The New York Herald Newspaper, May 20, 1857, Page 5

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1857.—TRIPLE SHEE. ‘Ganeuy itve here, and wpen the extraditien ef the Ayn t—Prosesution ealie:— Ih would seem thet the eounsel for the twe govern- | which could notef eourre te Rothachtid’s berdercau. The Poindexter Slave Case. State called on for tts exercise. And no State of th Beowed under toe vieteal - Beary Clark swers—I knew QRaries Carpentier; | ments nbered under a misapprehension es to he menn- Sturm the gan al Sonor demenstration. To SUPREMB GOURT OY OBI. fats caine’ na ever toh tual bound te. carry te aooeily Buled oot— fates j Leame passenger with him from Franee | tng ef the treaty. He would giro he cotnen wo meet this Cloeropaney t made ap expianaliou 1 he | Hon. 7. W. Barticy, Chief Justice; Hon. J. R. Swan, Hea. | of comity to the extent of subverting Ma own cmbinhed @ Did you The pamage scram the con of Gaprt, the steamebip Fulton, renee, Sen Havre via , and be bad no doubt that the Commissioner | effect that the shares of * had been excnanged into | J. Brinkerbelf, Hon. 6. Bowen and Hon. J, Soot, Justices, | policy. ee Geiard, o Kelin, or any oiner ‘who has. ; we eailed from Anon 0, SS; we would ‘hie construction the correct one. I wouki be | shares of “ones.” Hesaw that his cmetn we Fray, May 8, 1857. Bub, it ts said, th ie ne part of the Potiey of Oho to te. ‘wed as a witness, or whose sorviees have bees employed | arrived aise OES tenet Qurpon- | observed thst tho words “sorresponding erimey’ are | broken dcwn, or would be by the cross-examination, ast John Andereon va, Henry Poindexter and others. Error | courage emancipation in Kentucky. trae ; it is Ba thie proceeding? tier at the cc , in New York; his namo was | used. To what were those crimes to Ia | he made a virtue of 4 showed that Outh, | to the Mstrict Court of Clermont county. algo true that it # no part of the policy of Ohio to on- ‘Same. written by me, part ef %, en the entry book of thas hotel; ermetzy, which Js an exact 9a ence it used to be proved demonstration, and the certideate of the direotors Bowen, J delivered the opinion of the Ovart, bokdiag: emancipation in Kentucky, bio bas nothing je @ Did you br: to thia country froma Prange, er Magiana, | I wrote “ s eke, no christian name, two ea eorresponded—that is, were equal——whem | were equally useless and equally false. Je was immaterial 1. That neither Ohio nor Kentucky can demand an ab. | do with the subject of emancipation in Keatuoky. But any letters of gore t Rothsehiids, upon Aw At whose request did yeu write ia? their HMnes and anglos were exactly the same. This wae peated gag wl dg whether these sharos wore x- | rogation of the constitution and municipal laws of the | has rometbing tto do with status of persons coming guste Belmont, or upon any other person? Ghjeciea to, what was meant in the treaty aay changed by 6 of Grelet, "Spore bad boen @ guod | other, ax a matter of comity; and if ® person claimed asa | within her own Jarisdiction ; and & & properly part of her Game. A. It was of my own accord. words “corresponding crimes.’’ The orimes in the French deal uf controversy between Mr. Tillou and i. Towns | slave in Kentucky, comes {nto Ohi» by the direction or | policy to see to ‘it, that a violation of the rights growing ‘Did you bring moro than one? @ Who was present? A. Mr. Goorge Harp, of Philadel | law for which ‘were io be surrendered wero to- | hend as to showing that Grelet could not have done it, but | consent of his own*r, even for ® temporary busines: pur. | out of that statue ehall not, tn her courts, be recognised a phia; no one else. correepond exactly with the crimes of burglary and robr | that Rowsebija must have sold aa binwelf, and v6 hk | pese, the constitution and Jawa of Ohio operate on the con | @ valid fourdation of a legal obligation, @ Since arrival have you not reseived another let- ‘Had you any conversation with Carpentier in relation | bery in the Am«rican law. They were to be neither | (Mr Galbraith’s) mind it was clearly proved that Grelet | uitiou of such person, and effect bis immediate emancipa- The cnslayement, by local authority, of aman onee hs tor of drawn by Rothsebikis upon Belmont, er an | 10 pame?l—if Me ) when and where? A. I hadon | greater nor less. And when it was proved that he offence could not be ve had apy thi 5 Wo do with the exchanging | on Presen's the monstrosity of wrong j Ks ‘exher house? board ship one evening; his namo was not the sposial sub- | charged against these accused corres] to the crime | of these “fives” into ‘‘ones’? if he were obanged at all. 2. When a person held in slavery by the muntcipa! law | iqnity intensified and hardened into law ; and when the mo Ject of conversation ; it camo in ~ of burglary or robbery in American law he wouldbe w! This tist of missing shares (exhibit 99) containo4, be:kies De | of the State in which he lives once besomes free by virtue | subject is logitimately before us, it is due to that principle ‘Mr. Busteed offers to show that in addition toa letter of Q. What did he say? to have them en fered, but not til then. He woud | Lantellac's shares, only 26 chares corresponding with those | of the laws of aother country or State, into which he gous | of righteousness which is the soul ef all law worthy af (eredit sworn to by one witness, for 20,000 francs, he has Objected to. Exception. lock now at the French side of the treaty. fe had a fe geo al and the others in the bank. It oon- | by the consent of his owner, it is not in the power of the | the name. and It becomes us, af the administrators of suck ghnee reecived two other letters of credit, each for 20,000 A. He said his mother’s name was De Launay; and that | correct translation of it, from which tho joner | tained no sbares corresponding with the conpons found, as | latter ever to reduce bim again to his former condition | law, to protest against, condemn, and as far as may be, frenes,drawn by Rothschilds on A. Belmont, and paid to | cocasionally, as I knew, some firms took the mother’s name | would see that the French translation of the American alleged, on Parot. It contained, in any view of Goepfert’s | of servitude, under avy law which this court can recognise } consistently with ‘copatitutional obligation, to nallify it, be- the witness for his services and testimony in this cause. after the father’s, and that some of his friends knew him | side of the treaty corresponded exactly with the defini- | statement or explanation, no more than 115 shares which | as valid. cause it is Wrong, rather than to lend it an indirect sanction: ‘Same. under that name, I should know that entry in that beok if | tion which he bad given it. He assumed this to bo corresponded with shares in exhibit 68—Rothsobil!’s 3. By laws of Kentucky, a person who ts held and through a morbid exaggeration of the spirit of courtesy. @ ‘Bave you got in your possession or under your coa- Isaw it again; exhibit 87 is that cnwy; as to ‘Ourpantier, | truth thatthe French Legislature knew better than the sbares. And it led to many other dixcrepancies. But ia | treated as a slave bas uo capacity to make any contract The policy of Kenta ky ts to upbold an claims of mas- what you say is your appointment, in writing, as the | France,” I wrote it; this was written September 11. prosecution here the exact meaning to be given to the fact it upeet the whole case, because it showed no oonned- | whatever, and promissory notea given to his master by | ters. Her courts, upholding this policy, refuse to pmorney in not of ‘troad Company? ¢ Do you recollect whether Carpentier was present, words vob ifé crime. The French fost emf of the | tion with Parot. Itthowed that only 25 missing sharos | himself and sweties for bim, in the purchase of his fre)- | nize any obligation of comity or otherwise to enforce ‘Mame. uled out as too leading. twealy was:— ever passed through his hands at all. Two of these were | dom, are illegal and yoid, as to both principal and } Obio rule of freodom—Colling vy. Amorica, 9, B, Momras, Is there a seal to that writing? Mr. Tillou states that Mr. DeVoo wishes to make am ex- ‘The crime of robbery, consisting of the forcible and crim | traced to other parties, and if tho books could have buen | sureties. 572. planation of some part of this testimony, y from the person of another mone: a] had, the cthers might also have beeu traced. But, as Bartley, Ch. J., dissenting from some of the views ex- ‘The fundamental, organic and unremitted of Ohio @ Gan you state for what specific or purposes Mr. Busteed objects at this stage. -. n te ne gg Sipe 7 mee suggested by Mr Townshend, it was only surprising that | pressed in the opinion of the majority of the court as to | 18 to maintain the rights of men, and her ‘vibenales ying you are by that writing constituted attorney ta fact for the | Commissioner allows Mr. De Voe to make the explana- | ony ltir'in die night by breaking Ino ar realbing the ducih | a man who did the colossal business in shares which this | ove of the grounds of the decision, based his conclusions | just effect to this pohcy, must not permi: themselves to be ‘paitroaa? tion. Tillou asks the witness— ing of another with a criminal intention; and the ourrespond: | MAO Paro: did, had not many more of those shares. im the case upon the following points: moved by the plea ef comity to turn azide from the pla oy Ei Do Voe, what is the explanation Wri tO ee eee vided’ for und punished by the French law, | & leged tho prosecution, the accused fearing that the shares | — Ist. That although the removal of a negro slave from | path it preseribes to the support of tho Kentucky rule af ‘@ Bs not the appointment of power in that writing con- | make? A. If the counsel for the prosecutkn rec Hoots his | under the qualificaion of robberies committed with violence | of Rothschild would be examinoc gathered them all upand | Kentucky into Ohio, for the parpore of residence or change | slavery. This policy of Ohio ts hers by virtue of her owm fmed solely to making ‘an attorney in fact for the rail- | qzestion to me on this subject, perhaps I have answered | ®F menace, ‘and robberies committed in an inbabited house | gold them, in list 99, for the purpose of replwing them. | of domicil, bas the effect to emancipate the s'aye, yet by | sovereign choice. The will, I rust, never permit it to be ‘company, in a civil suit commenced by that company | correcily, and that was, “Was you money | With circumsiances of night stores, (Mr. Galbraith oon | That bypoinesie was not consistent with ‘ho facts, If | the comity of nations and the sul! highor obtigations rast- | called in question. If sho does she will doubtless Mud Bithe Supreme Court of the of New York, againg | in this cue?” Ia that a0, Mr. Busteed?—that le the quea- | hou ) pe, per had eee ¢ the troaty which | ¢2bIvit 68 was Rothechild’s shares then all the sbares in | ing on the people of the Hoveral States of tho American | suitable organs for the ulterance of her altered will, but ag 5 ; tier, Louis Grelet, ene Grolet, Felicite Dubud, Auguste Parot, and ‘ses 7 @ Have you not sworn that this was the whole oxtont of the power of your appointment under this writing? ‘Exhibit 96 is admitted to be a copy of the com- in the above entitled suit. you swear to or i 1@ complaint in that action’ . Busteed offers to contradict the twstimony of witaes: Garpenter. ‘itness—I did, sir. Q Is this complaint true in every particular? A. There ht be some words which I would not suggest or take, but the frame of the complaint is true. Did you say “yes?” A. 1 said “yes,” but not t this qualification. @ every statemeat of fact contained in that complaint ‘Srue, as therein alleged? A. Yes, sir. ‘The affidavit annexed to copy complaint, exhibit 96, is admitted to be @ true copy of the oviginal affidavit. @ Did you make this affidavit? A. If Mr. Morrogh says this is a true copy of the orginal, then I made it. Is every statement of fact contained in this affidavit ‘ag therein alleged? A. The sense of the meaning is peated. A. I have said that the sense and mean- @ English then appeared to me true, when I peated. A. The facts are stated therein, but if me I could suggest @ different translation to never meant to say somet that can fom the last paragraph of this affidavit; the in English different from the French, but is the same to me; I see some words thas I not exactly translate from the French as they are but the frame is true. ‘Take the paper and state the words to which you now? A. I will take only one example:—‘ The de- farther says that the said Eugene Grelet, Felicite and Parot, combined and confederated with the pentier and Louis Grelet to deceive and defraud the 4 plaintiff, and aided and assisted the said Carpentior ‘and Louis Grelet in disposing of the said property, know- &c. ‘Knowing’ ts very far from the name, I would say, knowing, ss far as I believe, as regards Felicité Dubud and Eugene Grelet.” @ With the exception that you have now stated, is allegation of that affidavit true, as therein alleged? es, it is true; I see the word “ fiduciary” almost Mlegibie. Did you read the originalaMdavit? A. I did; I am fied in reading an affidavit to understand what it ‘means, and I certainly understood this one. ‘@ Assuming this copy affidavit to be an exact transert @f the original, in every word, do you understand this it how? A. C.Ttainly, except that I don’t under- e precise meaning of the word “fiduciary,” bat : its meaning in the connection in re. do you know that the Northern Railroad Com- sroenpersien company? ‘ou kaow whether it is an incorporated company, laws of companies? ~ ut, Exception. books of the company have you had access to? t. ‘What vouchers, bills, bonds, shares of stook and other valuable things belonging to sald company, or de- with them for safe keeping, or otherwise, were in fiduciary charge of Carpenter and Grelet, as sworn to in We complaint? A. The books of the company in the ‘@@iee; vouchers were other kinda of memoranda, canno} Wanslate it into French; bills meant receipts; bonds meant jons and Magy shares referred to stock—the of shares in railway; I mean generally every up there in the office of the company; “ other ely 8 Se elle z s, Fee d tell H fl rE g ' U which em- led Be Ee ste =z ZF Ft f ? meant “* of value.’” @ Do you know David? A. I know him now, since I Ihave seen him at Court, since the jog of the causo— five or six woeks; I frst saw him at ; I don’t remom- ber im what room; I made s complaint against David as as Se] ber 27, 1861. ptern| ‘az it before & United States Commissioner, under in writing, and different from the complaint un- and tn wri which forms the basis of the pre- eding? A. don’t remember making any before know 'W. Morton? A. I know a gon- Do you * OF the name of Morton; don't know bis first name; ‘te a Commissioner. Did you ever make an affidayit in this case before ustained. you ever make one before Richard E, Sulwell? t remember. Did you make one before J. im or G. F. Betts? A. Don’t remember having, whether I did or not. ‘@ Did you ever talk David? A. I never did, nor ever heard him talk with anybody; I don’t know who told me this was David; can’t recoliect. Sen. cosen are Cat ae nen ere ee eneey a Taal A. I don’t know whether David was ever in the employ ; Ldon’t know Cap’. Leonard; I have seen whether David waa present Efepltted stole SE iP the rail; I think we talked in French; I didn’t tell him where they eat; Christmas didn’t ask me which was David; be asked me only where T was; I could pet eee him; I told him pee aes I a ae ‘whether or not I pointed with my finger where the were; my recollection is very good for certain for interesting things which strike my mind; I recollect a conversation for three months with Bas- tood; I ly remember @ convorsation three months w Carpentier a fow yoars; four or five; 1 don’t know Q Gree ti months alterwards, and at intervals of six or eight Bg te di you ats him Paris? A. Th is a your Fowppene 750 fmerT ain't the time; I wi been in Paris don’t know fd eg i i - ‘whether his eyes are black or blue, $a the United Statos, October 17th; | : 5 He 253453 if ay F i = 3 i s g i i f i 5 3 i Pi = 3 & = : i t i i Ef tf ig Pi 33 fi HEE fe i § i rey Hy ir ee r I tion as I understood from the counrel, Mr, Busteed, I mean, by the ‘counsel for the prosecution’’ above, Mr. Bustoed ? Tonly say now that I wasn’t promised beforehand any monty that I know of in the case. I don’t say that I didn’t receive money in the case; that question was never asked me to my ; that is all can say about it Ww. now. Q Did you receive any? Objected to as examination, and not under the privilege of witoess. Objection sustained. Emanuel 1ieeancier.—Cross examination by Mr. Bus- teed resumed and continued. Q. On the afternoon of October 17, and during the se- cond conversation you had with Carpentier, who was pro- gent besides } ourself and Carpentier? A. Mr. Mathiossen; he speaks French fluently; the room was very dark; I saw his bands together, and I understood afterward he was handcuffed. Q. Did you give any order or direction ia respect to bis food? A. {gave no orders; I complained; it was on tho second visit; Isaw him dine; I seid that it was a very poor dinner; it was bread and water, perhaps some milk; saw nothing but bread and water; I saw the tin box which was found in enth street, butonly at Belmont’s, about 8 by 10 inches; about 6 or 6 Inches deep; I saw it opened; it had no handles; soldered up; these were in it; papers, French bank notes, American and Frenoh gold not much, asd jewelry; about $600 in French gold; bali as much in American; the bank notes were of diifer- ent values; there was a burdie of 1,000f. notes; 100 in the bundle, aud 5,000f. or 6,000f. were in small bills; there were some letters and some promissory nutes; a lever from his nephew, a litt ¢ bo} memorandum was taken of all, and ai] was put ina ; Tat fret made a special deposit, then sert them to Franco to the Directors of the Northern Railroad Company, all together, letters and all. Mr. Busteed applies to cross examine witness in regard to other and general matters, same as made before. Over- ruled on the groand that general cross-examination has been conducted by Mr. Townshend. Overruled, Eli De Voe, recalled to rectify his examination. Objected \o, 1st. That he was called this morning for that purpose, and then exhausted bis privilege. 2d. That if the Commissioner be against defendant on this point, till defence offer testimony to impeach testimony of De Voe, evidence oannot be called to sustain him in advance, 8d. Trreguiar ‘and unvsual, and caloulated to defeat jus- tice. 4th. Being against the course of usage and praation, and in violation of common law. Commissioner wo reject the offer. Objection overruled. Exception. Se SRR POR Ten eae money for your services in this caget Objected to as leading—exception. 2 From whom, and what amount, and when, according wi wi ae ECC} be A. All the money that ever I received that I supposed to be for extry serv.ces was from Mr. De Angelis, four hun- dred dollars; I think it was near the 25th September, but Ihave a receipt which will settle the date. Q. Have you the consent of the Mayor to receive that? Objected to—sustained. Q Did you obtain any official authority to roceive itr if 90, you ive mone} ‘RO, = whom and Wun, menting to your beat reoolled- wo Objected to—exception. A. Yes, sir; from | think Mr. Matthiessen, who PR opeatosm days after I got tho mou ig, Beggs Temember the amount A, T think about or $660. Q. What did you do with that money? Objected to—sur tained. Q Did you return any part of it? oo to—overruled. Whereon first objection was wit ‘awn. Q. What did you do with that money? A, I spout part of it and returned the balance. Q. To whom did you return it? A. To Mr, Matthiossen; I returned about $360; I have got the acoounts, but don’t ber the particular amount. |. It is understood by the Commissionar that you don’t pmo Ay a appaatncen tm this case; what did verrul A. I never wished to be understood by j any one that I refused to tell that I received a reward; 1 understood the question to be at the time whether they made any previous Berppin with mo,end hue One eee never previous! n offerod any thing 2 Mir. Busteed declined to cross examine. Lorenzo de Angelis sworn.—I know all four ofthe accus- ed; the first time I met Parot was in Belmnont’s office, pre- his arrest; @ was with him, whom I havo torah tae Feliciee f ret sew Loule Grelot at ihe the of sinoe second ward station house with Eugene; they wore arrested ‘andé in custody of the Q Did you sees in the station house? A. I did the office; I think the secord day after the arrest of the two Greleta, Parot and Mad. Dubad; theee coupons were in the ik in the envelope (exhibit 83); there fifty-five coupons; I remember coanting kes mo there were finy four; {t was some- tme {a Septembor I first saw Parot in Belmont’s effico; assisted in haviag these parties arrested, and David ; 1 have received money myself for my services, an: have paid to others; I paid Eli De Voo $400; Captain ‘Lao- nard $100; Benj. F. Ryor $100; I received money at three imes—firet $100, next $1,000, next ; I paid money for expenses out of ave ex; I returned $300 of the sum, and was tid to keep $400 for myself; 1 wert to Boston, then to Phil then to South Grange, New Jorsey, next to Cincinnati, several umes up on Fast River, near Islard, at Hant’s Point ‘Adjourned to 13h inst., at 11), o'clock, ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL. Mr. Spelithorue summed up on the part of David, and made an argument generally on the French law as mppli- cable to the case, citing agreat number of authorities to show what constituted in France the crimes of forgory, burglary and robbery. Mr. Townshend followed on the part of Grolet and Parot, —) full and clear able argument on the law and facta of the case. Ex-Recorder Tillou followed for the French govern- ment, arguing that this case came under the terms of the juon treaty, inasmuch as the term vol quasifé crime comprehended all manner of thefts. Mr. Galbraith replied on behalf of the accused. He sald he had looked over the proceodings with considerable ‘of endeavoring to abridge bie materia! i of France and America, the parties in interest and most in- imately connected with it being the Northorn Railwa, Company of \France and the prisouers, Carpentier, Grolet, Parot and David. The company commenced operations some tine potore 1862 by isaulng shares It was managed by ® company of directors, or, as they wore called, adiminis- trators, in whose ment were Me oY Grelet, and, for # time, Eugene G1 iden wee the top having become ui toned by its own ‘weight, or by the safo being moved, and two iron clicks wore put on it to nothing wrong bad been discovered, either in the charac- tor oF beavior of the accused. There were no shares in Eldridge street jail, to answer a civil suit commenced papel hy railroad com: From the date of ¢ arrest till 6th February, 1867, no criminal complaint was made them. He wished the Commissioners ae gF i B H - 3 ; he (Mr G,) insisted was tho true one. And the fact of the counsel of the prosecution urging the contrary, was tantamount to an argumens that the French legislators did not understand their own language or their own laws. He did not advance this proposition for the purpose of allowing one or two criminals to escape. If he thought his coustruction of the treaty a false one, he would not urge it; but he felt that no other construction would or cou be a on by this government or by the missioner now representing the govern- ment. erwise therg would be one construction of the treaty on one side and a different construction ef iton the other side; and as to the course to be adopted in such astate of things, he would refer to the case of the United States against Percheman, repotred in 7 Peters’ Reports, page 88—a cage which arose on the construction to be given to the treaty made with Spain, where the Judge tays:— If the English and Spanish paris (of the treaty) can, without vidlencer be made agree, Wat cousiructon wiles establishes this conformity ought to prevail. He asked that the same rule would be followed in this cage, if there was any discrepancy between the English and French versions of the treaty; but he held there was no such discrepancy. The French had interpreted the words] vol qualifié crime as crimes corresponding w bur- Jary and robbery in the United States, was what fe claimed to be the meaning; and in corroboration of that, he gave, not merely his own, but the translation of a reon thoroughly acquainted with the French language. hero was no term in the French ocde equivalent to the English terms of bareiry and robbery. @ French code did not define crimes; it merely classified them by the punishment. Therefore, burglary and robbery were translated by the phrase ‘the orresponding crimes known to the French law by the name of val, with the qualification of crime.” There was, therefore, no diffl culty a making both versions of the treaty consistent with each other; they were both uniform. But even if they were not, the case of 7 Peters, which he had cited, showed that where there is a diversity the must be 80 con- strued as to make both sides unite. he contended, was consistent with reason, otherwise what would the consequences be? A treaty was eimply a contract between natious—a mere bargain, an every day businges orcur- rence, and it required’ unity of opinion and an identity of meaning between es, other. wise it was no contrast or bargain at all. If, there- fore, the ecution contended that there was a difference of meaning between tho two sides of the treaty, and that that diversity could not be recon: ciled, as he asked it to be, then there was no treaty at all in force. 1t became void, and the prisoners must go free. There was a good deal of controversy here as to the ex- act crime with which these parties were charged. He con- tended that the prosecution was bound to make their charge definite, and referred to tho case of the King ainst Horne 0, where the Juige says that the charge must bo so definite and certain aa to enable tho r to know with what he is charged, and to let the rt know what it is to pass upou. He could not soe that in this case there was any definite charge made; bat he anticipated that the counsel for the prosecution would en- deavor to construe the phrase vol qualifié crime aa hav- ing some indefinite, vague meaning, 60 a8 to make it ke ‘w every crime ‘and ali crimes, and no crime at ail, jast as they felt disposed. If the charge was burglary, or if it was iobbery, or if it was forgery, ho (Mr. G. was prepare io mec bi Me ld lg, watch Teor the commissioner could not place any meaning. ‘This difficulty might probably have arisen from the hasty manner in which the preliminary proceedings had been up in France, On reference © Sanford’s “European minal Codes,’’ (the legal part of which he understood was superintended by a very eminent lawyer, an ex- Governor of one of the States,) he found the order of pre- liminary criminal proceedings in France. Misdemeanors were proeecuted there by Procureurs Generauz and Procu- reurs de la he gg These magistraies prosecute rather than direct. h depart ment or arrondissement has a Juge d'Instruction, or examining magistrate. A @ Instruction \s assisted in his functions by the J’rocureur de la ique, a8 he can undertake no act of instruction or prosecuten without baving communi- cated the same to that functionary. After taking the 0 th preliminary examinatioa he sends all pine in Ue caso to the Procureur dela ee who e necessary a flagrant it, or where the criminal is 10 Procureur de la Re Juge d? Inatruction can act alone. The Juge d’ Instruc: obliged, ‘at least once a week, to make a report to the Chambre dz Conseil of the cases which have come before him aftor the pers relative thereto have been eommunigated to the Feeareur dela ique for hia conclusion, This Cham- tre de Conse decodes far the facta, which from whe — of the preliminary examination, are proved or are probable, and whether they constivate & crime, a mis- demeanor of a contravention. con‘ended that theso re- quisite preliminary forms were not complied with in this case, and that, therefore, the proceedings were void for error. He referred to the fustructions givon in this case to show bow neceseary this compliance with forms was deemed to “; carefully the crimo or misdemeanor of which they are accused.’” Mr. Morrough raised a question in reforence to the French word rendered into ‘‘misdemeanor.’"’ Mr, Galbraith was surprised that Mr. Morrough would repudiate bis own translauon. These instructions showed that the Juge d’ Jnetruction was in doubt as to what was the crime, whether it waa a crime or @ miadomeanor. But whatever the crime was bs contended that undor the mn it before these prisoners principal part of this case bad turned upon Rothschild, which were alledg: d to be missing from one of the safes; and the great controversy was whether these shares had been abstracted or pilfered, or whethor it was a mere breach of confidence on the part of those It appeared very doubtful wo at any time after 1862. He had examined all tho evi ‘and could not find anything to satisfy his mind that they had been in the safe, ‘The Commissioner—I understand your position, then, to be that there is no positive evidence in the case o show thas these shares were deposited in the armoire. ir. Galbraith—Yes, lcannot find any evidence that they wore there. It is true that one of tho administrators, in a vague way, when be ts swearing all round—almost in the same way that Teseandier swore to the oowplalut in this case—it is true, I say, that this administrator, ‘the Marquis lion, a decore of the Legion of Honor, makes some stato- 5 ia not satisilod that these safe at all, or, if they were, they Counsel commented upon the inferences from unco#- in this case. the act waa n : i Ez in the same way, it was fawn that the robbery was sought to have the i keys—none of them fitting safo—were found in (ro- let's desk. Counsel showed the absurdity of such deduo- tiens. He should have sapposed, too, that in reference to elected by thine Roys, from Ge fast that 0 number of old | the question whether these shares had ever been in the | safe, that the testimony of Rothschild himself, would bave been the only competent evidence on that point, unless somebody had seen him doposit them. Rothachild was, therefore, no reason why his depositions were not taken, The first of the jon had been that the orden. (exhibit 68,) waa that of the iid on deposit in 1862. This had on 30,000 shares, and these were ali shares of 6's. Those same 80,000 abares, excepting such ss lad been stolen, bad remained on it until now. To that effect was the evidence of Goo , and tho certificate of the directors; and it showed careful directors ought to be in certifying ny Then it was proyod tat Rothsclild had no borderean for these shares, ‘The Commiasioner—From that time on? Mr. Galbraith—Yos; and consequently that the licre de passe should be blank in all the shares ing to those shares. That Rothschild bad, in fact, beon paid div dends ‘on his 90,000 shares since 1862, was shown by the books. ‘Then it was shown (bat « nui! Mentioned in thia bordereau, (exhibit 68,) to the number of 6,300, bad been deposited by Parot and othors, in the bank of Franor, and that many of the shares In the livre de passe which thould be blank, were flied. "This fuct boing trie, consequence is—and { was so insisted upon by we the shares dopeeies ia te Bank of filled in the Were de and w! ought to have been blank, showed the shares, The livres de passe are filled in'from the bordereau, But it is said there was nodordereau for Rothschild {rom 1862 to this me, and that he recetved the amount of all his coupons. Then those blank spaces, taking Rothschild’s bordereau and comparing it with them, showed thats number were filled in. The consequence ‘and it was insisted upon by the pro- Secution at the time, that these showed the stolen shares, it it i 3 i 7 z i and marked in the margin a8 Rothechild were timo when Mr, Tisandier | that exbibit collected by others were stolen shares. Now a ue VT 6,300 shares, bordereaw were only presented r 1,046. ‘The Commissioner—Your argument is that only 1,045 were presented ? Mr. Gulbraith—Yes; we can only judge from statements coliected from the books since this new hypothesis was started, These shares, it may be presumed, were sold. ‘They were in other hands, aod the presumption is they had’ been sold and parted with. Some were in the bands of Rothschild himself. It had been said that these shares: were all collecved up like a pack of cards the moment the Rothschilds were coming to examine; that they swept the board end dealt them again; but he (mr. G.) would show tbat some of hem were in Rothschiid’s own bands, and how then could they collect them from him? “r. Galbraih denied that Grelet had ever made any confersion whteh ought to be relied upon tn this case, and argued that even if he had it could not inculpate Parot, and alsoargued ‘that the confession of Carpentier could not be taken as of “| effet against Grelet, l’arot or David. ir. McKeon will sam up to-morrow on the part of the United States government. ‘What the Rallroad Company Intend to do, {From the London Herald, May 6.) A meeting of the shareholders of the Northern Railway of France took place on Thursday, in Paris, presided over by Baron James Rothschild. @ report Aays:—'‘It so happened that the greatest portion of the loas caused by the delinquency of the two clerks in September last fell on securi- ties beionging to the house of MM. de Rothschild. That firm had cetermined to support the loss o° these secari- ties itself, The loss was not loss than 5,071 shares and 270 bonds, or five sixths of the whole securities missing. As to the small portion of the loss falling on the shareh ers, the board recommended to distribute the loss over a certain number of years, 80 a3 to render it less onerous; to thatend, the board would propose to set aside 100,000 francs for the next year, as @ special reserve W meet the case. The board adopted the proposition. The Rothschilds and Speculators Defended— A French Idea of National Morality, [Translated from the Courrier dea Btats Unis, May 19, for the Naw Yor« Hgxatp. } ‘Tho extradition trial going on for three months, before Commissioner Betts, is at last coming to an end; in two or three days the argument will be entirely closed. At the approach of that important moment the New Yor« Ha RALD comes again to the aid of the prisoners, in an article too curious to be left unnoticed [Here is inserted a quotation of part of our article on the dey ree of criminality to be attached to the prisoners.} theory of the Heratp is quite piquant with maob . That ‘certain degree of guilt’ which gocs eo far aa to violate a trust and not farther, is as refined as posible, and a Jesuit of olden simes would have with foou reason envied the dislingué of the oracle of Fulton st-eet But tie ingenious argument of our contemporary does not end in 80 good # manuer, ‘ntil pow a man who had committed a murder to con- ceaia theft was generally looked upon as a murderer. But ths was an incredible aberration of justice. It is nothing more tham the fact of a cautious man, who ‘‘takes first fault;”? and is iv a real iadignit distint Crime in the fow stabs whi he many Leave given. One thing astonishes us, that is, that the Heratp does not require the indictment of M. Rothschild as guilty of baving allowed his shares to be stolen, and does not en. gage Grelet and Parot to commonce a suit for damages Against the Northern Railway Company, which has been the cause of their being led astray. Seriously, however, such an article deserves the stigma of public opinion. It ls a diagrace, not only to the journal which publishes it—if we admit that it is yet possible to disgrace the Hxkaco—but even to the country of which that journal is considered abroad as the most reliable organ. In France or in England the newspaper #hich should dare to develope such theories would be instantly under ban. Ii is painful to think thatin the United Slates those eccentricities are an element of pecuniary #uc- cess, and that moral focling has boon 80 much , weakened that it cannot perceive any ‘under the wrapper of a plauant , the poison slowly filtered into the very eart of the nation. The Destitution in Mi (From the Detroit Tribune, May 15.) Acallsigped by some of our most prominent citizens in this evering’s Tribune, for a meeting to con- the best moans of affording relief to the famishing settlers in the Northern oounties. Our former statements of the destitution and suffering in that region have been most painfully confirmed. We shall not speak in the lan- guage of hyperbole when wo state that a number of fa- milies in Gratiot and adjoining counties are perishing for want of even the meancet food. This statement is made oa the authority of the presiding elder of the Methodist church of that section in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Mahon, of Lansing, who related the facts in a public mooting held in that place on the night beforo last. One poor woman, who with a mother devotednees had given to her two liule children all the food she could ire, died a few days since in Gratiot county of absolute starvation, and her children, when found, were too weak to be revived, and shared the mother’s’ fate. Other citizens have painfull struggled into Clinton county on foot, R108 for food Some of bad lived for a number of days on loc! alone, and tench of thelr bodies was almost insuffora- ble, The whole country in the new countics is stripped of food, and even those in best circumstances can pro- cure nothin, to eat but boiled pumpkins and molasses, while the posrer classes, where actual want has not overtaken them, cke out a miserable subsistence on roots, leeks and boiled oats. These state- ments, to us who have enough to eat and drink, and com- fort all around us, seem incredible; but it pains us to say tbat their truth is beyond doubt. e catue, until the re- Cent coming of the pasture, haye dropped off day by day. The people of these distressed districts bave not male known their suffering; for bevide @ natural reluctance, they have looked forward to the spring to afford them relief; butas yet we have no spring. They have now arrived at @ condition where their famishing cries for help must be responded to. We feel confident that our citizens will respond liberally. When the inelligenc) of the destitution reached Lansing, a public meeting was called at once. Our worthy Governor presided. The story of suffering was tola by Rev. Mr. no, who spoke both from reliable information be bad received and from actoal observation in the southera of Gratiot county. Those present subscribed promptly $287, and resolved further to purchase fifty barruls of flour for the relief of the sufferers. The subseri; was jo the hancs of Waller Chestor, Inq., of this city, for disbursal, and bo bas already purchased and sont forward supplios of beans, meal, This purchase the Detroit and Milwau- kie Railroad bas transported free of charge to St. Johns, where a committee from Lansing have agreed to be with teams, and convey the supplies into tho distressed dis- twicts, and distribute them. American Sunday School Union. The Thirty-third Anniversary of this important institution was held in Philadelphia on the evening of the 12th inat., Ambrose White, Esq. in the chair, Earnest and appro inte addrosses were dolivered by the Rev. Dr. Brantley, fey. Mr. Jenkins, Rov. Mr. Brood, and Abraham Martin Eaq., to which the large and intelligent audience listened with'marked attention. The opening and concluding ro- ligious exercises were conducted by the Rev, Dr. Stork, and the Rt. Rov. Bishop Eastburn, The abstract of the wal report waa read by the Rev. R. B, Westbrook, Seo. sons, from which the folowing facie are guthered — ‘The receipts in the a ve been, $11,016 87, and a in domations, $71,082 87; in “ balance on om last year, being specially designated by the donors, $760 43, taking yo tol resources of the department for the year, 884 5 is sum has been faithfully appropriated in accordance with the wishes of the donors. A large corps of missiona- ries have been sent forth into twenty six different States and Territories, who have established more than 1,800 new schools, rod into them about $0,000 children, and secured the instrection of these children over 13,000 poor and needy schools and children with books and other Suuday school requisites In addition to planting these now schools (hey have visited supplied with and oberwive assisted nearly 3,000 Sunday schools, containing more than 100,000 children, making @ total of Sunday schoula organized aud aided of nearly 6,000, If we take into our estimate the result of the Inst six years, wo find that the society haa organized in that time, through the direct labors of its missionaries, more than 12,000 new Sunday schools, containing about 78,000 teach- ers and nearly 600,000 ebildren. The ae. labors of the society aro entirely distinct from the poblishing department. jeed, the latter ia quite subordioate to the former, As a missionary institu. tion, the socisty haa two chief objects: 1. To open new Sunday in neighborhoods aod settlements where they would not otherwise be established, visiting and re- viving old Sunday schools; and 2. To supply them with books for carrying oa the schools successfully, when thus jonations mado to the society are scrupulously ap- ignated by the donors. in no ease ‘applied to carry on whe publication depari ment of ‘a operations. It should be remembered {0 thie connection that it is the pam Ah Te ‘#0 to arrange the price of books aa to 4 sustain, fand enlarge as occasion may require, this bi Of ite operations, and not with a view of Groating » by for the missionary dopertneet, moi now publish a complete ary inday schools, oomtalning 81 volumes, and four seloctions from: the general li of 100 volumes cach, for $10; also two “Five Dollar Juvenile Libraries’ of 16 volumes each ; Child’s Home Library, 50 volumes, $3 50; three Vill and Family Libraries, 24 volumos, $4 each, and the Cabinet Library, of 60 volumes, #2 60, The Sunday Schoot Journal and Youlh's Penny Gasetta are published aa formerly; and in order to increase the ness of the latter, and to bring it within the reach of all, the price of subscription haa been reduced to tem cents ‘Ud shares of'‘ones,” or uaity | per annum where 100 copies are akon Union, in the free commercial and rociai intercourse with each other, authorized by the constivution of the United States, a negro held as a slave in Ke ane, does not be come free by simply passing through Ohio on a journey with, or by permission of, bis master, or, as in this case, by being sent on an errand into Obio and returning immo diately into Kentucky; and this comity between States and nations cannot be construed to infringe the funda- mer tal and local law of domicil of either State. 2d. That the contract in this case being, lice every othor contract, governed by the les ci, and baving bes made in Kentucky, where, by the local law as expounded by the courts cf that State, a slave does not become tree by @ simple sojourn in ilinere in a free Stase, could not have been without considers ion, on the ground that Peindexter woe free at the time he gave the note, On the other points, io wit:— Ist, That Poindexter, under the laws of Kentucky, be- ing @ tlave, had no legal capacity to make a contract with bis master; and 2d, that the (mere executory promise of Anderson to set Poindexter free at a future period, being wholly vold by the laws of Kentucky, was not a legal and valuable consideration for the notes, the Chier Justice con- curred with the majority of the Court in the judgment for the cefendants. JUDGE BRINKERHOFY’S OPINION. Bris kerbot!, J.—For the reason that the principles in- volved in this case are of great moment, and are now re- garded with general and peculiar interest, I will depart from the ordinary usage of the court Dricily to state feparately the grounds on which I place my concurrence in the judgment we are about to enter, ‘The case made in the pleading and proof ia this : Henry Pcindexter, held as a slave in Kentucky, exeout- ed, wgether with his co defendants as sureties, to the plaintiff, Anderson, who claimed a legal rignt to hold him, the promissory note sued on in the Common Pleas of Clermont county, in this State; in consideration of which note, and otherr, the plaintiff ‘agreed to, and did release Poindexter from the slavery in which he was held, and promising to give bim his “free papers” or deed of emancipation, eo soon as this note, and other notes giver at the same time and for the same consid- eration, should be fully paid, Before the giving of these notes, Poindeater, with the knowledge and consent, and sometimes by the direction of Andersou, had, in several instances, come into the State of Ohio, and after remaining a short time in doing errands on which he was sent, had voluntarily, but probably in ignorance of bis rights, ro- turned in*o Kentucky and resumed bis residence with An- derson. After the giving of the notes, Poindexter labored awhile for Anderson for wages, and then took up bis residence in Obio, The case ju the Common Pleas was snbmitted to the court for trial, and a judgment was rendered forthe de- ferdants. The plaintiff then appealed to the District Court, which aleo gave judgment for the defendants. Aad to reverse that jndgmebt this petition in error is proso- cuted. Two questions properly arise in this case:—~ 1. It is contended for the plaintiff that the case, by the comity of nations and States, ia to be determined’ by the lex ek contractus, and that by the laws of Kentucky, where the note eued on was exocutod, it was & valid note. Now, granting, for the take of argument, what I do not admit, but what, on the contrary, I deny, that the Lez loci is w decide the validity uf the note, how Wien stands the care? Under the laws of Kentucky, @ slave is incapable of contracting. He can hold no property. He can ac- quire no rights, His natural domestic relations even are ignored, He has not a right to the child he bas Degotten to nurture it, nor to the wife he has chosen and cherished, w protect her. According to the theory of those laws,’ the slave belongs to the master as pro. perty, and descends to bis heirs as real eatate. No contract can increase the liabilities of the one, or the power of the other. A contract of emancipation imparts to the slave no legal right, and imposes upon the master no /ezal obli gation. Itis simply nugatory and void. The promise of the save to pay money in consideraiion of such @ cou- tract, is null. Being null when made, no subsequent act of emancipation on ‘be part of the master can impart to It any new force. It thua results logically, from the theory of the slave code of Kentucky, that the note which tae plaintiff now seeks to enforce here was tnvalid there. And moreover, by chapter 93, article 9, of the Revised Blatutes of that State, and which seems to be sull in force, emancipation, except by deed or last will and testament, executed in conformity to ite provisions, is prohibi ed. Bo that under the ley ion of Kentucky, Poindexter has never yet been legally emancipated, and thereby reudered competent to coatract. 2. But were it otherwise, oocld this note be enforoed b; Judicial procedure iu Ohio? By the laws of nature, Kf eonapay ong 9 No buman being is bora, or can be naslave. The laws, by a stretch of courtesy, #0 called, of particular countries or }, may subject certain per- sons to be held and treated as the mere transforable tn- struments of other persons; and thia subjection, which constitutes slavery, originating in ferce and fraud, and up- held by local laws which adopt and sanction tho original wrong, may attach immediate y afer birth, as the effoct of positive law in derogation of natural right. ' But stiil it re mains true that the absolute and equal freedom of all per. sone at birth is a fundamental principle of American insti- tutions, proclaimed with indepeudence, and incapable of abrogation, This principle was. y the ordinance of 1787, impressed on the soil of Ohio before thero was an orga. nized community within ber limits; it i# fundamental in hor organization—always embodied in ber conatitution—and. her laws, her policy, and the convictions, the morals, and the religion of ber people, are inatinet with its spirit. The moment apy person comes within the territorial limits of Ohio, bis personal rights are ascertained and do- termined by the constitution and laws of Ohio. There is bo exception wo this rule, re in the case of @ person, who, being held to service in another Siate, escapes into this,’ In such a case, the constitution of the United states declares that the fugitive ‘shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."’ ‘There is nothing in this article of compact which gives sanction that slavery, the essential elements of ich is aseerted ey ee joconsiatent with the purposepf the of that constitution, slearly mani ceted in their debates as reported by Mr. Madison, to avoid all recognition of “the idea that there may be property in man.”"—d Madison Papers, 1,429, 90, It establishes no rule which does not apply equally to all “persons held to service.” It takes up and deals with the broad aad general relation of mastor and sorvant, Dut has nothing whatever to do with the rolatioa of owner and property. When, therefore, a person held as a ainve in another ‘State escapes into this State he ceases to be, in any proper sense of the word, a slave. And the courts of Ohio, I ap- pany g) would decline to recognize or euforce any con- of purchase or sale, wherever made, of which he might be the subject while thus within our limite. The relation of subjection as property, created by the local law of the State he has left, cannet follow him beyond the limita of the sovereignty which establiy hed it. In Ohio he is a man, liable, it may bo, to be delivered up on due claim pote but yet & man, “a person held tw ser- vice,’ and, in every other respect than this, a free man. When once so delivered up, and taken back to the State from which he escaped, tho relation of @ slave may re-attaoh under the local law. Until then, subject only to thia liabitity, he remains free. In the case now before this court there was no escape from Kentucky into Obio. Poindexter dhine inw Ohio on several occasions with the consent or by the ordor of the plaintiff, So coming, he becamo enutled to the full benit of the express prohibition of slavery by our State constitution, To all intents and pu what soever he was free; bis don status were freeman;’ his master, by consenting to his coming, must be held to have consented to his freedot hich, whether he consented or got, was oatab- lished by law. ‘And being thus free, wherever he might go or be taken he could not again be enslaved by any law which this coart can recognize as valid. And this doctrine haa been frequently held, even in States where enforced property in men, with all its repulsive foatures and odjoas attributes, is sanctioned and upheld by the local law. pmaddbemmemadeian 476; Smith vy, Smith, 13 L. R444. If @ person held as ariave can bo bronght or sent into Ohio for one hour, and still retain bis satus as a slave, then the same thing can be done for a day, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime; and thus this inautation, the shame of our country, and the opprobrium of Christendom, be virtually established on a soil so often and solemaly devoted to ab- solute freedom. From the Declaration of Independence until very recent- ly, it was never questioned that, in the United States, a person once legally free ia always free. Tho doctrine has m regarded as & partof American common law. Court have differed as to facts which constitate a title to freedom, but have, almost with one mind, concurred in the doctrine that no man once free, can be again enslaved o: for crime. In my ) jont—and such I understand to be tho pn raed also of four of the five members of this Court— indexter, having come into a free State otherwise than by escape, was free, and having thus become free, could not agaiu be reduced tosiavery. And this opinion governs the decision of & majority of the Court; because, if free, he note given in consideration of emancipation, was with- out consideration, and therefore vold. But, it is said that the note was at least given In conside- ration of @ com) and release of a doubiful claim, and therefore is valid. Not so, the was made by Poindexter while under duress, wrongful duress, in consideration of release from that asurped dominion, therefore imposes no valid obligation either in morals or in law. 1 Fareons on Contrests,510; Mays v9. Ciacinpal, 10, ‘We aro aware that in Kentucky {t haa beon decided that a held aa a slave iu that State who may have been purpose into a free Stato, and again, is not thereby @ but is remanded to the condition In which he was before held; and it is urged that the principle of international and interstate comity requires us to recognize and enfore this rule, The clear and sufficient answer to this claim is, that Te not a roatter to be demanded as a right, olae it My ceane'to be comity. 14ke courtesy among’ indivi- duals bow fat the principle of Sate com sesreaon oie im nny cane or class of ennee, ia at the discretion of he an humble member of this court I can never cxwent te become the medium of its surrender. b., [From the Louisville Journal, 3 16.) ‘Yesterday afternoon the arguments counsel werd concluded in the case of the three negroes charged with the peureer es: ge in this county, several months ago. Judge then charged the who retired, and in ashort time returned with a yordion of “Not guilty.” It would have been impossible, we are told by lawyers, to render a different verdict, considering the nature of the testimony introduced by the prosecus tion, which consisted maioly of the statements ef one of the negroes implicated in the crime. Besides, Judge Bak lock, in his charge, declared this evidence to’ be entitled to but little if any credit. Immediately after the rendition of the verdict, tha greater portion of the persons in the court room eft and proceeded toward the jail where the accused were eon- fined. The crowd was somewhat excited, and manifested adesire to satisfy thomselves with exeguting summary vengeance vpon the negroes, who they congeived were improperly acquitted, Arriving in front of the jail, they were met atthe gate by the Chief of the Police and @ The Hanging of Three Negroes in Louisville by a Mo! body of his men, who resisted thelr atte to on ter. Foiled in their efforts, the excited crowd retired, ‘and, until night, were gathered in the vicinity, bnt made no further demonstrations. the meantime the police force was strengthened, and ari made for the defence of the jail in view of a ‘attack. By nightfall the multitude had greatly ia numbers, and the excitemept was manifestly incroasing. The majority of the perrons present, however, to be murely spectators, taking no pxtrt in the distar Appeala were made of a highly jathumaions nature, and the indignation of the peoplo was naturally heighteced. Finally a desperate onslaught was made, the prison fenea was broken, and the large crowd rushed to the doer. Feveral shots were fired, and the force within returned by the {discharge of blank’ cartridges. m resistance further maddened the already infuriated mob. A party ef men und boys forced an entrance into the building where the artillery is kept, and, procuring canon, beavi loaded it with every description of deadly misailes. was planted within a few feet of the prison door, whiolt was already battered down, end the windows broken tm. Threats were made to discharge the cannon into the ante-chamber where Mr. Thomas, the jailor, aud his de; ties, Mayor Pilcher, and about tweuty policemen, w: stationed. Further resistance would haye been utterly futile, and at the imminent peril of the life of every one of the gen~ tlemen who were attempting to dofend the i would also have resulted in demolishing the prison de- fences and rafeguards and froed more than rm, Under these circumstances the officials in charge found themselves forced to the painful measure of delivering op the negroes, These officers had during the evening com- ducted themselves with much manliness, and for twe hours before dark had successfully kept at bay the attack: ing mob. Had the crowd boen dispersed when it first assembled and engaged in disorderly proceedings, the ter- rible tragedy that ensued could have been art ; Three of the prisoners being delivered up, a rasor waa ven tothe fearth in the jail (Jack, the of Mr. muels, of Bullitt county), and he cut his ‘ the jugular vein and windpipe, and death. The wound was of the most horrible and a more ghastly spectacle was over witnosed, ‘than the dead body when it was brought to the yard and ex to the view of the crowd. Ropes were obtained and the other negroes marched off to the Court i aware, At the west end, George, the slave of Mr. uels, was hung upon @ tree, amid col exstectons of" ioe ereiatias "ite elim tas aie i then marched through the square, and near Fifth were likewise executed. Qu0 of them, the slave Brown, protested his innocence, and pleaded ptt be released. Hin agony of mind and sufferings were intense. Mr. ‘as Bill, the one who was Btate’s evidence in the case, was the last one exeopted. We mame that he and one of the others confessed their gu! Fires wero kindled under the suspended bodies; but they: were not consumed. Large numbers of about the acene of this awfal tragedy until a late ” and it was the universal topic of conversation. The ex- citement in somo degree sudeided, and the turbulence Sore Ser 008 eng ee eee eee wreak ir vengeance upon the victims, appeared to more awe stricken than exultant. id = pee Mateaerih,, Git 6 hs Fetten, et: charge of tha Mayor Pilcher attempted to calm the mob, and was out. eet See eee & severe wound tn the face, er J. A. Weatherford one of his fingers shot o@, Toba Se Serpe bees mowed, Rew Gare A Fe ‘The Morality of Cincinnati. ELOPEMENT OF A CITY FATHER WITH HIS WiFR’g SISTER-IN-LAW. [From the Cincinnati Commercial, May 11.) As much of the world as is comprised within the puriious pede eb Ay ds | Wost, was startled from its staid wonse of propriety on Saturday, by the announcement thas « woll known citizen, and @ member of the Ooancil for the Thirteenth Ward, bad been playing the Don Juan, and da parted from the city incompany with lovely and dash- ing widow, mother of four children, while, the gay Lothario, had also left behind him a young wife and twe interesting pledges of her affecticn, with a speedy prospect of another budding blossom to their union. The name of the erring City Father is Jos. Darr, Jr., one of the liveliest members of | uniform chamber of dullness, wheretm oar municipal laws are enacted, while the jnamorate ts @ relict of the late Mr. seohre L- —- line’ between, ispered that wie course of marital w months since betwoom consequence of some ‘ter, written te of love aad or the ancient Joseph, of Potiphar would have flown from with horror. Be this as it may, it was discovered, on morn! that the inconstant Benedict had appropriated the ready cash be could command, aod in company with the widow, who it is said, had in her a largesemm of money—reports var; trom Bio, to Baltimore’’ as it ia surmised en route to Previous to leaving, he executed « deed, i j i 3 j | actually taken the Eastern cities, with sccurate desori sons, and orders effected or not caused a vivi port whero er four father! first born, for she has the James Summons affair, and for i ii fie af a atl fH aE : i m Kentucky. UNHAPPY MARRIAGE, § afernoon a young marr’ dts drown herself ia tho, caual, bet { i Fi gf i Zz i if fr