The New York Herald Newspaper, March 8, 1856, Page 2

Et abe. Sapertor Court—Part Second. Be’ ore Hom. Judge Sloason. _ gREAT MERCANTILE SUT Wine Te man os, Marshall O. Roberts.—This ix an ac tion to gover about $10,000, which piaimttff alleges to have ost in the vale of the steamboat Columbus, through mt formation, or wilhbolding cf information by the de- ‘gndant. The plaicti owned six-twentieths of the Co- ambos, which was employed im wading and carrying passengers on the Pacilic Oeean, The defendant was agent for her owners, aud, it is alleged, withheld from plaintiff « correst statement of her earnings, which in- duced ths plaintiff to pars with hus interavt in her for 922,000, and his sbare of ber earnings for $13,000, which was ccusidersbly below its value, it buing alleged that George Law and others, who assumed to be owners of the vessel, bad, prior to .be plaintiff having parted with his ebare ot her, agreed to reli her for $120,000, ‘The case occupied the Court over two weeks. The tes- ‘ttmony was voluminous. Counsel for defendant moved ‘ozs non suit. Judge Slosson granted the motion. Sisson, Justice—This action can only be treated as an ection at law, for the recovery of unliquidated damages, fer an alleged traud practised by the defendant upon the plaintiff, in the purchase by the former of the latter’s imterest—irst, in the profits, and second, im the ship it- self. The two subjects, though forming part of the same transaction, are still distinct. They are treated ay dis- tinct by the plaintiff in his complaint; they were the subjects of distinet transfers, though contemporaneous in @ete, and are subject, fn some respects, to the applisa- cation of different rules or prinesples of law. | The founds- tion of the fraud, ana of the action itself, is aid by the plaintiffin the relation which subsisted between the par- ues at the time of the purenase, ard which is alleged, on the part of the plaintiff, to have been of that strictly fidu- edary character which imposed on the cefendant the ob- Igation not only act to conceal from or misrepresent to ‘hus principal, the plaintiff, the cordition and state of the ship’ accounts and earaings, or any fact connested with her, which could have a tendency to affect her value, Dui’ to actually divcloss all such matters, go that, in » trea'y of purchase betweaa them, the ‘latter shou'd stand, in respect to knowledge snd information, the shoer of the former. There is no dis pute, and can be none, as to the extent of this obligation of cisclosure and good faith where the exist- ence of the confidertisl relauon is once established; dut to maintain an action at law for a fraudulent impo- sition in the matter of » purchase or gale, it is not neces- sary that «uch a confidential relation batween the per- ties should be established. It will be sgainst a party who wos previously a mere stranger if by false rapresen- tations he L.duces the plaintiff to bay or sell te himself ‘or to avother, and that even where the plainiit affirms the dar (Paisley vs. Freeman, 3 T. R., Whit- ney 554.) The importaace of excad- Eshirg ciary relation consists in the presump: tion wh woere an advantage has been gaine: of f.aud on the pert of the person sustaining the rel tion. But this piesuwotion, acd the consequea’ ing of the burtsen of proof, does not arise xt law, and cau only be avuiled of by the ivjnred party by resort to the equitable jurisdiction ef the court. Stillam not g to Say Chat even at law ‘he establishment of this m does not give to the pleiatiff the benefit of a rule of o*ligation as to disclosure on the part of the cefsocant than would othe: wise exist, and waich ‘would let in evidence of concealment or suppression, as well se <{cireet and positive false aesertions; and such, for 1.3 purposes of this motion. I shall consider the law te be, But beyona this, the plaintiff in this action de- vives ro venetit trom the existence of shis confidential relation, he Court may be content witn a less amount of positive proof, or may acmit a wider range of proof, aa to the charecter of the fraud, as by pormittiog con- ceaiment and suppression vo be shown, but the plaintit is still obliged to prove the ‘fraud af- firmatively, and be cen only recover such damages 2s ho can satisfy the jury he has actually sustained. The care {i widely differen where a bill is filed in equity, to avoid a» unconecientious bargain made by a party standing ir a fiduciary relstion to the plaintiff. In such az action the plamiff may rest his case on proot of the relation itself and the bargain and advantage gained. Frand on the part of the cefendant is at once presumed, from the relation-hip of the parties, which it never is at Jaw, (8 Cowen, 370) The burthen is then thrown on ‘the defendant to sustain the transac:ion, by proof of good faith end tull disclosure on his part. Moreover, the re- Hef is different, In ‘he action at law, damages only can be given—the action sounds in damages—it is in ia na- ture az action for a tori—but in the suic in equity the court sts aside the sale itself, and if ty the intervention of third parties, the subject of tne sale is removed beyond its equi abie control, it will make compensation to the plaintiff, and as far as possible, restore him to his original hts. Were the prevent action a suit of this nature, this court acting as « Court of Equity, and without the imtervention «fa jury, woulo, upon prout of the fiduciary relation, and proot ‘ot larger profits realized by the de- fendant’ than the amount which he paid the plaintiff, at ‘ouce put it to the cetendant’s conscience to explain and elear up the transaction by proof on his part that be had acted with the very bost faith towards the plaintiff, and not only di. not eorceal from. but fully ¢isclosed to him everything that he himself krew in regard to the amount or probabilities of profits, as well as ail that affected the vaing of the vessel, so that they actually dealt on equal terms; and it he failed in this, then it any question exist- ed as to the actual ame unt of superior profits realized by ‘the defendant, it would ordera re‘eree, and when the amount was ascertained, would rescind the sale, or which is the same thing, would give the excess to the plaintiff. ‘This is what a jury could never do (ut least could not do unlese under special mstructions as to the rule of damages), for the cifference between the amount relized by him on the purchase of the profits, can cnly be given on the ‘theory of a rescission of the contract itself, whereas the jury bave only to deal with the question of usliqnidated damages, on the basis ot not disturbing the contract, bu: compenrating the plaintiff for what he hes actualiy snffered by the fraud established by the fact of the bar- gain. The plaintiff im the present instance, instead of anuing for camages as such, has claimed the exact dit- ference between the amount given and the amount al- Jeged to have been realtved by the defendant, on the pur- ebare from him of both subjects, (the vessel and the profits, ) without arking that the vale may be set aside, and in this respect, as well ax perhaps in some others, the distincticn between the legal and equitable character ef the remedy seems to have beer confounded, and this has given rise to some embarrassment in the progress of the trial; but I do not consider this circumstance as ebanging the character of the action, or converting it into one of an equitable nature. If it was the latter, this is clearly not the tribunal before which to try it.’ The claim may be amended so as to make it one for da:nages generally, without affecting the nature of the ac ion it welt. I have been thus particular in explaining my views of the nature of thie acticn, as it is important in deter- mining the present motion to have correct apprehensions ‘on that subject. The more eppropriste remedy in this ease, would have been an ction in the nature of a pill in equity to ret aside the sule an. for compensation; but as the piaintrff he seen fit to bring bis case before @ jury, whiek be bas the right to do, he must stand or fall by hia action as an action at law. As such, it i ao action in the nature of an action in the case, founded upcn the ceceit or fraudulent ispovition of the ce endant, and the question now presented is, wuether the plaintiff has made such afirmative proof of the alledged fraudulent representations by the defendant, or the alloged fraudu Jent concealment by iim of matters material to be known to the plaintil!. as affecting the sale in question, as witl Pinot me in withdrawing the case ‘rom the jury; and wm determining the question i shall be governed by the only test of such a motion, to wit:—Whether a verdict could be sustained mpon the evidences as it stands. It is of the last importance in determining the effect of this evicence to advert to the rules which govern the proo’ im actions of this nature. And firet, as has already been stated, the fraud must be affirmatively proved. If iz consists Jn false affirmations, the affirmations must be proved, and their fnisity; and it must be shown that the defendant knew them to be false; for if he acted in good faith and ignorantly himself, there is no deceit practised. Whether tke evidence amounts to proof of such know- ledge must of course be left to the jury, i! the case is in other respects proper to go tothem. If the fraud con- sists of the supprestion of facts, the existence of the facts must be shown, and the defendant’s knowledge o! , some affirmative evivence of the defendant's concealment of those facts trom the plaintiff. in, the plaintiff must give such aflirmative evidenee of facts a4 will justify the jury in believing that the defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff, and, further, he must show that he wax actually deceived. If the plaintiff knew that the representations were false, and made the bargain with his eyes open, he has no redress. So if he had the means of ascertaining the truth and might have dome #0, but neglected to do it, he cannot recover. Last- ly, he must show actual damage resulting from the mis representation. When all these elements unite, and a prima facie case 1s made, it is one proper for the jury. To test the evidence by these rules. First os to the profits, Tbe allegation in, that by the defendant’s mix representation and concealment in respect to ihe accounts the plaintiff was induced to rel! hiv share of the earnings for $13,000, when in fact it was worth $27,000. For preot that there was this difference, the plaintiff relies on statement furnished by defendaat to Charlick to make ap the accounts (P), and Charlick’s account itself (C.) and for proof ot the misrepresentations and concealment he relies on the ‘ofendant’s letters to the plaintiff. The defendant, in this action at law, has the presump- tion of good faith in his favor to start “vith, and the ques- tion is, whether the proof ex it stands would jastafy the gory in finding that the piaintiff was in ‘act deceived into ‘this sale by actual false reprecentations of the detendant, @ concealment on his part made by him with knowle% of their falsity and with intent to entrap the plaintiff, and the tru hi or faleity of which the pluinti’ had no op- portanity of determining before he sold to the | % ‘As to the accounts made up in vhe fall of 1851 by it is conceded that they show the profits of the have been....... $94,059 78 Or deducting the two items spoken by Charltok.... 0.0.0... 500400046 $6,000 00 8,000 00—89,000 00 V6the would be $28,516, heing an excess of $12,516 over what he actually received from Roverts, As the principal receipts were daring the three first voyager, and probably entirely received in New ‘Vor! ittances having been made to Roberta, on ac- count of the four ships on the Pacific side, by Coaclick, and pry voyages al’ terminated in 1850 it may further be conceded tha* these profits were principa \y, if not wholly made before February, 1861. As to the correspondence Detween the parties, it consists almoa. entirely of com- plaints on the part of the plaintiff, amd calls for acsounts with requests for permission to draw, and of allegations that according to advices had from Capt. Peck, the defendant bad large balan» in his hands; and on the it’s part, of asruranoss that from want of data whereby to make up the accounta he could not dever- nine whether anything was due the plaintiff, and expres- wiona of belief that the plaintiff received all he was entitled to, “hese letters cover a period of an entire year, during which the de’endant paid the plaintiff ou aecoun: of nenumed profits $12,000, and in one letter, that of May 29, 1860, furnished » statement of the receipts and some disbursements of the first voyage. Now, though it be eonceded that the accounts as made up by Charlick in the full of 1801, thow cheamourt of net profits to bee, wbove | bie, In cvder to show how tue this is, I reler stated, it by no means flows, por would We jury in | Robert’s te'ter to the inference on the | my opinion be justitied in éra evicence, that te defendant knew that such profits had deen wade at sny one period of time defure he civsed with the plaintif in February, 1851. The tenor of de- fendant’s whole correspondence is one of complaint ot want of youcbers to give lum reliable information. (m connec- ton with these letters of plaintitt and de‘endant mast be taken the correspsoderce of Roberts with Chariick. Ro- berts complains to Charlick as late as January 10, 1851, in @ letter of that date, that be could get n> accouat from the elerks on the Pacific side,and though the steam: bad been nee ret, Secu ae mecaay ons single ¥ not yet got a pe: pen rat perfect set of vouchers from @ one of the steamers. then adverts to tis receipt rich’s . of Siebursementa at San Francisco, w are in proper form excep the Desi Pyaar what relates to the elerk’s business on the several skips, snd he begs Charlick to try and put the matter straight with the clerks. He then states that he had Obsrfick’s account current of third voyage of Columbus, but hed not got the requisite returns from the clerk of the ship, and requesis him to see that they come on with the otbers, He tnen states that he had received Captain Peck’s aecounts, and concludes hie setter by saying, ‘1 can easily close the first two voyages of the Columbus ea toon as | can get an account of #uyb of ber tickets issued by me as were used on the other ships.” There is nothing to impeach the gocd faith of this letter. d was written not to plaintiff but to a stranger, and carries conviction cn its face, unless we sup] it to be s part of a scheme, in conspiracy with Charlick, to ceosive the plaintiff, which is incredible, The caly Sap, letters of Reberts to Charlick are subsequent t> one of January 25 ard February 10, in neitrer of which does he ypeat of having received adéitional accounts, though he refers to some letters received from Charlick. His letter to Heit- man, ot August 21, 1850, is very significant. He refers to Captain Peek, the’ captain of the Columbus, and says, ‘that be bas nothing irom him that beara the resem- blance of en account, though he had so long and often urged him to close the busitess of each voyage, and send the accounts to him as speedily as possible—that he had not sent him a eingle way bill, pay roll, or vouener of apy kind.” Ivis manifest, om these letters and others, that down to February, '1851, Roberta had not, or sup- poeed he had not, the necessary vouchers to make up his In the letter of August 21 he states that b he had advanced 274.500, * n the receipts of all the rteainers on thi Is there anything sericusly to impugn the trath of these statements? The figuring up of the aczounts in the subsequent fall, shows indeed a favorable balance to Roberts; but that may be, and yet Roberts have been ut- terly unabie to have stated an account before that date, and his large advances may weil have induced him to beiieve that there was anytbing more due the associates than they had already received. But this is not all. The Panama accounts were never in ‘act gotin, till the fall ot 1851, and then it toox two or three months to make them out, Charlick had no certain in‘ormation in respect to these accounts unt his return to New York in the summer of that year. How important this ac- count was is evident from the fact that the balance against the Columbus at that place turned out to be $06,969. True, even with this amount deducted, as is now shown, there was # larger amount of profits earned than plaintiff received; but this is shown by figuring from cata which Roberts never had in bis posseasion prior to the purchase ot riff, and is only ascertained in the light of ali the accounts, fully made up by parties coaversant with them, long after the four ships, of which the Columbus was one, bad ceased to run as @ distinct line, anc when the disbursement had all been ascertained. ‘Toat these disburrements couid uot have been known to Reperts at the time of his purchase, or at least that there is a strong probability that they were not so known, ‘will appear from a mere inspection of the accounts ren: dered to Chariick by Roberis himeelf, Thus there was received on the first voyage in February, 1851, say $53,617, but the disbursements chargeacle ugaiast those receipts covered a pericd of trom February, 18£0, down to August 20 of that year, and there are ‘two additional items against those receipts, one of December 1, 185@, and the other of March 1, 1851. So on the second voyage there was received in March, 1850, $43,950, and an item credited to same voyage under date November 30, 1850, of $300, and the disburse ments chargable egainst it cover a pericd down to No- vember, 1860. On the third voyage there was received in April, 1850, $40,975. The disbursements agaiust it ran from April the 3a cown to December 21, of that year. It appears, therefore, on the very fuce of this account, Shad the Alincsonsniiia property shargeatis agnials aack yoyage ran through a period ot several months succeed- ing that in which the passage and freight moneys of the trip were received by Roberts; and therefore until ailthe accounts of Cisbursements were in and apportioned among the different voyages, it was impossible for him to state what the prcfits of that voysge were: so that dur- ing the whole of 1860 there was no period during which, uncer the evidence, he could have stated an account with any Ween Yet it is on the basis of this state- ment that plxintill re ies to show the defendant in yoeses- sion cf thee large suis of money and of the large balances, which together constitute the profits, the excess of which over the umount at which be purchased he claims, raises the presumption of fraud. How is it possible to say, on the lace of this account, that Roberts could at any time, before it wes actaally made up, bave stated the amount cue to plaintiff? But sgain—the coal aud provisions far- Lithed tre ship at Panama were charged vy the quantity ana without prices, and these prices were not ascer- tained until they were fixed py Charlict when be made up the final account in the fali of 1851. I might pass over the fact that the very basis on which the accounts were to be up was not fixed until the fs] of 1851, Roberts clalmmg that the losses on ctazters should be charged against the ships, aud Char- lick cleicing the contrary. I express no opinion on the propriety of this claim; it is enough that ft was an open question, at least in the fall of 1861, avd asit would bave consumed nearly all the profits if allowed, as Ro- berts clatmed it should be, and was, in the teetn of Ro- berts’ interest, there seems no reason to doubt his sin- cerity; but as there is uo evidence that the idea was en- tertainec as early as February, 1851, unless it is fore- skacowed in a letter to plaintiff of 29th of May, 2850. I pase it over as not influcneing my opinion. Sut, laying this out of view, and assuming that the vessels were enly to be charged with the freight of the coal, ine amount of this charge was not aciuaily fixed by Charlick until the 20th of January, 1861, as he states on his examination, and,therefore could not possibly have been known to Ro- derts as early ws 13th February. 1 certainly cannot, in the calm review of this evidence, believe that a verdic: which should find that Roberts was acquainted with tae ‘true state of the accounts of the Columbus prior to this purchaee, or that he was able to have stated @ correc! account in respect thereto, or that in what he wrote to Heilman. be intentionally or knowirgly misled hima, and uttered falsehoods, or concealed information of which he was himself possessed, could be sustained. Bat the in- quiry wust not stop bere. Was the plaintiff wholly de- pencent on Roberts for his information’ Had he no means or sources of information himself? Was he actual- iy ignorant in all respects of the condition of the ac- counts? Was he actually misled by the alleged silence ot Roberts, or by ihe statements in his jetter? These are questions which must be answered affirmatively, or at lesst to the extent of making a prima facie case before the case can go tothe jury. Captain Peck appears to have been in continual correspondence with the paintiff; as Captain of the Columbus he mast bave known trom the number of passergers, or approximately so, the amount of passage moneys received by Roverts ia New York. He kept account of receipts and debits on Columous, and had access to all the accounts and matters concerning the ship at San Francisco. It was this same person of whom Roberts wrote to Hellman in August, Ts50, that Che could not get a scrap of an account from him,” before sdverted to. The letters from Hetlman to Roberts of the 2ith of May, 27th of June, 19th of August, 20th of Angust, and 10th of December, all show that plaintiff was kept apprised by Peck, if not of the accurate condition of the accounts, at least of what Peck, with all his opportunities ot knowledge, supposed to be accurate, and we find plain- tiff disputing with defendant on the very subject of the accounts, and calling bis attention to the differences be- tween his statements and those of Peck. Heilman’s letter to Roberts, id Februsry, 1851, only ten deys before the sale to the latter, is still more significant; it was the last of the series, and in it he says: “Captain Peck has sent me bis accounts from the ship every voyage, which he could not do unless ke had his accounts compared with the different agents.” With this conflict of views, aad with this information from Peck, in which he seams to place implicit confidence, he comes to New York, and an interval of ten days ensues, Not a particle of evidence is offered as to what passed in this interval. No proof of any negotiations for a purchase—no evidence of anything having been aid by way of explanation or otherwise on part of the cefendant. The plaintiff was here where the books were kept, and at the very headqnarters of: formation. He was here, too, with his mind thoroughly impressed with the opinion ‘hat Roberts was cndeavoriog to deceive and defraud him. He was not in # conaition of mind to trust, or even believe him; snd yet on the 13th we find him executing a transfer of his interest in the profits to Roberts, (for the contideration, in fact, of the $1,000 already paid;) and the Court is now asked to put it to the jury whether it is not a reasonable pre sumption that he was misled end begailed by the letters and silence of Roberts prior to the Sd of Pebruary; that (notwithstanding ail his suspicions and ali his assertions that Roberts’ conduct was inexcusable, and notwith- standing all that Peck hed told him,) he still trusted oad believea in hia statements, and in unsuspicious confi- dence was betrayed into selling his interest at a sacrifice. There was nothing to hinder bim from compelling\Ro- berts, by legal proceevings, 10 reveal the accounta, if he was dissatisfied. This course was open to him, but he did not avail himself of it. If there bad been proof of false assertions during the ten days, the case might have been different; but there is none. If he allowed himself to be deceived, it was witn his eyes wide open. jt of the action of deceit, says Starkie, ‘ia that plaintif ‘was imposed uyon by the frand of the defendant. If, therefore, itappear that plaintiff was aware of the falsity of the representations, or made the cmtrast with his eyer open to the defect, he is remediless. Nay, farther, it he had the full means of detecting the fraad nnd ascer- taining the truth, and reglected to inform himeeif of it when he might easily have done s>, or even if he placed ® blind and wilful confidence in a reyresenta- ticn which was not calculated to impose upon @ man of ordinary prudence and circumapection, it seems that an action of deceit cannot be supported; for al- though the plaintiff in these cases may, in point of fact, have been deceived, yet it was a consequence of his own folly that he was #0 deirauded. A seller is unyvestions- bly liable to an action of deceit if he fraudulently mis- represented the quality of the thing sold to be other than it {in some particulars, which the buyer has not equal means with himself of knowing, or if he do so in such @ manner a« to induce the buyer to forbear making inquiries, which for his own security and advantage he would otherwise have made.”"—(Iord Ellenborongh in Vernon vs. Keyan, 12 Fast, 631.) The character of the correspondence between these partion is one rather of antogonism than of cunsing representations on the ene side, and blind confidence on the other. The plaintiff continually asverts that from reliable data furnished him by Peck, the defendant must have large sume in his handa, and calis for an accow: nd permission to draw, on the aseumption that considerable amonate were due to him for profits. The defendan', on the contracy, as- vorts that he is under immense advances; that he ‘bas not got accounts from other quarters; that he cannot get them frem Peck; that he does not Selieve that plain tiff ia entitied to anything beyond what he hes already ved, as faras be can make it out, and promises to out the acsount of the Colam! an ae oon a9 ponsi- 4 gle | NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, MARCH 8, 1856. to Heilman, Apgust 21, a+ le in thie be denies thst ne bad recdved $156 000 a: bed eseerted. All tha: had been, in fact, thst time by Roberts in New York, ‘was $139,842, an all that was received on all five Mya was only $142,006, If this letver speaks the truth, and there is any teutn in the accounts as tivally made up, Roberts, on the 2lst ot Avgust, was in sdvance $274,400, as he says in tus let ter, and thengh this was not allchargeable to the Colum bos, it was not then known how it ought to be appor- tioned precisely among ibe four veesele; for the Columbus alove he was then in edvanee $42,000, or thereabouts and under these circumstances, with no accounte from Panama, scd imperfect ones from San Francisco, and pone from = = pooped wal write to pila! oo oat ere was nothing, opinion, coming to him beyon Jo has alzerty received. But the ‘potiticn ci the parties is one of antagonism, or dispute as to the . cy of each other, the oze asserting and r find- ing fault; the other cenying, explaining, and endeavoriog to conv’ After all tbia, they come together. No evi- dence throws ight on the They deal 10 ther reo; how long ¢o@ not appear. at was Sid on either sice—what information communicated cr withholder—whst explanation) arked or given, no one but themselves know. The result is all we know, to wit : that Heilman selle out to Roberts all bis claim for past profits, and the Court is now ajked to overlook this per- sca) cealing with each otver, §nd the ten days during which, or some of which, they ted, ard to take up this correspondence of a pripr date, and submit the case to the jury as one of wilfuland fraudulent euppres- sion, concealment and misrepregentaticn on one side, and of bind, trusting confidence on the othe:—confidense ac tually betrayed, and without ue means or opportunity of detection on the part of the victim. 1 cannot believe that a verdict which eneuld fied the affirmative of this would be justined ty the evidence. As to tne vessel, tiff relies on the lester of the 3d of February, 1851. conriders it as m letter dgsignedly written to dis- courage plaintiff as to the prospects of the Columbus, and to mitiead him as to the value bf bis interest io yes- se), and to induce him to sell. The a:legation is, that at this very time the defendant, with other owners, had. unknown to plaintiff, agreed toell the vessel to Howland & Aspinwall for $120,000; and that, to carry out said agreement, it became necessary that the plaintiff's in- ‘terest should be secured, and that the defendant fraudu- lently concealing the it and price cf vessel frcm plaintiff, and with the design to impose upon him by making bim believe that the value of bis imterest had eh, bes taser offered to buy his interest at $22, st plaintiff, having no means of determining the truth of the statements ot de- ferdant, and having confidence in the defendant, did sell his interest to him for that amount, The relation in which Roberts stood to plaintiff as ship’s hustand was, in respect to the earnirgs of the vessel, undoubtedly one of ccnfidence. Iam strcngly inclined to doubt whether that fiduciary relation extended to the vessel itself. Roberta reems to have had no other management of these four vesses than the selling of tickets, procuring of freights, farnisbing supplies, and advising'as to times of running, in all which it is scarcely possivie to ruppowe he ucted without the co-operation of Mr. Law. Hia agency as to these vessels resulted as aconsequence and neces- sary part of his position as Treasurer and Agent of the United States Mail Steamship Company, waich ran io connection with these steamers. Even if, however, the fiduciary relation did not extend to the vessel, still he c.uld not bave dealt with cefendant in respect to hiv sbare, to the disadvantage of the latter, by availing him- self of the knowledge which he might have acquired his capacity of ship’s husband. Sustaining an unq' tionable reiatioa cf confidence in that character to the plaintiff, he cozld not svail himself of the advantages which it guvehim to obtain a pargain out of the deien- dant, even in reapect to the vessel. The two subjects are so iar connected as to render the application ot the rule to ‘hat extent proper. Nov, the case certainly presents this feature, tha; there is ne evidence to show this Roberts in any connection ne is proved to have had with the transier and sale cf the Columbus to the Pacific Mail Steamehip Company, was acting in any other capacity than as a member of tne Buard of Directors of the United States Mail Steamship Company, and asa joint owner in the ship itself. Yet it cannot ve dented that the knowledge which, as ship’s husband, he had ac- quired of the earnings ot the vessel and her snccess, may have had a very material influence on his mind, in determining him whether to accede to the prop ed ar- rargement or not. That he was opposed to this arrange- ment inabundantly proved by Wetmore, but the reason given is rot that it would interfere with the profits ot the Columbus, but would be prejudicial to the interests cf the United Stares Mail steamship Compary. Assam- ing, however, that the confidential relstion did extend in some degree at leant to the vessel itself, or to speak more correctly, that it qualitied and to some exteat re stricted, the otherwise, clear right, which a4 an inde- endant owner of a distinct share in the versel, the de- fer dant would bave had, in the absense of traud, to cea: with the plaintiff as to the purchase of his share on the footing of a stranger; how does the case stand on the evidence, ard, is there enough to go to the jury oa the question ot the victation and abuse of this coutidence by the defendant? That Roberts was acquainted for sever: al weeks before his letter to ceteadant of the 34 of Feb- rusty, with the fact of the pendency of the negotia- tions which reeulted in the sale of the four vesseis, is 1 thick, from ell the evidence quite clear. Indeed, with- out assumir gts, the letter ot the 3d February becomes fteelf uninielligible. Iconcece that the defendant was pound in go:d faith to have suppressed trom Heitaan nothing which he knew in respect to this tranaaccion, and to bave nace no representations which were ‘alse in fact, or calculated to deceive the plaintiff as to the value of his sbare. ls there evidence to show that be did so? The two letters of Koberts to Heilman, next prior to that of February 3d, are un- der cates of January 30 ond December the 24, in neither of which is there any sllusion to this subje:t The letter of the Jd of February, or that portion of it priveipally relied upon by the plainciff, is as follows:— ‘An ycu cesired me to write abcut the prospects of sell- ing your interest of three-tenths in the steamer Columbus when mine was sold, I have now to advise that nothing 8 yet positively rettlea, but Iam very anxious to ge: ria of my interest in the Columbus, as well as the trouole ot running ships on arcu‘e bothen¢s of which are so far from home. The difficulty about the negotiation now is that the parties expect me to come in and make a stock ccneern of it, and to take payment in stock for my inte- rest inthe Columbus. This I would rather not do, if J can avcid it; but, still, may be induced to accept the proporition.’’ Thisis wholly unintelligible, except on the idea thst Heilman was already acquainted with the fact ot the existence of some uation with third parties aoe salayaa te me be | sated eters il very Dg) imphes it. The language of the postscript con- firm: thi :—*The date named tothe parties when the sale should take eff:ct was the L2th of August.’’ What parties? What rale? It is scarcely credible that au ia telligent man would thus communicate, for the first 11. information of so important 6 transastion to a pa‘) having a like interest with himself in the subject of the letter. But suppose this was the first intimation that Heilman had received of the negotiations. It was, be- yend doubt a clear intimation. That it referred to the then pending negotiaticns with the two steamship com- panies, cannot admit of a doubt, for it refers to the most important particular of tbat , negotiation to-wit, the taking stock in payment for the four vessels. When Heilman then dealt with Roberts in person in the interval between the Jd and 13th of February, be did it, eicber with knowledge cf the proposed arrangement, o- with such an intimation in recpect thereto from Roberta put lum cn irquiry. and Jed 10,the very teansaction it. seli, In the posteript Roberts invites him to judge for him- self{—*‘You will suit your own convenience in this ms: ‘+r as I wish to offer no inducements to you to sel! unis you feel it is clearly your interest to dispose of it.”” To ‘say, in the absence of any other evidence, that he made tbe tale in ignorance of this transaction, or without the wesns of knowing it, and through an abuse of his confi. dence, ie going further than I think would be warranted by the proof. Even inequity, the presumption against defencant arising from the confiden‘isl relation would iu my jucgment be consi¢erably weakened by this letter. Uniess we start with the presumption of fraud agains: Roberts, and sean every line and with the eye of suspicion, there is certatnly nothing in this letter, which conveys the idea of am intent to deceive. But it’is con- tenced that the language of this letter was calculated to dishearten plaintiff about the value of his interest. The parts referred toare where the writer speaks of the “trouble ot running ne on a route both ends of which are so far from home.’ It is said this isinconsistent with his idea of bie continuance in the new line, which was to run Bee Eee to San ba Greg Defendant must be judged by his own Janguage. When he speaks of a route both ends of which were so far from home, he could have referred to nothing elee than Law’s jine, embracing the four steamers, one end of which was in San Francisco and the other in Panama. They were in a measure beyond his control, and this expression ot reluctance ia eatire.y consistent with all his previous correspondence. No- do I see sny inconsistency between this and his owaing stock in the new line, which was to be managed nov by himself but by other persons, and in which the prospects of gain without personal trouble to himself were large. But, he says, “I am very anxlous to get rid of my in- terest in the Columbus.” Was not this true? He gives as cne reason the fact, chat, ‘‘as the matter now stands, the beard of direction controlling the ships in the Pa- cific service had determined that the Coumbus should bear her one-fourth part of all the disbursements made for account of the line on that side.” Ie there any proof that this was not true? He approves of this resolution as & fair one, and says, ‘“for these reasons and many others he proj to sell ont.” He then adds: “I thing you about $22,000 for your 3-10ths of the Columbus, clear of all incumbrances; if you are aisposed to aatho- rise me tw sell at tpis price, please let me know imms- diately.” It is argued that here is a suppression of the truth, because it did net say that the company were to be the pnreharers; but this part of the letter must b read with the preceding, in which reference is mude to the pendeney of # negotiation involving the sale ot the defendant's interest, and to Heilman’s request to be 1n- formed as to th prospect of seliing his interest when Roberts's wae sold, and in this light I see no ambiguity in the Janguage; the setter simply tells him that it he will give authority he (Roberts) thinka he can get $22.00 for bis share. It was pertectly immaterial to Beil man who the party was that was to be the purchaser, whether the company. or & stranger, or Roberts him: relf, If he had said, I wili give you that price,”’ there could be no question as to his candor. The fact that Heil man subsequently accepted him as purchaser gives to the letter mn this particular the same meanieg and construc- tion it would have had bad 1t contained chat expression. And on this question of good faith, it must be borne in mind that Roberts sayahecan get $22,000 for plaintiff's three-tenths. ‘' clear of all incumbrances,’’ This isvery significant. What were the incumbrances? The asrigoment of the profits is expressed to be “upon the understand- ing tbat he (Roberts) take the «x-twentieth part of the vessel, subject tothe payment of all existing liabilities ineurred for or on account of the seid vessel in the mapegement and running of her.” This, then, ia wh: Roberts referred to. In other words, Heilman was to get $22,000 in cash, out and out, for his interest in the vea- eel, and Rever's was to toxe whatever risk there mizht be in regard to liabuities on her account. Now, conrider- ing the uncertainty ot the accounts, the complication of the traneactio and the fact mentioned in the letter, that it had jus? been determnined that the Columbus shoud beer ber one-fourth part of all the disbursements made for the account of the four steamers, it certainly ir not an unrearonabie idea that Roberte thought he was giving s 31 price for Hetiman’s interest in the sum of $22,200 cash. divcharged of all habiiity, as Hellmasn’s part. There war then the disproportion alleged to exiet hetween the price given to Heilman and that re- ceivedg by Roberts from the company on the re-rsle? This cepende on the construction to ve given to the sgreemeni for the consolidation of the lines. | Tois agree: ment had heen executed by Roberts at the time he pur- chased of Heilr av, and of course be koew ail sbout it; snd, if it really fixed a cash value, cra value equi in caen to $110,000 on the vessel, he knew it. and bu: that he was giving $22,000 for what was worth $36,009, and if any presumption could be entertaiced that hs did net disclose thie to Hei mmn, then be was gros y doceiv- irg bim. Now, 1t appeare from the agreement, tt the sum of $120.000 was the price agreed upon, only in cave the lors cf the Colambua detore her celivery to the cific Mail Steamebip Company. A value was in monver tet on all the othe: steamers, ay also cn the steamers of the Pacifico Mail 5 esmshio Company, and in case cf loss an abatewent was to be mace to that ex:ent from the amount of stack in which the payment was to be made. [be whole price of the four steam was fixea at $511,000 to be paid for a8 follows:—$100,000 in capital stock of Pecifis Mail Swamship Company, at par, and $411,f00 in stock cf the United States Meil ‘Steamship Oompany, at par. The Pacific Mai) Steamship Company sell on their part to the United States Mail steamship Company their #teamers on the Atlantic, at $800,000, to be paid 10 stock of the latter company at par, snd the payments were to be adjusted between them by the Unired States Mail Steamabip Company paying the $411,000 of its stock, which the Pacific Company owed to Roverts and Law, di- rectly to those parties, and the balance to the Pacific biysatipe’f No money was to be paid exc 4 for the stock of coal and supplies op hand. Aspinwall says tho valua‘ions were not cash valuations, but rela ive merely, and in the way of barter. When, in addition to this, wo take into ccnsicevation all the terms and stipulations ot that contract, scme ot them of a purely contingent char- acter, and the risk of the loss of the vessel, which Roberts aasumed, besides whatever liabilities she might be under, it would certainly be difficult to esy that he had reslizsc $56,000 of casn, equivalent for what he had purchased ot Heilman fr on) ‘$32,000; end I gonfess thet I think that & verdict wh: should find that he had reatized that sum would not be warrented by the evidence. ‘Bhis Ist- ter consideration, were it necessary to dvell upcn it, would form s very serious cbjection to the sustaiuing of this action. The’ plaintiff is entitled to no more damage than he has actualiy sustained. How cana jury possib y estimate this in a compheated contingent case like the prerent? Would it be # prover rule of damage to take the valuation agreed upon, in case of the loss of the value? Trat was vot cash value, but an ar- ditrary relative one. What were the liabilities im respect to the vessel, which the defendant had assumed, and which may have depreciated he: value mm hin hunde? Can it be said that the defendant has realizea $86,000 with the same certainty with which it can be said that he gave $22,000, I: not, can the jury be ivstracted to give the difference as the just compensa ticn tor the injury sustained by the plaintiff? Nay, can it be said with certainty that the pisiotiff bas sustained apy injury at all? But Ido not dwellon this, as I am entirely satisfied on the other grounds that the pisintuf has not made out a case togo to the jury. Tue evidence, anit now stands, does not in my Judgment constitute a suticient prima facte case to go to the jury on the essen. tial points cf mitrepresenta'ioa or concealment on the part of the defendant—giving to the plaintiff the fail benefit of that starderd of obligation im respect to dis closure ensuing frorn the fiduciary relation, waich would be recognized in a Court of equity; nor, even if this wero not so. does it show the plaintiff to have been in that cenition of ignoranse, and want of oppor’unity aud means of investigation on his own part, which would make the imposition praetised upon him, if one had been practired, wholly the fault cf the other; nor does it show that the plaintiff was in fact deceived, or that he closed his bargain in aetual ignorance of all that defendant him- self knew of the state of the accounts, and of the acias: existence and terms of the contract with the steamsnip company for the transfer ot the abip. I say the eviden-« dces not prima facie establish the attirma tve cf these prepositions, and it 1s only by the aia of presumptiou= which cannot be entertained in an action at law, thar such an sftirmative case can be said to have been made out. On the contrary, the evidence does affirmatively establish that the defendant was possessed of a great deal of information in respect to the accounts, and that he was in actual controversy and dispute with the de fendant ss to their condition. Aud in respect to the sale cf the vessels to the steamship company, it eet affirmatively that he had some informa- tion thafity was put directly upon inquiry; thet he was invited to a full and searching investiga\ion, end that he bad an opportunity of at least ten days ot personal inyui ry before he closed his sale to defendant, daring which pericd there is not a particle of evidence to show that he did not fully possess himeelf of all that was to be known foresed to both subjects. The complaint must be dis: missed, Counsel for defendant, Messrs. Vanderpool, Cutting and O'Conor; for plaintiff, Messrs. Bowne, Noyes and Lord. United States Circuit Court. Before Hon. Jucges Nelson and Betts. THE CASE OF THE EUDORA IMOGENE. Marcu 7.—The United States vs. George Wilson.—The Court this morning rendered a decision on the demurre. to the indictment sgainet the negro, George Walson, anc held that the case dues not come within the jurisdio'ion of the federal authorities. The prisoner wasreianded the custody ot the Marshal of Westchester county, where he will be tried for scuttting the vessel, which is an oi fence punishable with deatn. RESIGNATION OF AN ARMY OFrriceR.—The re rignation of Secona Lieutenant William K. Lear, thir artillery, has been accepted by the President, to take effect April 1, 1856. FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL MONEY MARKET. Fripay, March 7—6 P. M. Quotations for stocks continue unsettled. There was rather a quiet market at the opening this morn- ing, and there appeared to be very little disposition to operate. At the first board Nicaragua Transit fell off } per cent; Harlem, |; Reading, }; Cleveland and Pittsburg, j. Virginia 6’s advanced } per cent; Erie bonds, 1875, }; Michigan Southern, }. There was more activity in Cumberland, and the advance of yesterday was sustained. Nicaragua Transit has fluctuated considerably lately, but the tendency is upward. The small sales daily made of the Western railroad stocks, such as Galena and Chicago, Mil- waukie and Mississippi, and Wisconsin Lake Shore, show that a gradual but steady investment is going on in these roads. The prices at which these stocks are now selling in this market is attracting attention, and every inquiry made relative to these works, their future productiveness, &c., is attended with the most satisfactory result. The Galena and Chicago is known all over the world as one of the best investments of the kind in existence. The Milwaukie and Mississippi has not beeu in operation so long, and is not of course so generally known, but its productiveness has already been sufficiently great to attract new purchasers at advancing prices. This road is not yet completed, and its resources are not, therefore, fully developed. When it reaches the Mississippi river at Prairie du Chien, it will drain one of the most fertile regions of the West, and be connected with hundreds of miles of river navigation. It is estimated to cost six millions of dollars when com- pleted to that point and properly equipped, or an average of twenty-five thousand dollars per mile. The Wisconsin Lake Shore road is another work of the came class. This line isentirely completed. The construction account is hermetically sealed, and all future expenditures must come out of the net carn- ings. The line is forty-five miles long, and runs from Milwaukie to the Illinois State line, connecting at that point with a road belonging to another cor pany, continuing on to Chicago. The Wisconsin Lake Shore road runs through the cities of Racine and Kenosha, each of which has a railroad penc- trating the interior, which are valuable feeders to the Shore line, bringing it a large travel ani traffic. All the trade between Chicago and Mil waukie must pass over the Lake Shore road, and there is not the first opening for a competing route. We have selected the three above named roads as offering at this moment greater inducements for permanent investment than any others in the country, East or West, North or South, and believe that the same amount of capital will net a greater income per annum in either one of them than in any other investment now on the market. Parties whose attention has been drawn to these stocks, have, after making proper inquiries in Wall street, been purchasers, and we do not believe they will ever regret so doing. First class railroad bonds are seldom sold in this market to any extent. The demand is much greater han the supply. Nearly all those secured by a first mortgage are in the hands of strong holders, and we see no reason why they should not become establish- ed as a first class, A No.1 investment. Those who look entirely to security and fixed incomes can find nothing better. First mortgage railroad bonds, is- sued by prominent companies, will, before the lapse of many years, be scarce. Then they wiil command high premiams. The present foreign demand is gradually absorbing our present supply, and the old established companics cannot add to the present issue. Other classes of railroad bonds can be created ad libitum, but the first mortgage issue cannot be affected in any way by any increase of another class, or by additional classes, Sinking fonds may be established for the payment of second or third mortgages, and they may all be provided for at maturity; bot the security which is throughout attached to fret mortgage bonds, guaranteed as they are by every other issue as well as the entire stock, gives them a position in the market superior to all others, and a preference with capitalists on both sides of the Atlantic. The Michigan Sovthers and Northern Indiana Railroad Company ©°e 97 solidating ita different classes of bonds 1 «1 under the name of “ First Mortgage Sin! uy Bonds.” This issue must takea high rack market. The conversion commenced on tie lst ingt., and is progressing satisfactorily. The sinking fund is ample tor the payment of the entire issue on or before maturity. As the purchases are made from the proceeds of that fond, the market value of these bonds must appreciate and increase in public favor. After the adjournment of the board the following sales of stocks and bonds were made by Simeon Draper:— $8,000 Hariem Railroad Albany extensinn, int, ad. 37 6,000 B ack River and Utiva Railrcad, 1st untg. do. 74 2'0C0 Chicago and Rock Island Railroad, do. do, 93 6,000 Fiorbirg Railroad, 2a mortguee do. 57 C60 Bufialu ay tate Tine Railroad, incomes, do 85 10,000 Jeffersonville City 6’s, 1880, do. 6535 8,000 Mempbis City 6’s, 1885, do. 6555 £0 sbares Farmers’ Loan and Trust C. 15 50 do, St. Nicholas Bank........ ++ 9O2E The Assistant Treasurer reports to-day as fol- Tows :— Paid on Treasury account, $86,090 67 Recetved do. 266,063 13 Palance do. 14,047,851 48 Paid for Aseay office... R 593.08 Paid on disbursing checks, 2 $0,758 6t The receipts to-day include $50,000 from Chicago, and $100,000 for a transfer draft on Boston. The warrants entered at the Treastxy Depart ment, Washington, on the 5th instant, were es fol- lows:— For the redemption of stocks... For the Treasury Department, For the Interior Department For Customs.. War warrants received and enter On account of tbe uavy. 87,264 65 From miscellaneous sources, + "843 98 From Castoms.........006 + 996,529 70 The steamship ina, from this port for Havre to-day, carried out $19,146 21 in specie. The ship ments to-morrow will amount to about half 2 million, making for the week an exportation of one anda quarter million of dollars. The Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroad Company earned $69,922 09 in Vebruary, 1855, ngainst $64,- 331 09 for the same month last year. {Increase $5,591. In January, this year, there was a decrease in receipts of $11,191 26, compared with the «we month last year. The Western Insurance Company, of Olean, N. Y.; Kentucky Mrtual Life Insurance Coiapany, ot Covington, Ky., and Medina Mutual Sire In- surance Company, Ohio, will each pay :bout 50 cents. The busisess of the Illinois Centra! Railroad Com- pany thus far this year has been far in advance of the estimates. The gross earnings for February will sum up $126,000 against $59,000 for the same month last year. The earnings in January and Feb- raary, 1856, have been about double those for the same time in 1955. At this rate throughout the present year, the gross income for 156 will be up- wards of three millions of dollars. Tne official esti- mate of earnings for the year is $2,500,000. The company’s estimates, &c., for the present year, are as follows:— ‘The total upon which interest is to be paid, is. Construction ponds Free land pond: Assessments (20 per cent, Of BOOK. .0.ceee see Total........ Pessiiben seapcu met The accruing iniesest on the funded ‘deo’ Interest on $13,000,000 at 7 per cent... Interest on $4'(00,000 at 6 per vent... Interest cn $2,000,000 at 7 per cent... Total interest on bonds........66..-.4.+++-$1,380,000 The receipts of the past year from earnings aud from the interest land fund were as follows:— Receipts from earnings........ Interest land sales and interest in $1,522,118 349,014 advance. Receipts from earnings.....++.-- ++. Intezest and smes, and interest in ac expen: Pill Tene (fer interest) Leaving $240,000 for stock. The meeting of stockholders of the New Ha yen and New London Railréad Company, held at New Haven on Wednesday, accepted the report of the Committee of Inquiry, recommending the build- ing of a track from New London to Stonington, at a cost of about $350,000. The necessity of the stockholders taking up the $55,000 unissued 10 per ceyt bonds was discussed, and a committee from each town between New Haven and Stonington, and also from New York, was appointed to obtain sub. scriptions to the Stonington stock and the 10 per cent bonds, and to aid the directors in perfecting the project recommended by the committee. It was vot- ed that these subscriptions must be obtained dur” ing the present month, and it was also voted to publish and distribute the report of the committee. It was also voted to request the bondholders not to press the company for the coupons overdue until the result of the present attempt transpires. The popular idea that North Carolina produces nothing but “ tar, pitch and tuprentine,” is fast be- ing dispelled by the railroads with which the ener- gy of her citizens are covering her territory. Last year the county of Hyde exported corn and wheat to the amount of $360,000, and the county of Edge- combe raised and sold $400,000 worth of cotton. The exports from Washington, N.C., for the last year, amounted to $1,020,613 12, of which $37,045 was to foreign countries. Since the opening of the Central Railroad to Greensborough, a few days, there have been 530 barre's of flour sent from that town; 15,000 barrels of dried fruit were among the first receipts in Norfolk, which resulted from the opening of the Central Railroad. Stock Exchange. Fripay, March 7, 1866. $20000 Tenn 6’590,. 96 400 sha ErieRR...... 68% 500 Virgivia 6” 96 300 do. 44.030 5895 1000 do... A 4000 do 2000 Erie Cbdy'71b20 2000 Erie bas of "75. 2000 H R 3a m ba: 3000 Har Ist m bds.. 86 do ve 20% 2000 NIndRRbIst iss 9194 82Chicago SRI HR 95 28600 II] Cen RR bes. 88 300 Reading RR, 92 10000 do... b60 88% 400d 91% 10 shs Corn Fx Bank 1023{ 200 O15, 120 400 921% 00 60 a 5 Panama RR..... 100 Ill Cen RR... .b60 in & P RK..b60 60 60 Wis Lik Sh RR.b3 2% 13h 23% 10 Mil & Mis RK... in B% SECOND BOARD. $4000 Virginia 6's... 947 100 shs Read RR,.830 917% 10000 TLF’ldbdswp.b3 90 = 1150 do. 83 92 100 shs NicTranCob60 22 500 do. bao 92% 50 do.....830 2134 160 Mich Central RR. 9314 200 do % 100Cleve & Tol RR., 1935 200 do 50 d0...44 30 794, 100 N Y Cen RR...#3 9234 300 ds «. TOM 876 Erie RR. % 100 do. 860 79 50 200 MichS&NIndRR 96% 450 10 do. + 06 100 48 do. 951 200 20 Galena & Chi RR. 1123¢ CITY COMMERCIAL REPORT, Fray, March 7—6 P. M, Asies.—Sales were small and prices unchanged. Breaperurrs.—Flour—The market steady, with a fair local and Fastern demand, while the inquiry for ex. rt was limited. The sales embraced about 5,060 a 6,000 bls., including common to good Stal $7 ae a Pa ni terete " a7 60, and Upper Lake at 3 a 4: and d ai to low graden extra Ohio, at $7 020 $8 12h; oxteeerne fee was at $8 7601075. Sales of 600 0 600 bbir, Cana. dian wore made, at $7 25 8 $960, Southern was henry with rales of 1,200 a 1,300 bbir., at $7 75 n 88 75 fob mixed to good choice brands, and at $7 81% a $9 26 for d Michigan fat uperfine eatet fency ond extra, Rye flour was quiet, ot $4 $6 46 tor fine and superfine. Meal was uncbai Whest—Prime Jou were only offering ia anal to and geperaliy above the views of puroctasers. 1,0 bushels yrod white Missouri were sold at $2 9%; Te persee red wan unchanged, Corn—The sales embrac about 15 000 bushela, xmozg whieh were 7.00) do. wb: Southern, at G6 3¢a., wod 5,000 do, Jersey yellow (prime at Tye.” Rye war less plenty, and holvers demand S115, Oets eonctinued tolerably active, without ehan in prices, Corrks —The chief sale was cinfined to the aucti sale of 9 000 begs of Kio, all of which was disposed of fnil prices. The sele drew a good company, wad the ( ding was epirited. The prives ranged fom 1080. 434,¢., "be Ja ter figure for 70 bags prime, ‘The avers price 443;c. 600 bogs Jamaica wold to arrive p. t.. and 200 do, on the spot, at 12 a 6 months. CorTon.—The sales amounted to about 3,200 bali iy «rain, in buik, be bege. Cotton was id. ti visions were at 32s, 6d. notice in ates for the Continent. FRvit,—500 bags Brazil nuts ware sold at 4340, DAY wae at $1g18%o.. with moderate Moraters.—About 800 a 900 bole, Ne: 8010, at 42c. a 480. a 46c. Naval Srorrs,—Abcut 200 bbls. spirits were sold 4034c., ond 1 600 bole. rosin at $1 6254 per 31@l1bs. VISIONS. — Pork—The was heavy. The sv were confined to 260. 300 bbls. mens, at $16 87 a3 cloving at tre inside figure. Prime was dull at $14 12 ® $14 25. Berf—The sales were limited to 100 a 200bd) at $8 76 a $9 25 for prime; $9 75 a $11 tor mess, and £ & $15 50 tor repacked Western mess. Beef hams wi dull at $13 a $16 60, and prime mess at $18a$22. ( meats were steady at 73¢c. a 13¢0. for shoukters, a 8%c, # 93¢c. for hams. Lard was steady, with ns'es 200 a 800 bbls., at 1032/6. a 1080, sod che: were in moderate reques:, without change in prices. Rick —The market was inactive. Sales of 100 tier were mace at dc. 4 4c. Sricks.—Adout 50 bales cloves were sold at 13¥¥¢c. EUGARS were more active and prices staxdy. Abo 300 boxes brown Hav«na sold at 8c., and 100 do, white 23,¢. Sales of 750 phds. were made, ineluding Ca chiefly for refining, (a good por.ion of which was sol # 7c ; email lows New Orieans at 73{c. a 834c.; and: bhds. Texas at 830. Topace e cemand continues undiminished, a destrabie lots are reacily taken at full prises. ‘Tho sr included 43 hods, Kentucky at 103¢c. a 13s.; 266 & 1 00. Sogua, p. t.; 40 cases # rida, 10c. a 35¢. quite brink this we ¢ demand for American woo! conside-a sly incres: our jast stalexent. We notice sales of 150,000 1 & Ble; suger, 35¢ i 120 000 lbs. fleece the difference qualities, at prices rarging trom 35c. a 4 Foreign wooi has been more inquired for; the wales, bi pot reported. There # ppcars to be athetter feel ‘ket, and holders are fivm io thelr viawa. Waistby.-~the rales embraced 200 a $00 bbls. at @ 29c. tor Ohio and Prison. ere Was NO change Orleans we FAMILY MARKETING. RETAIL PRICES OF PRODUCE AT THE WASHINGT MAREET. There is \ery lite difference in the market pri quoted last week, Beet has advanced soraewhat wholesale, though the retail price remains about same, Pork is very scarce and high, which accou partly for an advance in the price of veal, unusus this season. It will also make it necessary tor buyer” keep s sharp look out for poor, underfed, unwholes calves, of which we saw some spe:imens yesterday. Pon!try and game aze also very high, and the weat ia not yet mils enough to make spring fowls very ab dant. Chickens sell from e'ghteen to twenty cents pound; turkeys the sane; and other fowis in proport ‘Venison is the cheapest meat in the market, andic very fine, Apples, we are sorry to say, have advanesd fifty ct on the barrel; but they are very fine, and wouk cteaper than pork or veal, with a doctor’s bill attacl at double the price. Cranberries are scarce at eight doilars a berrei; but with summer fruits in pleasant spective, we begin to 1eel independent of cranberry se and cranberry pies. Raisins and eurrants are also oon in, new, good and cheap. To the lovers of plum pud and fruit cake this will be welcome news, the failur the crops bavirg made these necessary ingresients 1 searce and high. They can be bought now from te twelve and a balf cents per pound, Butter is cheapening rapidly, and looks temptn sweet and fresh. Eggs also have fallen slightly, but, wi intain s very high figure. : Sirloin steaks, Porterhouse steaks Rump steaks...,.. Plates and navels, corn Mattton, per Ibe... iF carcase, per Gaake ae cco ry ry a a s a a a ry ry a a a © eHccee ‘ides Sides, pickled Jowls Smoked beet Beet tongues, piece sree Cologne sausages Tripe Tard = 10 10 09 08 10 ce BR 20 to 09 rr} oF eococte Oc ooeceoomoceosagpcecocooco POULTRY AND GAME. ‘Wild turkies, each, 250 4 Turkeys, per #. 18 0 Geese, ai o12 0 Ducks, tame. per 175 %e8 2 Widgeon, per pair 0 62% a Chickens, per Ib. an 8 0 Fewls, ’” pair. 100 a 2 Guinea do., | 07 a1 Tigeons, stall fed, per do: — a2 Quail, PP eis — a2 Partridges, pai 100 a Rabbits, ic oe 0% a Black oe 4 o Bares, per pair —- sa Broad bill duck , — add it, per pair,..... 15 a Venison, (saddle) per ib. a? 50 Canvaes back duck, per pair . 160 a 2 Squirrels, per pair.. — ad Beare’s meat, per Ib. 015 a 0 Capons, per Ib.... 02 «a Grouse, per pair. 100 « FRUITS. Apples, Newtown pippins per bbl..... — a 8, ‘* ” greenings, + — add « ppitzenberg, “ — a3 “ common, “ 150 al ‘« all sorts, half peck 020 a 0 Cranberries, per bbl ...... — #18 “ quart 2 a0 Quinces, per 100...... be a 2 “ Bmoked halibut, Do. mackerel, “ Soused salmon, percan.. Smoked salmon, per 1b Dry codfish, “ Shad, each ....... — ad —- ao — ad - a — af —- ao Suckers, — a Suntish, — a0 els, a Frostfish = 00 Flounders, -. —- a Buil heads a —- e Haddock. “ — a Halibut, “a — & Fresh mackerel,‘ 10 8 Selt mackerel, ‘* wa Salt shad, 126 a 10 8 Ws 06 8 os 8 1 8 me SHELLFISH. Oysters—Princes bay, per 100 Virginia “ KK een Clams—Shrewabu: 100 Little Neely’ me Lobsters, per Ib. Crabs, per dosen © c8o c@nececcose laisse YEORTABLES. Potatoes, Haskell per b bt M . forts) oo SSILIISiSiitiisiti eo Peers PPePeereerereer rE eEEEErrs Leeks, bunch... Mae od white. dest pes peck, Lima beans, soak ir quart, Parley, vuuoh. tor Kon f banch. reen peas, per quart, Paranipe, rer doz . Broncale, eath.. BUTTER, Butter—State, per lb. ange, * Cheere, per Tb..... Bogltsn, per Pineapple, each, Sapsago, per Lb. Fae, six... “ Honey, strated, Sasecane cnecoaccHsnos 3 ones S11gin eco ee elril 2