The New York Herald Newspaper, January 28, 1860, Page 5

FRENCH CLAIMS ON PERU. Communications of Senor Melgar, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, to the French Government, Preliminaries of the Pending Question—Facts of the Durhin Claim—Demand of Admiral Bonard— ‘The Trial of Durhin—Charges of Mons. Huct— ‘The Official Refutations—Throat of Hostilitiee— Uareasonable Rupture of Diplomatic Relations, &e., &e., tee. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. La, July 12, 1859. ‘The undersigned, Minister of Foreign Rel of Pern, Das tbe honor of addressing himself to his Excellency the Minister of the same department in the French empire, 2 een relating to the against the French sudject, Pau! Durbin, in the city of Callao, which caused the very lamentable 81 official tween the Hon. Mons. D. A. @argo «Affaires of B. , and Peru. The government of undersigned entrusted the set- Pement of this affair, on an honorable and just basis, to D. Francisoo de Rivero, appointed in the character of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Ip] Court, and the same informed this departme! ab tent times that an arrangement drawn by himself was near to be accepted by the Cabinet of Paris. He ne- ver mentioned, neither has he done it afterwards, thas ‘the said eettiement has been agreed upon. He remarked eniy in his official communications that he had not been metotnns Hie shin wate. ania. Fast be was acting tial agent, and that any agreement entered into ought to be considered as subjected to the approbation of the Peruvian government. While expect: fog this answer, and Selec greatly by cause @f the wide departure of his instructions shown in the of ari M4 und it of Senor Rivero, the government received information througk the Hon. quiescence of the Peruvi ment to the aforesaid agreement, the lars which had been communi- @ated to him by government, who instructed him to wait for its fulfilment. The ed ‘answered in the way be couid do it, viz:—that according to the same degpatches of Senor Rivero, the arrangement was not yet mpleted. hteen days after this answer had bedn given, the un- received another communication from the Vice Admiral (Mons. Bovard)—of which there is annexed to this a copy—for the knowledge of his Excellency Mons Drovbin de Lays, the purport of which was to ascertain the mind of this government in regard to the execution of cy ‘the aforesaid ment. The undersigned, much to his Lat agpes ob! to give the enclosed answer (copy ‘Te justify the non-execution of this it is pul nt of Peru at Paris, the ‘wadersigned informed Mons. Bonsrd that, by order of his exoellency the President, he would address bimself to his exceilency the Minister of Foreign Relations of his Impe- Yral Majesty, making no exposition of the facts connected ter. The time has come for the undersigned to make this ex- ; Dut this tesk requiring the adjustment of some and precedents, his Excellency will easily compre- bend there has not been sufficient time to effect it satisfac- bat po aeen takes pleasure in believing that h ‘is Ex- eeliency, the Minister of Foreign Relations, after perusing ‘the brief indications contained in the said ‘note (copy No. 2 without foreshadowing here ideas to be emitted in contemplated exposition, will pradently and justly Baspend any definite opinion on the sabject. The under- expects to be able to fulfil this engagement within ‘second fortnight of this month, and nothing will be emitied ip order vo do 80, because he has roagon to be. Beve that the subject, once reconsidered with some proper Fectifications, a happy issue will be obtained, as well as whe aes bgp some) of the relations between Peru and |, interrupted by this Durhin affair, much to the regret of the government of the undersigaed. ‘The undersigned makes use of this opportunity to ex- press Ina sentiments, &c. JOSE FABIO MELGAR. ‘Jo his Excellency the Mrosrer ov Tae FoRsicn RELavions ‘@f hie Majesty , the Emperor of the French. NARRATIVE OF THE Facts. Lau, July 29, 1869. Sm—In the official communication I romans Ravers bse ce ay ope able to expose at an early ‘Gate all the facts and documents tending to aissipate some impressions calculated to impede the settlement of the Durhip sfair, and to procure in this way the reconsidera- ‘ton of that subject, in order to arrive ats happy issue and the re-establishment of the relations between Peru and France. It gives me'pleasure now to address to H. § such ap exposition, and ip doing so, I feel confident that E is animated by the noblest sentiments of justice. 3 i 5 i 3 | Toopy ‘ 1. The Intendent of Police of Callao will be — removed from his office, and cannot be but in an inferior by bim. Position to that yo 2 The Judge, Suero, who neglected to order the ‘arrest and prosecution of the rioters, will be deprived from ining: ce of he concerning French- men, and the itive will uge all his influence to obtain his ousmission. 3._An indemnity of $2,000 sball be paid immediately to ‘the Frenchman Par! Durhin. ‘4. The officer of police guilty of acts of violence against the Frenchman, Luis Vicent, shail be prosecuted and pavisbed. 5. The Prefect of Callao shall pay to the Consul of his Majesty the visit omitted by him on the occasion of the Emperor’s fét-, in return for the call*made by Mr. Girar- ‘dot on the anniversary of the independence. 6. Finally, the Freneh fixg, hoisted at the Consulate Genera! on the return of Mons. Huet to Lima, shall be sa hated with a salvo of twenty-one guns; and this when known at Callao, shall be auswered by the andromede, It is proper and necessary to remind his Excellency that before these points were agreed upon, the Count of Walewek: wrote, on the 30th October, 1858, among other things, to the Charge d’Affaires, at Peru, Mons. Hust, the followmg:—“The annexed documents.(it refers to the re- ports of the French Consul at Callao) establish clearly the point, that as a consequence of a quarrel, unprovoked Dy himself and im which he acted in self-defence, Mr. Durbin, ap honest and peaceful workman, for many years living at Callao and supporting his family by his industry, without ever being previously impeached, had to take reiuge in hia bouse in order to avoid the attack made against his person, and that the local police, called to quell (be disturbance, broke open his house, and after Maltreativg bym in the worst manner. they dragged him into jail in a pitiable condition. Secondiy, it is ovidant fom the declarations of Mons. Girardot, that the pro ceedings of the police and their chief against him were excecdugly violent at the m@ment he interfered in behalf of Movs. Durbin, and that this officer promised him the re- lease of the prisoner under bonds to ba present in court when called—a promige never fulfilled; and finally, that the Prefect of Callao refused to accede to the de- mands interposed to the same purpose, alleging that the Judge had taken possession of the process, while it is well known that this magistrate was abseat from Callao at the time of the commitm-nt, and that General Layseca ‘was obliged lately to acknowiedge that he was mistaken. If such acts—uniortupately pot the first one we have to complain of—should remaip unpunished, there would soon be no security for the persons and properties of French- men in Pera.” This opinion preceded the agreement referred to abve, and if ths be a cousequenee, more or less approximated. ‘ef that opinion and facts therein stated, I could justly, and ‘without any injury to the high enlightenmentot the Count de Walewski, change that deduction, by rectifying the facts and data leading to it With all deference two the Jecgment of your Excetiency’s predecessor, I will now Barrate the facts and expose the arguments drawn from ‘them, as weil as the grounds upon which my govern- ment thought proper to disapprove and leave unexecuted the agreement entered into with Mr. Francisco de Rivero. However much the facts previously alludei to may have been confused, they are very distinct, and must be treated separately. Some of them belong to tue judicial, ‘and others to the diplomatic class; though the Dirhin af- fair ought never to have been dipiomatically discussed. I at his Excellency will keep in mind this distinction, because it might possibly happen that Jastice might be on one side in the first case, and ‘against it in the other, avd vice versa, as it is impossivle ‘that it could be on both sides; and beside, it is necessary to syoid a question of siniater effect to the otber. I Ney Sagcaar the facts, taking into account in the first place the judicial ones, referring myself to the numerous documenta, which will pe laid’ before his Exoollency by the Commissioner ent with the care of deiivering this communication to the hands of his Excellency. I fee! confident that his Excellency will abide this un- — are rat bigh sease of Rg will in- face ¢¥ everything that might Tecen sidering this taatter, to-disstfate the reo hechasions! France, as well as Wi ‘the nobic and periext. government at her head. With the am to make @ simple report of the precess :— Paul Durbin, @ carpenter by trade, and a native of that part en Sanday. Suugust 8, 1888, fi dad of that en ; August 8, |, for im a street fight; he is detained at & police station, aad examined, according to law, within the twenty-four prescribed, (without including the aforesaid ly committed for the trial, of which I copy. At this trial the foll apreared:—A son of Paul Ollarson, alias Paul h threw stones at the neighboring dwelling of Mme. Gre- goria Garcia, and as she rebuked the young man for the act, a quarrel began between her and the wife of Ollar- son, in which he was soon involved. Santiago Ugarwe, who happened to be at the house of Mme. Garcia, observed to Ollarson, with a view to end the querrel, that we had better have hothing to do with a woman's broil, and to letthem alone; at which Ollarsop threatened him, inviting him to come out of the room Ugarte did so un- armed, and Ojlarson being armed with @ stick of wood, with which ke struck bim on the hes, flooring him senge- lees, end still repeating bis blows upon him, afterwards atacking the woman ‘les, Emilta Canals and Carman Espicona, who were hk@ise azeauited and knocked down Dy “be weapon. Mr, Jfolfe Sormontesy. while trying to calm ths foryeot Marken, got one oMhis fingers bitten apd nearly esvered, losing beside s Mlamond ring aad his NEW YORK HERALD. SATURDAY, JANUARY 28, 1860.—TRIPLE SHERT. officer to the last all ing suffered the greatest le was , aod I would say almost censurabie, ering that the resistance of of eleven well quali men of the eulprit, and by the certifleates of the physi cians whe attended the wounded, and the declarations of the sufferers themselves at the preliminary examination. ‘The process was earried on accerding « the legal forms, till its @pal result in the sentence of folio 41, given on the ‘27th ef November of last year. Out of the one hundred and twenty nine days duration of the process there must be deducted six! 8 that the pa- pers were detained at this department, leaving only twen- ty pine days for the prosecution of the trial by the Judge of Callao, who could im no way be accused of delaying the course of justice. If we copaider now this process in the light of its legali- ty and justice, it will be found that eleven irreproachable witnesses testified uniformly that Durhiv was aggres- sor, having dangereusly wounded two women ani very seriously twe men, who endeavored to stop the fight. it has been proved, im the most satisfactory manner, that Dorbin is guilty ef am assault and battery. And itis worth notiee that in criminal trials, two witnesses make ph E ieag: pints pred to pens are suificient for a eon) pro! )s There is also the same ciass of proet’ Durbin for remisting and assaulting law, while the game number cf witnesses teatify to the mederation ef the police in the fulfilment of their duty. By a provision of the constitutional charter, every citizen is empowered toarrest a delinquent in. |, even if he is not a policeman. Therefore, it i@ not required that the policeman bad a written order to apprehend Durbin, and they could not avoid 1B access to his bouse when there was therein a wounded a whom, it was to be expected, he would continue to maltreat. The trial went on according to the proceed- ings prescribed by law as a guarantee in favor of the ac cused, and as Durbin refused to call witnesses, and ad- duce any in his neha not wanting even to sign thi notifications, the Judge appointed for bim a Ta ', Who defended bim with zea! and ability to the end of the process. I do not hesitate to say to bis Excellency that there never was a criminal trial where the delinquency of aculprit was more clearly demonstrated than in the case of Durbin. The laws applicable to the case are very explicit; imprisonment and subsequent exile are the pe. nalties Log nerd by the statute for ‘he offence of asgault upon the sey authority. Yet the Judge of the lower Court, Dr. Suero, the same Judge, whose dismissal is solicited by the agreement with Senor Rivero, absolves the accused, Paul Durbin, declaring him suffictently pun- ished by bis confinement’ during the trial till judgment ‘was pronounced. If this Judge, Mons. the Minister, vio- lated the law,’ it was not certainly to the prejudice of Durhin, but to the grievance of justice and of the parties offended, or honest people unjostly maltreated and de- prived of the labor of many days’ Tho leniency of tho judge does not stop here, but he hastened to liberate the culprit, without first consulting the Superior Court, as required by law. When the government koew of this process, he ordered this requisite to be fulfilled, without returning Durbin to the prison, as he ought to have done. This omission alone might have caused a nullity in the process. The Superior Court, taking into consideration ali the facts adduced during the it trial, gs well as what the government exposed in behalf of Dar- hin, according to Tepresentations made by the Imperial Chargé d’ Affaires, revoked the. previous sen tence and condemned Durhin toa yearof imprisonment and Lal greg: exile from the country, in conformity with ‘a law of the Novisima Recompilacion, of which there isa copy enclosed. This is a Spaniah law in force yet in the republic, and it refers only to the second of the offences committed by Durbin. The first one, that of the assault and battery, remained hay stery and even the penalty imposed by the Superior rt had no effect, because the culprit abeconded from the houso of the French Consul at After exposing to his Excellency the facts and judgment in this trial, supported by the laws of the land and well authenticated by all the formalities prescribed by them; it might seem superfluous to answer the charges adduced againet the police of Calleo by the aforesaid Consul aod the Cousul General and Chargé d’ affaires, D. A. Huet, but by way of courtesy to these French functionsries, for the better understanding of his Excellency, I pro- ceed to give such an answer. The firet charge of the Hon. Mons. Huet is option, the police for the violation of the private dwelling of Durbin, ‘without a previous order of arrest from the Judge. It has been remarked already that any citizen is invested by Jaw with the power to arrest any delinquent in lagranti, and that the house of Durhin was entered by the police to save one of the women en; in the quarrel, whom he had and whom yy thougnt he was yet me eee ihkags is that the Judge refuged to allow \e BECOD fudge al Isorproisr 0 Durkin daring’ bie. prelintoary rea pre! exaal- nation. Henee it origi hg says, culprit 1s poms, by three different — Riot Ollarson and hin. The Judge did admit an officious '; first because the accused well the Spanish, having resided a are for the examination of criminals witnesses sreaking a foreign language, and no others can be accepted, in to prevent visits apd confabulations from un interpreter partial to the accused. The three names given to the cual- rit came from the following sources:—First, the accused enrolled in the books of the Consulate as Pau! Durbin; second, in Callao, or at least in his district, be is known by the name of Vllarson, and as such he was seized and denounced before the Police Court; and third, the calprit Pau! signed bis declaration in good writing and with ready hand, a8 Bablo Rios, Let that be as it might, what wrong hag been done to him by the three different names under which be bas been designated in the process? Of what use could be for him the interpreter wished to be substi- tuted for the officiatone? The accused understood very well all the questions. propounded to him, describing the facts in tle way moft favorable to himeelf. That ought to have satisfied the zeal of the Hon. Mons. Huet. ‘Third charge.—Mons. Moet says that the Judge, Dr. Suero, wisbing to prolong indefinitely the imprisonment of the culprit, invented that there was a civil suit against him on the part of the wounded women. The Ju ige aid not invent this, neither did be call ita civil suit. Among the cocuments to be presented to the consideration of his Excellency, there is the testimony of Carmen Es- inosa, the woman wounded and shut up in the house of urhin, which says that he offered her money to desist of her action against him. The Judge alluded to this cir- cumstances when he denied the request of the Minister Zevalios to discharge the culprit. Aloog with thig charge comes another one. from Mons. Huet, saying that the Jndge refused to discharge the prisoner under bail, when the wounds he had inflict. ed had been pronounced to be not daugerous. The cal- prit was not only charged with the wounds inflicted by bim, but of resistance and assault against the authorities, an offence omporis aftictivg, and unbailable by law. Even if the Judge fad been authorized to discharge Durbin or not at his pleasure, and did not consent to do it, it cganot. ‘be said that he wanted to keep him in prison ude! NY but only during the time that the process would last, and it did last only the very limited: time of twenty ecven days. Laiways put azide all the time the process was lying in the department, a time for which the Judge is in no way responsible. This delay constitutes the fourth charge of Mons. Huet against the Judge, though it did really belong to Mmister Zeballos to explain it. The Judge sent the pro- cess to this Minister, who asked to be informed of ite con. tents, and Dr. Suero did not require it to be delivered back. becange he uncerstood an arrangement was going on at the time with Huet to settle the subject in a diplomatic way. J shali return again to this point, when I.come to the facta that I call diplomatic, having for the present said enough to exonerate Dr. Suero, Fifth charge, that the Judge did not cail wianesses in behalf of Durhin, with exception of his wife and brother-in-law, having Iimited himself to collecting all the teatiopy against the accused The Judge has nothing to do with witnesses for or against the accused. His duty is to bear all that the parties have to say w the court when brought before him as deliaquents or witnesses of the acta incrimimased; the Parties can summon any person present at the event; and im this way the chain ef testimony is form- ed to make up a process. This proceeding is the best guarantee against apy bias on the part of a Judge, and Dr. Suero acted up to it. If Durhin had any witnesses in his favor, he was bound to summon them to testify in his bebalf during the term allotted by law. This Tequirite is considered so important that the term of proof must be notified ponte 0 the party incriminated, as it was done to Durhin. He alone, and not the Judge, has to answer to the charge specified by Mons. Huet. ‘The sixth charge is complicated, and I shall proceed by parts. Mons. Huet says that the parties to the quarrel— being on one side Durbin, and on the other men and women of a bad lifeand a bad repute—the testimony of the last, enemies to the |, Was unreliable and void, and tainted of a bac will and vindictiveness towards all foreigpers—and such depositions bave been, he says, the foundation for the sentence of Dr. Suero. The weti- mony of the parties alluded to, as the men and women offended by Durhin, had no weight in the sentence at all; its real base hes been in the declaration of eleven wrt- nesses—declaratinns which, coinciding in respect ‘with those of the injured parties, gave all the light requir- ed for a true and acceptable judgment. The testimony o theee eleven witnesses, azide from that of the injured a. ties, was a ground amply*sufficient for the sentence. Thos it was quite unneoeesary to impeach those witnseses, and Bo prch 9 g0 tbat, to say the truth, sucn qualifications are unjust, and gome of them aimless, or founrled on a very remarkable mistake. It is indeed to be regretted that Mons. Huct ee these men and women with a bad life, being but poor individuals engaged in honest callings; and if they beve a bad or g:0d reputation, it is mater Deyone the reach of the French Consul at Callac anc Mous. the bee @ Affaira of France in Lima, aa thea+ unhappy persons live in a sphere far distant from those personages. Mons. Huet mingles together the witnesses in tho process with the parties interested in it, and throws upon tho first (mere witness) the faults attributed to thé second (the evemiesof Purhin). I repeat, there is no one spon which falls the im, tan that, a8 enemies of Durhin, Were alto prejudiced stall foreigners, because the intereated parties were all foreigners There is no one party to thin trial who is not # foreigner. color to this charge, and to prove ths innocence of the aggressor Durhin, . Huet brings the certificate of the engineer of the Arica Railroad, showing the good be heviow: of the accused ag 2 workman on that road. It is well ale to H. E. foeaebene it does notes date Durbin to have been guilty of the sttempt charge: to him im Cailao; and, on the ence, itinaker clear the Pretumption, not to be denied, that Durbiu solicited and vbiained that certificate when he was already undergoing e criminal trial, and was in a position worthy of pivy. Following thiscbarge, Moos, Huet adds tbe of wi nesses favorably to the acoutod, mate deform the Cdn. a 0. Such a deporition ig inadmissible in @ trial that the: 'd, that this circumstance makes it pre four remaining witnesses might have been coerced by the French Consal, or made to sign ade claration that had not been read to them; fourth, tha’ even with such a presumption, four witnesses canuot stand againet eleven of the judicial process; fifth, that gn otber witness declares officiously by letter, in entire disa greement with the others, ard that in a manner so biassy and exaggerated as to say that a soldier fractured the skull of Durbin with astone—a wound not found by the Erench surgeon who examined tho accused by order of the French Consul; sixth and finally, that these deposi Hens do not deny the fact of the wounds inilicted by Dar hip. ‘The Hon. Monsieur Huet presemted a certificate from the above mentioned surgeon, in order to prove the inju ries received by Durbin; but this certificate was not at tested by oath, is not admisaible in a trial, and is exagge rated, a8 he refers to wounds no other witness to the pro cess ever sawinflicted. That be had received some con tusions was highly natural after a fight, and the attempts by dragging and throwing himselfto the ground, made against bis own person. . Monsieur the Minister, 1 am through the burdensome task of analyzing the procees of Durhin, and presenting to his Excellency the plain and simple narratiun of the facts decuced from it. Being confirmed, as it is, by authenticated documents, which will be. laid before his Excellency, | do not doubt it will be acmitted as a consequence of this exposition, that Durbin, an lp: shred in a fight, was treat ed with moderation by the chief and soldiers of the po hee ob: with his apprebension, and whom he insulted and attacked; that the Judge, Suero, administered Justice to him in a very short rpace, and observed all the formal ities and proceedings demanded by law for the pretectior of culprits; that, though there existea full proof agains’ Durhin, the Judge, Suero, making use of most extraori nary Jenfency, absolved him of the pevalty clearly incur red, and decided his crimes has been purged by the time he was detained in prison; and that, ultimately, the Supe rior Court, after hearing all the testimony and pleas tr ps case, applied to him the penalty determined by the w. I confidently leave it to the eound discretion of your Ex celiency to determme whether in this case auy diplomatic motive can possibly be found, based upon the allegation o a delay or of a denial of justice, 80 a8 to justify the de mand of the dismiseal of the Judge by whom the caus ‘was tried, or of a pecuniary indemnity to be made to we complainant. I now proceed to enter upon this secon: part of the subject, and your Exce! apoyo no rg ot mit me again to call your attention to the difference which: exists between the judicial and tne diplomatic view of the question, and chiefly in reference to the reasons which re solve the question, in ita judicial aspect, in favor ot the go- vernment of Peru. For itis only in this view of the sub Ject that the bari grarree gy: bas any grounds of di plomatic complaint, if indeed it has any. I flatter myself that Ieball also be able to prove that in this view of the subject the government of Peru is free trom the chargo of having committed any grievance towards the French go vernment, and consequently is not bound to give the sa. ae. which has been demanded by the Hon. M. jue In the note of M. Huet dated Nov. 29, 1858, and in the reply of tr A predeceesor, Senor Zevalloe, tothe said note, dated Dec. 1 of the same year, the full particulare are given of the proceeciugs of r Huet in Yelation to the imprisonment of Durbin, an act which was a legiti- mate procedure on the part of the lawful tribunals of Peru, but which, unfortunately, has given rise to the diplomatic complaints of the French government, and of ‘a disagreement which my own goverament deplores. On paetii to A else Lg eg a which have song om the very firat day e judgment against Dur- if , a8 stated in the above mentioned notes, your excel. Jency will perceive that the bg which I shall now 14 to make of al! that taken place is in per- fect mony and accordance with the statements con: tained in those notes, and in others which have been in- terchanged on the subject. As 000 as the affair of Durhin had happened, M. Huet Tequested Senor Zevallos, my predecessor, to be particu larly earefu) that all the forms of Ja pursued in the trial which was about to take place, and that strict and impartial justice should be rendered, botn against the original promoters of the quarre) as well as against Durhin himself. Now, betore | proceed further in these remarks. I will here call attention to the fact that the words of M Huet, above referred to, namely, the words ‘ the original promoters of the quarrel,” ought not to bave been employed; in the first place, be- cauee, a8 we have already seen, when the case came on for trial the supposed original promoters of the quarrel were not at all implicated nor found guilty of any such act by any testimony or legai evidence whatever, and in the second place, the same words ought to have been stricken out of the note, M. Huet him- self, in a note subsequent to this, omitted these words me h M, Huet, in his interposit yng! . in anxious ition, recog- nized the necessity and propriety that the trial should be his order there should be no infringement of the usual legal forms and observances. The judge who tried the cause must indeed have found himself in @ very embar. rassing position when he was required to comply with an order involving two opposite and contradictory matters. However, in order to do all that was possible for him to do, he hastened his judicial proceedings as much as he could lawfuily do, and having concluded his summary of the case the papers were sent to the Minister, in order that M. Huet might be tatiefled that everything in the case had been transacted in strict accordance to law. It was at this stage of the affair that the idea was first conceived of arranging the matter amicably along with other mat ters of different kinds, which all were to be made together the subject of future conferences and negotiation. Trese conferences were, in fact, afterwards held, and all the other matters were settled and arranged, a list of which, with the indempities accorded, and drawn up in the hand- writing of M et, will be presented to your Excellen- cy, the original copy of which is now at Paria. The affair of Durbim was the only one of all these matiers which was left unsettled, while at the same time a promise was mace that the condemne{ man should de set at liberty. In the meantime a freeh obstacle had arisen before the Judge to prevent bis being immediately fet at liberty, which was an action at law brought against bim by one of the women whom he bad woun ted. hen the Judge was afterwards called to account by M. Haet in pereon, for having said that he bad received no orders for setting Durhin at liberty, he explained the matter with perfect propriety, asserting that by orders he could only understand written orders, and in thia assertion he was fully sustained by the law and practice of the State of Peru. ‘The affair, on being referred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, remadited sixty days in suspense, only to be decided as was anticipated; and this delay, ag we have seen. be- fore, was the orly one which occarre} in the progress of the Cause. The numerous occupations of Sr. Zevalios, and the carelessness of a few others whom it is impossible to deeignate, were the only cause of this delay, and not, as M. Huet says, the clerks of the bureau in the employ of the Minister. Atterwards, when the case was carried up to Callao, sentence was speedily pronounced, and the order was is- sued to set Durhin at liberty. But according to the law in such casee three days are required to elapse after such a decrce previous to its being carried into execution, in order to allow time for any of the parties interested ‘to ap- peal against the decree, if they should think proper to do £0. nder there circumstances, M. Buet, kuowing that, notwithstanding the decree, Durhin would sull be kept in prison, impelled by an extraordinary excess of zeal, ad- dressed his note of November 29 to Sr. Zevallos, just one day previous to the time for putting the decroe into ex- ecution, and liberating Durbin. ‘This note of his is the first written and official claim and demand on this subject made by M. Huet. In it, taking as his ground the non-fulfillment of the promise made to set Durbin at liberty, and the delay which he alleges in the trial of the case, he presents in the form of an ultimatum seven different demands of satiefaction. These be asserts to be due and owing to him, and he intimates that a refusal to compiy with any one of these several demands for satisfaction will be deemed by him sufficient cause to break up his official relations with my government. I am persuaded that your Excellency will find the various reasons given by Senor Zevallos—in his note above mentioned of December 4 to M. Haei—in which he characterizes these M. Huet as violent, rude and inappropriate to 6 d sound reasons. In consequence of this note of Senor Zevallos, M. Huet, in his reply of the 9th of the eame month, etrikes out two of his first demands, viz: that in which he refers to the bringing to trial those persons who entered into the dispute with Durhin, and also that in which he referred to the agents of police; he also qua. lifes what he had said in reiation to the Judge who tried the caze. Now, by this very act of justice on the part of M. Huet, though, indeed, his justice 1s not cempleie, and, in ee one to little, he himself shows plainly that en were not very consi- he derately made, and before making them he ought first to have asked for and ought to have entered into a discussion of the merits, However, be insisted in his reply u; all his other demands, and would not withdraw threats. Another note in reply was then addressed to him by Senor Arenas, who preceded me in office, bong A sg ey agg Unent observations in relation to his demands, (w! are in substance the same which I bave presented to your Excellency in my judicial new of this subject) con- cluded by informing bim, ssa matter of faction, In demand for the dismissal of the Judge, that M. Huet, dated January 11 of this year (1859), in which be charges Sr. Arenas with having broken his word by not answeriug bis former note of Dec. 20, during twenty- three days which bad elapsed since the said Sr. Arenas had ‘od the portfolio of Miuister of Foreign Affairs. Now, though this sting coe was very excusable, inas- moch as during that period my government wha fully ec- gaged ‘n putting down a serious émeute which had broken ‘ont in the capital, and inasmuch as Sr. Arenas was neces eerily (ngage in making biuneelf acquainted with the va- meme bagmmese of bie department, and im@etauch ag ihe Dorhin affair war a matter which Woght notte be treated t'y; yet, nevertheless, the honorable M. Huet dig- , covers in that small: manifest proof of bad feeling towards himself, anda determination in govern: ment not to grant the demand- ed. He therefore finishes his derstood, that if within four days his complied with, he will put an end to official relations between the | Marg te only J him a gs two In & postcript to this note he says that he just received the reply previously addressed to him by Senor Arenas, which he rf ah bad miscarried, and without no- tieivg the arguments it contained, he says cne of his demands is satiafled (viz., that relating to the ciemineal of the Judge), -he cannot modify his former note im wby respec: unless all bis demands are complied with, Notbiog further in the bureau of my Ministry of the writings of M. Hyet, Ch d’ Affaires of France. be next document which dgures in this history is a letter ‘rom Vice Admiral Bonard, dated January 16, 1869, in {ring my government that M. Huet bad withdrawn Dimeelf and gone om board the Andromeda man. apd assuring the government that if the required satisfac ‘ion was given the French flag of the Legation would again be holeted, on the simple condition of being asluted by us with twenty-one seoherpee of cannon. Next day Seuor Morales replied to the admiral, expressing his great sur- prise at the violent and unprecedented manner in which M. Huet bad acted i withdrawing the Legation in the way be had done. He also explained that since the Dur- hin affair was still pending and undecided before the bigher tribunals, it was out of the power of the Execu- live W put an end to the matter at the demand of M. Huet, or to give the satisfaction required. He concluded by earpestiy inviting M Huet to restore the legation, in order to be able toact upon the subject as goon as the ucielal process should be terininated Iparticularly wish, Senor Miniswer, that your Excelleacy hould weigh this note thoroughly, and give it the fallest (tention, in order that you may be fully convinced of the act that my government bas had no part or share whut- ever In the withdrawal of the French Charge d’ Affaires, In reply to Sepor Morales came anotber letter from the Vice Admigal, dated January 18, in which he declared that it did pot belong to him, nor was it in his power, to cxamine into and decide upon the question in dispute.’ In consequence of this declaration by the Admiral, Senor Morales, in a pote addressed to bim the next day, informed him that be would refer the matter to the Cabinet of the Tuileries at Paris. Ibave here presented your Excollency with a detailed account of the interruption of friendly relations with the French Legation. You will no doubt have discovered in ‘he notes and observations of M. Huet, that with res- yect to the Judicial aide of the question, tbat gentleman hae Do just cause or reason for the step which be has taken, nor does he show in all the causes which he alleges, apy ground for his procedure. This may be seen in the judiclal statement of the matter. As I have, however, already satisfactorily explained this in my answers to his notes, I will not weary the attention of your Excellency by repeating the subject. On the other side of the ques om there are to be found only two reasons or pretexts for bie concuct. These are, first, the delay in the Durhin law suit of seventy days, of which he compiainr, and so- cond, the alleged breach of promise by Sr. Zevallos as to the liberation of Durhin Of these two causes or pretexts, the first ly de serves mentioning. For if we deduct from the seventy ays, the time which would be unavoidably cousumed in settling the Durbin cause before the courts, what remains of the delay as occurring in the Bureau of the Minister amounts to nothing, when we take into consideration tue multiplied engagernents of Sr. Zevallos at that period: how Le was required to auswer the despatches of two Mioistors at the same time, and how the meeting of Congress which had just then assembled demanded 4!) his attention. Tho second cause or grond of complaint, viz: the alleged breach of promise 6f Sr. Zevallos, can only properly be re- xarded in the light in which I have placed it, The whole of this question may be summed up ia the consideration of the difficulty in which that Minister was placed by bav. ing offered gut of mere politeness to M. Huet to it iberty to Dorhin. It was out-of the Minister’s power to order hig liberation, except in the manuer he did, viz: by requiring at the same time that it should be done without violation of low, which in fact was all that M. Huet re. quired, Now, since the order ana the conditions annexed to it contradicted each other,a failure in the execution of the order was a necessary result. * But no diffvulty whatever would have occurred if M. Huet bad oniy been pleased to let the trialgo on in ite vewular course according to/aw. In that case the guilty party (Durhin) would bave only remained twenty-eight days iD prion, or not even so long atime, for he might have been let out om bail. Hence it will be seen that M. Huet himself has the greatest share of the blame which he casts upon Senor Zevallos, and, therefure, is not justi- fled ip complaining of his conduct. The factis that Senor ‘Zevalios gave the only order which it was in his power to give, and the Judge in receiving it, could ovly regard it in the be ® recommendation, which ought not and did not induce him to eet aside the laws. It is here the proper p'ace to refer to the charge made against the superintendent of Police by the French Consul st Callao. The Consu) accuses him of breaking his pro- mise, after baving engaged to let Darbin out of prisoa on the next day after his com: mt The Superintendent gave this promise after he had been told by Mons. ‘ardot of the chagge against Durhin; but on the next day, having learned that it was a more serious matter, he justly considered that he had no right to set the man free, ‘and that the Judge alone could lawfully ¢o it. He was, therefore, obliged to alter bis determination. Mons. Gi: rardot makes another complaint against the Superiatendent of Police, accusing him of weating him (M Girardot) with personal discourtesy, This complaint might be left to stand, were it not fora circumstance which your Exce}- lency will hear with regret, but which explains the feel- ing which ste vise to the charge. There twoindividuals had formerly been on the most friendly terms with each Se Phineas to the same political party. At the E H é each cther, end how id “be mui ing - ther, #3 Mutually inclined to comp! Lor Vincent a % the and is @ 7 tor added as a make weight, to ‘other case and produce unfavorable teapressioub. this:—Ap agent of police baving ipfi & wound wy Vineent, my predecessor, i gave or to the Judge that the be sent to prison dismissed the case for want of merits. In meantime the party accused had run away. This is al) the irforma- tion Ihave: received on the subject. It is certain, how- ever, that if Vincent had felt himself aggrieved by the diemigeal of the case, he it have appealed from the decision of the Justice. It not appear, however, that he took any such step, whereas it is proved that the Policeman was sent to jail, from whence he made his cecape and bas never sihce returned, If, rir, Thave row sueceeded in developing the reasons Which arise out of the facts related, I entertain no doubt but that your Fxcellency will justify my government, and will be ready to agree that the points surrendered by M. Rivero ought not to bave been granted. As regaras the first point conceded by Senor Rivero, viz, the affair of the Superintendent ot Police, there was no other ground whatever for the eharge made against him, than simply a want of courteousness, which the h Consul at Callao charges bim in hi mgry Dove ing been guilty of towards him. I have already had the hovor of calling the attention of your Excellency to certain circumstances whicb tend to explain and excuse that trifling charge, if, infact, it had merited explanation or excuse, by some & act of discourtesy adduced to substantiate the charge. In what relates _to the pecuniary indemnity to be paid to Durhin, your Exceliengy will be pleased to take into consideration the subjeiped account, in which it appears that the amount of ine ities nade to French subjects, from the year 1854 to the at time, amounts to more than $146,000. Thie fact is @ sufficient proof that my goverment refused to allow this indemnity, not on ac- Count of the sum of money it amounted w, Bat because of the absence of a ‘snfficieut reasons to warrant such payment. It ie not a time ago since my gov. ernment paid the sum or $10,008 to France, when a bill of exchange te that amount nad been endorsed by the government and paid already to the goverament of Vene- rane Tt was at ee peel age hot justly 'o be paid over again a y 8nd yet my govern- ment Rade it, simply because the goternment DP yee Ex. cellency thought it just that it should be paid, and my go- vernment. wiih the utmost disinterestednees, left the de- cision of the case to the judgment of your Excellency’s government. , ~ question of controiing the Superior With r Judge, »r-suero, and him under orders in the decision of cases in wl French subjects are conccrne, Tleave it to your inc to consiter what effect such an idea woul! have upon tmdependence of the judicia- ry in Peru, and what disastrous consequences and incon- veriences would follow from grant such privileges to the subjects of for countries, if of foreign govern- ments, as they would then have the right to do, wore also to Gemand a timilar privilege. With reepect to the question of saluting, by way of apology, the flag of the @’ Affairs on the re-estab- lisbment of the French your Excellency is well awure that such a procedure would be entrely without motive, fnaemuch as my government, so far having done paying, 2. deserve the withdrawal of tbe Hon M. and the § [rgation, on the conteney 5 did all ata in ite power preven! procedure, an: rwaris carnestl Dressed upon him & reccetablah UneoMcla relations which he bed without cause Jnterrapted. ‘With repect to the visit of Prefect of Callao made by him to the French Consul at this port, it has not been ibie to ascertain fault was committed b; fe tonetionary refed a es that individual i Now when this whole ig considered in general, end a8 an entirety: wba is considered that there was a trial ofa tm strict com- formity with the laws and of an inde- it and sovereign State, ard when it is considered that the subsequent of that criminal was correct and just—woul yy, 1 would adit, aig Speer ees tere io exacting satisfaction of a friendly nation’ whieh hae given no cause for such demands—eatisfactions too, ‘which could annibilgte and destroy the independence and sovereignty of that nation? Tt is my desire that your whould felf Intimately acquainted with the sul of which I have given full extracts, im order that you clearly see under what a state of with what total waut of reflection official acts of Mr. Huet wore indited, ana H tice i AE Excellency may observe on the other band how much tmflduers and modcration was shown throughout the whole traneaction by my in office. Should, bow- ever, a good understanding be re established be- tween the two govern! , It pleasure tomy government to. draw the veil of oblivion over all bas. paseed ip this reapect. And now, sir, | coat : Will arrive at a different conch fro decessdr in office, Count Walewski, and that you will take a different view of tne matter from that which he took in bi note I docu- ras with a fecling of deep re that may 6 vernment beheld tu that note the prev: of an idea that herein Peru there were prejudices which operated unjustly t French subjects, Such an idea I must say is highly unfavorable and wholly unfounded with re- to our nation. Facts speak with unanswerable uence and power, in contradiction of such an idea, and prove how well the subjects of France, of all classes, have at all times been received in Peru. The retail trade of the country, which, in other bands, is exclusively con- fined to the natives, may be said to be altogether in the hands of French subjects, in all the principal cities of Peru, who carry on their trade under advantages which are not enjoyed by native traders. The commonest French mechanics are preferred over the native mechanics; they are treated with special favor and regard, and even by those native mechanics who are equal to them in skill they are esteemed and treated with respect, instead of being looked upon as rivals. Their industry is honored, their property is respected, and as a result of all this, they are beheld, some of them, making fortunes rapidly, and all of them generally bettering their condition. On tho other band, they themselves like the country in which they prosper, and are attached to it. Nor is it a rare thing to see them s'tle permanently in the country, and even after baving g:ne back to Frabce, return again, to end their days in the land of their adoption. My government. sir, entertains the hope that—taking into juet cousidera'ion the facts and reasons which I bave laid before your f«vellency—casting aside the wrong im- pressions which pasion and misrepreseptation have pro- ducec—and separating from the Durbin aflair the minor incidents of an unfavorable color which have been im properly mixed up with it—which incidents themselves, whatever evil infinence they may have had, contain nothing ip themscives which cau be charged as offeasive on the part of the Peruvian government towards the gov- ernment of France—my government, Mr. Minister, enter- tains the hope that the government of your Excellency will terminate this busmess by treating the arr: ment made by Senor Rivero as null avd void, which ar- rangement, inasmuch as it was entered into confidentially by that individual, and without his haviug any power and authority to act as ne; in the matter, cannot create bg obiigation on the part of my government, f, however, your Excellency should be of the opinion that’s fuller statement of facts and a more cnlarged view of the reasons involved is necessary to place the matter in a clearer light than it has been in my power to place it in by this communication, my government, sir, will, with pleasure, undertake to do this in such a manner and form ag your Excellency may pl to suggest, being firmly asured that the more extensive the inquiry is made, and the more elucidation the sublect receives, the more it will result im its favor. Iwill venture to say to your Excel- lency that nothing would be more convenient, or would better tend toe happy result, than to reopen the inquiry into the subject witb the aid of the Hon. Mr. uet.as no one in better acquainted with preceding circumstances or with the country, than that gentleman With pretend regret and with well grounded astonish ment, I now proceed to remark upon the events which bave occurred within a few days past in relation to this subject. The hdnorable the Charge «’4ffaires of her Bri- tannic Majesty, in an interview which he had with me, laid before me the copy of a despatch from his govern ment, of the date of the 24th of May last, in which it is faid that the government of your Excellency has ex- pressed the wish that the government of Great Britain should use ite influence to induce my government to give the satisfaction agreed upon with Senor de Rivero, It was also stated that on making this request to her Britannic Majerty’s government, the French government made the declaration that in the event of the refusal of Peru to make such satisfaction, France would feel herself obliged to have recourse t moasures of hostility. if your Excellency will be so good a8 to devote one mo- ment only to impartial reflection—as I doubt not. but that ‘our Excellency will be pleased to do—I confidently be- eve You will acknowledge that the case of making such a serious declaration has not yet arisen, on account of the total absence and want of any just and sufficient causes for euch an extremity. The rupture of official relations by M. Huet, manifestly made by him without just cause or motive; the unwillingness of my government to acqui- sce in such a ropture; its friendly efforts, so often re- peated, to put an end to that ruptare by entering upon the diecussion of the causes whiob led to the disagreement; the step taken by Senor Rivero to treat upon the subject with the Imperial Cabinet since tbe French feet od d’ Affaires hero had refused to enter into any treaty for ‘ttlement of the misunderstanding: all these things, sir, rely ure not proceedings ov the part of my goverument which betray any unwillingness to satisfy the demands and duties of right and justice. For nothing but such an unwillingness and a determination not to do justice can atapy time justify the extreme measure of reserting to hostilities. I deem it here to be proper to add, that if, at tho time of such a declaration being made. the state of affairs was not such as to justify the thought expressed, much less since that time has anything occurred to justify it. On the contrary, all that hus since occurred tends to make snch a deciaration on the part of ® great and powerful government, such as that of your Excellency’s, only the more extraordinary and incomprehensible. The manner in which the arraugement made by Senor Rivero was en- tered into, the state of circumstances under which it was made known to this government, and the absence of in- structions for making such an arrangement on the part of Senor Rivero, all which I have already before mentioned, remove this case altogether out of the of casee in which the failure to execute an arrangement: upon is to be regarded as airefusai to comply ® legitimate ol mention: I firmly believe that the reasonings which I have had the honor of presenting in this communication reiterate Poth oepeptinne peep Sap oe ap myeelf your cellency’s devoted and faithful Ch To His Excellency fo : Majesty the Emperor of the The Post Office Fraud. UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER'S COURT. Continued pesterday. Mr. Dwight requested the recall of Mr. Porter, who de- sired to explain his testimony of yesterday, in respect to the time of the delivery of the money package, on the ‘28tb of Dec., 1859. Mr. Dwight stated as the cause of the ap- plication, that on examination of the books and receipts o” Adams Express Co, by.Mr. Porter since the adjournment of erterday , it appeared that the money pckage came from iorwalk on the evening of the 27tb, instead of the forenoon of the 28th, according to his previous toformation, and that in the inevitable course of business it must have come to his hands between 9 and 10 A. M., on the 28th inst. This being the case, the delivery must bave taken place be tween the hours of 9an4.10 A. M..as the package was called for by theydefendant shortly after itcame into his (Porter’s) ‘ion. The Commissioner decided that the evidence having been closed yesterday, by the consent of béth parties, it was too late to continue tho testimony. The Commissioner stated at the ame time, that the counsel, by this decision, ‘must not infer that he attributed much importance to the question of the precise time of the delivery of the money package by the clerk. Judge Maynard (for the defence). moved for the dis- charge of the prisoner from the commitment, as there was not sufficient evidence to prove the prisoner to be the per- son that received the money. Mr. Dwight made a counter motion, that the prisoner might be committed to await the action of the Grand Jury. After some very excited debate and arguments on the Part of the counsel for both sides, the Commissioner de- cided that the case should go before the Grand Jury. He Placed the amount of bail at $5,000. United States Circuit Court. Before Hon. Judge Betts and a Jury. A QUESTION SETTLED—THE RATE OF COMMISSIONS ON WHICH DUTIES ARE LEVIABLE UPON IMPORTED GOODS—IMPORTANT TO MEHCHANTS. Jam. 27.+E. A. Oelrichs and others vs. Heman J. Red- fda, Collector, dic. —The existing tariff provides that to the market value of goods in the country of exportation shall be added all charges except insurance, and in every case acharge for commigsions at the usualfrates. Under this provision the Treasury established a regulation for the guidance of Collectors, to the effect that, that in making up (he dutiable value of goods, commissions shouid bo in- cluded at the usual rates, but in no case at a rate less than 234 per cent. In pursuance of this regulation, the Col- lector exacted from the plaintiffs duties at the last men’ tioned rate upon imported from several countries of the continent of Europe, The plaintiffs protested, claim. ing that the usual rate of commissions actually paid in those covntries was only two per cent. This suit was ‘Drought to recover back the amount of the difference bo- tween the duty if assensed at two per cent, and that which ‘was actually oe The testimony clearly established the fact, that over the continent of Europe, Paris ex ia two tw cent, Paris is a d, tbe amount to be by Samuel G Og- den, Jr., Auditor atthe Custom It is understood OW acquiesces in the rulo that the Marine Court—General Term. Before Hon. Judges Mayoard, McCarthy and Alker. Jax. 26.—Tho case of Morris H. Henry vs. John M. Car_ nochan was argued this morniig, in which the decision is reserved, The case was originally tried in September, and resulted in a verdict for the . De. Hen. irene cae Dr. enroteken's cantons engl acted a8 euch in the defendant's He he: 5 7 The Homicide of Cobane in Sixteenth Street—Conviction of Manslaughter in the Third Degree. COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER. Before Hon. Judge Ingraham. Jan, 21.—The People vs. John Donnelly.—The District At- torney proceeded to sum up for the prosecution, and in the course of his address told the jury that from the cir- cumstances which had been developed on the trial, he Would relinquish the charge of murder, ald only ask for @ conviction of manslaughter in the third degroe. The Court then charged as follows:— Gentlemen of the Jury—It is very evident that this traueaction aroee out of one of those sudden affrays which Some portion of our population are very apt to indulge in, ‘and which in almost all cases occur without any previous: design or intention among the parties. This matter, like others of that kind, evidently arose from the accidental meeting of the parties, without any expectation on the part of either that they should come together at that time. And the public prosecutor has very properly freed you from the necessity of examining that portion of this charge which involves the crime of murder. That absolves you from the necessity of passing upon the question whether the life of this prisoner is tw be in danger or not by your verdict. I am not, however, prvneras to say that the District Attorney could not ave asked for a conviction of a higher grade of offeace. ‘There are circumstances connected with it which might perbaps have justified that, but leaning ou the side of mercy be has not dove so. | ehatl condne what remarks I have to make to that charge which he has submitied to you as the proper ove for which the prisoner should be convicted; that is, the erime of mausiaughter in the third degree, ‘That crime consista in the killing of @ human being without the intent to take life io @ sudden aflray in the heat of ) aad. ‘with a dangerous weapon. The learned Judge then reca- pitulated the testimony and then resumed:—If ne did in- thict the wound, and there was no excuse for it, he will bo guilty of this offence; and it will be your duty w find him uilty of manslaughter in the third degree. The defence f) sizes, that be aid not do a ey that if hg (-defence—that did, it was committed bad reason to fear that at that time he was liable to great bodily injury. and that the Stabbing of this party was for own protection. An individual, however, has noright to commence an affray, and then for the purpose of defending himeelf take the life of the party who assails him if thet assailant oply repeis bis force with force necessary for his own protection. In this case you must not only be satiated that the prisoner did it, but you must be satisfied that there was. nothing on who assaulted him that it necessary for bis protection from imminent danger. If you seo anything in this case to juatify you in believ- ing that during that contest betwoen these three reons he was in danger of any serious injury to imself, not occasioned by his own acts, then be would have bad a right to protect bimeelf. after this assauit bad been committed, if he bad reason to believe that his life was in danger, he had a right to defend himself, but if it was au ordinary assault, thea neither party would have Deen justified in using a weapon te stab the ovner. If you bave any doubt in this case it must be given in favor of the prisoner. If you believe the prisoner did it, then you wili find him guilty of manslaughter in the third degree. i Juror—I would like to ask the Court this question: does the evidence show that the prisoner was thrown down more than once in that fight? The Court—No. The tiret affray bas no connection with the latter—with the one when the killing was committed. ‘The jury then retired, and, after au abscnce of about two bours, came into court with a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter in the third degree. THE FIVE POINTS HOMICTDE. Patrick Farrell, indicted with Jones for the murder of an unknown man at Crown’s Buildiog, withdrew his plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty to mansiau; tn the third degree, the crime of which the jury found Jones guilty. prisoper was remanded for sentence. CHARGE OF FRAUDS ON EMIGRANTS BY THE SALE OF BOGUS PASSAGE TICKETS. The Pe ws. Frank Fowler.—The defendant in this case is ing! with John Gilbert for obtaining moncy un- der false pretences, by éefrauding Christian Heine of $35. It appears from the opening statement of Mr. Sedgwick that Heine, a German, arrivod in this city by the Hadson River railroad cars; he was accosted by a runner on the cars who asked him where he was going ; he said to Bre- men. The man brought him to the detendant’s office, at ‘the corner of Chambers and West streets, where a person spoke to him in German, who wid him the price of a Ucket was $35. Mr. Heine paid that sum and received a ticket for a passage by the * Ammonia.’” The clerk said the steamer would gail the next ye popes § the clerk called on bim at the Bhakespere i and im that the steamer had broken her not sail for two days. in existence as apd would like it waa the ‘‘Hammonia,’ the other sice of the Atlantic. Christian Heine, as pided 1m Hichtown, State ; Now the 1th October; after leaving the railway cars he went to an office where @ map brought nim; that man came on the railroad cars; had not seen that man before; the office he took me to was on the North river, ucar pier 30; this German clerk and Mr. Fowler. Pre eat im the office; don’t remember what was in the office; it ‘was in German; the German who brought witness tv iho -Recorder for the to evi- dence of an: Mcing tied weve tad bores henge, ae Mr. ‘wan nod atipoeeed tovaderstand is, after a ema, ot Yowlor the 5 ‘ow! Sark wrote my name on a Lcket; aller Gilbert wrow the toket he jeft i on tbe counter; the clerk me the ticket; 1 put it in. my pocket and wentoat to after my baggage; I did not give the clerk. for the ticket; Fowler did not do anything tas [ saw. Q—Did Fowler receive already sworn that Mr. Fowler did and said From the prejudices that surround this case, Jun She detente Sater aa ‘avail themselves of ion. A. No. District Atorpey—Did he money at all that day? A. No; only the money for the ticket (laughter); gave $35 in gold and to Fowler; he packed it in his pocket; Fowler came around the counter; ho one else Came around but Fowler; the counter, near where the money was Fowler said in English, “I will put ail Loa oslo one paces. peor repeated what Fowler had said in woken English, to show that he could understand what was said.) I folded the ticket and pat it in his pocket; ticket produced and identified by the py ; knows it by his name, which is led wrong; it to that office again; the German was there; Fowler was not there then. Mr. Sedgwick then proposed to put the ticket in evidence before the jury. Counsel for the ‘at con- miele length against the admissibility of paper in evidence. “The Court admitted the ticket in evidence. Mr, Seogwick then read the ticket, of which the follow- ing is a copy :— Qe rroranore. peor" | LONDON, LIVERPOOL, HAVRE, HAMBURG ARD BREMEN PACKET OFFIOR. Conner or Cuampens axp West STREETS, {Pauw $36) terms, in regular os ships. INCLUDING PROVIBIONS. New York, Oct 14, 1860, ‘This entities the bearer, Mr. Christian Ac erage pases ene, to To Mx ‘hs ccage, tale pagent a ‘age, hence to ?. F Fowisn. To be exchanged at 186 Weat street. FP. F. FOWLER. | : Officer Brewen deposed that with defendant’s ticket office; bert there. was well acquainted seen Fowler and Git- Cross-examined—Did not know of Prosecution having closed, Mr. faith moved « dis- missal of the podem yeep vari ch ils Grn ard os tardny) morning, Coroners’ Inquests. DeaTa Usper Sixociam Gimcumsraxces.—As William Th i i i i Fatat Fat, Taroven 4 Hatonwar. ) laborer, while at work tm the building 116 Warren yesterday afternoon, fell through a hatehway on the story, to tbe ground, and died fo a short time after copveyed to }», 102 Warren street. » and had Seater eee cara Fatat Fa rrom 4 Bonpprd.—Joba Barris, « laborer, while engaged on an unfinished building at the corner of Reade and Fim. streets, on We afternoon, fell to tho pavement, ing injuries from the effect of which at the New- Bespita! on Nest, ang death Bs ‘4 I tH ¥