The New York Herald Newspaper, November 25, 1868, Page 4

4 ‘NEW YORK CITY. Important Proceedings in the Law Courts. THE GREAT ERIE RAILROAD WAR a A Terrible Conflict Raging All Around. Hostile Judges Joining in the Melee. United . States Invaded. The Whiskey Ring Indictments and the Alleged Naturalization Frauds. The Courts THE ERIE RAILROAD WAR,” UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT. NEW YORK HERALD, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1868.-TRIPLE SHEET. large amount of meweyeoee sald i an that said Drew would largely by his, ” Pie dani Sohell and : ant the ‘time's director ‘That Work mpavy) commenced & Of the “Brie Ral series of = against way them wore the control of the Maid Schell and Work, no counsel a5 OF Sune AEE, who were not e@gaged an em. Sian some of the proceedings aforesaid the treasurer of this plaintiff was meeps from Office, the business of this was inter- fered with by numerous tnjun and a receiver Was appointed to take charge of about $7,250,000 be- he yA pny were longing Seven none of the said commenced or carried on with a real intention to benefit this plaintiff, or ita ‘as such, although such intent was im the plead- ings; but the same were on for the pur- poses of helping the said Schell and confederates in their stock speculations and of ac- complisbing their private enda, irrespective of the real interest of this plaintiff, and as soon aa they sone6 hong more Can could be made for aap selves by comprom: said proceedings than carrying them on, they entered into nepotianlons with said Drew and with John 8. Eldridge, who was. then president of this plaintiff, and other oMcers of this plaintiff for the discontinuance of sald proceed- ings, in consideration of the payment to them of a large sum of money. Fighth—That in June, 1868, the affairs of this plain- uf were managed by an executive committee of five, consisting of the said Eldridge, the said Drew, Henry ‘Thompson, the Gould and J.C. B. Davis; and that the said Eldridge, Drew and ‘Thompson, for certain corrupt considerations, entirely apart from any in- terest of this plaintiff, agreed to pay and did pay to said Schell, out of the funds of this plaintiff, the aun of $429,250 in settiement of the said proceedings (of which said Work received $150,000), and also agreed to and did buy from friends of said Schell, for ac- count of this plaintiff, $6,000,000 of its own stock, and paid for the same out of the funds of this plein- tiff about $1,000,000 more than the same was ac- ‘The Erie War Carried into the United States | tually worth or could then have beeu purchased for ‘Wourte—Jay Gould Appeiuted Receiver of Jue Company by Order ef a United States Jadgeo—His Security Fixed at $1,000,000. Before Judge Blatchford. ‘The following is the substance of a bill of com- plaint fled on Monday evening in the Clerk’s office of the United States District Court, and on which the subjoined order was issued by Judge Blatchford. Henry B. Whelpley, a citizen of the State of New Jersey, having resolved to carry the Erie war into the United States Court, has filed a bill of complaint in the United States District Court, setting out witha pretty full history of the formation of the company, the olaim of the company to a power to issue new slock, the passage on the 19th of February last by the Board of Directors of tne following resolution: “Resolved, That under the provisions of the statute euthorizing the loan of money for such purpose the Exeoutive Committee be authorized to borrow such sum as may be necessary, and to issue therefor such wecarity as is provided for in such case by the laws of the State; that the President and Secretary be authorised under the seal of the company to execute all needful and proper agreements and undertakings for such purposes;’? that under this law convertible ‘onds to a large amount were tssued at vari- ‘ous times, realiz! over $3,000,000, for which stock to the extent of 200,000 shares has been issued, ‘Henry H. Smith being one of those to whom such stock was issued, from whom the plaintiff purchased 1,000 shares, paying for them bona Jide. and bavin, ‘nO reason to believe that the stock’ was not part of ‘Sho regular Erie stock; that ailegations have since ‘deen made that the stock is not genuine stock, ana ‘on thia ground application has been made to the Board of Brokers vo strtke the stock from the list, by ‘which the market value of the stock would be wholiy destroyed; that there are mauy others in the same position with the plaintiff; that he has no power of ‘deciding the question, but if the stock be spurious he 4s entitied to a return of bis money; that his stock is OW unsaiabie at its real Value; that various suita We been brought and are now pending with regard to the management of the affairs of the company, and to this stock, a8 he believey, in the interest of “he persons who have made these allegations; he vannot tell the result of these litigations, but if they should be against the validity of «the stock he would have no remedy other than by the equitable powers of the Court.” He thereiore asks ‘the Court vo inquire into the validity of the issne of cl and if they should adjudge it tllegal to com- el the Erie Kallway to give back its bonds, or if is beyond its power to repay him his money; that meanwhile an injunction be placed on the com- pany preventing them from parting with their pro- perty so as to leave him remediiesa, and that a te- ceiver be appoiated and the company direcied to transfer enouga property to him to meet the claiu of the plaintim and others similarly situated, This bill is sworn to on the 23d day of November, Mr. Fullerton admits service of the bill and of notice vf motion, and waives further notice for any tnjunc- tion herein and for @ receiver a3 prayed for, and appears ior the New York aud brie Ruliway Cow- pany. ORDER OF THR Cover. On this the following ordergwas entered :- AAS matated term of thé Cirenit Court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, held atch city of N p market. nti—That in October and November, 1868, the dants, Schell, Drew und Work, entered into another speculation in Erie Kailway shares, in which they became involved in heavy losses, from which they could escape only by again obtaining the in lerence of the courts, and, encouraged by the eom- arative success of the said Schell and Work in their former litigation, they induced the defendants, Au- gust Belmont and Ernest B, Lucke, to commence an action against vhis plaintiff’ and its directors, in int which they obtained an injunction, and moved for the appointment of a recelver, the said Schell, Drew and Work turnishing the information and managing the hi free of expense, to the nominal plaintiffs on record, Tenth—That the object of the defendants Schell, Drew and Work in carrying on the sald sult, ig not the promotion in good faith of the interesta of this plaintiff or of its stockhoiders, but only to secure & profit for themselves by affecting the price of stocka, and by eventually settling the suit for money to be id by this plaintiff; and they, or some of them, lave Senay offered to agents of this plaintiff to withdraw said suit if this plaintit® wor pay them 8 large sum of money. Eleventh—That in the former lit ion judicial decisions were made to the prejudice of thia plaintif, which purported to be made upon argument and to be valid and binding judg- ments, but which were in fact made by couson between agents of this plaintiff and agents of the said Schell and Work, In pursuance of the compromise hereinbefore mentioned; and that this pantn apprehends that similar arrangements may made or martes in the litigation now pending. Tweisith—That all the said proceedings bave been greatly injurious to this plaintiff, depreciating its credit, com} a to pay much higher rates of in- terest than it would otherwise have to pay, Creed {t to loge advantageous bargains, hampering its of- icers in performancé of their legitimate duties, Wille, in consequence of the fraudulent m: ment and premature settlement of such sults, no principle is settled and no advantage whatever is gained for the plaintiff. Wherefore the plaintiff demands judgment— Firsi—That the defendants, Belmont and Locke, be reatratned by injunction from discontinuing or compromising the action brought by them aguinst this plaintia. os Second—That all the defendants be restrained by injunction from entering into any bargain or neey tiation with any officer, agent or servant of thia plaincitt for the purpose of effecting compromise or settlement of the said action, or of any proceed- ing therein, and from receiving or offering to receive any money, reward or valuable consideration of any kind whatever for abandoning or discontinuing the said action or oy proceeding therein. Third—That the defendants, Belmont and Lucke, ‘de required to carry on the satd action tn good faith for the interest of the stockholders of the Erie Rail- way Company, and without submitting the same in whole or in part to the direction or control of per- sons who are not openly joined as parties plainti. Fourth—That the defendants pay to the plaintir $1,000,000 damages. FIELD & SHEARMAN, Plaintit’s Attorneys. City and County of New York:—Jay Gould being sworn, says that he is the president of the Erie Rall- way Company; that the foregoing complaint ia true ofhis own Knowledge except a8 to those matters which are therein stated to be upon information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. JAY GOULD. Sworn November 24, 1868, before me—MovriaeR Sarr, Notary Public, New York. “York on the Bid day of November, 1664; preseut, thw bonor- | Another Suit in the Erie Company, or Fink- able Samuel Blatchford. Henry B. Wheipley ve. The Brie Raitroad Company.-Upon the bilf of compialat herein du'y fied ana appearance of ie fendante duly entered hereon by Williaan Pi their aolictlor, aud upon tue waiver by him daly fle ‘notice of motion for the injunetion ani hereon ad on motion of ©. A, Seward, solicitor for plaintiff, i ordered that Jay Gould, the AL treasurer of the fendanta, be and he hereby ie nppoiuted receiver of tue de- fendante to the our patone 00,000, with suilicient sure tioned ‘for the faitnfal Such receiver, such snretiea 10 justify and ac Knowledge bond before the clerk “of this court or Bis deputy, and such bond to be approved by said clerk se ‘and suilicieney. It ta 4 ordered that the fendante do thon transfer to th 3 Such receiver, sullicient cai held by him, ubjest to the lace In bis hands $4,0.0,0100 to protect the rights of the p) Wf and the other boiders'of stock named fn sald bill, and Abide the event of this sult. A it ts further o fanue out of and to ed that @ preliminary injunction ¥ (he sea: of this court & oor, pu port and effect prayed for in the fourth paragraph of the prayer of waid bLl. SAMUEL BLATOL FORD. x THE SURRTIRS TO THE BOND. 7 following named sui executed the bond, hav,” Peed Spproved therefor by Judge Blateh- ford:-ha, C8ty H. Smith, James Sisk, Jr. Williaa M. \ Hug ‘Tweed any! Hugh Sunitii. gyyTREME_ COURT—CHAMBERS Sn’) Waging—The Conflict of Te niintieweJadee. Satheriand’s Orders Stayed by Judge Barn ttd—Judge Suther- land Takes Measures to Rowiet Judge Bars aard. praee e ~ Before Judye Satherlaud. ~ MoIntosh vs, The Brie Railway Lornpany, Aas Retmont “and Others.—August Belmont et al. vs. The Erte Railway Company, Jay Gould, James b> the Fish, Jr, Frederick A. Lane and Others.—Mon- ey AE, May afternoon Judge Sutherland, after argument of noveral bours’ duration, vacaved the order made by Judge Barnard enjoining the commencement or prosecution of any suite against the Erie Railway Company, appointing Jay Gould receiver of the funds of tho company and aathorizing Goula to buy Up 200,000 shares of Erie stock at any price below or not exceeding Pi . At nine o'clock Monday night, after about six bourw argument, Judge Sutherland also age a Henry &. Davies reoetver of ali the property of the Erie Railway Company, directing him to give security in 1,000,000 and to deposit the funds aa fast as they rcumulate to $500,00) in one of the trust funda. Subsequently Judge Barnard granted a stay of pro- veodings on the orders of Judge Sutherland for twenty days. Yesterday morning, on application of Aucust Velmout's counsel, Judge Sutherland granted an order requiring the defendants to show cause this morning at leno clock why Judge Karnard s say of proceedings should not be ted SUPREME The Gontd.Fiek-Lane Proscented “ Cliqae Desiree to De for by the Company iv ¢ Uidgations of Last Spring. The following sult was instituted yesterday apa omplaint served upon the defendants: The Rite Ratlway Company 8. Avaust Relmont, Bret B. Luke, Richard Senell, Daniel Drew and compiaius aud al sequeuce of the Frank Work—The plaintt loges /irst —That the plaintiff ts a corporation, created uder the laws of the State of New York, and buy. ing for its priacipal object the constriction. aud maintenance of a railway in the States of New York, New Jersey and Penney!vant Second, —That the piait several hundred t par value of $100 ¢ Third.— That the ce nants, Michard Schell, Dan the Bitter End by Augast | BelmontA Million Dolinrs Damages Sued | motives whic! | BOt# personal, private and pec } ing), Leal * s capital ts divided into | OF Mie lu tae oitice sand shares Of alock, of tue } Gouid-Lane Interen—How and by Whom the Old Erie War was Compromined— $429,250 Paid to Richard Schell for = ‘The following complaint was also served yester- day:— The Erte Railinay Company vs, Richard Scheu, Daniel Drew and Frank Work.—The Erie Railway Company, plaintiff, complains and alleges— Pirst—that at various times during the months of February and March, 1868, actions and other pro- ceedipgs tn equity were commenced in thia court by the defendants, Frank Work and Richard Schell, and by the people of the State of New York, and by other persova, against the Erie Railway Company and its directors, aad against the defendant, Daniel Drew, who Was then treasurer of the Erie Railway Oom- pany. Second—That in such actions and proceedings it ‘Was alleged by the plaintiffs therein tnat the defend- ant, Drew, in combination with other persons then controMing the affairs of the said company, had caused certificates of stock in the sald company to be issued largely tn excess of the amount authorized by law and for fraudulent parposes, and it was prayed of the court that all such issues of stock might be reatrained for the future, and that ihe stock so iasued iu the past might be retired and cancelled. Thivd—That the action brought as aforesaid by the people of the State of New York, as weli a4 ail the other actions and proceedings aforesaid, was brought at the ‘ion and under the control of the defendants | ard Schell and Frank Work; that, arer oP and proceedings had been cafried on for some time the said Schell and Work Pp to the defendant Drow and to sundry other directors of the Erie Rallway Company to negotiate [Rowen he none and to effect a discontinuance of ali proceediny erecta, Rocemranie srry iS ween <i ba ndants, Drew, John 7. Bl- aid a. and ay A ‘Thompson, then a director oY beg meg Bonahaned other side, by which it waa agrw'd that the then last named persons should the said com y the sum of $429, to said Sol Praatisraction of his claims, and that Tacreupon said Scheliand Work should procure ance of all the actions aud proceedings ™“. ‘FUth—That the motions which led to the said cof promwe were pot upon either side founded upon aay consideration looking to the weifare or prosperity of this plaintiff, and there was no advantage to be ined by this piaintitf from any such settlement, gasmuch as the defendant, Drew, was liable to re- to this plaintiff all advantages that might have in recovered against it in tue said actions and pro- ceed! and Was abundantly able to pay the same; ‘and as far as the expenses of conducting the litiga- tion was concerned the aaid compromise did not re- eve this plaintiff therefrom in aay degree; but the object of said Drew was to throw the burden of his acts upon this plaintiff; the object of said Eldridge was to secure immunity to himself in effecting an arrangement, as herein- fore | after atated, for the benefit of the Bosion, Hartiord | and Erie Ratiroad Company, and the said Chompson so had @ private object to gain Contrary Ww the in st of this plaintiff. Si2th—That the defendant Schell waa, at the time of making the said arrangement, well aware of the actuated said Drew, Bidridge and Thompson and w a oer that the sane was made in fraud of this in tatt. * te compromise above described was tinully effected on or it the Yd of Julyy isha, uy the yotes of aatd Drew, Eldridge and Thompaon, constisuted & majority of the Bxecutive vaving charge of this plainui’s adairs, and it the consent, concurrence oF approval of Jay Gould and James Fisk, Jr, the other members of eatd committee, and the only members who had suniary interest in tie transaction, the said sum of $429, was accord: paid out of this plainti(ts treasury to the said Schou, for which be gave the following receipt, now (the company, and voucher ccrired, Now York, July 2, 1868, of the Erie Railway Com four hundred aud twenty-nine thousmod two bundred ith the ny pan: and f Lirle ollart ip ny ment of my controversy #y Company and all gute connected there 4 all = B. raak Work ays ok meget rt JUGHARD BCH who bave for mauy years (een tu the . tnevele le the ton a ing and selling railway siaces om speotietion, aud we 1 thereto ie the folowing approval have fo particular spcevlaied argoly wi Erie Raliway | proven, JOUN 8. ELDRIDGR, President euares, Riohth—That shortly afier the payment of this Fourth.That in the months of February and | momey the actions and proceedings aforesaid were March, 1868, tho defendants il and Work, in | discontinaed. combination With other persons, ed into an'im- | Niath—That the defendant, Frank Work, In accord: nse speculative operatic le Hailway | ance with an arrangement previously made between shares, in which they in 4 seveorai { him and said Schell, Im conmderation of the nae of ons of oils mvetly yrrowed + | said Work’s position, for the purpose of defrauding the defen: Drew was engaged tm a | the plalntit and of preventing the payment of the seeeulative operation in the same stock ia an oppo- | suid money, Feceived from suid Schell $160,000 out of ite directir i that the course of ty k mar. | the same. fot we ro ah fA make t v ie, reabsence | 7edh—Thatby @ further agreement between the any interferences by th , that the said Sevell | defendants and said Kidridge and cod Wor’ es would lose & vory | (was rrwaged Chat thy puaaui whould be wade sud Work @od thelr associa to purchase $5,000,000 of tts own stock from said Schell and hs “frtends who were in this nego- tiation calied the Vanderbilt party). and also pg BF wh a Wat n whic! ge was president, at th ‘ Ee evens en pee ore oF CENT per cent, and that ment of the 88 8 part of the settlement it went further ar- that Mr, Drew should retire from the Board treasurergiip and should the company for a aud release under his contract the sum of with interest adjusted to the day of settle- atwhich this report di was made Mr. Drew and Mr, ry, in ppareuence , of the arrangement so reported by said F ridge, re- signed their oMices as directors, james H. ker and John Steward, the 6 in that person! behalf by the Vanderbilt in! were elected tn their stead; and at the same meet in pursuance of the preconcerted plan between said Eldridge aud said Drew, Mr. Drew made a writter communication, ppavicnaly prenaces. dated July 10, 1868, in which . Drew offered to pay to the company in cash the sum of $545,000, less the interest coming to him up to the time of settlement, on his loan to the company of $3,000,000, and released the company from the repayment of said loan if the company would release him the 54,000 shares of common stock and the pro- coeds thereof, and also release him from all claims and causes or actions, and said proposition was a0o- cepted by the Board, and the President and ‘Trea surer were at the same meeting directed to carry it out. Twelfph—That this plaintiff never received any con- sideration for the money paid as aforesald, bat tne same was ootained from its funds by the fraudulent practices of the defendants for their own purposes apd without conferring any benefit on this plaintiff. Wherefore the plaintiff demands jndgment against the defendants for the said sum of $420,250, with in- terest from July % 1868, FIELD & SHEARMAN, Plaintiff's Attorneys. Oityand County yo New York.—Jay Gould, being sworn, says that he is President of the Erie Railway Company; that the foregoing complaint is trae of his own knowledge, except as to the matters there! stated u von information and belief, anc as to those matters he believes it to be true. JAY Sworn, Novernber 24, 1868, before me—M Swmira, Notary Public, New York. THE SITUATION AT THE ERIE RAILROAD OFFICE. The office of the Erie Railroad Company in West street was ciosod yesterday, and creditors who called with bills against the company were informed that business was suspended. At the iron gate which bars the entry to the offices a clerk was stationed, who gave very curt answers to inguiries. He refused to inform several gentlemen who callea yesterday morning why the office was closed, and seemed ner- vously anxious that no intimation of the condition of affaira inside should reach the pubiic through him. Similar inquirtes at the transfer office in Pine street, which was open for the transaction of business as usnal, developed nothing new. A gen- tleman called on the transfer clerk and stated that it was rumored on the street that the company had skedaddiled to Jersey or Canada, but the rumor was discredited by the clerk. JULD. THE ALLEGED REVENUE FRAUDS, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT—CAIMINAL BRANCH. The Fullerton Indictment—A Day Fixed for Pleading. Before Judges Nelaon and Blatchford. Mr. Porter, addressing the Court, said:—May it Please the Court, [have an application to make in the case of Mr. Fullerton, who is under indictment and who gave bail yesterday. I have had no oppor- tunity to read the indictment nor to confer with Mr. u'Conor, with whom I am associated in the case. ‘The indictment is one, as J understand, that contains # large number of counts, and it is one which we de- sire to examine. The case comes upen us when we are overwhelmed with other engagements that we will have to bring to a close and get rid of, aad which engages all our time and in which we are mutuatly associated, that 1s, Mr. O'Conor, Mr. Fullerton and myself. J would de- sire, if it could be done, that the case be allowed to stand over to a day convenient to Mr. O'0onor, and 1 would su; it it be allowed to stand over ull Thursday next, the 3d proximo, for the purpose of examining the indictment and piecing to tt. Mr. Courtney, United States District Attorney, said he had ro objection. Batl had been given tn tke or- dinary way, and there is no pressure about. The day named was then Oxed fcr pleading to the indictment. Card from Mr, Fullerton. Mr. Fullerton furnishes the following card 10 con- nection with the charges contained in the iudict- ment found against him by the Grand Jury 10 the United States District Court. At this atage of the proceedings involved in the case, when only ex parte statements of charges can presented to the public, it is but justice to Mr. Fulierton to publish nts card:— To THe Post. The parties implicated fo what are known as the whiskey frauds, under the leadership of 5. G. Court- ney, the United States District Attorney, have suc- ceeded, after an eifort of over two weeks’ duration, in procuring an indictment against me for an alleged conspiracy to defraud @ revenue officer, Ido not know upon what evidence this bas been obtained, but Ido know that, whatever it ta, it is’ wholly talse. J trust my friends will be patient, as Lam. In the end ishall show to the satisfaction of every right minded man that [have ueither said nor done any- thing which should in the slightest degree impair that coafidence In me or lessen that measure of re- spect which it has heretofore been my good fortune to enjoy. This body of men who have instigated this proceeding haye done #0 in self-defence. | am em- ployed by the President of the United States, and am acting under his authority in exposing (he monstrous frauds which have been committed on the revenue of the country. The only hope of escape of the par- ties involv is to crosh me, This they have at- tempted by @ vile conspiracy. Tho truth will prevail tn the end, however, despite ali efforts to prevent lt, and the pubiic will see who is worthy of condemna on. WILLIAM FULLERTON; Ll Pine street. New York, Nov. 24, 1868. THE ALLEGED NATURALIZATION FRAUDS. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT--CRIMINAL BRANCH, Application for Postponement, Before Judgea Nelson and Blatchford. The United States vs, Benjamin 8. Rosenberq.— Mr. Stoughton applied to the Court for postpone- ment of tue argument till to-morrow, stating that one of the counsel for the defence had been prepar- ing very elaborate papers and amidavits tn the case of Rosenberg, which would have ao important bear- ing on the motion to gnash the indictment and which would govern all the other cases; that coun- sel had been laboring under @ misapprehension as to the time to which the last postponement had been made, and hence the papera were not ready vow, Uut would be in the course of a few hours, dr. Pierrepont opposed the application for : ponément, stating U he had postponed till to- morrow the settlement of the order in the Erle case in order that be might sttend fo the argument ii the Kosenberg case to-day, for whiclt he had veea retNined on me on of the government. Mr, dtenry K. Davies (also ney coach for,the govern. roent) Opposed the application for postponement on the same grounds, District Attormey Oonriney stared that he had miven due notice to Mr. Stwouglion Wat the argument wouid proceed to-day. Mr. Stoughton adimitted afl that, but stated that he had not deemed it part of his duly, or that it had not occurred to him, to notify the oiner counsel. Judge Netson suggested to Mr. Stoughton whether the argument could aot proceed to-day and let the papers be presented when they were ready. Mr. Stoughton asked the Court to walt tll the other counsel should be sent for, Counsel for Rosenberg having: come var, stated Lie cirenmstances Which Jed to). +. belng prepared to proceed With the arguiment (say. He nnotitled, as expected Le should be, of the invention of the government to go on with the case to-day. All he now @aked was tow arn suent #1 roceed to-morrow, all the Objection to that, & terstood, coming from new conse! ployed for the government. te has prepared and i prinied the motion to quash, the points of iaw Of WHICH It renve no wa wUidavit reali tt, Mt Was Hnpossible for lim to aviend and argue the case [ OrTOW. ison we vl el had been renly previous oceasions, be could nol goon with the argument to-ray Counsel swt he had not bis briet with hin Judge Nelson sii the Court would have tw heat the argument to-day, aud te papers could be presented There would ve bat two couasel heard on , MOTION TO QUASI THR INDICTMENT—-MK, BTOUGH- TONS ARGUMENTS Mr. Stoughton coul ity Mr. Stonghion proceeded with the argument on the movion V0 quaan the Judictwent agnuss Kowene berg. At motion, he said, Was to quash tie in lietment whieh had been founded on (he thiteentt ecevon Ol ot of March 3 141i. Jueige Nelson asked counsel whict of the Indie ments against Rosenberg (there were four of them) he was referring W Mr, Stoughton seemed to think that it made no difference, but Hnally selected one, te went on to way that the indictinemt was one of a very iarge nem! nded under the act of 1413, which waa entiued “An act for the requiation of seamen on 24akd Ud YUolig BAM priveve vessels Of Sue Vurted } | | States.” The principal questions were two:—First, whetner it was criminal under that act to forge or dispose of forged se of naturalization, except for the purpose and tn the cases therem mentioned? and, secondly, if yea, what facts must be set forth in he Indictment to constitute a cume within the mean- tog of that section? That section ‘Thatif any person shall pon! make, forge or made, fo: ¢ of counterfeit, or cause oF procure to be { oF counter: Gieaseae ene t ty pag is acl, OF OF Use as true a0 or counterfelted certificate of citizenship, or abail make sale or dispose of any certificate of oltixenship to any person other than the person for whom ft was or! iagued, and to whom of nS Ar yaene, every such person shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony, &e. In considering the first inquiry it was proper to say that the offence mentioned m that secon wes unknown to the common jaw, and was created solely by statute, It was to that statute, therefore, that they should refer to ascertain iis meaning, What mischief was intended to be prevented by ita enactment? The easence of the crime must be in the effort to perpetrate, or in the actual perpetra- tion, of the mischief sought to be prevented, The whole mischief sought to be prevented was quite ap) t, not only from the title of the act, but from its entire text. They would find that great embarrassmeat would arise from the extension of the provisions of the act beyond the cases mentioned in it, What was the mischief sought to be prevented? The mischief was the em- ployment of aliens on board the public or private vessels of the United Staies, except such aliens as are subject to governments reciprocating the same privilegea to citizens of the United States. What facis were essential to be recited in the indictment to constitute a crime within the meaning of the statute? A certified copy of the record purport- ‘ng to naturatize @ person was not all that the Collector of Customs shouid look at or that the commander of & public vessel should look at. He should examine sufficiently to be satisfied that the person presenting it was an actually naturalized ciuzeu, The President might prescribe other regu- lations, The object was to guard against the em- ployment of aliens on board of puolic or private vessels of the United States, There was provision upon provision, guard upon guard to interpose against this denounced act, tue employment of aliens on board American vessels, What was the meaning of the word “evidence,” used in the thir- teoath section, as distinguished from the word ‘c tficate?” The Collector was authorized to hear evidence as to the alienship or non-wilenship of the party. The only acts denounced as offences in the dy of the act of Congress were efforta to procure employment by aliens by means of faise or forged cortificates of naturalization, or by means of taise evidence tending to establish the facts, He should undertake to demonstrate that if the thirteenth sec- tion was to have a broader operation than to punish the acts referred to that operation was not in con- templation of Its framers, and that the offence to winch it was now sought to be applied was not known to ita framers and was not then existent. It would be giving to that section a migratory opera- tion, travelung along for over balfa centary and ap- plying. Ww offences which were not at allin the con- veinplation of its framers and could not have been. Ivhad been the policy of the government at that time to prevent the employment of aliens on board of the public or private vessels of the United States for several reasons; one of which was that it re- moved the excuse or pretence for the search of Ainerican vessels by the armed vessels of other nations. It was equally the policy of the government to encourage the empioy iment of its citizens, whether native born or naturalized; and therefore \ongress had declared that the production of the certificate of naturalization would be prima facie evidonce of tne party being % naturalized citizen. ‘This was a matter of convenience, because @ man naturalized in New. York might be required in Philadeiphia to prove his citizenship. ‘Che certificate was not the act of naturaiization, The judicial record of natural- ization consisted of official entries made by @ court of record aud pegpetually kept upon its records, That judicial record was of vital consequence, while a certified copy of it was of no consequence, except for purposes of the act. What tacts were declared in the judicial record of naturalization and what facts were to be evidenced by the certificate’ The judicial record set forth the declaration of intention to become a citizen; the oath to peepee the consti- tution and the proof of residence. ‘This was under the act of 1816, which proviaed tuat the proo: of residence must be made out by the oath or aifirma- tion of citizens of the United States, who should be named in the record as witnesses. That statute bad been construed to mean that two witnesses were necessary, and uniesa their names appeared in the record the persons Rurporting to be nat uralized should not be deemed to be citizens ‘Therefore, unless the certified copy of the record also contained the names of the witnesses, it would be no proof of citizenship under which aliens could be employed a3 seamen, The pu of the act being to confine employment on of public or private vessels of the United States to persons who were citizens, and the proof of that betng the judicial rec- ord, it was declared to be a crime to forge a copy of that record, It would be therefore no crime to pro- duce @ paper which, on tts face, did not show that the party presenting it was naturalized. As weil might ail the other easentials of the act of naturaliza- tion be omitted as the names of the witnesses to res- idence. The only use which the statute provided for a certified copy of the act of naturalization was for the purpose of procuring employment on board of American vessels. No statute existing at that time, or since, authorized any otuer use be made of the certificate for any legal purpose. That, he submitted, disposed of ihe whole question. The framers of the statute were not dealing with any other question thaa the one which ho had de- seribed, The subject of the employinent of seamen ‘was especially within the power of Congress for the purpose of regulatiog commerce. If any other sub- ject had been in contemplation of Congress why had it not turned its attention to the subject of prohibit- ing fraudulent uaturalization itself? In the first place, Congress probably never supposed such an offence to be pogsibie. In the second place, naturail- zation was conducted tn the State courts, and each Siave bad the meaas of punishing false personation or otherfrauduient means of procuring naturaliza- tion, It might, therefore, be fairly assumed that as there was but one urpose == for which Congress Authorized certificates of naturaliza- tion to be used, so tt would punish tts abuse in reference to that one purpose and that alone. if it shoud turn Out, on the trial of ihe cause, not only that the peeen. for x: the certiticate did not intend it for the purpos’ of procuring employment for a person on board an Awerican vessel, but tuat he bad forged it for the purpose of procuring that alien employment as coachman with a gentleman who had a prejudice against all but United States citi- zeus, would the prosecution claim that that was an offenee punisuabie under the statute of 1813% They would hardly go so far a¢ that; and yet there was a parallelism between the cases. It was sought by the prosecution to extend the thirteenth section of the act of 1513 to the protection of a Stal it was an eifort to seek the asatatance of the federal judictary and of the federal laws to_ protect the purity of elec- tions in the State of New York, which had made an- 4 provision for its own protection lu the statute of ay 13, 1865, amended April 25, 1566. Judge Nelson asked Mr, Stoughton to state whether, under section four of the act of 1513 the President has made any regulations on the subject. Mr. Stoughton repued that he had not examined the matter and was unable to answer the question. He went on to argue that it waa a novel idea to apply the statute of wT intended for a specific pur- pose, to cases of @ different Character arising in 1868, and which are provided for by the State laws. His understanding of the statute of 1313 conflued it to cases Where persons andertook to misuse certifl- cates of citizensiup for er ari. of procuring cmplon eee i board egg Re that a purpose whiel out be at ume used at all. they He supposed that the forging of a certidcate purport- ing t» uaturalize a native born citizen*would not be & crime. Laws did nut manufacture orime out of immaterial acts. So if a person were to amuse him- selfin making certificates of naturalization of ficti- tous persons it could uot crime under the act of 1813, because fictitior p rhea could not them, If his friend, Mi ‘Gorman, should sell to his friend, Judge Davies, @ certificate of natu- ralization would that be a crime under the statute t Certainly not. The crime consisted tn attempting vo clothe with the privileges of citizenship & person not eutitied to them. Judge Nelsoun—Do you understand the act of 1813 to be now practicelly in operation tn the navy? Ir. Stoughton—-I do not understand it to be prac tically in operation at all. Judge Nelson—Are officers of the navy subject to the penalties prescribed in the act if they receive board, aes on without evidence of naturalization? Mr. Stoughton—It hag never happened to me to hear of such a case. When my attention was calied to tue act J sup) it to be substantially obsolete, Whether it has changed by ‘ulations or has grown into disuse in consequence of the absurdity of its provisions aa applied ty commercial operations of teday he knew not Nr. Pierrepont—It your Honors refer to section ten of the statate of 1813 you will see the reason. Mr. Stoughton-—The reason of whatt aaa reason why lt is obsolete and lon, Me. Pierre af no opera’ Mr. Davies read the tenth section, which provides thas the act shall have no operation with reference to the employment of seamen in regard to the sub- Jects of fofeign nations Which do not reciprocate the kame provision, Ue added tiat oo nation had done 4 Mr. Stoughton-—Then you anderstand the act to be substantially obsolete? bir, Davies--No, sit, We nnderstand that those seo. tious rT carpe into active operation by reason of we 1h yigiona of the tenth section; but sections twelve and thitteen have been in operation and have “a acted on by every court in the Vuited States ice its passage, Mr, Ntaughtan—-Evory court? Mr. Daviet= Yes, sir, ections twelve and thirteen dave aiways beep reg@ired ay in operation, and have been always conformed to unitl the repeal of the iast elanse of section tweive vy the operation of We act of Jame 23, 1641. ve Nelson—My inquiry was in referen@to the regulations of enlistment, Mr, bavies-We understand that (hey were never Alled into active operation, r, Stoughton—I wish to inquire whether, after war with Great Britain, the provisions proh!bit- xe the eroployment of aliens on board of American cls were operative ag tie law of the land. That ¢ 44 very simple question, Will my learned brothers favor me with wn auawer? | Mr. Davied—The answer is to call your*attention to #ection ven. Me. Bloughtog—-f thought tt would be wise, per- bapa, for counsel to hoid on to the ambiguity of the tenth section, 1 feel very much about them a4 a die Unguisied lawyer said 4 Clergy an frit About @ ser- ton Which was preached by lita on some saying bY St. Paul, which bad led to aome diversity of opinion aa to tw weaving. He told the congregation tual all he had to say on the snbject was that he had often wished that sentence had never been written. His learned friends might feet very much 1m that way in reference to that tenth section. Judge Nelson—This was during the war of 1312, Great Britain had, no doubt, prohibited ita citizens from enlisting on board of our vessels, and this was @ retalialory act. Now, lias that ever been operative “le Stet Prcly wt ceiiy 3 nt ‘. yom] ain not See ates ete sat, ae by sublet of rat Bal extent to-day by u jelson—So I supposed. That is the reason I want to know whether au, ud Payer _ y reguiations were made A rus cee xi ey sna learn. ‘ would have them, " are. & ae Attorney Courtney—I have telegraphed Mr. Stoughton repeated that the act had been re- garded as obsolete, except as to the deciaration in regard to the five years’ residence; but that did not contemplate the use or the abuse of certificates of naturalization. The indictment, he further argued, fatied lo show that the act of naturalization ciothed the person . purport to be uralized with (ae rights of citizenship. It was utterly void, it failed bo show the juired by act of 1816 to be set out in the judicial record, sud would not eutitie the person holding it to any rights of citizei . He argued that there was no averment in the indicimens bringing the offence within the purview of the act as toan Siaiee to procure employment on board American ve ‘he truth was tuat questions were often tried by ® mob, and the public onicer, getting excited, attetapted to try the indict- ment, The present was one oj those cases, The in- dicument had been got up by the mob, aud the mob had misapprehended the law. There must be averred in the indictment facts Which show the court that a crime has actuaily been committed. It was not enough to take a section framed with # particular view and seek to apply it to other states of circam- siances, There was no State law till 1865-6, as there Was no federal law, to authorize the use of certiil- cates of naturalization. By the statute of 1565 lt was provided that no person the Siate of New York should vote unless he was registered, aud one of the proois entitling him to be registered was the pro- duction, if ap alien, of & certificate of naturalization, if Congress had even attempted to pasa a law on that subject, he should like to inquire whether that Was within the scope of its power under the consti- tution of tie United Staies. But he assumed that the prosecution claimed it to bean offence to forge or Misuse @ certificate of naturalization for the pur- pose of registration, Could Congress interfere to punish an act like that? He had no objection to Congressional legisialion; and he not only Lad a love but @ veneration for federal adpatnisiration of justice; so that he would not be uawilling to see many subjects, now outside, drawn into federal legislative and judicial operation. But tt had not been and was not the policy of Congreas to take notice of regularities or irregularities In State elec Uons or reyistrations. He found by article two of the constitution that electors for the Presideat and Vice President should be appointed in such manner as the Legislatures of the several States might direct. He could not see how Congress could undertake to say that the forging of certificates of naturalization to be used at a State election ahouid be punished as a crime. When the day came that Cougress should interfere Wo say how State elections should be carried on, the day would have come when the first step in- Vited all the rest ; and that was @ pretty deep ques- tlon. Here they had such a certificate of natufaliza- tion as wouid not justify the party in claiming regis- tration. The oilicer to whom it was presented should know tbat the person presenting it had not been duly admitted to citizenship. Jae first queation he would ask was—Should it not appear affirmatively ou the indictment ,that the person purporting to be oa turalized Was an alien? There was no such averment in the indictment. Should not the indictment aver the unlawful purpose to be tne procuring the r ura tion of aliens not entitled vo be regtsiered ? Mr. Sims, to whom one of the faise certificales was soid, had bought it to keep it out of the market, would that be a crime under the statute? Certainly not. The indictment should ayer the purpose of the alleged offence. The trutu was thatthe prosecution supposed that, no matter whether the certificate was issued to an alien or not, whether it was sold for the purpose of enabling an alien to be registered or not, the crime existed. He thought they should go further aud aver in the indictment, as they would be required to prove on the trial, that criminal in- tentlon accompanied the criminal act, ALOUMENT OF MR, EDWARDS PIERREPONT. Mr. Pierrepont replied on behalf of the prosecn- Yon, In_ his view of the case the prosecution de- pended on the statute of 1813. He should therefore take up that statute and call attention to its pro- visions and its history. He med that sections twelve and tuirteen had genera! and universal appli- cation, and had no more reference to seamen than they bad to auy other persons. The twelfth section fixed the term of residence and provided that evi- dence sliould be given that the alien had not been out of the United States during the five years. Was not that of general: and universal appl ication? It had been so regarded by the bar and the bench and by every one who had anything to do with the naturalization of allens, It stood so for thirty-five years until it was repealed by Congress in’1843. Congress must therefore have had the view that the act was of general appii- cation and was not confined to seamen alone. ‘There was no other statute but that of 1813 under which persons were naturalized in the United States. After such etarhoaronns it was the Court to be told that it had no relation whatever ex- cept toseamen? Not only from the structure of the act itself but from the geveral application of section tweive, and from the sweeping provisions of section thirteen, it was plain that the act was intended to be of universal application. The argument of Mr. Houghton had conceded that if the certificate was @ forged certiicate relat ng to a seaman it would be a crime under the statue of 1813; bat it was equally true that it must be a crime to forge a certificate for other than @ seaman unless the statute were exclu- sively confined to seamen, and he hoped he had proved that it was not. His learned friend had ques- tioned the power of Congress to hitch on to ita statute of 1813 the New York statutes of 1865 and 1566. He (Mr. Pierrepont) did not clatm any such power for Congress. He merely claimed that the act of 1513 was applicabie to the case before the Oonrt, The question had come up in Pennsylvania, where the Circuit Court gave it very full and elaborate consi- deration aod had, on a motion to quash the indict- ment, deliverd an opinion, which counsel proceeded to read. (It decides that the thirteenth seotion of the act of 1313 is of general application and is not re- stricted to seamen.) ‘The views of that Court seemed to be in harmony with the facts and with reason, If that decision was correct it would dispose of that view of the subject, The true construction of section thirteen was that the forging or uttering of any cer- tificate or evidence reisting Lo the citizenship men- tioned fn the act was the crime intended to be pro- hibited and punished. The words were broad, plain andciear, The act had been relied upon down to the present as protecting the purity of the suffrage. Did the Indictment make such charges as brought the case within the statute of 1813 ¢ ’ Where a statute makes a thing a Crime ail that was necessary to do was to aver the comission of acts which the statute denounces as crime. His Honor Judge Newson had decided in the case of Henderson, who had received money from a person who had deaiings with the government, that where a statate made a thing a crime the inteut was of no coi uence. Tho e yo had been decided by his Honor in the ohnstamm case. [t was of no juence whether the person named in the certificate of uatursiization was @ real or a fictitious person. He would not dis- cuss the New York statutes of 1865 and 1806, The only question was whether, under ¢he United States statute of 1313, a fo and (raudulest certificate of naturalization had been issued. if there had been, and if that statute applied to the case, there was the whole of it, If the statute did not apply. tien there was au end of the case. statute did not state what should be the form of the certificate or what words it should ewpioy, but almply provided that tt should be a crime to issue ant or fraudulent certificate or evidence of ct . Judge Nelson—Any certificate of citizenship refer- Ted to in the act. Mr. Pierrepont argued that lt was not the certifi- cate, but the citizenship, that was referred to in the act. Judge Nelson took a different view of the moanin; of the words, holding that it was the certificate an not the citizenship that was referred to. Mr. Pierrepont went on to demonstrate his view of the subject. He argued that if the words related not to citizenship, hut to the certificate, other por- tions of the section could not be #0 construed, If the Court should conclude that the law had no reference except to seamen, then, of course, the indictment would not be vali for there was no averment that the offence related to seamen, The sole question was whether, under the statute of 1813, the indictment charged a crime which Con- Intended to make acrime. Mf It did, then the indictment was good, and the iy must go to his trial, If it did not, then the Indictment showd be juashed. The queation of intent was not a matter that could arise on the motion to quash the Ludict- ment, It could only arise on the trial If the intent of Congress waa lo prevent the f or isaning of false cerUificates of naturalization, and if the indict- ment charged that offence, then the Indictinent was good. The certideate iu this case was the one which had been generally issned, It was the one under which the electors for President and Vico Presiden’ and under which members of Congress had been elected, it was the usual and jar form. His friend Mr. Houghton bad taken t ground thot under the act of i816 a certificate which did not con- tain the naines of the witne’ses would be no evi- dence of citizenship and that it was nots crime to issue such certificates. He (Mr. Pierrepont) pro- ceeded to argue against that propostiion. If was a construction which, he submitted, the statute would not justify. If the’ act of 1814 did apply to tue case, and if the certifcoate purported to be & certilicate of cltizenship, then tie Qourt would not say that there was no crime charged or committed. Judge Neison—The certiicates seem to be in Con- rey, with the state law. Mr, Pierrepon They ares They are in tue requ. Jar printed forin, If the acoused tssaed what pur- ported 4 be a certificate of naturalization he coms mitted What the statute deciare f to be aleiony, No other View, than (hat, 14 seemed to hina, could be a sound view of the question. If it was not sound then the law woul be set at naught, and then be could not be trae that the law was oue of application, ARGUMENT OF Aft, DAVIES. Mr. Honry b. Davies followed on the same side of the question, asone of the counsel for the govert: ment. ite referred the court to the early leqialacion of Congress on the subjeot of the navuralization of aliens, an’ lo the recent action of the governinen' Ula baie dubjoet. By the constitution of (ie Stated tue naboralization of alions was vadied * sively in Congress. The firat law he found on the bject was that of March 20, 1790, Another act was passed on the 20in of July, 1795, and another, more Complete in its details, was passed on the Oth of March, 1797. The next act on the subject was thas of April 14, 1403, which might be considered as re ducing and condensing inw one act ail the acts. So the law had sicod at the break ing out war &f 1812 with Great Britain, ‘Then an act was by the House of passed tives, and was vetoed by bir. Madison, considel - Taollities Of aliens to become cl ot Of iota und Isis, page vs a report meds ar ‘oreign companzing she. Dil), an Which It 1s stated thas the teed ee ‘ingisted vat every vatural- should have with ulm his evi- be impressed, Ag the biil 1a ntartiig vents ete ® was a i he should reurge on the ied pea and thirteen of the statutes were of the same force aa if the whole the statute, He 4 TF lA stood by themselves conld the ‘have any dimcuity in sa tnat they governed | the caset Jt was the first ti e had ever heard ‘ger- tiflcate of an act of a court of record was nots, tiflcate because the whole evidence on tre Court acted haa been sot forth at large. had left it with the State ih gre to manner in which they would execute the volved upon them in reference to naturalization? his learned friend had adunitted that col ox- ‘used conformed actly with the laws of the Stace of New York. The — of Congreas authorized no certificate of cttizen- dudge Nelson—I do not understand it go, The pout is whether the act of 1813 referred to any cer- Uicate of naturalization in @ State court. aot itself provides for a certificate. Mr, Davies took an opposite viow. and referred to the decision in the cage of Spratt against Spvatt, Judge Nelson remarked that the decision in thas case referred to @ certificate as provided in the act of 1313, Mr. Davica admitted that, but claimed that the certificate provide’ forin that act only referred to the cases of seamen. Judge Nelson agreed in thot. Mr. Davies weut on to argue that the twelfth and thirteenth sections of the act of 1é14 were of genera) application and were not restricted to seamen. Did anybody suppese that the twelfth section, ixing the period of residence, referred only to seamen? Mr. Stoughton—It refers to seamen and to a great Many others beside. Mr. Davies—-Then, if the twelfth section refers to seamen and to @ great many others besides, it fol- iows, Daturally and logically, that the thirteenth sec- uion fs not restricted in its operation to seamen, At this point of the argument the court, at ten minutes before five, adjourned Ul eleven o'clock this morning. MISCLLLANEOUS LAW REPORTS. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT—iH ADMIRALTY. Important Decision About the Seizure of Ves- seln in New Jersey Waters, Before Juage Ne\son, John Whitman vs. Joseph Thompson.—-This. is & motion for a new trial. A suit in trespass was brought by Whitman against Thompson for seizing and carrying away by force and arms, in the lower bay of New York, a certain vessel called the Ann \L. - Whitman, her tackle, furniture, &¢., and disposing of the same. The defendant plead the general issue, and also & special plea setting up that the plaintiff, an innabi- tant and resiaent of New York, was at the time of the seizure engaged with his vessel within the waters-of tne State of New Jersey and within the bounds of the county of Monmouth, of said State, in redging for clams, contrary to an act of the a- ture of New Jersey, and that the defendant, Sheriff of the county of Monmouth aforesaid, sei: and carried away the vessel in ae the authority of said act, and immedisiely gave tafor- mation to two Justices of the Peace of the county of Monmouth, before whom such proceedings were had; that the said vesse! was condewned and sold by direction of the said justices and according to the provision of the act aforesaid. On the trial the re- cord of condemnation by the justices was given tn evi- dence, with much other peony, relating to the seizure, the locality within which it was made, and Ube business in which the piainti® and his counsel were engaged at the time. ‘The jury found a ee verdict—first, that th seizure was within the waters of New Jersey; second, that it was not made within tie limits of county of Monmouth; third, that tue piaintiat was not engaged at the time in dredging for clams, and assessed the damages of the plaintitr af $3,500. The Court, after reviewing the evidence, states:— It is also urged that inasmuch as the jury found that the seizure was made within the waters of New Rig Mok finding should be regarded sufficient to aive the justices jurisdiction, We agree this might have been sufficient 1f the act of the ‘isiature of New Jersey had so provided. But tue jurisdiction col} upon the justices is confined, in pxpresa terms, to seizures Wkihin the boundaries lon- mouth county, which the jury have atived. It ts further argaed that the judge crred in Instruct ing the jury that the record cf the Justices was oy pruna facie evidence of the foding, inasmuch as ft Was conclusive of the fact of the dredging for clama within the waters of New Jersey. We do not deem it material to inquire whether or not this record in this collateral suit was concluatve of all the facta therein contained, except those relating to the ques- tion of jurisdiction, for the reason that the jurisdic tional question we have been considering gots to the Toot of this action and overrides every other ques- tion involved, Even tf the judge erred in the in- stance specified, which we do put admit, it could not have altered the result, The absence of jurisitetion readers eveiy part of the proceed!ngs beiore tae justices coram non-judici@ and void. Judgment for the plaintiff. COUNT OF GENENAL SESSIONS. Before Judge Russel. SenteucerA Dishonest Carmau—Burglarics jd Larcenies. At the opening of the court yesterday morning the City Judge proceeded to sentence the prisoners who were remanded last week. William Van Waggner, who pleaded guilty to forgery in the fourth degree, was sent to the State Prison for two years. John Wallace and Michael Connors, who pleaded guilty to an attempt at grand larceny, were each sent to the State Prison for two years and six months, Judgment was suspended in a number of cases where facts were presented to the Court which war- ranted it in being ienient with the accused parties. Another batch of indictments were presented by the Grand Jury of the Oyer and Terminer, some of the prisoners arraigned pleaded not ey. with steal- Wilham B. Bowker, who wage cl ing $200 worth of ladies’ wearing re we 27th of October from Sarah Whitby, No. 340 West Forty-first street, pleaded guilty to an attempt te "john Staaley and James Tracey, made a siratiag that on ot plea, the chat being stole ninety-two, doliars’ worth of ts and the property of Victor touilion, No. 735 broadw: ‘These prisoners were each sent to the State Prison haicnsst sFeeny Diewded guulty to-an attempt as an grand larceny, 1 Piadicuntent wile that on tee wth of October be stole $151 wo pantaloons entrusted with a case of goods to take vanna steamer he conveyed it to @ house in Li street, and was dejected in th® act of Mgt TG Yip of the contents, Omlcer Eustace im on the spot. The J said vated case and sentenced him to or two years and six months, John McGiniey pieaded burgiary in the third charging that on the ni mises of Terhune, Brown & Co. were burglar! entered and $ worth of oats stolen, He wi et eS the 61 Prison for two years and sit months, Wiliam leaded ay to burglary in the charged with Willa Myers p) third degree. He was jou Clarke, indictmens all: that on the night of the oth of October they broke into the store of Tayl & Ladiam, 149 Duane street, and stole $300 worth beaver cloth. Hts Honor said, in sentence, ‘hat Myers was o profersional burglar, and sent hum bd sor tone for four i ‘ames Donnelly was couviciea larceng, having in connection with others stolen a silver watch and four dollars in money from 0.1L. Van divere, a colored waiter, as he was passing through Bicecker street on tue 14th of September, Me was remanded for senveuce. Jobn Moore (colored) pleaded guilty to an atrom at burglary. On the oth inst. le entered the stale John Hays and stole @ viauket and a set of harness. He was sent to the Peultentiary for two yours SIKTH STAICT CHL, COURT. Tho Raid on Tenement Houses. fwfore Judge Thaddeus A. Lane. one nundrod and twenty cases against owners and Jeskeas of tenement houses were up again in tl court yesterday. Among the many cases galled wan that against our well Known citizen, John W Farmer, who was complained of that he failed to comply with tho order of the Howrd of Health, erved npon him on the 10th day of Septembor last, that the rear area his tenement hou Anata in the rear of No. 06 Ludlow street, be cleaned aud all rubbish, gm &e., be removed therefrom. When called sir, emer stepped up aud with @ Jering face remarked aL he did not know wo what it was Gil about, but, on being asked, did not deny that bo was sonaily served with a copy of the complaint. tuciitate matters the Judge entered a ploa of denim for tue defendant, and with te oc the aitoraey for ie Board of Wealth the cane wae re ___E_E_E_E_E_E_E_EEO OOO Ea