The New York Herald Newspaper, April 16, 1859, Page 1

THE NEW YORK HERALD. WHOLE NO. 8259. THE WASHINGTON TRAGEDY. Frial of Daniel E. Sickles for Killing Philip Barton Key. Festimeny of Jacob Wagner, John Mi. Seo- ley, Louis Poole, Coroner Woodward, @. H. A. Bulkley, Jewe B. Haw, Major Hopkins, Hrs. Nancy Brown. Arguments of Counsel Upon Important Legal Points. ao, &o, ¥HE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT. ‘Wasmaton, April 15, 1869, ‘The court room is as crowded to-day as it has been ‘ince the commencement of this memorable trial. The Saterest in it docs not abate a jot, but rather becomes in- fewaified from day today. There is so much time con- wumed by counsel in arguing the questions that arise that Wat litle real progress is made, and weeks may yet elapse Before the trial can be brought to a close. ‘The reporter for the Associated Press regrets that his desire to give a faithful reflex of public sentiment here has exposed him to the charge of bias and partiality, nd that one of the New York evening papers at- feibutes to him unworthy motives. He disclaims any prejudice whatever in the matter, and repels the groes insinuation made in the Evening Post, ‘Be claims to be as far above improper influence as any ef the editors or proprietors of that sheet. He regards it ‘as being within the province of his duties to represent the manifestations of public sentiment. If in this case public peatiment happons to predominate largely on one side, and if he so represents it, the fault is not fairly attribu- table to him. He confidently sppea's to his report to shew that nothing bearing against the prisoner, in evi- denee or arguments of counsel, has been omitted or aturred over. Ho has intended to be thoroughly impartial, and rogrets that he should have been so misunderstood and misrepresented. ‘The Court was opened at half-paat ten o’clock, and soon after the prisoner was brought in, looking less careworn ‘than hitherto. TESTIMONY OF JACOB WAGNER. Jasob Wagner, the locksmith, re-called, and examina- Wen continued by Mr. Brady, who said he understood the witness wished to make some correction of his testimony. ‘Witness—No one spoke to me but the colored man; I heard Mr. Pendieton’s name mentioned; this gentleman (pointing to Mr. Lee Jones, a lawyer, who sits by the side @f the prosecuting coungel) is the manI took to be Mr. Pendleton. (Mr. Jones gave a nod of assent). Orots examined—It was the colored man who sent for ‘me; I went in by the back door; tho front door was lock- ed; I tried to unlock the back door, and found it was un- locked; the lock had not been broken; this was about a week after Mr. Key’s death; the gentlemen I spoke of ‘were up stairs, | think; Ido not remember their coming down, nor did T g0 up atairs; I saw them in the yard, und saw g0 up stairs; they did not superintond taking off the lock, nor did they give me any directions. fo Mr. Brady—The lock I put on was quite a different Kind of look from that I took off. fo Mr. Carlisle—I know John Gray, the colored man; he was thero; donot know whether it was he or one of ‘the gentlemen who told me 1 take it off; Teaw the two men look around the lower part of the house, and hen go up stairs. TESTIMONY OF JOUN M. SEELEY. John M. Secley was next examined by Mr. Brady—I re- ide in this District, and am a painter; I reside on L street, thirty yards below the corner of Fifteenth; the dis- tance between the back gate of my house and that of 888 Fifteenth street is about forty-five feet; I wit. messed the taking off the lock; saw the opening of the back. door, and heard the order given to take the lock eff the front door, because, as [ thought, the key had been lost; Mr. Chas. Lee Jones and Mr. Pendleton were ot; one of therm directed the locksmith to remove the eff the front door; 1 know @ gentieman nemed Poole, he went with-me into the back yard; when tbe locksmith ‘went to work to remove the lock the two gentlemen went ne I beard nothing of the character of the new ‘Grose-examined by Mr. Ould—That was the Orst time I been in that house after Mr. Key’s death; it was be- the 6th and 8th of March; the locksmith got into through the lot of a yellow woman; I was in- ard when he came oP the locksmita seemed to door, and he said he fouad it unlooked; I do ‘of my own knowledge, only from rumor, that had been there after Mr. Key’s doath time; we walked into the room slowly towards t door; ‘to not know which of the geatlemen gave direction about replacing the lock with a new one, and that— , Brady—Never mind that. ‘Wituess—These gontiemen stayed some twenty or twen- ty-five minutes about the house; did not hear any other remark made about the lock, nor any order given as to the change of it or what was to be done with it; the ro- mark, understand, was that that look bad better bo taken off and a new ono put on ia place of it, TESTIMONY OF LOUIS POOLE. ‘Louis Poole was next examined by Mr. Brady. ‘Witnese—I lived, in February last, on L atreet, betwoon Fifteenth and Sixteenth streets, in the house of the last witness; I know the brick house 386 Fifteenth street, and ‘was present when the lock was taken off; I think it was the Monday or Tuesday week following tho death of Mr, 5 Meat endicton, Jones, Seeley, the colored man inysolf were present; Mr. Pendleton ordered the old Jock to bg taken trom the door and repiaced by a now one. Crogs-examined by Mr. Ould—Can you recollect the = lJavguage made use of by Mr, Pendleton on that eocas'on' Witnets--I cannot exactly say, but he directed the old Toek to be removed and a new one pat on. (The curtness of this witaovs’ stylo of response elicited inter, which was suppressed by the officers. ese—After this order Messrs. Jones and Pendleton ‘went up stairs and examined that portion of the house; I had never been in that house up to that time, —Did you know that others had been? ‘itness—No, sir; I knew that Mr. Key went thore, and : johny trai (interrupting)—I did not ask ing)—T did n you about Laughter.) My question bad reference to the tipo subsequent to Mr. Key’s death, ‘To Mr. Carlisle—Mr. ‘Seeley and I did not go there with ‘Messrs. Jones and Pendleton ; I koow Mr. Jones by sight, "ir Cariale (interrupting) if ot neconea a val "uy ae not ni to state There is no doubt about its being Mr. ileton, ‘Witness—We went there on our own account. The ro- mark made by Mr. Pendleton wae made io our presence. ‘Mr. Carlile (sotto vooe)—A curious way of suppreasing RE-RXAMINATION OF MR. WOODWARD. Mr. Weodward, tho Coroner, was recalled and ex- ka. EFZE B3s Arh “it i F your posscssion, at any time, any pa- cards, memorandums, or anything of that kind, be- to Mr. Key? itneer—No; Jast Monday, in court, a gentleman asked me if I was aware nat Dr Mer had takon some, papers out of Mr. Key’s pocket; that was the firet I hoard of it; the was held about baif- three; 1 thought I ‘made a thorough examination of Mr. Key’s person, and I found nothing more than I havo stated; it was I who seut for Dr. Miller; I was not told about other things being TESTIMONY OF 0. H. A. BULKLEY. Rev. C. H. A. Bulkley examined by Mr. Brady—lama @lergyman, and reside in Westminster, Connecticut; have known Mr. Sicklcs since 1888; we wore aesociated togeth- er in the New York University; Mr. Sickles was in our clam pursuing his studies in the department of belles let- tres; our pursuits being since that time diverse, we have mot cultivated an acquaintance, but we have recognized each other as we mot. Q—Do you know the liability of Mr. Sickles to Intenso and sudden excitement? Witness—Yen, sir. ‘The District Attorney objected to proof bility ruplens jt went to the extent of insanity. eer Mr. Brady did not propose to prove excital hhad heard before that in such cases the: tempernimont. oe Mabilt ren ed mn not rent Cd Ne of being le proposed in reweing t! to speak to mm aboot iissotty in'all Ke Yerious. forma’ ’ howe eae years, and aome are fre lunatics for a few days, come And he'bolioved ‘any man of intelll y phases fmcurably ingane. can express an opinion on the different of y. The Fase and logical constitu. tion of @ man, as bearing on a tondency to inranity, ise fair matter of evitenco, Ho wantod to prove that’ Mr. [snipped ‘an Occasion greatly lacerating to hie feelinga, <a positively infanc, and had to be placed under ‘Mr. Carlisle, in that view, withdrow his objection. Mr. Brady: to witness—Siate what you know of tho ton. dency of Mr. Sickles’ mind to become disordered on being subject to some emotion, jitners—The int which T_am about to state occur. rod, £ think, in the your 1840, on the occasion of the death of Professor Da Ponte, in the city of New York; he was 0 Kind of patron and guardian of Mr. Sickles, or, rather, I ight ray that Mr. rae rogarded by us students ‘aa his protiyé—on one in whom Da Ponto took a special in- berest with regard to his education; in the comotery where Professor Da Ponte was buried, inunedi- e body was lowered into tho q le, out into & spasm of peesionate grief and most frantic energy; he raved, ani tore up and down the graveyard shr: yelling, #0 much so re bis friends to molfify him in any messure by words; we were obit ww take boid of him, and by friendly force restrain bim, avd thus ultimately we tool him out of the cemetery; the demonstration be made might be called one of frantic grief. Q Did he do apy violence to his person or his gar- ments, or eres. of that kind? Witners—T cannot say positively as to that, but the impression I bave is that be did tear his clothes and his 1 cannot swear positively as to that; the other facts are very indellibly impressed on my mind. Q—lIs the statement vow made by you one that was sovgbt by the oner’s counsel, or are you bere in con- sequence of luntary communication from you? itnese—It has not been solicited at all; it waa sug- gested to my mind as being a piece of ‘testimony would be a benefit to Mr. Sickles. Mr. Carlisle—It is not necessary to state that; nobody = improper motives to you. ir. Stanton—It is only to show thst Mr. Sickles was ‘unconscious of anything strange having taken place on ‘that occasion. Mr. Brady—You can © that Mr. Sickles did no! facies Sn indirectly apply to you to give this testimony. Mr. Carlisle—Nobody says he did. ae Brady—I want to exclude the possibility of that ea. mr. Carlisle—Nobody questions it. ‘To Mr. Ould—I cannot tei! precisely what was Mr. Sickles’ age at the time of that occurrence; it was in 1840; eu) ‘we would have catled ourselves young men then, ir. Brady—Young America. (Laughter.) " ‘Witnexe—We were both about the sume age; Iam now forty years of age; I cannot say how long this frantic grief lasted—zomewhere between five and teu minutes; saw no trace of it the day following; I was not associated with him then, as I graduated in 1839 and went to the New York Theolcgical Seminary; do not recollect whether I kaw Mr. Sickles the next day; I did see him two or three days afterwards; did not then notice anything extraordinary or unusual in bis appearance; I might say, possibly, that he appeared to be rather lighter-heated, and apparently too much so, under the circamstances; his light heay pens Feemed unnatural, in covtrast with the grief he had exhibited two days before; with respect to the fret manifestation, it was the most remarkable one Tevers w; I have beon in the minietry for eeveral years, and have never seen anything like it; there was nothing particular on the second occasion to produce mirtbfal- ness, To Mr. Carlisle—The latter incident wes somewhere near the University; all traces of grief, so far as I saw bad dieappeared; it'was such a very casual thing that I am not able to recall more—the time or the circumstances; ‘that T thought po more of it. is to this exhibition of levity, I have stated that it etruck me as unnatural io contrast with the remarkable exhibition he bad made two days before—so that the inference on my mind was that he was subject to very sudden emotions; this friendly force I apoke of was employed for the purpose of lessening the demonstrations which he was making, which were aggravating the grief of the mourners, and which seemed £0 excessive in them we were apprehensive of some fugher violence to him- relf, and that bis mind would entirely give way. ‘To Mr, Oarlisle—Mr. Sickles was studying in the English and scientific classes, and did not graduate with mo. TESTIMONY OF JESSE B. HAW. Jesse B. Haw examined by Mr. Brady—Kaew Mr. Key; the last time I saw him was the morning of the day he was shot, between ten and twelve o'clock, in Lafayette equare; eaw bim come out of the west gate; he went to warde Georgetown; I lost sight of him as be passed; T did not notice bim looking at anything; I was with Mr. Youn; at the time, but did not see Mr. Key use his handkerchief; have known Mr. Key five or six years. TESTIMONY OF MAJOR HOPKINS. Major Hopkins examined by Mr. Brady—I am cosch- man for Col. Freeman; have been for five for six] years; his house is between Fifteenth and Sixteenth streets, on H street; the last timo I saw Mr. Key was Sunday morning; he was shot about half-past one; I was standing at Free- mav’e gate; I saw Mr. Key in the middie of Lafayette Fquare, walking back and forth two or three times to the Jackeon siatue; that was all I saw on Sunday; I did not gee him do anything particular at that time; I saw him on the Monday or Wednesday before the shooting; he walked past me five or six times; I saw him wave his handker- chief five or eix times; Mrs. Sickles came out and joined hhim on the corner of HI street and Madison place; I saw them go up Fifteenth street, and lost sight of them on the steps of John Gray’s house. Mr. Carlisie—Asa matter of curiosity, is Major your Christian name or title? Witners—My name. Mr. Carlisle—That explains why the Major drives the Colonel’s carriage—you don’t belong to the army or militia. Cross-examined by Mr. Carlisle—It was either on Mon- day or Wednesday that I saw them, between one and two o'clock; Philip Lynch, the footman’ of Colonel Freeman, ‘was with me at the time; we did not follow the parties; we were on the box of the coach when we first saw him wave his handkerchief; we drove to Judge Wayne’s; saw them while we were going back, and also on First street, while going to Mrs. Cutts’, h = ; ‘lisle—Do you know Mrs. Sickles well? What's er size’ Witnese—She is not very Iarge nor very small, but of middle height, light hair, a little stout; I cannot ssy hew tall she is. ‘Q.—How tall are you? Witnese— About five feet seven inches. —Is ehe as tall as you? ‘itness—I guess not. Q.—Is she five feet two? Witnees—I can’t say, I never measured her. (Exces- sive laughter, which the officers rebuked. Mr, Carlisle—I am very glad you have mentioned the fact, and gworn to it. There can be no doubt of it, I Suppose. ‘Witnese—tI saw her with her veil up, and distinctly re- cognized ber; it was a pleasant day, and tho usual num- ber of people’ were in the street; ane had on a black dross and dark cloak, bordered with red and white, Cross examined by Mr. Ould, particularly as to his lo- cality when he gaw the parties, when it appeared that be ‘Was a square off at the time he took notice of her dress, Witnese—To the best of my opinion that lady was Mrs, Sickles, because I bad seen her coming out and goin, down Madison place with Mr. Key; the lady I saw in Fit teenth street wore the same clothes that Mrs. Sickles wore; this was between two and three o'clock. Q—Did_you or dia you not merely suspect that this was Mra, 8., or did you know it? A.—To the best of my opinion it was Mrs. 8. EVIDENOS OF MRS. NANCY BROWN, Mrs. Nancy Brown, a middje aged lady, was next Placed on the stand. Asthe oath was administered to her, she said she did not hear it distinctly, and wanted to uader- stand it. She drew near the Clerk, and took the oath. Examined by Mr. Brady—I live in Fifteenth street; my husband ig the President’s gardener; I knew Mr. Key; I saw him on the Wednesday before he was shot, Q.—Where did you see him? Witness—I saw him going into a houge on Fifteenth street, the next but one to where I | ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL. Mr. Carlisle tried to stop the answer. He supposed there must be some point of timo when his Honor would hear and dotermine the question about this house of John Gray’s. They were sliding along in the direction of giving evidence of adultery. He desired to know and to have it determined whether his Honor meant to admit as compe- tent evidence facta tending to show previo adultery on the of deceased with the prisoner’s wife? They were f along, point by point, toward that subject, and if they did not make an now, he did not know when they should make it. If his Honor thought the evi- dence should be admitted, no objection could or would be offered on the part of the prosecution. But would have evidence to offer on the same subject. whether this was or was nots lick in the chain of evi- dence bearing on adultery? Ifo, it was the duty of the prosecution to present the question to the Court. Mr. Brady would say a few words, politely he hopod, in r “Tho delanoe (an reprentat: the prosecution. }, to the annoyance itly of the District Attor- bey, by several counsel. Prosecution was represented by two-couvsel. For his part be wished it represented by six couneel, He would ineist that Mr. Key was killed in an act of adultery, within the meaning of the Jaw, and that that was proved within the testimony of the prosecution, He offered tis cvidence—first, to prove an tercourse and ry ron agen on agreement ‘k than the hiring of “this house in Fif- Street, and connected with the hiring aad furnish- ing of that house; and they would claim that where an aduiterer hires a house and takes to it the wife of another man, daily or weekly, or whenover he could get her to go there, that was a case of habitual adultery. In other words, they eatd that when a man and woman go habitual- ly to a Bouse for the purposo of adultery, they are living in adaltery all the time; and it was not necessary for the husband to wait for the disgusting exhibition of his own dishonor to. slay the gorged and satiated and brutal adultorer; that was one aspect of this case, They bad proved that Mr. Key was {requently seen before tho house of Mr. Sickles, waving a white handkerchief, and no one could look ob any partof this case without geet this tainted banner floating in the atmosphere, which, ‘was corrupted by the presence of that brutal adui- terer, They had shown that with that banner in bis hand, and with the key of that house of prostitutjon in Dis cet, the deceased was hovering around the house . Sickles when the outraged husband met and slow him. He supposed that, having preved the matter of the Gaza) ther. could show the purpose for which that house in Fifteenth street was kept; and he held that, in point of law and in point of reason, the deceased was killed in the act. would offer this evidence, too, on the <3 of insanity, i ge on the rulings In the case of and Jarboe. The; red to vo, first, that just before Mr. Sickles left his house and home, on the 27th of before he met Mr. said house, as e signal to Mrs. 8 to leave the house and join thn, to proceed to said house in Fiftecnth street, and there have adulterous intercourse with sald Key, and that Mr. Sickles saw the sald Key use bis said handkorchiof, and knew what was the meaning of such une, as 8 above stated; that Key hired a house in Fitteenth street, in the city of Washington, for tho exclorive purpose of committing adultery therein with Mrs. Sickles; that the key of such house waa found on tho person of déceased after hie death, and was one of those which have been produced on thig trial; that Mr. Sicklog ive. luiterous in- MORNING EDITION—SATURDAY, APRIL 16, 1859. PRICE TWO CENTS. yet that at the time Mr. Sickles met Key, on tame key; . the ith of February, at ihe corner of ‘Madison aveuue, Be = < of the front door lock of said house be vsed in procuring admittance in the habit of exhibiting aud before Mr. Sickles’ house and home as a signal, ou perceiving which she was to leave bouse oceed to the house in Fifteenth street, and there @ adulterous connection with Mr. Key and that Key and Mr. Sickles, on the 27th of Febraary, come to the knowledge of said Sickles, and that said Sickles, imme distely before the killing, bad himself seen the said Key using his handkerchief before the residence of said Sicxles, for the adulterous purpose aforesaid. ‘The Judge—As I understand this proposition, it brings up the question of admiesion of proof of adulterous inte r- couree. Mr. Brady—For any purpose? ‘The Judge—Yes, for any purpose; that opens the whole fo. Court took a recess for # few minutes, and hen théargument procoeted. ‘Mr. Carlisle argued against the admissibility of evi- dence of adultery. Me regarded the question as one of exceeding importance to the administration of jus- tice generally. consequences of his Honor’s opi- nion must stretch far beyond the iesues of this par. ticular case. His Honor bad offered to him an oppor- tonity of establishing a new era in the administration of justice in cases of homicide, and he was invited, in- stead of resting on the antiquas mas of he law, to fol. low the ingenuity of counsel into newand devious a The counsel on the other side would argue that they were only asking bis Honor to apply old principles to a new case, if they could succeed in byeipin ‘that he (Carlisle) ‘would not be disposed to cavil at or object to such deter mipation by the Court. He had already, in an argument somewhat akin to this, had occasion t express to tho Court the views of the law which the Prosecution here en. tertained, and he was compelled to wait and hear the ar. guments and the doctrines which were to him unknown and Coop Goo by which the learned counsel on the other side hoped to satisfy his Honor that the plain rule jaid down in all text books, and adjadicated in all cases of which there are records, was not the rule of this cass. It would offend bis Honor to refer to the text writers. ‘and prove that to reduce the gradé of thé offence from murder to manslaughter, because of an act of adultery by deceased with the prisoner’s wife; that the adultery muet be an actual and not an imaginary or figurative one; that it must be one in the eyes of the husband; that the killuwg under that provocation must be an immediate killing; and that the subsequent killing is ono on the principle of revenge, and is murder. case in Ire Gell, to which he referred yesterday, recapitulated the Jaw, and laid it down as the existing law of the land. The jJearned Judge there said, that with that law all existing authorities concurred. ‘The same law is Paid down in the American treatises on the subject. Counsel would refer his honor to Wharton on Homicide, page 179, where it is faid that, however great the provocation may have beeo, if time bad elapsed for passion to subside, the killing ie murder; and that in the case of adultery, where there ‘Deen cooling time, the provocation will not avail in alle- ‘on of guilt. He algo referred to the case of the Queen against Fisher (8 Carrington and Paine). There, a fatner found that his son bad been reduced to an unutterabie condition of crime and disgrace by the party whore life he took. There, too, the act iteelf was @ capital crime, pun- ishable under the law of the land by death. For that father tobave brought the man to justice would have been to haye brought his own son to the gallows. ‘To be sure, that father not been described as in apy paroxysms of grief; but counsel had yet to learn that grief would not corrode the heart as surely, when silently goawing at it. Under this provocation, the father, when he met the offender, slew him, Mr Justice Parke, in summiog up that case, said that there would be exceedingly wild work taking place in the world ifevery man were allowed to be the jadge of his own wronge; that there must be an instant provocation to justify a verdict of manslaughter in all cagee—the party must see the act done. He therefore held that, as the father in this case had not seen the act done, there was nothing to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. Counsel for defence—There was only a conviction of manslanghter there. Mr. Carlisle—That is true. The charge of the Judge is reported on the question of provocation, and on that question alone the facts of the case showed that there waa ‘w scofile between the parties, and counsel could well com- called to pass on the life of that e jury bad done in the case of Jarboe, tiptoe to find a rearonable doubt of the prisoner’s guilt. Counsel would never forget that case of Jarboe, and if that case were relied on by ¢ Counsel on the other side for a procedent for throwing open the gates of society to every species of violence, when that violence was set in motion by the natural feel- ings of the heart, they were mistaken. For one, asa humble member of this community, as one who expected his bones to rest on this soil, and the bones of bis. children, and his children’s children to rest in the same hallowed soil, heshouid deplore that he had ‘been spared to live to see the day when such a docrine should be proclaimed by the authority which resides in the jary box. But even if the Jarboo case established such an evil precedent, he had that confidence in the good and Jawful men of this community, that he did not believe that apy precedent would lead astray a jury of this county. In the case of Jarboe, it appeared in evidence that the prisoner and his young sister, who had failen into the arms of an infamous sedacer, when they were walk- in the street together met the deceased, and that the brother asked him civilly and quietly, “What do you mean to do about my mster?”” The anawer was brutal in the extreme; and it further appeared that, on the instant of death, the deceased had drawn from his person a loaded weapon, which fell at his fet. Under these cir- cumstances the coungel appealed, and rightly appoalod, to the jury to give the prigoner the benefit of the doubt in reference to the deceased having first drawn a pistol upon the prisoner, That was not this cage. Counsel forbore at this time to con- trast the two cases. The case of The People ngst. Jobn, reported in Iredell, wasa direct case of adultery, Where the husband found the deceased lying on a bed. and bis wife in the room with bim, and instantly kill bim; and there the adultery was not allowed to be proved in justification. Counsel had yet to hear any argument againet utherity of that case, except tiat the party wes a . Connse) also referred to the case of the Queen vs.’Keily, reported in Carriogton and Paine. Counsel for Defence—That is the case where a man shot his mistress on mere suspicion. Mr. Carlisle—It is. I do not intend to compare the facts with the facts of this cage, but read it merely for the law, as it is laid down init, ‘Tnat was ® modern case—a case long subsequent to the time when the benefit of clergy (the burning in the hand) was abolished, Whatever there be disgusting or repugnant in the porpostition that the husband must catch the adulterer in the act to entitle bim to set it up im mitigation of the offence, it is the pro- position of the law and not of this ion. Painfal and diegusting as the law might be unhappily for those who offend it, it must be submitted to. Counsel for the defence say they p to show habitual adultery; that the prisoner saw the adultery with his mind’s eye; that the proof had thickened upon him, until he was forced to believe it. Granted all this for the purpose of this argument; granted that he had rat in judgment, and heard the par- ee, both of them, and had @ true judgment thal they were gulity, did that make the case laid down in the text books of an adulterer found by the husband in the very act? Why, nosir. And yet doctrine here was not that that knowledge of adultery reduced the crime from the grade of murder to that of manslaughter, for that is scouted, but that it justified the murder. Ac- cording to this doctrine, the husband was in a condition for the year during which this adulterous intercourse had continued to kill mot only the adulteress but ber para- mour. doctrine was entirely new to him, but of course it did not follow from that circumstance that it might not be sound. Counsel had not the advantage of havi the pointa of evidence before him, but he understood that it was proposed to prove habitual adultery between de- ceased and the prisoner’s wife. If a woman leaves her busband’s bouse and goes to live ber ir in open adultery, might the injured husband at time he thought proper to go and siay that adulterer? would put that case in the strongest light; if he had the ability of the counsel on the other side he would paint it in the ‘most diegueting terms; but he was ‘‘no orator, as Brutus is;”” it would be new faw to him that the husband might, under such circumstances, slay his wife or her paramour; bis Hovor bad never read such a law, and certainly had never enunciated it. What next was offered? The waving of the fing, the possession of the key of a house hired for the purpose of prostitution; that the deceased at the mo- ment of the homicide was on his way to the prisoner's house, with the unlawful design of seducing the priso ner’e wife out of her house, What next was offered to be proved? That the prisoner knew the deceased was on his way to the house with the design of inducing his wife to commit an act of adultery with him. Did that knowledge justify murder? Why, notat all. Such a knowledge mado bia wife a thing to be loathed by him. These are the facts offered in evidence, He might place them under threo heads:—Firat, facts tending to show habitual and conti- nued acts of adultery; second, a specific act of adultery; and third, evidence tending to show that tbe aduaitere was about to perpetrate an wi akable wrong upon the prisoner. insel supposed no further act 0! sbame could have been then perpetrated upon the prison er’s wife. She had become dead to the prisoner at the bar—worse than dead, infinitely worse. He, the counsel eded, has not the consolation which her death might ve given him. I am not here, and I hope I nover shall be in any piace to endeavor to take from him any parti- cle of sympathy which any human heart may extend to. ward him. Far from it. In my connection with this Gane I have not swerved thus far, and I trast my life will justice, jan) In respect of ever’ movement nected with it Ba’ 4 con! ‘this is the caso of a husband who scout tad oped first to show that nia wife was who would bave you believe that innocent pledge of their. muatusl love, resting head, and who thon and made or ‘answered an adulterer; a woman who had ‘polluted who bad mado’ bie chiid motherleas, who had oup of shame aad bitterness to overflowing, This is seems to be no difference at all in tooo the bois Tp which the unbappy wife isto be painted. I concede to the prieover, in the argument I am ow maki "all that be claims for himself, as one capable of comprehending abd fally realizing all the sacred relations of the marriage ing driven to insanity ‘by the discovery of the widetity of his wife; granting all this to bim, bow does it bear oa the proposition of evidence? Why, they tell us he has tracked this thing from the beginning to the end. Mr. Brady——I beg your pardon; nobody has stated that in my heating. The propositioa is that just belore Mr. Bickiés left bis house that Sunday, ne discovered these facts, and had alco witnessed the waving of this flag. ‘ir. Carlisle—T am aware that this offer of evidence em- braces no such fact; it woula be if it did, But Tam addressing his Honor on a matter of law; aad I am addressing a Judge who has secp and read aad determined upon the admireibility of a certain paper which on Satur. day night was drawn 0p in the prisoner’s presence, and signed by witncases. I gdmit for the purpose of the argu. ment, that the prisoner had the undoubted proofs of bi+ wife's habitual adultery with the deceased. He sees the flag of the adulterer waving, and he slays him on the instant of meditation of the violation of the husband’s rights. ht rights bad the prisoner in this woman atthat time? If be be as they described bim, and as he is esumed to be, he must have loathed and deserted her. add to his suffering? Do the counsel mean that still by condonation the prigoner might have been willing to take back to his arme the wife who bad been a confirmed adul- teress for many months, and that be would have done 80 but that be saw the flag of the adulterer waving in front of his house? Tfency not. Looking at it then not as lawyers, but as men, with the common heart of mankind, he would ask what was there in that meditated act at that time to the prisoner in taking the life of the deceased? thing, he submitted, What was there in the oye of a lawyer? One may take life to prevent the commis. ion of @ felony; but was that meditated act a felony? The counsel on the other side bad urged that it was not only not a high crime by the law, but that it waa no crime at al}; that because the laws of society did not furnish eatisfactory punishment for such a crime, they are remitted to the higher law. That was the theory of the gentleman who developed that portion of the defence. He said that Daniel E. Sickles had made a compact with society, one of the conditiovs of which was that society snould furmsb puniahment for the adulterer; otherwise it was no bargain. Well, iteeems, according to this doctrine, that Mr. Sickles did condescend to enter society under that moment ‘and that society failed to fulfil this p'edge. His destiny brovght him. to this unbappy Distrist, where society bad failed to provide for such @ cage, and there- fore, under these circumstances, another law goes into operation. But, continued the counsel, we are now in- structed that the law furnished no sufficient pasisbment for adultery, and that woman, who is the mother of us all, woman thé wife, woman the sister, woman the daughter, woman, embodying all that js purest and noblest aad most elevated in creation, must be protection from her- self, And as the law does not protect her, it follows that she must be chained, or barred in a dungeon,or el80 ber husband must have full power to avenge his wounded honor. The jury are told that they must take heed themselves. They are appealed to to remember that such is the vatare of woman, whose ‘‘name is frail. ty,” that the husband must stand at the door, revolver or bowie knife in hand; that it must be understood that that higher Isw controls which authorizes him to deal summarily with the adulterer, and to put bim to death; or else, as is perfectly clear from the well known nature and character of woman, an adulteror has only to wave hie flag—to becken to her—only to show her how she may desert virtue, bring ruin and desolation to her household, and make her children motherleas—and she will doit, She wilido it. Not this woman, but all wo- men, sir. I will not trust myself, at this moment, to re- mark upon that doctrine as I think it rhould be remarked upon. I have referred to it incidentally and without pre- meditation, in connection with this idea that there is here ‘no law to punish adultery; that according to the law under which your Honor sits, and which you are sworo to administer, adultery is no crime. But then what follows? Why, it follows that the taking of this life was the taking of a life to prevent the commission of any crime known to the law. That is the result of the argument, and Iam now on the ques- tion of how it is to be determined by a Judge and a law- yer—the only doctrine that I know applicable to the subject being that to preventthe commiseion of a felony about to be immediately committed; a man may justi. ably take life, but he may not do €o in regard to any wi- nor degree of crime, and, a fortiors, not where the thing attempted to be prevented is nocrime known to the law. But there the gentleman (counsel for the defence) is mis- taken; adultery is a crime known to the law of this Dis- tric. Whether it is or is not punished as the gentleman or pelt might think it ought to be punished, is not ma- terial. Imyself have known cases of adultery tried in this Court—two or three of them. In one your Honor was called upon to determine what was meant by the term adultery, and which of the parties ina given case were entitled to that legal designation. But that is immaterial. It is a misdemeanor under the law of this District; cer tainly it ig not acrime to pravent which tho law arma ‘any ono, or, exclusivel y of all others, the person who has been injured, with the right to take tbe life of the pereon meditating the crime. On this ground, in regard to which he felt the most solicitude, because he thought it concerned the administration of justice emineutly, and the peace of the District eminently Joounsel had nothin; more to say as to the offer of this evidence on the ‘got of tendency to prove insanity. He would repeat what he bad eaid before, that ik was only competent to ioquire into jes! —_ of {nsamty itgelf, not into the cause of that sanity. Mr. ‘Brady —Was the cage of adultery to which you refer as being tried here an jadictment under the statute? Mr. Carlisie—Yes, under the statute of Maryland, Mr. Magruder inquired whether, under statute of Maryland, the punishment for that crime waa not a fine of a hundred pounds of tobacco? Mr. Carlisle coutd not say exactly what was the punish. ment. Counrel for defence—Then the only satisfaction an in- Jured husband could have would be a chew of tobacco, (Laughter.) Mr. Phillips said the gentleman who addressed the Court took occasion to express his sympathy for the pri- soner, and declared, in very emphatic terms, if he thought he would lore that sympathy he hoped his life would not ‘be preserved to end this trial, ir. Carlisle replied, he was unfortunate if he had not succeeded in making himself underatood. What he said ‘was, that he did not mean to #ay one word to deprive the rieoner of the sympatby which might be extended to im; that so far as he was cohcerned, he would condact this’ cage in the spirit of truth, justice, Christianity, and that if he wilfully and knowingly departed from this~ course, he trusted his life would not be spared to end the trial. Mr. Phillips bad so understood him. Mr. Brady—Certainly, we don’t want Mr. Carlisle to die, Mr. Carlisle—We are growing so fond of each other, sir, that J am afraid it will prevent us from doing our duty, Mr. Phillips (resuming) said—Let us contrast with the declarations the gentleman hag made the object of the epeech he bas addressed to us, which, in spirit and style, though this is a matter of taste, is rather becoming the hustings than to the judge on a question of law. Let us controvert them with the temper and manner of that speech. While he has on one hand given an expression to the sympatby which ought to exist everywhero, on the other he has argued to exclude from the considera- tion of the jury the induced the passion which act. This was the whole scope, object and effect of the speech; it was that the jury should not have the proof of character, the provocation which led to the commis- sion of the act, Mr. Carlisle—You are quite Uh Mr. Phillipe—The gentleman declared, if he thonght this case, ag made out according to the evidence given, could produce from the jury anothor verdict than that of murder; be trusted the bones of himself and his child- such a case. Mr. Carlisie—You do not state position accurate- ly. I gaid nothing about the faceor this case, Twas epeaking with reference to a of the counse), and Teaid, when the ‘a jury wadertook to eet their faces against sworn duty, and against the jaw and evidence, I would wipe off the dust of my foct of this community, Mr. Phillipp—The gentleman does not cbange my . Ho maintaing that such a case ‘Mr. Carlisle—If the Judge down the ir. judge - der, the jury will conform out ye HES ir. Phillips further controverted his points, and Mr, Carlisie explained, Mr. Phillips said—While I confess in this matter I fool as a husband father—a feeling no doubt shared by every man who hears me—TI enter this court house endeavoring to suppress those feelings, and bringing myself to the act of thinking and speaking aga lawyer. Ia this spirit, dis- carding, I trust for all time, avy feelings which may have been ee ee of my friend, for I take a pleasure in calling bim my friend. ‘Mr. Carlisle (interrupting)—I reciprocate {t. Mr. Phillips—T proceed now to discuss the merits of the case, The evidence we to offer is on four pointe: First, justification; second, provocation; third, inea nity; fourth, the explaining words uttered by the defendant at the time of the homicide, and proved by the prosecu- tion, To one of these points I will refer—namely, ub presence attended by such circumstances ag are the ordinary symp- toms of @ wicked, depraved and malignant spirit, and which indicates a Lan rp kedors ering hers liberately bent on mischief. To sustain the indictment you have to show the presence of that malice which is ‘Vigorously and accurately described in the law books with reference to the question of malice. So necessary ie it to constitute murder, and sustain an indictment for ort ‘that tn a case where express malice is proved, by ol grudges, tbreats, and killing subsequently, yet if ‘a fresh vocation, calculated to excite the passions, intervened between the old grudge and the eee ie the act, the law Faget b we new pavomntion, ‘ani the old grudge or threat. It is said by my learned friend that malice may be presumed out of the act of killing. Granted. But this is only a presumption, and, like other esumptions, may be rebutted by evidenca showing tho friendabip of the parties, which would exclude malice. It may be shown that the killing rose fromn passion excited by just provocation. There sre two modes by which the prisoner may relieve bimeelf from the mption which the law casts on the act of killing, thus change the character of the offence for which he is indicted. As to the first mode—of rebutting malice—we would be enabled to enter into proof and show the kind relations between there parties at a date long anterior to the time of killing. Now we to une the second mode of reburting tho ppenuees of matice, which would ariee out a P the passion, Hon to that passion. ‘As to the first, the rule, which has been well laid down, and on which this Court has acted, is, that expressions of good will and acts of kindness on the part of the prisooer ‘towards the deceased are always considered important, as showing what was bis general disposition towards the de- ceased, from which the jury will be led to conclude the intention was not what the charge imputes. When wa come to the second mode of rebutting the presumption of \illing with malice, by showing passion ax connected with the presecution, we are met by the objections of the gen- tlemen engaged for the prosecutien, who say, however true that may be, there is a wall built up by the law which forbids its access to the jury. Mr. Phillips here reterred to the Commonwealth Beil, in Addigon, page 162, adding—bere the judge lays down the doctrine, which is consistent entirely with everything we have ead pamely—that the» passion rising from suflicient pro vocation is evidence of the absence of malice, ‘We think we havo proved the passion. That is not for us, Dut for the jury wo determine. Then, in order to rebut the presumption of malice, by which ‘we would change the character of the offence, we have only one thing to do—to wit: to show that passion rose from sufficient provoca- tion; and while we are in pursuit for the doctrine of the law, and while attempting to rebut the presumption of malice, the gentleman takes his stand with a armnoes which, in bis opinion, will not and cannot be shaken, and speaks abovt certain things which would lead to most dis- astrous Consequences to mgercoeene A Ifa father kills one who has beaten his son, and he is indicted for murder, to what autbority would the gentleman refer to exclude from the jay the evidence of the ? It is ademitted that if a father kills one who has assaulted or killed his son, you may show the provocation as connected with the passion, for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the offence; but here ‘the proposition is intisted upon that tho slayer of a msa who has committed adultery with his wife, cannot show that the passion which led to the killing was produced by ‘that provocation. The very last decision which my friend read described adultery to be the greatest provocation which can be infiicted on any human being. The lan- guage of the Judge was, “it is more than human nature can bear.” If adultery be the greatest provocation that can befall a man, other provocations are necessarily of a less degree—I sume there is no misapprehension of that. The killi faman who has beaten his son is not inerefore the provocation, for he says adultery is, He may show provocation, but as to the latter, the grentest provocation, we are to be exsluded. But coming nearer to the point, we have the proposition that if the husband find or see the wife in the act of adultery then the provocation, and the passion induced by the pro- vocation, would mitigate or Jessen the offence charged as murder.’ But if he did not see it, then the adultery, however heinous and under whatever state of aggrava- tion the mind can conceive, forms not the slighest provo- cation in the eye of the Jaw for the act; and the gentle. man in giving his construction of the word “ finding,” which is the word in most of the books, interprets ito mean “see with his eyes the ac: of adultery.” Now why say the eye? We have the eye, the ear and tho touch; all of them are mere messengors of the mind, in which knowledge is obtained. The knowledge thus de- rived 1s to be the proper subject of human action. In many cases there might be knowledge derived through the ear aos by the eye. What if a man see another entering bis bedchamber, and applics Dis ear to the keyhole and hears such evidence which would give him indications of but one act, and whieb it is not necessary for me to describe or to paint, what if the man should slay the adulterer? Would the gentieman tell us in a labored jument that there was HA sh tion because the man did not see the thing, and \f'wan only through the ear Of tho miua he obtained the information of the adultery. Take the question of touch, where neither the eye nor the ear is invoked as the mersenger of the mind. In the course of my experience [ have been engaged in three cases of homicide under-euch circumstances. In one of them the facts serve to illus- trate the point on which I am _ speaking. A gtevedore, whore business was the shipping in Mobile y, after an absence of some weeks, returned tobis home. He arrived at about twelve o'clook at night; he went’ into his house, a singlo story with a piszza around it and two doors, one leading tw the bed- room, the other to the parlor. On entering the chamber, where thick darkness prevailed, he saw nothing, heard mothing. He advanced to the bed, put his hand in ft, and felt. a man. He drew bis knifo— the knife of a stevedore—long and broad bladed and stabbed him repeated blows, til! he fell from the bed to the floor, dead; the ey Ay calied for @ neighbor to bring a light; he put it to the face of the deceased, when he found that, as in this case,the man who had most Faroe. wronged him, he had beld to bis bosom asa ‘riend.71 merely use this case as an iilustration. It was the touch that communicated the knowledge of the fact to tae man’s mind, Where then is the reason for the argument ‘that no provocation of this kind ig worth anytuing in a court of justice except it be presented to the eye. Mr. Phillips was proceeding to other parw of his argu- ment, when the Court reminded him that the usual hour of adjournment bad arrived. ‘The jury were conducted, under charge of a ballitt, to their quarters at the National Hotel, and the prisoner re- manded. Trial Trip of the Pet Ho. ANOTHER NEW YORK STEAMSHIP FOR THE CHINESE WATEKS. The American steamships that havo heretofore been tent to the Chinese market have excited the admiration of the Celestials to such an extent that whenever they de. sire to obtain a first class steamshipthey send hore for ber, Not only must the vessels which they thus order be built in America, but they must algo be built in New York, and by ery man who built the vessel or yes- tels which awakened their admiration. The beautiful little steamship Pel Ho (Daughter of the Sea), which made her trial trip dowa the bay yesterday, has just been completed for the Chinese waters. She is said to be one of the finest modeiled vessels that has ever been built in this port. She was commenced on the 15th of July last, by ene Ge was launched on the 27th of November. She is feet long over all, 82 feet beam, 16 feet deep, and will carry about 1,200 tons. Her timbers are nearly al) Jive oak, and through- ‘out ehe is built principally of live oak atid cedar. She has two orcillating engines, of 700 horse power each; diame- ter of the lp ooged 52 inches, 8 feet stroke, The engines are placed fore and aft in the ship, at an angle of ninety degrees with each other, both on the same crank pin. ‘The air pumps are worked thi the main crank pin. through a wrought iron beam, by which the delivering of the condensed water is performed, while the 4 rods and cranks are descending, thereby cing the engines while in operation. The steamer ia fitted up with Persen’s patent surface ocon- denser, Winter’s rotary adjustable valve gear and the Mallj t air and water tight bulkheads of Thos. West & Co. The engines were designed by Myra Coryell. There isa blower connected with them, which, besides blowing the fire, throws a current of air into the engine Toom, making it cool and comfortable in all latitudes at all seasons of the year, Her machinery was constructed by the Morgen Iron Works. Her total cost is about $200,000. Paul 8. Forbes, ‘member of the house of Russell & Co., China,) owns her. he was constructed under the general supervision of Capt. M. L. Porter, formerly of China, who bad charge of her Goring the trial esterday. ‘The Pei Ho left the Iron Works, foot of Ninth street, between eight and nine o'clock yesterday morning, ‘with a few invited guests on board, and steamed down the bay. She passed Governor’s Island twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock, crossed the bar at seventeen minutes to eleven, and reached the light ship at eleven o'clock; thence abe éontinued a consi Jerabie distance out to sea. During thetripshe averaged 16 miles an hour, maxing about 20 revolatiope a minute and under 22 pounds of steam. Somo of the time she ran sixteen milesan hour. Her formance was entirely satisfactory to cvery one on rd; her engines worked with perfect regularity and ease. Her entire arrangements and fitting up are the strongest and beet that skil! and mee eee obtain. She ig to ran between — and Hong Kong, China, and is expected to sail or etart thither on Saturday, the 23d inst. A fine collation was served up to the guests, appropriate toasts were drank and podbean mado. Oa passing the telegraph station, at Saudy Hook, inward, the telegragh as to how far the evidence is proper to show the prosecution on which the passion in this case is to be justified or excused, It was admitted on the opening that if the evidence be competent for any purpose, there is an end of the question; that the weight of it is not for consideration. ts it competent to rove the fact of the adultery? The indictment rete out py siating what the injury is, and ‘the accused as baving been moved by the devil, ag a preliminary or introductory remark-—i more; that ho was instigat- ed by evil passion OF epirt, “The old form of indictment has been followed, which would be more honored in the observance. The same evil spirit war a fe Seinen of the devil. But further on in f- indictment guage in set out more legally, and the technical words, “murder” and. “feloploun’ are. 180d. Ail these words and description embrace the malice and premeditation on which aione the law will rest any accu- sation of murder which this indictment charges, tae dis. tinction between murder and manslanghter is 80 familiar to the minds of lawyers and your Honor, that it is need- iess to enter into technical tangwage to declare it. We know that in murder there ts premeditation and detibera tion, ont of which the law raines the. malice of one thought, and that in mansianghter there i# aheence of deliberation, premeditation and malice aforethought and this is suflicient to tadicate the trae line between ‘ hese two offences. With reference to malice and ite pe | operator displayed rs’ American code of signals and dipped the flag. The Pet Ho answered with a gon, and also dipped her flag, She carries on board of het one eighteen | ategre and two six pounders. While out to sea, several shots and shelle were fired from the eighteen pounder, to try its range. The Pet Ho arrived at her wharf after the trial trip a little beforo.four o’olock P. M. Supreme Coart—Speetal Term. Before Hon. Judge Roosevelt, ALLEGED CASH OF MEKCANTILE EMBEZZLEMENT. AYR 15.— George Brodie vs. George Mitcheli.—The de- fondant in this case was hold to bail in the eum of $10,000, on an alleged charge of embezzioment. Tho paint alleges that 0 defendant was in hia employ, as keeper and clerk, for six years, in his mercantile store; and that fn such a ‘he received large sums of » Property and merchandise belonging 10 the plain- oy the di ant made faise entries in the books of aecount, by which he was enabled to appropriate to his ‘Own use large sams of money and property aud merchan digo, to the mmount of $7,600. This morning a motion ‘was made by defendaut’s counsel for a farther bill of particulars, Mr. Blankman, on part of the plaintit’, re Riated the application. The Judge denied the motion, without costa. The case will son be ampyed gu for trial, The Napler Testimonial, ADDRESS OF THE BRITISH RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK TO THE LATE BRITISH MINISTER—LORD Narign’s RESPONSE—OVBR TWO BUNDRED SIGNERS TO THE ADPRESS—THE GENTLEMEN PRESENT, ETC., Ero. About forty prominent British residents of New York— ‘a deputation on behalf of about two hundred—waited upon Lord Napier, at the Astor House, at 12M. yesterday, for the purpose of presenting him with an address which had been prepared with the design of conveying to bis Lord- ship core idea of the feelings with which he is regarded by his countrymen in this city. Among the gentlemen preseut were E. M. Archibald her Britannic Majesty’s Consul for this port; Dr. Beales, President of the St, George’s Society; Adam Norrie, Preal « dent of the St. Andrew’s Society; Richard Bell, feq.? President of the Friend/y Sons of St. Patrick; Williaa Miles, President of the St. David’s Society; Richard Irwin, Esq., Edward Cunard, James Stuart, R. W. Cameron» Henry Mellville, M. D., Edward Walker, Henry Eyre, Adam Stoddard, Jobn 8. Bartlett, M. D., Robert Gordon, Philip Ricbards, Robert Bage, arthur Kendall, Wiliam Scott, James Cotlender, Jobn Robertson, and others. lard ier was ushered into (ue room where the depu- tation had convened. Mr. Archibald piocveded to make the presentation. SPEECH OF MR. ARCHIBALD. Mr. Ancmpatp, on behalf of the deputation, stated that hey had dove themselves the bonor to wait on his Lord- ship as a deputation from the British residents of thiscity, for the purpose of enh to bes ree end of vheir respect and good . Recoliecting peculiar cir- cumstances under which bis Lordship had assumed tho duties of bis high mission w the United in mind the unapimity of sentimeat which pervaded all classes of the community, as to the manner in which those duties had been performed, and remembering, a¥ they ever would pleasurably remember, the intercourse with bis Lordship, which the inbabitante of New York, aud more especialy the British resideats, bad enjoyed on several festive occasioné—they were desirous, before he and his fowily quitted these shores, thus publicly to bid him farewell. They bad accordingly embodied their senti- ments in an address, which the Consul said, at their re- quest, and with his Lordsbip’s permissioa, he would aben read. He then read the addrees, as follows :— THE ADDRESS. To Es Excetuzncy, Loxp Nartan, her Britannic Ma- jesty’a Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten- Seay yo! the government of the United States of ame- rica, — May it our Lordship—We, tbe undersigned, Bri- lish residents of the city of New York ‘aud its vicinity, im view cf your approaching departure from the United States, and on the occasion of your final visit to this city, beg leave to present to you the ‘expresaion of oar respect and esteem, When your Lordship was selected by her Majesty as ber representative to the government of this country, it was at a time when the diolomatic relations of Great Britain and the United States had been interrupted by @ misunderstanding which was equally regrewed oa both shores of the Atlantic. The appoimtment of your Lordship was ing to ue all, and was hailed as a pledge of the speedy restoration of the moat friendly relations between the two countries; for the repu- tation of your patriotiem, experience and devotioa to the iblic service bad already preceied you. Nor bave wo en dissppointed: for the urbanity and concili de- Peri bo less than the great abitity displayed by your rdahip, have been attended with the haopiest results, and are generally acknowledged and appreciated by tho people of the United States, az well ag by the resident natives of our common country. ‘The public services and virtues of your illustrious fami- ly have won for them a lasting renown. They adorn the pages of the history of our country equally in war, in science and in the arte of peace. “The name of Napier will eminently contribute to transmit the fame of our three kingdoms, now bappily united in one, to the ends of the exrth, 0 long as the language of Chatham, of Burke, and of Macaulsy shail endure, Jn the discharge of your arduous and important duties as ber Majesty’s repreventative, you have Deen seconded ip an emivent degree by the noble lady who bears your name. Lady Napier will long be remembered in this country {or virtues and graces which have endeared her to every one, and which sted a lustre ov her sex ret that the ‘We have now to exprees our upfeigned 1 ‘@ service deman exigencies of her Majesty ship's nce in another the hope that your new mission may'lead to other ap- pointments of a still higher and more important character in the diplomatic service of your country. We respectfully but regretfully bid you adieu, praying that health and may ever attend your Lordship, -“_” Napier and your family. ‘ebave the honor to be your ship's most obe- dient, faithful servants and fellow countrymen. Lord Napier responded as follows:— LORD NaPIER’S SPEECH. GrvrizMexy—I beg to tender you my sincere thanks for the honor which you have conferred upon me by this pub- lic manifestation of your good will. In the rare terms of your address I observe that your sense of my diplomatic usefulness has been height- ened by the personal regard for my family and myself, which you are £0 kind as to entertain. ‘The period of my residence here as her Majesty’s re- Preeentative has not been marked by any of those formal engagements by which the political and commercial reia- Hons of England and America might still be In the absence of such proofs of a successful mission which, I trust, the better ability of Lord Lyoos may bo crowned, I learn with that, in your opinion, my gestre to inspire reciprocal benevoleuce aad confidence bas not been without effect. To that end my visws have been strictly directed, and I believe that the ameliorated state of public feeling, on either side, will be oparative In the early adjustment of those questions which still afford matter for discussion between the Cavinets of Great Bri- tain and the United States. Lady Napier will be heartily grateful for the of respect and attachment in which you have mentioned ber. She will ever regret that her delicate bealth and tha Pressure ot social duties elsewhere have limited her in- \ercourse with the British community of New York. It would ill become me to take leave of this coun’ without emphatically recognizing the cordiality wnien have constantly experienced on the part of the President of t} 5 Secretary of State, and all the mefhbers of the existing admivistration. I can never for- get or requite the incessant kinduesa of many estimable and distinguished persons who have admitted my family to their friendship, and [ reflect with pride on the evidence of fympathy which bas more than once been offsred to me ore sen we yd Eivhie 2 fo you, my fellow countrymen, I owe a peculiar ao- knowiedgment for the consideration which you bave always exhibited towards me in my recent offixe, a senti- ment which is founded in your unswerving devotion to the person and authority of our gracious savercign. now bid you farewell, with the warmest aspirations for your happiness and Subsequent to the addreeses the gentlemen present were severally introduced to his Lordship, who. took occasion, while giving each a cordiai shake of the hand, to relterats the sentiments he bad expressed, and he de- clared, were not a mere formal or official utérance, but were bis heartfelt convictions juent upon the ex- ceedingly courteous reception which had everywhere met in this country. mur Cedt ‘will, it ts understood, leave to day for land. The address, which was read by Mr. Archibald, and which so fittingly rey snted the sentiments of the most, respectable of our welfare, A nore ge who signed it, ma we understand, prepar . 5.8, Bartlets, the Albicm newspaper. af Court of General Sessions. Before Recorder Barnard. ‘THR CHATHAM STREET ARSON CASE—DISAGRERMENT OF THE awry. ‘The jury in the care of Henry Kamak, tried for arson in the first degree in setting fire to his premises in Chat- ham street, having been locked upon Thursday night, were broughi into Court as soon as his Honor had taken his seat yesterday, and, after answering to their names, said they had not agreed upon a verdict. As they had been together since Thursday afternoon, the Recorder did not consider it prudent to keep the jury confined any longer, and discharged them till Monday. It was under- stood that ten of the Jurors were in favor of acquitting tho prisoner, and two thought him guilty of arson in the third degree. ‘The regular business of the court was then commenced. ALEXANDER SENT 10 THI STATE PRISON, Joseph Alexander, said to be one of the most extensive receivers of stolen goods in this city, was placed at the bar, charged with receiving $2,700 worth of sewtug silk, which was the proceedsof s burglary perpetrated on the store of Edward H. Arnold, No. 190 Fulton street, on the night of the 7th of January. After a diligent search by the detectives the proporty was traced to tho poseossion of Alexander, He was sent to the State prison for two y: The prisoner was very well aressed, and had Us A dication of being a respectable and cultivated individual, Michael Kearney, indicted for forgery in the second de- gree, pleaded guilty to the fourth grade of that offence, and was sent to the State prion for two yeare, John Co ra nae ae =. James Par- ker, pleaded guilty to an al larceny, He War dent to the penitentiary for one year. Jolivs &. Cochran, indicted for breaking into the premi- ses of Joseph Garsoine, was convicted of petit larceny, and was sont to Blackwell's Island for six months. i Thomas O'Neil, charged with.a similar offence, r ing on the night of the 18th of February burglatiousty en tered the bouse of Henry Hoffman, pleaded ity to peti¢ larceny. He was sentenced to ii ‘im the peni- ‘eFvutian Bergens Indicted for forgery in tho i eel gree, ip having in bis i at $2 wie os Facto Bak of New York, a lose to pasa them, 3 ed guilty ton mivor 9 of that offence, and the state prieou for Koger, i sidan dad ‘on trial with rob. George Spencer was placed be hevieg aseaulted William Bren- very in L- nim Court, pen on the of March, while pageing through Worth street, ond stealing from his person ioe pm ory, oe ‘the acc * juiity, and the Recorder gave him e el nalt e law ali ip the Bists prince. Pe ee The Grand Jury came into conrt in the afternoon, and afer preroouing a large batch of indfouents, resumed discharge of their a 7 duties,