserited, aod a tender {clothing made to those who were left destitate by the Cirmeter The Kentucky ome belonged to Merars. Reed & Met- €n, of Pittsburg. Phe was @ pew stsrn-wheel beat, hundred and fitty feet in length, an w, ly to ply between this port and Louis Yow water season. She ts said to have ¢ wee inpured im Louleyiile for $12,000 one of the owners, and who usually o s tea an chic! clerk, is now lying vick nt the Spencer House, out this time last year m urning, at the New Kich stesmer Forester, of which, we be! owner, ‘The collision took place about three-quarters of @ mile below the mouth of Sugar Creek. The Kentucky Home Tossing at the time. We also learn that after the reat portion of the cabin and barricane ken boat waa precipiteted upon the bow and forward deck of the Telegraph, which enrbled near- ly all the paceengers to reach the latter boat by t but comparatively {ow persons, and thone deck Reed, 3 2 lending, of the ve, be was thesole accenpers, were immersed im the water, and to this fortanate circumstance may be attributed the small loan of Life. be time of the accitent it was piteh dark, the mo t having ricon. It iv said that the Kentucky Home made the crossing higher up the river shan ibe re; place, and benee ihe melnacholy cq: tarteophe e